15 Comments

  1. Chuckling here. Fox news ain’t doing ya any favors. Sitting in a local eatery having breakfast, Fox news on all 3 TVs. Breaking news story is about “Energy Dept. report that claims our electric grid is in serious danger of cyber attack”. What the visual accompanying the headline? Why, an NPP cooling tower, of course.

    News flash…..BOO!!!! Those nasty cyber terrorists are gonna irradiate ya!!!

    So why would they pick an NPP to drive home the fear? Because they know its a fear, a resource, they have already sown and nurtured, and the easiest, and most powerful, fear to exploit.

    The nurturing of radiation fear works for “them” on multiple levels. It helps rationalize an endless war against those allegedly creating those nasty dirty bombs in your local mosque. It allows the extended and soon to be massively deregulated use of fossil fuels to protect us fom the radiation boogie man. And it helps close NPPs, so that the NG suppliers can get fatter and fatter, at our environment’s expense.

    I can just see Pruitt and Perry, nodding their heads, and watching this report, as their brains hear the echo of a comforting sound…..

    “Ka Ching! Ka Ching!!”

  2. @poa

    Are you sure it was a cooling tower associated with a nuclear plant?

    Perhaps you, like a large portion of the country, associates hyperbolic cooling towers with nuclear because of TMI imagery. Ever wonder why the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre plants in your home state looked so different from conventional images of nuclear plants?

    Have a look at the Crystal River power station. Neither of the cooling towers was used for Unit 3, which was the only nuclear unit on a 5 unit site.

    http://2262-presscdn-27-11.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Crystal_River_Power_Station.jpg

  3. I have seen a lignite combined heat and power plant with a hyperbolic cooing tower in Brno, Czech Republic.

  4. “Perhaps you, like a large portion of the country,….”

    Yep.

    Thanks for underscoring my point.

  5. @David B. Benson

    It’s hard to tell if you are being supportive or dismissive.

    It’s not exactly “an author”, but a team of three rather well-experienced, respected, credentialed subject matter experts that have published a peer reviewed paper in a high quality journal for other professionals in the field to read.

    The conclusions of the paper are certainly no surprise; they have been known to be true among a rather large segment of the people working in the area for decades. The fact that they were published in such an established journal and that the journal editor thought the paper was important enough to issue a press release about that particular section of an issue does surprise me just a little bit.

    On the other hand, I’ve often said that “reality bats last” and believe that the truth will eventually win over even when the “Big Lie” has been firmly entrenched, continues to serve the interests of powerful people and is staunchly defended by its propagators.

  6. Trying to be helpful. Wade Alison’s book was enough to convince me. Well, together with a paper from a researcher at LLNL on DNA repair mechanisms.

    This is more evidence that the regulatory requirements for ionizing radiation are based on a falsehood.

  7. I thought Congress controlled the purse.
    If Congress explicitly funded the Low Dose program,
    how can DOE switch the money to other stuff?

  8. Indeed.

    My understanding is that people can go to prison for such things.  In this case, everyone involved ought to.  Their confiscated assets and forfeited pensions should be used to re-assemble the body of expertise they so maliciously destroyed.

  9. I thought Congress controlled the purse.

    They do, and that’s why this is so important. Congress can’t use the purse effectively unless they have honest information to go on.

    All of this controversy centers around a briefing for Congressional staff members related to a House bill that would have funded further research into the effects of low-dose and low-dose-rate exposure to radiation. Naturally, as head of the LDRPP, Dr. Metting presented on her program at this briefing.

    Dr. Metting’s superiors told her essentially to lie in this briefing, or at the very least, not tell the staffers all of the truth (which would be considered the same thing as lying, if under oath). When she did not follow their orders and presented what she believed was the truth, they fired her.

    The DOE was not switching money; they were trying to influence where the money goes by lying to Congress. Then they ended up punishing an employee who decided to tell the truth.

  10. Thanks for the explanation. Seems like the DOE
    tactics worked despite Metting’s courage. The
    next question is why?

  11. @Jack Devanney

    That is one of the big questions I’m seeking to answer in my coming piece. Another one is “who”.

    As a former “faceless bureaucrat”, I believe that naming names is one of the ways to improve on our current government processes and make them more about serving the people who are supposed to own the government.

    I’m a bit of an idealist re: “Government by the people, for the people”

  12. I wonder if Weatherfax pointed out that
    biofuels are radioactive, gas and oil far
    less so. So we kill the low dose program
    because it does not support LNT
    and switch the money to a program
    that according to LNT is going to kill
    people. Tough to be idealistic about
    such a government.

  13. @Jack Devanney

    In this case, it looks like the specific direction from Congress to fund the program included language describing it as a “10-year” program. That period ended in 2009 or 2010, depending on whether or not you count the first year of organizational funding, which was a substantially smaller annual amount before research grants were awarded.

    The sponsor of that specific legislation, Pete Domenici, was no longer in office and was not there to protect the funding. DOE began the efffort to defund the LDRRP by realigning the program and putting it under Biological and Environmental Research.

    https://atomicinsights.com/low-dose-radiation-research-program-defunded-2011/

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Nuclear advocacy opportunity in Vermont – November 30

    This is a Public Service Announcement. November 30 Film and Panel at the Gund Institute The Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute has two members of our Board of Advisors on the panel at an event sponsored by the Gund Institute at University of Vermont (UVM). The film and panel start at 4…

  • Virtual silence at “Golden Fleece” award news conference for SMRs

    Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) trace their heritage to William Proxmire, a senator famous for his “Golden Fleece” awards for wasteful government spending. Yesterday, the organization held a press conference to announce that they had decided to award a Golden Fleece to the US Department of Energy SMR (small modular reactor) program. The press release…

  • The Atomic Show #127 – New Nuclear Plant Public Meetings

    On February 3, 2009, I attended a public meeting regarding the future construction of North Anna Unit 3. Several of the people who attended that meeting gathered via Skype last night to share notes. I will add some more notes to this post later today, but now it is time to get ready for my…

  • Hearing on Jaczko’s leadership at Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    I have spent the past several hours viewing and clipping highlights from an extraordinary hearing conducted yesterday by the House Oversight Committed on “Leadership at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission”. If you want a similar experience, you can find the complete hearing video – of both panels – at http://youtu.be/qEduKirfpTY. In the next several days, I…

  • Richard Lester’s “A Roadmap for U.S. Nuclear Energy Innovation”

    Dr. Richard Lester, the Japan Steel Industry Professor and Associate Provost for International Activities at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), published a thought and discussion provoking piece titled A Roadmap for U.S. Nuclear Energy Innovation in the Winter 2016 edition of Issues in Science and Technology, the quarterly policy journal of the National Academy…