Google headline news on “Nuclear” – articles are strongly pro nuclear, and for “Small Modular Reactors”, even more so
Today Google headline articles on “nuclear”total 96. As usual, most were pro nuclear articles, many reading like straight out handouts frm the industry. However, unusually this week, the pro nuclear stories tended to cover both large and small nuclar reactors, suggesting the promotion of both types. This is a trend that contrasts with the earlier propaganda of small reactors as the preferable option.
If you tap in “Small Modular Reactors” into Google News Search, today you get 98 headlines. It is interesting that the nuclear lobby prefers to promote these new nuclear fantasy gimmicks by leaving out that word “nuclear”. They know they’re up against the public’s perception of nuclear as something dirty, dangerous and connected to weapons of mass destruction. The public is right, and it will be a marathon public relations battle to overcome that truth.
Anyway, of these 98 articles, 86 were clearly promotional. It must be easier for journalists to just regurgitate slick nuclear industry propaganda,- rather than to do your own research on costs, safety, wastes, carbon emissions in the total set-up and fuel chain, and of course, to research the facts on climate effect.
The remaining 12 articles were either critical of, or dubious about, the viability of small nuclear reactors.
Going back to the “nuclear ” headline news, 68 of the 96 articles concerned “peaceful” nuclear power. And of those 68 articles, 47 were clearly pro nuclear. These pro nuclear articles included 28 that read like industry promotions, with confident sounding predictions about energy security, climate action, reducing costs and so on.
Popular pro nuclear topics were of course climate action, financial benefits, nuclear fusion, hydrogen and space travel. Also mentioned – the role of women, nuclear medicine and human rights benefits (!!) There was little mention of managing nuclear wastes, with just one article wxpressing confidence about this.
There were 8 clearly anti nuclear articles – focussing on costs, politics and radioactive wastes.
There were 13 articles that were “neutral”, with factual information, mainly on politics, and avoiding opinions. These included several on the subject of the assassination of a Iranian nuclear expert.
Articles on nuclear weapons.
Of the 28 stories on nuclear weapons, 14 were opposed, aiming towards arms control, or nuclear disarmament . 9 were factual information, without opinions. 5 were factual discussions, yet pro nuclear in expressing the “need” for nuclear weapons, and some with national pride in them.
1 Comment »
Leave a comment
-
Archives
- December 2025 (249)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


Lol, you think dropping the word ‘nuclear’ from SMR is some sort of brand-new marketing conspiracy? What about LWR, PWR, BWR, PHWE, SFR, and MSR? All of these terms LONG predate SMR, and there’s a clear pattern. There’s actually not a single reactor category of reactor design I can think of that DOES have the word ‘nuclear’ in it, because it’s pretty dang well implied.