Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Clean Air Energy Ad Run Begins


The fall run of NEI’s “Nuclear. Clean Air Energy” branding advertising begins this week with print advertising in The Washington Post (Page A12 today) as well as The Washington Times, National Journal, Congressional Quarterly, Congress Daily, CQ Today, The Hill, Roll Call, State Legislatures and Governing magazine.

The campaign also includes morning drive radio advertising on seven inside-the-beltway radio stations and television advertising on news and public affairs programs such as Meet the Press, News Hour, The Situation Room and various other CNN shows. To view the television ad, click here.

The campaign extends through the last week of September.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Weren't a bunch of pro-nuclear advocates all indignant about a Greenpeace campaign last year which they said "exploited" cute children for their cause?

How is this ad different?

Eric McErlain said...

Not really. Click here for the background.

Kirk Sorensen said...

I live 20 miles downwind of three nuclear power plants, and I drive through Rome, Georgia regularly on my way to Atlanta, where I get to experience the full effect of two of the dirtiest coal plants in the US.

Nuclear power REALLY is clean air energy. I pity the people who have to live in the stench and filth of a coal plant.

gunter said...

If the nuclear industry were serious about its promotion of children and nuclear power it would be urging for more protective radiation standards.

In fact, you all are fighting tooth and nail to prevent modernizing more protective radiation standards. This is only going to become more obvious.

If it were up to your industry we would still be x-raying feet at the shoe store, etc. etc.

d kosloff said...

The difference, anonymous, is that the Greenpeace ads are lies and the use of nuclear power saves the lives and health of thousands of children every year. That is one of the reasons that I raised my children near nuclear power plants.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Gunter, but if you cared at all about the health of children, you'd been advocating the expansion of nuclear power ASAP. How many childhood asthma cases would be eliminated by another 100 reactors? Another 200 reactors? Even if your outrageous criticisms were partially correct, trading the carnage wrought by burning coal for trivial radioactive emissions is an easy choice.

Please don't respond by saying you would use solar or wind power.

Kirk Sorensen said...

Gunter, if you cared about the health of children you'd be trying to stop the burning of coal with its radioactive emissions...

and its toxic emissions...

and its CO2 emissions...

and all the miners that die mining coal. Never seem to hear anyone in the media or the "environmentalists" organizations saying "no coal" even though coal is a proven and daily killer.

Nuclear is the only large energy source taking a bite out of coal, and you want to shut it down. Guess what happens when you shut a nuke plant down--more coal. You'd love to think it was something else, but history shows that nuclear gets replaced by coal.

Nuclear IS doing something about clean air, and I breathe it every day. When you've installed enough windmills and solar panels that the residents of Rome, Georgia can breathe without feeling like they want to throw up, then you can talk about alternative energy as well.

Until then, we need more reactors.

Anonymous said...

Bah! Gunter, if you knew anything about radiation protection, you wouldn't write that kind of rubbish. Where I work, if we have students under age 18, the standards we follow are 10 times more restrictive than those of the general population, which are themselves 10 times more restrictive than those for radiation workers (x-ray techs, etc.), which are themselves orders of magnitude below those exposures that cause non-harmful but biologically detectable effects. If groups like NIRS were really serious about protecting the health of children, you'd stop hammering the nuclear industry for it's extremely conservative protection standards, and start going after really polluting industries, like those that release thousands of tons of pollutants like sulfur dioxide and fly ash into the air every year, yet you say nary a word about them. Of course, if you did, you'd really be going after the wind power industry, which since it has only a 30% capacity factor, must be backed up two-thirds of the time by conventional (read fossil-fueled) generation.

Matthew66 said...

If you listen to the latest episode of "The Atomic Show" with Rod Adams, you will hear of a clear example of how radiation standards are too strict. In that episode Rod's guest recounts how a radiation spill at New Hanford led to the digging up of some asphalt, which was replaced by asphalt with a higher level of naturally occurring radiation. If the dose is clearly not dangerous, why set it so low?

As for Gunter's remark about x-raying shoe store customers, that is about as intelligent as saying that coal miners want to send twelve year olds down the pits. Why don't you think before you type?

gunter said...

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Its hillarious that you think you can shift the blame for coal emissions onto the environmentalists. Do they put you through classes to come up with this tripe?

When is the last time you saw a single news story about environmentalists for more mountain top removal? Wasn't that press release from Fermi's operator DTE?

Oh, wait a minute, I almost forgot... its those "environmentalists" like Governor Christy "the air is safe" Todd-Whitman and Patrick "more nukes, more clearcuts, more coal" Moore.

Now we're supposed to believe their promotion of "Clean Air" nuclear power has the environment and our health in mind? You should pick your greenwashers more carefully.

Last time I checked, it is companies like Dominion Energy or DTE that tout building BOTH more coal fired plants AND more nukes.

But let's not forget the point of this bit of the blog... the incorporation of more protective radiation standards as part of your "Clean Air" and might I add "Clean Water" campaign.

Those so-called "trivial" radioactive emissions from nukes not only include the hundreds of thousands to millions of curies annually from routine and cumulative radioactive releases to the air and water (depending on a variable of fuel rod cladding integrity for any particular core load) but also a constipated radioactive waste stream that continues to grow onsite with no where else to go.

Like I said earlier, its your corporate leaders who seem to be choosing to go kicking and screaming into a more protective radiation standard from a dangerously antiquated radiation standard based on Roentgen Equivalent Man. Its long over due.

How about Radiation Equivalent Pregnant Woman?

Any comments?

Kirk Sorensen said...

Its hillarious that you think you can shift the blame for coal emissions onto the environmentalists. Do they put you through classes to come up with this tripe?

I don't think it's so hilarious for the folks who live downwind of places where nuclear plants were being built or have been shut down by "environmentalists" who now get to breathe coal fumes.

You can choose your actions, but you can't choose their consequences.

When you stop nuclear, it gets replaced by coal. Not by solar panels, not by wind farms...by coal.

That's the real world Gunter. So before you worry about all these radioactive releases from nuclear plants, why don't you worry about the orders-of-magnitude greater radioactive releases from coal burning, or the miners who die mining this hellish stuff, or the people who die EVERY DAY because we burn coal.

Why don't you start a "Beyond Coal" website and get all your Hollywood friends behind it? Why don't you march and protest and chant "no cokes"? Heck, I'll come join you if you do that.

Nuclear power is clean air energy. It's no hype. I'm breathing it right now while I write you. What's disgusting is that coal burners feel like they have the RIGHT to foul our air. I know where the nuclear waste is, and I know how to get rid of it.

Anonymous said...

What are you babbling about, Gunter? Federal requirements for exposure limits to pregnant women are already more restrictive by a factor of 10 than for non-pregnant occupational exposures. And limits for non-occupational exposures are more restrictive than those by a factor of five. In some cases, the non-occupational exposure limits are lower than natural background. How much lower do you demand? Zero? (That's what I suspect.)

As for the "constipated" waste stream, that is due in large part to obstructionist tactics of intervenors like yourself. You get the politicians and public whipped up into a frenzy of opposition to things like Yucca Mountain. And you also oppose much more sensible approaches such as reprocessing, partitioning, and actinide recycle. So when we ask intervenors who oppose Yucca Mountain where the "spent" fuel should be kept, you say "at the plant sites". Then you turn around and complain about "constipation" that has no where to go. IOW, you create the problem by opposing reasonable ways to manage the materials, then hammer the industry for not being able do anything. Pretty dishonest and despicable tactics.

Katherine said...

Hey guys,

We can argue all day about whether nukes are better or worse than wind/solar etc. There are arguments for both sides and I doubt quibbling over the net is going to change anyone's mind.

Anyway, what's really worrying me is that organizations like the NEI and other propagandists (term used in the most endearing sense possible) are protected by our government. There was a case that actually addressed one of the ads run by the NEI and the court found it to be false. BUT they considered it political, not commercial, therefore protected.

So, would you consider these ads commercial, or political? They're selling us power, right? Just because they put ".org" after their URL, does that mean they should be allowed to lie to us?

George Carty said...

Here in Britain at least, socialists tended to idolize coal miners, seeing them as a kind of proletarian aristocracy.

I wonder how much leftist opposition to nuclear power was based on the threat it posed to coal miners' jobs?