Many thanks to Kirk Sorensen at Energy from Thorium for sourcing these three examples of what passes for ‘journalism‘.It is nearly impossible to find a big-media reporter who will report fairly and accurately on any topic related to nuclear power.
Several articles today burned me up for their sloppy, sensationalist, anti-nuclear approach to “journalism”:
CBS: Japan Uses Controverisal Nuke Fuel
This article claims that Japan uses “weapons-grade” plutonium which is untrue. They use reactor-grade plutonium recycled from their light-water nuclear reactors. This article claims that they’re making more nuclear waste when they’re actually destroying it.
NBC: TVA charging up new nuclear reactor; opponents fear disaster
No, people have been enjoying the benefits of clean energy from Watts Bar 1 for 13 years now. Locals are looking forward to the jobs and clean energy that will come from Watts Bar 2. They know what happens when you don’t replace coal with nuclear. They’ve seen what the Kingston coal plant did to the waters of the Tennessee River. But NBC chose to interview an aging anti-nuke (Edwin Lyman of the UCS) masquerading as an “expert” who trots out crazy, exaggerated fears that he uses to keep himself funded. Lyman tries to confound the public by making them think that the ash spill of Kingston is related to Watts Bar. Only in the sense that if Watts Bar had been built, Kingston could have been shut down.
CNN: Nuclear waste: Coming to a town near you?
This article claims that there’s “no solution to nuclear waste”. Bull. There’s lots of good solutions, we’re just never allowed to do any of them by the dedicated anti-nukes and their fossil-fuel funding sources, who find the “unsolved problem of nuclear waste” far too politically effective to allow it to be solved.
![]()
Recent Comments