Skip to main content

SEJ Followup

Some bloggers from the Competitive Enterprise Institute were at the Society of Environmental Journalists conference in Vermont last week, and they took a look at some of the booth displays:
Next up are the companies represented by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which have been hoping for a while that global warming would be their savior. After all, atomic energy doesn’t generate greenhouse gases. As NEI’s own material puts it, “We need more electricity and we want clean air. With nuclear energy, we can have both.” Unfortunately, many of the same people doing climate change advocacy work today are the same ones who staffed the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s and 80s. Global warming may be “the greatest threat facing mankind,” but that doesn’t mean the environmental movement is going to embrace nuclear. It’s just not a position an ideological fashionable person takes.

NEI’s table giveaways are among the best. You’ve got a “Nuclear: The clean air technology” luggage tag, a small coaster/miniature mouse pad, a pen, and a pellet of uranium. Well, it’s just a “simulated fuel pellet,” but it’s interesting to know that something that small could replace an entire ton of coal. They’ve also got a fascinating pamphlet on the “effects and benefits of radiation.” Anyone who is willing to engage the general public on the benefits of radiation has my admiration.
He's talking about our own Melanie Lyons and Janice Cane, who braved the hostile anti-nuke crowds at the conference. Great job.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , Hydropower, , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Given that they are roughly the right size, color and shape, I wonder if black Nibs licorice bits might be cheap and crowd pleasing "fuel pellets" to hand out at booths.
Anonymous said…
The "benefits of radiation" are discussed in NEI literature? Does NEI endorse the hormesis theory?
Eric McErlain said…
No, that's not the case.

We've dealt with this before. I've spoken with Ralph Anderson, our health physicist, and NEI's position on Hormesis is as follows:

1) Interesting theory that demands more research.

2) In the meantime, there's no basis for using it to determine regulations that protect public health and safety.

When the writer refers to benefits, I'm sure he meant materials that highlighted fields like nuclear medicine and food irradiation.
Randal Leavitt said…
I just read the article "Growing Up With Chernobyl" by R.K. Chesser and R. J. Baker in the Nov-Dec 2006 isuue of American Scientist. One quote:

"This was true for pretty much every creature we examined - highly radioactive, but physically normal. It was the first of many revelations."

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…