Skip to main content

The Global Nuclear Conspiracy Unmasked

Helen Caldicott In the United States, nuclear energy plants are inspected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In other parts of the world, local authorities handle inspections or arrange for the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so. There’s really no need for the IAEA to spend much time at U.S. plants and it doesn’t – unless, of course, it’s invited to do so:

The delegation of 14 experts from around the world, three observers and three agency staff members was invited to size up how well the American authorities monitor civilian power plants, including plant operations, and how the agency communicates internally.

That might be a little nervous-making, but by and large, the IAEA folks seem pretty pleased:

The group will not present its report for several months. In a preliminary statement, it said that the United States had “a transparent licensing process that accepts input from public citizens and environmental reviews, and ensures that key documents are publicly available.”

And there’s no point in showing up without a few suggestions:

The group also said the commission should consider “increasing its effort to use I.A.E.A. safety standards in its own regulations’’ but was not specific about the differences.

Or maybe IAEA could use some of the American safety standards. Whatever works. In any event, the group’s report in a few months will make for interesting reading.


A little international action:


Vietnam has selected Japan to supply its second nuclear power plant and the deal can go through as soon as the parliament in Tokyo approves an atomic cooperation treaty, Japanese officials said Monday.


Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Monday that nuclear power is a viable, clean source of energy that produces low carbon emissions, and the island state "cannot afford to dismiss the option of nuclear energy altogether."

Loong also said he expects to see a plant operational in his lifetime. We’ll assume he means in the next 25 or so years – though even that guess feels a little ghoulish.


Turkish Energy and Natural Resources Minister Taner Yildiz said Monday negotiations with Korea over the construction of a nuclear power plant planned to be built in Sinop was not yet concluded as parties disagreed over certain issues.

Well, it can’t be all good news all the time. The real story here will be when the negotiations conclude one way or another.

If you talk to anyone in the middle of negotiations, they always say everything’s gone to hell – it gets the other side moving (hopefully) and signals your toughness – there’s no downside unless the other side gets annoyed and leaves. No sign of that from South Korea, so it’s a wait-and-see.


Be afraid:

A huge conspiracy of silence has been perpetrated by the global nuclear industry in its quest to build hundreds more nuclear reactors around the world as a solution to global warming.

Be very afraid:

Aside from the fact that the generation of atomic electricity adds substantially to global warming, an alarming recent publication by the New York Academy of Sciences titled "Chernobyl, the Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" documented that the accident in 1986 has so far killed over 985,000 people from cancer in all nations affected by the radioactive fallout.

Uh-oh. The conspiracy had better swing into action:

Are people aware that the Academy of Sciences only printed 700 copies in 2010 of this outstanding scientific publication for which they charge $150 and they are reluctant to print more? Why?

Well, you can buy it at Amazon at a slight discount.

All this comes courtesy of old friend Dr. Helen Caldicott. While you may be inclined to think that this study reflects work done by the Academy of Sciences, it isn’t so:

The references are largely in Slavic languages and represent only a fraction of the material that is available worldwide. This volume presents the authors’ reaction to reports, such as those from the Chernobyl Forum …, that have not shown the full scale of negative impacts that have resulted from the Chernobyl accident.

That is, the Chernobyl Forum vastly understated the impacts. That’s the premise, though ignoring sources outside Eastern Europe and Russia might seem a little too provincial. But there are bigger problems with the work:

The inconsistent use of scientific units, the grouping of data collected with variable time and geographic scales, the lack of essential background information, and the consistent exclusion of scientific research that reported lesser or no negative impacts leave objective readers with very limited means for forming their own judgments without doing their own additional extensive research.

And even the Academy has been standoffish:

The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences issue “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, therefore, does not present new, unpublished work, nor is it a work commissioned by the New York Academy of Sciences. The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own.

In other words, a book with an agenda. Let’s not make the mistake of saying that Chernobyl was insignificant – of course it was significant – but this book seems a slender peg on which to hang a global conspiracy.

Now, back to scheming.

Dr. Helen Caldicott. I admire Dr. Caldicott, although I agree with almost nothing she says. She’s been at this for some 30 years now and has never veered from her course.She has always been encouraged – there’s a lot of honorary degrees on her wall and The Smithsonian Institution called her one of the most influential women of the 20th century – so dismissing her as an anti-nuclear fanatic or some such is needlessly reductive. History has produced many such figures and will produce many more – admirable and honorable people who see acceptance of their views rise and fall like a tide, in some cases swept totally out to sea.


Charles Barton said…
It should be noted that there are, as of this morning, only 3 comments on Helen Caldicott's latest Huffington Post essay. That suggests a moderation standard that amounts to little more than censorship. This is Par for the corse for Helen, who is notorious for her refusals to answer her critics because, she claims, they are bad people. But it is notorious that the devil quotes scripture when it support his case. Thus being bad is not insurance that the devil is wrong. Censorship, especially when it is systematic, does, however, raise questions about credibility.
crf said…
Charles, Huff Po is a hugely trafficked site. It's not surprising that their moderation policy is severe, or that their censors have quick delete buttons.

At any rate, credibility of the post cannot really be largely affected by whatever the comment policy is. This is more about medium is the message, and all that ;-).

And if people have something interesting to say about it, they can put in their own blogs, usually be more amenable for discussions.
Anonymous said…
CB, with regard to Caldicott's article: I'd guess that the small number of comments is more to do with lack of interest at HuffPo, combined with an extremely poor choice of title: "The Election". I do know of one comment that has been deleted but I doubt the total number of attempted comments is greatly higher than visible.
gmax137 said…
I don't know anything about their comment policy & deletions, but the (now) four comments there are three rational viewpoints opposing Caldicotts piece, and the fourth is off on a tangent (distributed grid). Doesn't look like she's censoring the comments.
Luke said…
While we're on the subject of Caldicott, there was a piece posted at The Huffington a month or so ago, titled "On Nuclear Power and 'Hating' America".

It's well worth reading.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…