nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

2013 nuclear spin failed: get ready for 2014 nuclear spin

In 2013 the pro nuclear spin was all about how “low dose” ionising radiation is OK – “don’t worry about it”. Despite the money spent propagating this lie, – it failed. Fukushima radiation is a greater worry than ever, along with all nuclear industry radiation, and overuse of medical radiation. In February 2013, the Symposium –  Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, at the New York Academy of Medicine. set the scientific facts clearly,and exposed the nuclear lobby’s lies.

In 2014 the spin is about “new generation” reactors, and how they will “fix climate change”. The opening salvo in this propaganda war is the glossy advertising film, Pandora’s Promise.   You wouldn’t know, from this film, how divided and conflicted the nuclear lobby actually is.  The “older style”Generation II reactors are still promoted, Gen’s III and IV (none built yet) are pushed as safer, while Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors (SMRs)  are touted as The Answer. None of them are affordable, but SMRs are the most wildly expensive.renew-world-1

2014 will be all about global spin for tax-payers to buy these small, or large, nuclear white elephants. And yes, an accompanying spin will be the continued attack on renewable energy.  Well – it is free fuel – an intolerable idea! As Dr Helen Caldicott said long ago – “If they could put a blanket around the sun and sell holes, they’d be happy”.

December 28, 2013 - Posted by | Uncategorized

3 Comments »

  1. What exactly are Dr Helen Caldicutt’s qualifications to comment on Nuclear Energy and the effects of nuclear radiation? How do they compare with Dr Bernard Cohen’s qualifications? And please read what Dr Cohen had to say about the lies being told about nuclear radiation. You may have been duped by the self deluding, anti science lobby. Nuclear power is relatively safe: compared, for example, to motor vehicle road transport that has killed 25 million since Chernobyl and reduced the life quality and live expectancy of another 75 million. And you do not seem to see that the relative risk of nuclear power is immensely smaller than all other alternatives. Do the maths.

    Chris Cavanagh's avatar Comment by Chris Cavanagh | December 30, 2013 | Reply

    • I approved the above comment – it is representative of the kind of trashy argument we get all the time,

      Christina Macpherson's avatar Comment by Christina MacPherson | December 30, 2013 | Reply

    • Approved this one – a good example of the kind of trashy arguments that we get all the time,

      Christina Macpherson's avatar Comment by Christina MacPherson | December 30, 2013 | Reply


Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

« Previous | Next »