NEI Nuclear Notes

Updated Editor's Note: The next big date on the Pandora's Promise calendar is November 7 at 9:00 p.m. U.S. EST. That's when the film will make it's cable television debut on CNN . A crew from the cable network visited NEI a few weeks ago, and we anticipate that you'll see a number of features about the future of the nuclear energy industry air over the next several weeks. Be sure to watch on November 7, and join us on Twitter as we participate in a real-time chat about the film using the #PandorasPromise hash tag. Editor's Note: Here at NEI, we're keeping a close eye on  Pandora's Promise , a documentary film by Academy Award-nominated director Robert Stone about how many prominent environmentalists have changed their minds about nuclear energy because of concerns about climate change.  The film was produced independently from the nuclear industry. Among the financial backers of Pandora's Promise are Richard Branson and Microsoft co-founder Paul A...

Robert Stone behind the camera. It was back in 2006 that NEI Nuclear Notes published its first post with the title, " Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy ." At the time, I could certainly have understood how a statement like that might seem more than a bit unbelievable. Environmentalists? Supporting? Nuclear? Energy? Wasn't the environmental community unanimously opposed to nuclear energy?  But what I had begun to see at the time was a growing understanding on the part of a number of thoughtful people about the size and scope of the challenge before mankind. How do you support a world with a growing population that aspires to enjoy the same standard of living that we've grown accustomed to in the developed world? And how do you do it without causing catastrophic damage to the planet? It's was that conundrum that led environmentalists like Patrick Moore , James Lovelock and the late Rev. Hugh Montefiore to reconsider their position on nuclear ene...

This evening in Pleasantville, NY at the Jacob Burns Film Center , Robert Stone's new documentary, Pandora's Promise , will have its New York premiere. Following the screening, Stone will have a discussion with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of Riverkeeper about the film. The discussion will be moderated by Andrew Revkin of the New York Times . NEI will be in attendance, and we'll be following the discussion live via our Twitter feed, @n_e_i . Please check in around 9:00 p.m. U.S. EDT for our live coverage. So Where Can You See Pandora's Promise ? The official opening will be in New York City on June 12 at  Sunshine Cinema  on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Two days later, on June 14, the film will open in an additional 15 cities nationwide ( Atlanta ,  Berkeley ,  Boston ,  Chicago ,  Denver ,  Houston ,  Irvine ,  Los Angeles ,  Minneapolis ,  Philadelphia ,  San Diego ,  San Francisco ,  Seattle ,  St. Lou...

Dr. Helen Caldicott For a number of years now, we've been sure to follow the public pronouncements of anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott and how the public is beginning to push back against her radical agenda . The latest example comes from the Sydney Morning Herald , where Caldicott's latest op-ed was greeted frostily in the comments section following the article. Here's a sampler: As someone who worked as a medical physicist, whose job it was to be on to of these sorts of issues. I must say this is alarmist, unbalanced and inaccurate and should be treated with a healthy degree of suspicion., Long on rhetoric, short on actual data. [...] I'm very surprised such a vague article could be published in the SMH. "Growing body of scientific evidence", "unprecedented increase" and "huge continuing" are the words used here to back up the basic premise. No numbers, emotive language and non-specifics - these are the hallmark...

Last week, I hinted that Dr. Helen Caldicott had gotten more than she had bargained for when she visited the University of South Carolina recently. Unfortunately, I failed to follow up and link to the following post at the Nuclear Literacy Project . The author is Kallie Metzger, a graduate fellow studying nuclear engineering at the University of South Carolina, and she deserves some applause for the way she conducted herself: Ultimately, I hoped this presentation would provide a platform for discussion —And it did, but not nearly as peaceably as I envisioned. I imagined proponents of nuclear refuting the speaker’s false statements and exaggerations (respectfully, of course), the speaker conceding to our reasoning, and the whole night ending in a campfire kumbaya session between the opposing groups. Instead, Dr. Caldicott refused questions, became increasingly hostile and arrogant, and created a strained environment for everyone. I could quote more, but that would be unfair to ...

Yesterday, we made sure to note that Dr. Helen Caldicott was set to appear at the University of South Carolina to talk about the health effects of the incident at Fukushima -- all in an effort to point folks to more reliable sources of information on radiation and public health. In today's edition of The State , there's a profile of Caldicott based on an interview that was done before last night's event. Curiously, the reporter didn't attend the lecture in person, but rather interviewed a local anti-nuclear activist about the event after the fact. And there I found an interesting morsel of information that was found encouraging. About 50 people, mostly students, attended the talk, said Clements, a long-time anti-nuclear activist who is now with the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. One student challenged some of Caldicott’s assertions, he said. Indeed. In fact, we're hearing that there were some rather tense moments last night, details of which will be revealed...

Over the weekend, I got a note from a friend that Dr. Helen Caldicott is scheduled to give a lecture tonight at the University of South Carolina on the medical implications of Fukushima. A little less than a month ago, Caldicott made a similar appearance in Santa Barbara. At the time, I posted the following information , and given tonight's event, it seemed prudent to reprint it in its entirety. ------------------------------------------------------ A couple of days ago, a friend of mine passed some news onto me that Dr. Helen Caldicott is hitting the lecture circuit again, this time to talk about the health implications of the incident at Fukushima Daiichi. Her next event will take place tonight in Santa Barbara and will be sponsored by the Nuclear Peace Age Foundation. Obviously, this blog has a long history debunking Dr. Caldicott's claims about commercial nuclear energy -- one that extends all the way back to 2005 when we disputed her claims about a USEC uranium enrichmen...

A couple of days ago, a friend of mine passed some news onto me that Dr. Helen Caldicott is hitting the lecture circuit again, this time to talk about the health implications of the incident at Fukushima Daiichi. Her next event will take place tonight in Santa Barbara and will be sponsored by the Nuclear Peace Age Foundation. Obviously, this blog has a long history debunking Dr. Caldicott's claims about commercial nuclear energy -- one that extends all the way back to 2005 when we disputed her claims about a USEC uranium enrichment facility in Kentucky . We don't know what Dr. Caldicott will say tonight. However, when it comes to good science about the health effects of radiation, you'd probably be better off watching some video that was shot earlier this month by the Health Physics Society when they hosted a forum on Fukushima . Click here to watch those videos on our SafetyFirst microsite. One of the individuals you'll see in the videos is Dr. Robert Peter Gale of ...

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

From Duke Energy’s CEO Jim Rogers : "We do need to pause, we need to learn the lessons, we need to implement them," he said. "But I think at the end of the day our industry's prepared to do that. More importantly, we need to start building new nuclear in this country because we're going to start retiring our nuclear plants as early as 2019." He’s right. After all: "Do you think China is going to slow down on any of its 24 reactors (under construction), or India, or Abu Dhabi? No." That’s the spirit of competition! --- When an anti-nuclear advocate changes his mind in part due to Fukushima Daiichi, there’s just no stopping him : Over the last fortnight I've made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done...

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.” ...

Three young ladies from McKinley Middle Charter School in Racine, Wisconsin took the grand prize this year for C-SPAN’s annual documentary competition . Over 1,000 students submitted a video on either a topic about one of the US’ greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. The challenge the three ladies chose was how the US should meet its future energy consumption. The solution that they came to, of course, was nuclear. For part of the documentary, they interviewed Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott, former NRC commissioner Dale Klein, and Tom Meston from Westinghouse. Plus, they added a few hilarious clips from The Simpsons and others to show the misperceptions about nuclear. Not only that, the excellent choice of music brought it all together. Congrats to a well done video and the rewards! (For the interview on the making of the video, click here .)

The debate on the effects of radiation from nuclear plants is alive and kicking at Barry Brook's blog Brave New Climate . In his latest post, he takes on Dr. Caldicott's latest junk piece that surfaced in Online Opinion : The focal claim from Caldicott in this piece is that it is dangerous to live near to nuclear power plants (NPP), because they supposedly increase rates of leukemia. My basic response to such a claim is quite simple, and I think useful, because it cuts through the somewhat arcane and context-laden epidemiological arguments. It’s this: The additional radiation exposure of those living in the vicinity of NPP is ~0.0002 millisieverts (mSv), versus a background level of 2 to 4 mSv (depending on where you live) — the latter due to everything from cosmic rays, to ground-derived radon emissions, to eating bananas (this last one gives you more radiation than the NPP). So that’s 1/15,000 of your total yearly dosage coming from the ambient levels produced by nuclear po...

Physical Insights is wondering why anyone still listens to her.

Over at Physical Insights , Luke is getting busy posting a chapter-by-chapter deconstruction of Helen Caldicott's book, Nuclear Madness . As you might guess, we think it's a good idea . Check it out.

The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) and the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Dr. Helen Caldicott ’s organization) just released an Executive Summary of Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy . It is a book that will be published in October 2007 detailing recommendations on how the U.S. ’ can meet future energy demand while reducing carbon emissions. The joint project sets out to answer three questions: Is it possible to physically eliminate CO2 emissions from the U.S. energy sector without resort to nuclear power, which has serious security and other vulnerabilities? Is a zero-CO2 economy possible without purchasing offsets from other countries – that is, without purchasing from other countries the right to continue emitting CO2 in the United States ? Is it possible to accomplish the above at reasonable cost? My answers are yes, yes and no. To the first question, it is possible to eliminate CO2 and nuclear from the energy sector -- ...

In coverage of TVA's decision to complete the Watts Bar 2 nuclear reactor , we saw a familiar charge get aired by anti-nuclear activists concerning nuclear energy and total life-cycle emissions. First, here's an account from Knox News : Anti-nuclear activists criticized the description of nuclear power as “clean,” pointing to the nuclear waste created and the energy-intensive process of mining and enriching uranium for nuclear fuel. “Nuclear power is not clean, and the idea that you all found no significant impacts on your environmental impact statement is a joke,” said Earth First! activist John Johnson, referring to a federally required environmental study released in June. Next, here's a familiar face in the Chattanooga Times Free-Press : Helen Caldicott, president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is one of the most vocal critics of TVA's decision. "I'm afraid this may be the beginning of a renai...

From time to time, readers of NEI Nuclear Notes have urged our industry to get more confrontational with our critics in the public space. Last night up in Peterborough, Ontario, one Greenpeace volunteer, Shawn-Patrick Stensil, ran straight into a number of industry advocates who had obviously had enough : Early into Stensil's presentation Martyn Wash, general manager of the Organization of Candu Industries, asked Stensil if he was a scientist and questioned his credibility. The two got into a heated conversation during the question and answer portion of the evening, each accusing the other of providing misinformation. "They come here and tell half-truths," Wash said, referring to Stensil and Greenpeace. Wash told The Examiner Greenpeace bases their argument from facts and figures dating back to the ’50s and ’60s. "Greenpeace presents a story based on falsehoods," Wash said. It is important to have a dialogue on the future of nuclear energy, Wash said, but there...

While reading my Google Alerts today, I came across a gem of a blog entitled, Understanding the Lie Of The Nuclear Cycle . It occurs to me that there are plenty of reasons to be against just about any source of energy, be it fossil fuels (CO2), nuclear (waste), or even wind (ecological impact), solar (toxic waste), or hydro (migratory fish). But when the facts aren't sensational enough to stir up emotional opposition, the anti-(fill in the blank) need only make something up. Take cancer rates for instance. We've all heard the far-fetched claims of often-debunked pediatrician-turned-nuclear-expert Helen Caldicott before: Cancer rates are higher around nuclear facilities. But the questions she can never answer, even when asked face to face: If your claims are true, then why do medical studies, such as the one performed by Johns Hopkins University of over 30,000 nuclear workers, show no increase in cancer rates - even for the people who work closest with this radioactive materi...

Last year during Helen Caldicott's book tour , my colleague David Bradish did some excellent work debunking it chapter by chapter . In my regular reading this morning, I came across a blog post that seems to suggest that the truth about Caldicott is getting out : I got a suggestion for Ms. Caldicott, we need alternatives to fossil fuels NOW. We should have been looking at alternatives to fossil fuels in the 80’s when she was destroying nuclear energy and not offering any viable alternatives. Because of her actions, we are in a hell of a crunch NOW. Sure, being green is great, and is the ultimate future of energy, but because of people like Caldicott, we’re in a jam NOW. In the 80’s, she killed off a non-fossil-fuel source of energy and gave us NOTHING. Now, 20 years later, she’s wanting to kill of a non-fossil-fuel source of energy and is offering us NOTHING. So, excuse me if I suggest that the people that got us in this mess be ignored and we listen to people with some answers. N...