Skip to main content

Another Call for Nuclear Advocates

A few weeks back, we asked our readers to participate in an LA Times poll on the continued operation of the San Onofre nuclear power plant. Earlier today, the San Diego Union-Tribune posted their own poll on the ultimate fate of the facility:

If you support the continued operation of the plant, please take a moment to vote.

Comments

jimwg said…
How about starting a game like "How To Tell If A Fair And Accurate Reporter Is Secretly Anti-Nuclear?"

Like --

A. If he/she keeps saying that a reactor is "spewing" out radioactivity.

B. Fukushima is a "nuclear accident" instead of a "tsunami accident" (since people are killed in disasters).

C. Keeps showing crying little kids being swept by Geiger counters.

D. Gives a pro-nuker a five second bite in a three minute nuclear report.

E. Has deep ominous music playing in the background while showing clips of nuke plants under dark cloudy skies.

F. Keeps filming huge looming cooling towers like they ARE the reactors.

Etc...

James Greenidge
Queens NY
jimwg said…
Pardon my error!

Correction for "B" is:

B. Fukushima is a "nuclear disaster" instead of a "tsunami disaster" (since people are killed in disasters).

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Jeff Schmidt said…
I have a few problems with such polls:

* First, such polls are definitely not scientific, and so are likely to be innaccurate - as an example, you have NEI calling on members to vote, and no doubt you probably have anti-nuclear organizations call upon their supporters to vote, and so the results could just reflect what organizations noticed the poll, and which are best organized to get member response quickly to such things.

* Even if you had a formal, official "voted" during an election, the question of whether to shutdown an individual nuclear plant should not be up for majority opinion. The majority can vote on overall policy - I suppose if a majority of Americans wanted to shutdown all nuclear power plants, that would be a legitimate exercise of democracy, but when it comes to individual plants, it should be owners, and regulators (e.g. NRC) who decide on technical and legal grounds whether the plant qualifies to be licensed and operate, not MOB RULE.
Anonymous said…
Fortunately, the United States is not a democracy. The Founders knew better than to base our government on such a historically unstable system. We should count our blessings that we live in a Constitutional Republic. Ochlocracies generally end badly for everyone.

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 …