Skip to main content

Those Irresponsible Physicians

maddoctormarketstGotta love the title of this Forbes article:

Irresponsible Physicians Oppose Nuclear Energy

It’s a play on the name Physicians for Social Responsibility (the rest of the physicians apparently have a different agenda), which issued a report on energy options. The article (and report, apparently) is more about natural gas than nuclear energy, though author James Conca has nothing but contempt for this idea in the socially responsible physician’s paper:

But the most bizarre section of this report is the attempt to paint enrichment of uranium-235 for fuel as more carbon-emitting than gas. The important CO2 emissions calculation not done by McCullough is that replacing CGS with a gas plant would add over 40 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere over 17 years. Instead, McCullough’s report [McCullough Research put it together] has a lame discussion of the nuclear fuel cycle and how uranium enrichment at the old weapons-era Paducah plant (no longer operating) is an important emissions source.

Nothing about this report seems remotely interesting, but Conca’s takedown is worth a read, for entertainment value above all.

---

On a sliding scale of actorly achievement, Tom Laughlin (1932-2013) rates much lower than Joan Fontaine or Peter O’Toole. But of the three prominent performers who passed away this weekend, Laughlin wins on sheer entrepreneurial audacity. When his film Billy Jack (1971), which he directed wrote and starred in, got a tepid release from Warner Bros. and tanked, he went to court to reclaim the film, won and re-released it himself by renting out theaters entirely (a method later called four-walling) and barnstorming for an audience. It worked – really well – and the movie became a hit. With its antiestablishment half-Native American antihero protecting an alternative school – it was the early 70s - it held a special appeal to college students. Its sequel, The Trial of Billy Jack (1974), was the biggest hit Warner Bros. had that year (admittedly, a weak year for the studio).

The third film, Billy Jack Goes to Washington (1977), is a remake of Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), but replacing the dam that will crush a boy scout camp with a nuclear energy plant that will – well, be a nuclear energy plant. That’s enough to make Billy Jack just want to – go – berserk. (Not on the floor of the Senate, though.)

I wrote about this movie here when it came out on video, so I won’t repeat the daft plot outline or out-of-control pontificating Laughlin indulges in. One can appreciate the sincerity of it all while enjoying a good laugh or concocting a potent drinking game (one shot for every time Billy Jack’s girlfriend Jean dissolves into tears perhaps). It is the least effective anti-nuclear energy movie imaginable, but perhaps worth a look for nuclear advocates – once, anyway.

Laughlin left movies after this, tried politics but mostly lived quietly with wife Delores Taylor, who appears as Jean in all three movies. His web site has been replaced by a memorial – worth a visit for fans. If you’re of a certain age, you may find yourself pausing a moment at Laughlin’s passing – he really only had one moment in his career where he became larger than himself (even if as an unusually violent icon of peace) – and one might have to use that pause to remember who he was – but it’s enough. 

Comments

jimwg said…
Seasons Greetings!

Bully Jack asides, I don't really laugh at Hollywood's impact on the largely science-illiterate public, as proven by how "China Syndrome" greatly exacerbated an industrial incident that otherwise would've only had as much social effect and staying power as BP Gulf has had. Pre-TMI Hollywood was relatively positive about atomic energy, as cited by the sub Seaview and the TV Batman's nuke Batmobile and "Lost in Space" saucer and Steve Austin's bionic limbs and International Rescue's nuclear-powered Thunderbirds. The earliest original conception of "Knight Rider's" KITT was a nuclear car, and TV View had cited one of the reasons "Supertrain" didn't last outside of Love-Boat-clone plots was a nuclear train didn't fly very well to a fretful public on the heels of TMI. After TMI, anything positively nuclear in TV and film was like a cross to a vampire. Where are they? If you know such I'd sure like to know it! I am VERY sure that every showing of "The Simpsons" probably unravels six-months worth of public nuclear education in its portrayal of nuclear plants and those that work in them. Anyone notice the Dodge Truck commercials featuring their product working at Hoover Dam and wind farms and solar farms? Er, why dodge doing nukes too, Dodge?? Isn't fear wonderful?

James Greenidge
Queens NY

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 …