Skip to main content

Earth Day Canada Kicks Up The FUD on Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
Earth Day Canada has just started a new blog called Eco Kids. Earlier today, they decided that their topic of the day would be nuclear power:
There are several pros and cons of nuclear power. One pro is: it does not directly produce pollution. Cons of nuclear power are: it produces nuclear waste that is dangerous to humans and ecosystems; nuclear waste takes millions of years to decompose; and, it takes a lot of energy to mine the uranium used to create nuclear power. Thousands of gallons of petroleum are used in the mining process, releasing a lot of greenhouse gases.
My, what a balanced presentation! I count at least three half-truths and one outright error. How about you?

I left a comment directing their readers to NEI's Science Club, our own Web property geared toward school age children, but my comment has yet to be moderated. I wonder if it ever will.

As always, if you stop by to leave a comment, please be polite.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Your admirably low-key comment is now visible. Nice contrast to the sudden outbreak of hysteria in middle of their main article.
January 18, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Lisa Stiles-Shell said…
The comment I left wasn't nearly as low-key but it was not impolite. I pointed out some of the misleading statements and questioned whether this was the best approach to encourage critical thinking in children. It's been nearly 24 hours and my comment has not appeared. Has anyone else tried?
January 19, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Anonymous said…
LEAVE it to NEI to attempt lying to little children....Sure my comments will be removed from that sight, but perhaps the teacher will have enough sense to look into the true ills associated with nuclear power. Perhaps the teacher will realize NEI is the propaganda and lobbying arm of the nuclear industry.
January 20, 2007 at 2:35 AM
Lisa Stiles-Shell said…
Wow. Did you even look at the NEI science club site for kids? There isn't anything on there that isn't scientific or demonstrated fact. It isn't trying to tell kids that nuclear is the answer to every problem. Issues that are certainly debatable among reasonable adults, issues that we debate here on the blog and elsewhere, aren't found on the site for children. Sure NEI has a few lobbyists but its mission is much broader and as a nuclear engineer I'm proud to be a part of the organization because I believe nuclear is an important part of our energy mix. And obviously we don't try to squelch discussion on the issues or your comment and many others would be removed. So I fail to see how this falls into the realm of "lies and propaganda."
January 20, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

By
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 …
1 comment
Read more

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

By
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…
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

By
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…
Post a Comment
Read more