Skip to main content

Fox and Friends and Nuclear Plant Security

Both the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have concluded that U.S. nuclear plants are among the most secure of all industrial facilities. But for some reason, that fact wasn't reported on Fox and Friends this morning when Tucker Carlson interviewed Alan Kuperman of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project on nuclear power plant security.


When it comes to the threat of terrorism, American nuclear plants responded quickly in the wake of the 9-11 attacks, spending more than $2 billion to upgrade security.

The independent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has said that nuclear power plants are "among the best-protected private sector facilities in the nation." The NRC holds nuclear power plants to the highest security standards of any American industry. These security measures get more robust the closer you get to the plant, using defenses such as vehicles, barriers/concrete walls, sophisticated intrusion detection and weaponry. There also are measures to protect against insider threats.

We're always surprised that Carlson neglects to mention these facts when he reports on the topic. After all, Carlson edits The Daily Caller, a website that ran an op-ed in 2011 by NEI's Marv Fertel on how the nuclear industry supplemented security after the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. Overall, the U.S. nuclear energy industry alone employs about 9,000 heavily armed security personnel. That compares pretty favorably with the entire Belgian Army, which only has about 12,000 soldiers in uniform.

Does Tucker Carlson read The Daily Caller?
Just like the last time Fox reported about this issue, they neglected to contact anyone in the nuclear energy industry for comment, opting instead to let Kuperman speak over archival footage of another Fox and Friends/Daily Caller report we debunked back in 2014.

Whatever this is, it isn't fair and balanced journalism. People have a right to know what we're doing to secure our plant sites, but journalists also have a responsibility to give us an opportunity to answer those questions in the first place. According to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, reporters should "Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing." That same code of ethics also says, " Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources." As we reported back in 2013, Kuperman has previously worked for the rabid anti-nuclear group, Greenpeace, so it isn't as if he doesn't have an ax to grind with us.

For an example of what actual reporting looks like, watch this video that was shot by The Day when they talked to security personnel at Dominion's Millstone Nuclear Power Plant.


Please keep up with us on Twitter, as we engage in a what's sure to be a day-long conversation about this story. Be sure to watch NEI's video on nuclear plant security, while also reviewing the information on our website on nuclear power plant security.

From the NEI Nuclear Notes archive:

DYK Alan Kuperman worked for Greenpeace?
A Fresh Perspective on Nuclear Plant Security
NEI Responds to NPPP Report on Security at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
Why the Daily Caller is Wrong About Nuclear Power Plant Security
NRC Rebuts Daily Caller on Nuclear Power Plant Security

POSTSCRIPT:  After The Daily Caller ran their piece on nuclear plant security in 2014, the nuclear industry reached out to the reporter in question to see if he would be interested in touring Calvert Cliffs. He declined the invitation. This morning, NEI's media team contacted Fox News in an attempt to speak with Carlson. We were told he was unavailable.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...