Skip to main content

Blame It All on Jane Fonda?

When it comes to the troubles of the nuclear energy industry in the 1970s, Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt have decided on the #1 culprit:
If you were asked to name the biggest global-warming villains of the past 30 years, here’s one name that probably wouldn’t spring to mind: Jane Fonda.
Read it all to the end. I'm curious to see what folks think. For those of you too young to remember Three Mile Island, click here for the NEI fact sheet.

For other views, see We Support Lee and Peter Magnuson.

Comments

It wasn't Jane Fonda, we did it to ourselves.

As much as I despised that movie, I now know it tells a realistic story from the safety conscious work environment standpoint. The normalization of deviation is something to be guarded against in the face of budget and schedule pressure.

Technically the movie has been discredited. But imagine our protests in 1979 if the story was about a hole growing in the reactor vessel head to the size of a football as management and plant personnel rationalized the symptoms.

I had better stop before I break down in hysterics. That story is simply too far-fetched for anyone to buy.
robert merkel said…
To be fair, neither the nuclear industry nor the anti-nuclear lobby knew about global warming back in the late 1970's.

You could fairly blame the anti-nuclear movement for thousands of premature deaths caused by pollution from fossil fuel power stations, though. That was well understood, even back then.

Incidentally, I'm currently in Beijing. Today is the first day in more than two weeks where the visibility has been more than a mile. I almost missed the Olympic stadium because it's invisible in the smog. Your hair and clothes start to stink, and I'm sure it's doing terrible things to my lungs. It puts non-problems like nuclear power plants into sharp perspective, so to speak.
Anonymous said…
Jack Lemmon's character in that film could stand as a lesson for anyone working in the nuclear power business. Unfortunately, he didn't realize the problems until it was too late.

I think we need to stop bashing that movie. In other words, let's move on. So it didn't get all the technical details right... instead, it shone a light on what has always been the weakest link in our business, the people side.

Our technology has inherent risks. We cannot afford to toe the company line if it compromises safety. Headless blogger is completely right in mentioning normalization of deviance and safety-conscious work environment.

Ask yourself honestly... what would the US nuclear industry be like today if TMI had not happened, and if that film had not raised the profile of that event?
Doug said…
Global warming was known in the 70s, just not widely. (I didn't really become aware of it until the late 80s). Watch the movie Soylent Green some time, it's mentioned by name, albeit in passing, and of course the city is a hothouse throughout the movie. My favorite line is when Leigh Taylor Young cranks up the AC and says "Let's make it cold, like winter used to be!"
Joseph said…
To be fair, neither the nuclear industry nor the anti-nuclear lobby knew about global warming back in the late 1970's.

IIRC, Isaac Asimov wrote a column in the 1960s on why nuclear energy was needed to prevent global warming.
Robert, they thought the world was cooling down, not warming (albeit with less enthusiasm). If global warming had been raised as an issue, it would have been dismissed as a fabrication designed to sell more nuclear power plants and roundly condemned by anyone with any left-wing credentials. There is a slight possibility, however, that they would have simply used a flawed, dumbed-down, and misinterpreted version of global warming to attack nuclear power using the same arguments we're seeing today ("nuclear power isn't nuclear enough," waste heat, and cooling tower water "emissions"). Either way, it backfires.

The debate would have probably divided the environmental movement, with birdwatchers on one side (backed by the nuclear industry) and hippies on the other (backed by the oil industry, who would look to ensure that natural gas was seen as clean energy). The birdwatchers would have gotten their clocks cleaned.

I don't say this with any bitterness at all. That's a perfectly reasonable tactic for them to use, considering what they actually opposed--the people in charge--which they were unable to separate from a debate over the merits of the technology.
futurepundit said…
The biggest problem with nuclear power in the 1970s came from massive construction cost overruns.

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 …