Skip to main content

Looking Back at ABC News and "Loose Nukes" with Dr. Andrew Karam (Part I)

By Eric McErlain
As I've been cruising around the Web this morning, I've come across a boatload of reaction to last night's report on Primetime Live on university research reactors -- most of it rather negative. The first item I'd like to share comes from an e-mail exchange between a reporter and Dr Andrew Karam of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Dr. Karam had some interesting observations to say the least.

The note is rather lengthy, so I'll be breaking it up into a series of posts:
I was surprised to see the Committee to Bridge the Gap (a strident anti-nuclear group) presented as the "voice of reason" in opposition to the NRC. I was also surprised at the continued insistence that research reactors are "potential dirty bombs." I was also surprised to hear Graham Allison's suggestion of the amount of havoc that a bomb could cause - in my opinion, he overstated the risks from radioactive contamination. However, I also feel he overstated the risk of cancer from dirty bombs in his recent book, which I communicated to him via e-mail after reading the book last year (never did hear back from him...). Dr. Allison is very well-informed regarding the risks of an attack, but I feel he overestimates the risks of exposure to low levels of radiation. I would have liked to have seen a radiation safety professional to discuss the potential health risks, but I suspect this would not have advanced the aims of the show.
That's for sure. More later.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Dean W. Armstrong said…
Thank you! This detailed criticism of the ABC alarmist report is much more rational than my own, which was really more an emotional response immediately after watching the report. One thing though: isn't the fuel in an active reactor going to be too radioactive and thermally hot to handle to steal? I could see a cold reactor being a possible target, but even then, aren't the rods full of medium-lifed radionuclides that would ruin any attempt at transport or bomb making?
Or do low-power reactors have different aspects than power reactors?
October 14, 2005 at 10:44 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more