FEBRUARY-MARCH 2008
BEWARE OF THE
The EUROPEAN Atomic Energy Community Treaty
A short while ago this caught my eye
Brussels pushes atomic safety amid pro-nuclear talk
12.10.2007 - 17:43 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Commission is making
a concerted push for harmonising nuclear safety
requirements across the European Union, saying that
nuclear energy is here to stay.EU energy Commissioner
Andris Piebalgs made the comments
after the first meeting of an experts group on nuclear
safety and waste management:
The experts group is made up of senior officials from the
27 member states' national regulatory or nuclear safety
authorities and is to advise the EU executive on how to
progressively develop EU rules in nuclear safety and
waste management."Nuclear energy is in Europe and it
is here to stay," Mr Piebalgs said, adding that it
should be under the condition of "high safety
standards and sound management. It is up to each member
state to decide whether to have nuclear power or not. But
the question of nuclear safety and waste management
concerns everybody," he added.
Nuclear energy currently counts for over 30 percent of
electricity use and around 15 percent of total energy
consumption across the 27 member bloc, according to the
commission.
Pro-nuclear
commission?
Mr Piebalgs' predecessor Loyola de Palacio proposed in
November 2002 rules for the management of nuclear safety
and nuclear waste across the EU, following safety risks
at the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK. However, Ms de
Palacio's plan met huge opposition from both anti-and
pro-nuclear states with France and the UK saying it was
purely a national matter. But
the current commission is arguing increasingly openly in
favour of nuclear energy. Last week, commission president
Jose Manuel Barroso called on EU states to consider
greater use of nuclear energy in order to avoid
increasing dependence on oil and gas imports and to
improve the bloc's energy security. "Member states
cannot avoid the question of nuclear energy. There needs
to be a total and frank debate regarding this
problem", commission president Jose Manuel Barroso
said at a high-level conference on energy in Madrid. In
addition, competition commissioner Neelie Kroes, who also
took part in the conference, said she was personally
"completely in favour of nuclear power".
© 2007 EUobserver
*****************************************************
AT THE PRESENT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE LISBON TREATY
AND THIS CAUGHT MY EYE:
AMENDING THE PROTOCOLS ANNEXED TO THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN
UNION, TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND/OR
TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY
COMMUNITY
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, DESIRING to amend
the Protocols annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to
the Treaty establishing the European Community and/or to
the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy
Community, in order to adapt them to the new rules laid
down by the Treaty of Lisbon, HAVE AGREED UPON the
following provisions, which shall be annexed to the
Treaty of Lisbon: Article 1 The protocols in
force on the date of entry into force of
this Treaty and annexed to the Treaty on European Union,
to the Treaty establishing the European Community and/or
to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy
Community shall be amended in accordance with the
provisions of this Article.HORIZONTAL AMENDMENTS The
horizontal amendments laid down in Article 2(2) of the
Treaty of Lisbon shall apply to the Protocols referred to
in this Article, with the exception of points (d), (e)
and (j). Where point 5(a) or point 12(a) below
specifically provides otherwise, the horizontal amendment
laid down in Article 2(3)(b) of that Treaty shall not
apply to the Protocol on the Statute of the European
System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank
or to the Protocol on the Statute of\par the European
Investment Bank, respectively. 3) In the Protocols
referred to in point 1 of this Article:\par (a) the last
paragraph of their respective preambles, referring to the
Treaty or Treaties to which the Protocol in question is
annexed, shall be replaced by HAVE AGREED UPON the
following provisions, which shall be annexed to the
Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. This subparagraph
shall apply neither to the Protocol on economic and
social cohesion nor to the Protocol on the system of
public broadcasting in the Member States.
The Protocol on the Statute of the Court of
Justice of the European Union, the Protocol on the
location of the seats of the institutions and of certain
bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European
Union, the Protocol on Article 40.3.3 of the
Constitution of Ireland and the Protocol on
the privileges and immunities of the European Union shall
also be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European
Atomic Energy Community;
(b) the word Communities shall be replaced
by Union and any necessary grammatical changes
shall be made.
This can be found at Page 29ttp://ww.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/IMG/pdf/Lisbon_treaty.en07.pdf
ON LOOKING UP THIS ATOMIC ENERGY TREATY I FOUND OUT THAT
IT WAS FORMULATED BACK IN 1957 AND NOTHING OR NO ONE HAS
REFERRED TO IT SINCE.
The purposes of Euratom were to create a specialist market for atomic energy and distribute it through the Community and to develop nuclear energy and sell surplus to non-Community States.
Some suggest that Euratom should disappear in a similar way to ECSC(STEEL) and merge the European Community and the European Atomic Energy Community in a new European Community and Treaties.
**************************************************************
BY COMBINING THE KNOWLEDGE THESE TWO EXCERPTS GIVE US WE
CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THIS DEFUNCT TREATY IS NOW GOING TO
BE USED, POSSIBLY, TO FORCE IRELAND AND OTHER MEMBER
STATES TO BUILD NUCLEAR FACILITIES. NOT ONLY MAY WE ASK
WHO IS GOING TO RESPECT OUR BAN ON SUCH FACILITIES HERE
IN IRELAND - BUT IN THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS
GOING TO PAY NOT ONLY TO HAVE THESE FACILITIES BUILT, BUT
ALSO WHERE IS THE NUCLEAR WASTE, A CRITICAL POISON
ACCUMULATED IN HUNDREDS OF TONS, GOING TO BE HIDDEN FROM
THE HUMAN RACE IN THE FUTURE?
RADIOACTIVE WASTE IS AN ACTIVE POISON FOR THOUSANDS OF
YEARS.
MEANWHILE:Pakistan, Israel play spoilers in
Indo-US N-deal
* Israel’s opposition baffles Indian strategists
* Experts say China will push case for Pakistan
By Iftikhar Gilani
NEW DELHI: Pakistan and Israel have formed an
unprecedented alliance in playing spoilers in the Indo-US
nuclear deal by demanding “criteria-based
changes” in the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) rules
and waivers similar to the ones extended to India in the
Indo-US nuclear deal.
Tel Aviv sought exemption from NSG rules at the NSG
meeting held last week in Vienna on the sidelines of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting, and
Pakistan - which like Israel and India is not a signatory
to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - is also
demanding supplies of nuclear material for its reactors.
Israeli opposition: Israel’s attitude has baffled
Indian strategists. “We were expecting an opposition
from China and to some extent from some non-proliferation
zealots in Europe at the NSG, but Tel Aviv’s
position has been a setback,” said an official. An
Indian diplomat believed that Israel’s demand might
finally lead to a freeze or abandonment of India’s
nuclear deal with the US.
A document circulated among 45 NSG members by Tel Aviv
demands criteria to serve as the basis for “nuclear
collaboration” between the groups. The criteria
should be aimed, Israel demands, at controlling global
trade in nuclear material and technology, and should
specify conditions for the states that have not signed
the NPT. The document also asks the international
community to cooperate “with non-NPT states with
strong non-proliferation credentials” in the
“supply of know-how and equipment” related to
nuclear matters. Ironically, this is the argument used by
the US to get the NSG to change its rules for India
following the nuclear deal.
Pakistan is currently strongly opposing the deal on the
IAEA board. Experts here believe that even a suggestion
to include Israel in the waivers could cause an eruption
in the Muslim world. Besides Pakistan, currently three
other Muslim countries - Iraq, Morocco and Saudi Arabia -
are members of the IAEA Board of Governors.
Experts’ opinions: Experts here believe that if
Israel’s demands are met, China will push the case
for Pakistan and argue for safeguards for its nuclear
reactors too. They say that in the light of this new
development, NSG countries might like to maintain the
status quo and block India rather than letting Israel and
Pakistan exploit the nuclear deal to seek a backdoor
entry into the nuclear club.
Only last month, Israel announced plans to build a
nuclear power station in the Negev desert, which would
essentially require a deal with the NSG similar to the
one India is seeking.
A report quoting diplomats in Vienna stated that Israelis
had begun examining how their country could benefit from
alternatively:
March 21, 2007
Jacques Delors suggests the creation of a European Energy Community
As Europeans prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the European Union, Jacques Delors, former president of the Commission and father of the Treaty of Maastricht that turned the 'European Community' into a real Union, suggests the EU builds a genuine European Energy Community as a way to overcome the sense of crisis that has kept the continent in its grip for quite a while now.
Money Is the Real
Green Power: The Hoax of Eco-Friendly Nuclear Energy
By Karl Grossman
2/4/2008 -0500,
kgrossman@hamptons.com
Published on Sunday, February 3, 2008 by Extra!
Nuclear advocates in government and the nuclear industry
are engaged in a massive, heavily financed drive to
revive atomic power in the United States (also in the UK,
Europe and elsewhere in the World.JB editor) - with most
of the mainstream media either not questioning or
actually assisting in the promotion.
"With a very few notable exceptions, such as the Los
Angeles Times, the U.S. media have turned the same
sort of blind, uncritical eye on the nuclear industry's
claims that led an earlier generation of Americans to
believe atomic energy would be too cheap to meter,"
comments Michael Mariotte, executive director of the
Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "The
nuclear industry's public relations effort has improved
over the past 50 years."
The New York Times continues to be, as it was a
half-century ago when nuclear technology was first
advanced, a media leader in pushing the technology, which
collapsed in the U.S. with the 1979 Three Mile Island and
1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant accidents. The Times has
showered readers with a variety of pieces advocating a
nuclear revival, all marbled with omissions and untruths.
A lead editorial headlined "The Greening of Nuclear
Power" (5/13/06) opened:
Nukes add to greenhouse?
Parroting a central atomic industry theme these days, the
Times editors declared, "Nuclear energy can replace
fossil-fuel power plants for generating electricity,
reducing the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute
heavily to global warming." As a TV commercial
frequently aired by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),
the nuclear industry trade group, states: "Nuclear
power plants don't emit greenhouses gases, so they
protect our environment."What is left unmentioned by
the NEI, the Times and other mainstream media making this
claim is that the overall "nuclear cycle"
has significant greenhouse gas emissions that contribute
to global warming.
As Michel Lee, chair of the Council on Intelligent Energy
& Conservation Policy, wrote in an (unpublished)
letter to the Times, the dirty secret is that nuclear
power makes a substantial contribution to global warming.
Nuclear power is actually a chain of highly
energy-intensive industrial processes. These include
uranium mining, conversion, enrichment and fabrication of
nuclear fuel; construction and deconstruction of the
massive nuclear facility structures; and the disposition
of high-level nuclear waste.
She included information on "independent studies
that document in detail the extent to which the entire
nuclear cycle generates greenhouse emissions."
Separately, Lee wrote to a Times journalist stating that
the "fiction" that nuclear power does
not contribute to global warming "has been a
prime feature of the nuclear industry's and Bush
administration's PR campaign" that "unfortunately
. . . has been swallowed by a number of New York Times
reporters, op-ed columnists and editors."
Judas
In "The Greening of Nuclear Power," the Times,
like other mainstream media touting a nuclear restart,
also spoke of environmentalists changing their stance on
nuclear power. "Two new leaders" have emerged
"to encourage the building of new nuclear
reactors," according to the editorial. They happen
to be Christine Todd Whitman, George W. Bush's first
Environmental Protection Agency administrator, and Patrick
Moore, "a co-founder of Greenpeace." The
Times heralded this as "the latest sign that nuclear
power is getting a more welcome reception from some
environmentalists."
However, "both Whitman and Moore . . . are being
paid to do so by the Nuclear Energy Institute,"
noted the Center for Media and Democracy's Diane Farsetta
(PRWatch.org, 3/14/07). In her piece "Moore Spin:
Or, How Reporters Learned to Stop Worrying and Love
Nuclear Front Groups," Farsetta also reported:
A Nexis news database search on March 1, 2007
identified 302 news items about nuclear power that cite
Moore since April 2006. Only 37 of those pieces-12
percent of the total-mention his financial relationship
with NEI.Whitman and Moore were hired as part of
NEI's "Clean and Safe Energy Coalition" in
2006, which is "fully funded" by the institute,
Farsetta noted. As for Moore and Greenpeace, his
"association . . . ended in 1986," and he
"has now spent more time working as a PR consultant
to the logging, mining, biotech, nuclear and other
industries . . . than he did as an environmental
activist."
According to Harvey Wasserman, senior advisor to
Greenpeace USA and co-author of Killing Our Own: The
Disaster of America's Experience With Atomic Radiation
(Brattleboro Reformer, 2/24/07), "Moore sailed on
the first Greenpeace campaign, but he did not actually
found the organization." Wasserman went on to cite
an actual founder of the organization, Bob Hunter,
describing Moore as "the Judas of the ecology
movement."
Scarce high-grade fuel
Insisting that "there is good reason to give nuclear
power a fresh look," "The Greening of Nuclear
Power" further claimed, "It can diversify our
sources of energy with a fuel-uranium-that is both
abundant and inexpensive."
This, too, was bogus. The uranium from which fuel used
in nuclear power plants is made-so-called
"high-grade" ore containing substantial amounts
of fissionable uranium-235-is, in fact, not
"abundant." As Andrew Simms of the New
Economics Foundation told BBC News (11/29/05), another
"dirty little secret" of nuclear power is that
"startlingly, there's only a few decades left of
the proven high-grade uranium ore it needs for fuel."
This has been the projection for years.
Indeed, this limit on "high-grade" uranium ore
is why the industry projects that, in the long-term,
nuclear power will need to be based on breeder reactors
running on manmade plutonium (all plutonium is
man-made. It was not present anywhere on this globe until
nuclear facilities produced it, JB editor). But use
of plutonium-fueled reactors has been stymied because
they can explode like atomic bombs-they contain tons of
plutonium fuel, while the first bomb using plutonium,
dropped on Nagasaki, contained 15 pounds. Because it
takes only a few pounds of plutonium to make an atomic
bomb, they also constitute an enormous proliferation
risk.
Blaming Jane Fonda
"The Jane Fonda Effect" (9/16/07), a Times
Magazine column by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt,
blamed nuclear power's stall on the 1979 film The China
Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda, which opened days before
the Three Mile Island partial meltdown.
"Stoked by The China Syndrome," it caused
"widespread panic," wrote Dubner and Levitt,
even though, they maintained, the accident did not
"produce any deaths, injuries or significant
damage."
In fact, the utility that owned Three Mile Island has
for years been quietly paying people whose family members
died, contracted cancer or were otherwise impacted by the
accident. While settlements range up to $1 million, the
utility company continues to insist this does not
acknowledge fault. The toll of Three Mile Island is
chronicled in my television documentary Three Mile Island
Revisited (EnviroVideo, 1993) and Wasserman's book
Killing Our Own (which includes a devastating chapter,
"People Died at Three Mile Island"), among
other works.
But Dubner and Levitt continue undeterred, declaring,
"The big news is that nuclear power may be making a
comeback in the United States." They acknowledge the
Chernobyl accident, stating that it "killed at least
a few dozen people directly." They admit that it
"exposed millions more to radiation," but keep
silent about the consequences of this in terms of illness
and death. This atomic version of Holocaust denial flies
in the face of voluminous research on the disaster that
puts the number of dead in the hundreds of thousands.
"At least 500,000 people-perhaps more-have
already died out of the 2 million people who were
officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in Ukraine,"
said Nikolai Omelyanets, deputy head of the National
Commission for Radiation Protection in Ukraine (Guardian,
3/25/06). Dr. Alexey Yablokov, president of the Center
for Russian Environmental Policy, calculates a death toll
of 300,000. In the book Chernobyl: 20 Years On, which he
co-edited, Yablokov writes, "In 20 years it has
become clear that not tens, hundreds of thousands, but
millions of people in the Northern Hemisphere have
suffered and will suffer from the Chernobyl catastrophe."
The New York Times Magazine also published
"Atomic Balm?" (7/16/06), by Jon Gertner; the
subhead read, "For the first time in decades,
increasing the role of nuclear power in the United States
may be starting to make political, environmental and even
economic sense." Gertner used the term nuclear
"renaissance," and again forwarded the claim
that "the supply [of uranium] is abundant."
Gertner told of how the "lifespan" for nuclear
plants was set at 40 years because this was considered
"how long a large nuclear plant could safely
operate." This has "proved a conservative
estimate," he states-without providing a factual
basis. So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been
"granting 20-year extensions" to the 103
U.S. nuclear plants so they "can run for a total
of 60 years." (Consider the safety and reliability
of 60-year-old cars speeding down highways.)
"Even with such licensing renewals, though, it's
doubtful the current fleet of plants will run for, say,
80 years," he continued, and "that means the
industry, in a way, is in a race against time." It
needs to build new plants because the "absence"
of nuclear power "would probably pose tremendous
challenges for the United States."
The New York Times also allows its nuclear
advocacy to slip into its news stories. In an article
(11/27/07) about the French nuclear power company Areva
signing a deal with a Chinese atomic corporation, Times
reporter John Tagliabue wrote of Areva chief executive
Anne Lauvergeon's "long path from dirty hands to
clean energy." The "dirty hands" referred
to a youthful interest in archaeology; that nuclear power
is "clean energy" appears to require no
explanation.
Another story, datelined Fort Collins, Colorado
(11/19/07), reported on two energy projects proposed for
what the paper calls "a deeply green city."
Describing the plans as "exposing the hard place
that communities like this across the country are likely
to confront," Times reporter Kirk Johnson wrote:
Both projects would do exactly what the city proclaims it
wants, helping to produce zero-carbon energy. But one
involves solar power, and the other is a uranium mine.
Environmentalism and local politics have collided with a
broader ethical and moral debate about the good of the
planet, and whether some places could or should be called
upon to sacrifice for their high-minded goals.
Other revivalists
Other media promoting a nuclear revival-their words
prominently featured on NEI's website-include USA Today
(3/5/06). Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News also joined the
chorus of support (5/2/07)There are a few exceptions in
the mainstream media, notably the other Times, the Los
Angeles Times. "The dream that nuclear power would
turn atomic fission into a force for good rather than
destruction unraveled with the Three Mile Island disaster
in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986," the
paper stated (7/23/07) in an editorial headlined:
"No to Nukes: It's Tempting to Turn to Nuclear
Plants to Combat Climate Change, but Alternatives Are
Safer and Cheaper." Those who claim nuclear power
"must be part of any solution" to global
warming or climate change "make a weak case,"
said the L.A. Times, citing
the enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the
reluctance of investors to fund them, community
opposition and an endless controversy over what to do
with the waste. . . . What's more, there are cleaner,
cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the
risks.
Staggering numbers
As to the risks, the mainstream media's handling-or
non-handling-of the U.S. government's most comprehensive
study on the consequences of a nuclear plant accident is
instructive. Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences
2 (known as CRAC-2) was done by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in the 1980s. Bill Smirnow, an anti-nuclear
activist, has tried for years to interest media in
reporting on it-sending out information about it
continually.
The study estimates the impacts from a meltdown at each
nuclear plant in the U.S. in categories of "peak
early fatalities," "peak early injuries,"
"peak cancer deaths" and "costs [in]
billions." ("Peak" refers to the highest
calculated value-not a "worst case scenario,"
as worse assumptions could have been chosen.) For the
Indian Point 3 plant north of New York City, for example,
the projection is that a meltdown would cause 50,000
"peak early fatalities," 141,000 "peak
early injuries," 13,000 "peak cancer
deaths," and $314 billion in property damage-and
that's based on the dollar's value in 1980, so the cost
today would be nearly $1 trillion. For the Salem 2
nuclear plant in New Jersey, the study projects 100,000
"peak early fatalities," 70,000 "peak
early injuries," 40,000 "peak cancer
deaths," and $155 billion in property damage. The
study provides similarly staggering numbers across the
country.
"I've sent the CRAC-2 material out for years to
media and have never heard a thing," Smirnow told
Extra!:
There's no excuse for this media inattention to such an
important subject, and it shows how they're falling flat
on their faces in not performing their purported mission
of educating and informing the public. Whatever their
reason or reasons for not informing their readers and
listeners, the effect is one of helping the nuclear power
industry and hurting the public. If the public was
informed, this new big pro-nuke push would never happen.
Also in the way of sins of omission is the media silence
on "routine emissions"-the amount of
radioactivity the U.S. government allows to be routinely
released by nuclear plants. "It doesn't take an
accident for a nuclear power plant to release
radioactivity into our air, water and soil," says
Kay Drey of Beyond Nuclear at the Nuclear Policy Research
Institute. "All it takes is the plant's everyday
routine operation, and federal regulations permit these
radioactive releases. Rarely, if ever, is this reported
by media." The radioactive substances regularly
emitted include tritium, krypton and xenon. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission sets a "permissible"
level for these "routine emissions," but, as
Drey states, "permissible does not mean safe."
Hidden subsidies
Another lonely voice amid the media nuclear cheerleaders
is the Las Vegas Sun, which recently has been
especially outraged by $50 billion in loan guarantees
for the nuclear industry to build new nuclear plants
included in the 2007 Energy Bill. The Sun demanded
(8/1/07): "Pull the Plug ."
In reporting on the economics of nuclear power,
mainstream media virtually never mention the many
government subsidies for it, while continuing to claim
that it's "cost-effective" (Augusta Chronicle,
8/21/06). One such giveaway is the
Price-Anderson Act, which shields the nuclear industry
from liability for catastrophic accidents.
Price-Anderson, supposed to be temporary when first
enacted in 1957, has been extended repeatedly and now
limits liability in the event of an accident to $10
billion, despite CRAC-2's projections of consequences far
worse than that.
Writing on CommonDreams.org (9/11/07), Ralph Nader
explored the economic issue. "Taxpayers alert!"
he declared:
The atomic power corporations are beating on the doors in
Washington to make you guarantee their financing for more
giant nuclear plants. They are pouring money and applying
political muscle to Congress for up to $50 billion in
loan guarantees to persuade an uninterested Wall Street
that Uncle Sam will pay for any defaults on industry
construction loans. . . . The atomic power industry does
not give up. Not as long as Uncle Sam can be dragooned to
be its subsidizing, immunizing partner. Ever since the
first of 100 plants opened in 1957, corporate socialism
has fed this insatiable atomic goliath with many types of
subsidies.
Ignored alternatives
Yet another claim by mainstream media in pushing for a
nuclear revival is the "success" of the French
nuclear program. "60 Minutes" (4/8/07) did it
in a segment called "Vive Les Nukes." (See FAIR
Action Alert, 4/18/07.) Correspondent Steve Kroft totally
ignored, Linda Gunter of Beyond Nuclear who told "60
Minutes "of radioactive contamination in the
marine life off Normandy where the French reprocessing
center sits, leukemia clusters in people living along
that coast, and massive demonstrations in French cities
earlier in the year protesting construction of new
nuclear power plants.
The Union of Concerned Scientists was upset by "60
Minutes'" downplaying of alternative energy
technologies such as wind and solar. UCS's Alden Meyer
wrote to 60 Minutes:
In fact, wind power could supply more energy to the
U.S. grid than nuclear does today, and when combined with
a mix of energy efficiency and other renewable energy
sources, could provide a continuous energy supply that
would help us make dramatic reductions in global warming.
Dismissal of renewable energy forms is another major
facet of mainstream media's drive for a nuclear power
revival. But Renewables Are Ready was the title of a 1999
book written by two UCS staffers. Today, they are more
than ready. "Wind is the cheapest form of new
generation now being built," wrote Greenpeace
advisor Wasserman (Free Press, 4/10/07). He pointed to an
"array of wind, solar, bio-fuels, geothermal, ocean
thermal and increased conservation and efficiency."
Wasserman has also written about another element ignored
by most mainstream media (Free Press, 7/9/07): "The
switch to renewables decimates global terrorism. Atomic
reactors are pre-deployed weapons of radioactive mass
destruction. Shutting them down ends the fear of
apocalyptic disaster by both terror and error."
He stressed, again, that safe, clean energy is here and
"we could replace everything with available
technology that could easily supply all our needs while
allowing a sustainable planet to survive and thrive."
The one green thing
What are the causes of the media nuclear
dysfunction? The obvious problem is media ownership.
General Electric, for one, is both a leading nuclear
plant manufacturer and a media mogul, owning NBC and
other outlets. (For years, CBS was owned by Westinghouse;
Westinghouse and GE are the Coke and Pepsi of nuclear
power.) There have been board and financial interlocks
between the media and nuclear industries. There is the
long-held pro-nuclear faith at media such as the New
York Times.
There is also the giant public relations operation-both
corporate, led by the NEI, and government, involving the
Department of Energy and its national nuclear
laboratories. "You have the NEI and the nuclear
industry propagandizing on nuclear power, and journalists
taking down what the industry is saying and not looking
at the veracity of their claims," Greenpeace USA
nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio told Extra!.
And then there's lots of money. FAIR recently
exposed (Action Alert, 8/22/07) how National Public
Radio, which broadcasts many pro-nuclear pieces, has
received hundreds of thousands of dollars from
"nuclear operator Sempra Energy" and
Constellation Energy, "which belongs to Nustart
Energy, a 10-company consortium pushing for new nuclear
power plant construction."
The only thing green about nuclear power is the nuclear
establishment's dollars.
Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the
State University of New York College at Old Westbury.
Books he has written about nuclear technology include
Cover Up: What You ARE NOT Supposed to Know About Nuclear
Power. He has hosted many television programs on nuclear
technology on EnviroVideo.com