When it comes to the troubles of the nuclear energy industry in the 1970s, Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt have decided on the #1 culprit:
For other views, see We Support Lee and Peter Magnuson.
If you were asked to name the biggest global-warming villains of the past 30 years, here’s one name that probably wouldn’t spring to mind: Jane Fonda.Read it all to the end. I'm curious to see what folks think. For those of you too young to remember Three Mile Island, click here for the NEI fact sheet.
For other views, see We Support Lee and Peter Magnuson.
Comments
As much as I despised that movie, I now know it tells a realistic story from the safety conscious work environment standpoint. The normalization of deviation is something to be guarded against in the face of budget and schedule pressure.
Technically the movie has been discredited. But imagine our protests in 1979 if the story was about a hole growing in the reactor vessel head to the size of a football as management and plant personnel rationalized the symptoms.
I had better stop before I break down in hysterics. That story is simply too far-fetched for anyone to buy.
You could fairly blame the anti-nuclear movement for thousands of premature deaths caused by pollution from fossil fuel power stations, though. That was well understood, even back then.
Incidentally, I'm currently in Beijing. Today is the first day in more than two weeks where the visibility has been more than a mile. I almost missed the Olympic stadium because it's invisible in the smog. Your hair and clothes start to stink, and I'm sure it's doing terrible things to my lungs. It puts non-problems like nuclear power plants into sharp perspective, so to speak.
I think we need to stop bashing that movie. In other words, let's move on. So it didn't get all the technical details right... instead, it shone a light on what has always been the weakest link in our business, the people side.
Our technology has inherent risks. We cannot afford to toe the company line if it compromises safety. Headless blogger is completely right in mentioning normalization of deviance and safety-conscious work environment.
Ask yourself honestly... what would the US nuclear industry be like today if TMI had not happened, and if that film had not raised the profile of that event?
IIRC, Isaac Asimov wrote a column in the 1960s on why nuclear energy was needed to prevent global warming.
The debate would have probably divided the environmental movement, with birdwatchers on one side (backed by the nuclear industry) and hippies on the other (backed by the oil industry, who would look to ensure that natural gas was seen as clean energy). The birdwatchers would have gotten their clocks cleaned.
I don't say this with any bitterness at all. That's a perfectly reasonable tactic for them to use, considering what they actually opposed--the people in charge--which they were unable to separate from a debate over the merits of the technology.