Skip to main content

Nuclear Debate at the Daily Show

Yesterday, Bloomberg News wrote a story on NEI’s ad campaign and highlighted one TV spot that will air on, among other programs, Comedy Central’s ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.’ The Daily Show draws a younger, more liberal crowd, some of whom are skeptical of nuclear energy. Since the Bloomberg article appeared, there’s been a surge in commentary from all sides of the nuclear debate at the Daily Show’s Facebook page. If you haven’t been over to the page yet, stop by and add your two cents. The readers over there could use a different perspective on nuclear than from the usual crowd.

Comments

elfpltfn said…
I'm elated NEI is taking a more proactive role in nuclear public relations!
I'm a bit underwhelmed at the message though- saying "nuclear is safe, clean, and reliable" won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with us. Rather than farming this out to an advertising agency- let the plants' outreach centers develop short ads showing real people. (At a spent fuel pool showing the EAD.. for example).

Right or wrong- nuclear critics have specific complaints that make perfect sense to people who have never seen nuclear fuel. (Case in point: Diane Sawyer's lead into the SONGS S/G tube leak...)

I suspect an educational outreach program demonstrating plant operations/facilities would go much further to bolster confidence than repeating "clean and safe".

P.S. I'm jealous- this would be an incredibly fun project to work on.
Luke_UK said…
For the "younger, more liberal crowd" at the Daily Show, who are likely to be more concerned about climate change as well as more hostile to nuclear, you might have been better with Barry Brook's version. See discussion over at Canadian Energy Issues.
http://canadianenergyissues.com/2012/03/21/battle-of-the-nuclear-ads-brook-vs-nei/
gmax137 said…
@elfpltfn "...would go much further to bolster confidence than repeating "clean and safe"."

Well, the natural gas kings seem to be doing quite well with "clean...clean...clean..."
elfpltfn said…
@gmax137: Well, the natural gas kings seem to be doing quite well with "clean...clean...clean..."

True, but, they don't have to contend with Fukishima, Helen Caldicott or rampant public ignorance of radiation. People aren't threatened by the gas that heats their home in the same way they fear a nuclear reactor.
JD said…
"People aren't threatened by the gas that heats their home in the same way they fear a nuclear reactor."

Indeed. A strange phenomenon considering the actual relative risk.

Consider this story, the month before Fukushima:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41503700/ns/us_news-life/t/dead-after-massive-pa-gas-blast/#.T20mFNVmOk8

"A thunderous gas explosion devastated a rowhouse neighborhood, killing five people.."

Long forgotten now, but more deadly than Fukushima.

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 …

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 Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …