Nuclear Energy Targeted In New Book, 'Nukespeak'

What sort of future does nuclear technology have in the United States? The answers to this and other questions form an important part of a new book, "Nukespeak: The Selling of Nuclear Technology from the Manhattan Project to Fukushima."

"Nukespeak," from authors Richard C. Bell and Rory O'Connor, is an updated, 30th anniversary edition of a book the authors first published in the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.

The title, which the authors say is a nod to George Orwell's fictional language Newspeak, refers to the language and mindset of nuclear technology and its supporters in the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first.

In the 30 years since they first authored "Nukespeak," the authors say they have been surprised by how little things have changed. O'Connor told HuffPost a big problem is still the lack of a means of "preventing countries from using their nuclear power programs as a stepping-stone to nuclear weapons."

The authors contend that officials have learned important lessons since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but nuclear power generation remains dangerous because "it is impossible to fully understand and predict the operation of such a complex machine," O'Connor explained.

Following the meltdown earlier this year at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, world opinions toward nuclear power have varied. In Europe, the Czech Republic has decided to step up its nuclear power production, as nearly opposite plans have been made in countries like Germany and Switzerland.

Japanese faith in nuclear power was shaken by the events at Fukushima surrounding the tsunami and earthquake. Last month, tens of thousands of people gathered in central Tokyo "to call on Japan's government to abandon atomic energy," according to the Associated Press.

HuffPost blogger Danielle Brian wrote after August's East Coast earthquake that shook a Virginia nuclear plant, "I do not rest easy thinking that if that earthquake was just somewhat more powerful -- just a few tenths of a percent on the Richter scale -- we might not be laughing about knocked over lawn chairs after the quake."

Despite the realization that America's nuclear power facilities may be more susceptible to earthquake damage than previously thought, "the accident at Fukushima has not cooled the nuclear industry’s claims that nuclear power is a 'clean, green' solution to global warming," Bell said.

The authors argue that the marketplace shares their view that investment in nuclear power infrastructure is "unwise." O'Connor said the nuclear industry is "largely unwilling to invest in new plants without billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees."

The authors, writing in GlobalPost, suggested Obama "let the 'invisible hand' of a skeptical marketplace bury the industry once and for all."

This month, "peaceniks and neocons alike" met in California at the Reagan presidential library to discuss the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons.

More information on Sierra Club Books' "Nukespeak: The Selling of Nuclear Technology from the Manhattan Project to Fukushima" can be found on the book's website or on Amazon.com. The book is now also available in e-book format.

Comments

[EcnelisDoogod]

08:38 PM on 11/05/2011

Wow. I have noticed that there are things we are allowed to see here on HuffPost, and things that never see the light of day. I Googled the "JAPANESE JOURNALIST ACCUSES ISRAEL OF FUKUSHIMA SABOTAGE" with some interesting results.

The urge to censor must be restrained with the interest it will create.

[Joffan]

07:52 PM on 10/28/2011

While I recognize that this article is mostly just a sales pitch for the book, I'm deeply skeptical that an article on HuffPo that promotes nuclear power would be quite as one-sided in its presentation. Where are the countering views? When O'Connor claims that nuclear power is a stepping stone to nuclear weapons, where is the voice that poins out that this has never happened? When he claims that no-one can understand a nuclear power plant fully, there should be a chorus stating that it's perfectly well understood for those who take the time to study it.

As for the hand of the marketplace - a more unlikely ally would be hard to imagine - what investors really worry about is the not-so-invisible hand of government putting yet more selective, expensive and arbitrary barriers in the way of nuclear power, while giving free passes and extra help to competing energy forms.

[Genders]

09:23 PM on 10/31/2011

Truth is often one sided.

[Joffan]

12:16 AM on 11/01/2011

More often propaganda.

[EcnelisDoogod]

09:10 PM on 11/05/2011

Hi Genders,

The truth gets out eventually. Must be our curious nature. Anyway, I did get your comment before it got nixed, and have the copy safely tucked away in my email. See my comment above.

It is as if there are two levels of censorship here. Casual/random and targeted. It's as if there are two levels of reality being guarded. Anyway, thanks for doing your best at enlightenment.

[professor]

10:58 PM on 10/19/2011

Orwellian is when i jut s in power who do not know what they are doing but hope to make some crooked money from it foist the most horrible monstrosity on the world and then poison it forever.

Read the article, tr.s. The pro-nuclears are all crlll ooked. That's what's wrong with it.

[professor]

10:56 PM on 10/19/2011

Tr. proves things with arithmetic. Yeah, that's all you need. Arithmetic. Just put some numbers in and it makes you right.


1 34. 6 8.7 000001. 97859347239239208934750348975982739891782639871034-5690348

See? I'm a genius. I do arithmetic!!!!!!! You must all believe me now.

[Atoms4Peace1]

07:38 AM on 10/20/2011

You are a nothing. Go away you add nothing to the discussion.

[alvdh1]

04:16 PM on 10/20/2011

This is a free and open site for all to particpate in the debate. Since you have joined the chorus of trying to get people to leave a free and open site, perhaps you would consider moving to Russia where they practice your tactics of trying to limit free speech. Afterall, you are for nuclear power poison factories based on the principal of socialism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. Anyone who disagrees with you must go because they add nothing to the debate. Perhaps if you stopped patting yourself on your back and actually engaged in a debate, there could actualy be a debate since every comment that isn't pronuclear adds nothing to the discussion. It sounds like you need to take a civics class and learn about the U.S. constitution.

[professor]

10:55 PM on 10/19/2011

"Climate Change" was a term invented by Frank Luntz, a paid conservative operative, to make something bad sound good. He also coined "death tax" to make something good sound bad.

[Joffan]

01:04 AM on 10/20/2011

When do you think Frank Luntz did this? The IPCC (guess what the CC stands for) was founded in 1988. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

[Genders]

04:24 PM on 10/25/2011

Luntz didn't invent the term, he just though it sounded less threatening than global warming. I think he got it backwards. People I have talked to think a couple of degrees of global warming is great, it's climate change in the form of more violent weather that they fear. People also joke about global warming whenever there is a cold day. But Climate change makes sense whenever we have weird extreme weather. It's why they call it the IPCC, not the IPGW.

[MrBIgp]

07:14 PM on 10/18/2011

The brilliant Alec Baldwin speaks:

"You could put a solar array in the southwest that would cover 30 square miles that would power a quarter of the country"

Amazing that someone so ignorant presumes to lecture the country on energy. 30 square mile of the southwest if you had 25% efficient solar panels with 20 per spacing would produce about 40 billion KWH a year or less the 3% of the electricity we use. And then, only in the daytime; so you would still need a backup storage (more expensive then generating power) or a backup conventional power.

[Atoms4Peace1]

01:44 AM on 10/19/2011

He's an ignoramus. It would take much much more.

[MrBIgp]

01:38 PM on 10/19/2011

The number I gave were extremely generous and theoretical. If I used the practical example of the Nellis AFB solar project, it would take 30 square miles to equal the output of just one GW nuclear plant.

[GeeziePeezie]

11:13 AM on 10/18/2011

Original Nuclear Sin

"In some sort of crude sense, which no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose."

J. Robert Oppenheimer

[Nick Hatch]

12:57 PM on 10/21/2011

Right, so we might as well use it for good then.

[Genders]

09:24 PM on 10/31/2011

That's the fantasy. But nuclear is deadly to the core.

[MrBIgp]

02:42 PM on 10/17/2011

I find the language of the greens far more Orwellian than that of the nuclear industry. The name "denier" is a prime example. Also the change from "global warming" to "climate change" is very Orwellian. I thought "change" was supposed to be good.
Orwell said the real political division was between the authoritarians and the libertarians. The greens are definitely authoritarian.

[Steelheadangler]

02:52 PM on 10/17/2011

I find it ironic that you would believe the right wing media machine without having the least bit of curiosity concerning the validity of your aforementioned statements. The terms "global warming" and "climate change" have been used interchangeably since at least 1957, there wasn't a "change" except in the minds of the wing-nuts. In fact the IPCC was established in 1988, so these Orwellian terms are in your imagination.

http://firstmention.com/globalwarming.aspx

[MrBIgp]

11:03 PM on 10/17/2011

Your link has nothing at all to do with my "aforementioned" statement. How do you know what I believe? Did I mention any right wingers? My observation was that "Climate change" is almost exclusively used today, when just a few years ago the term was "global warming". If the right wingers have noticed that too, it doesn't mean the observation is wrong. This has nothing to do with 1957 or 1988. The purpose of my post was to see if anyone else has noticed the Orwellian nature of the green's language.

[SLS11]

04:58 PM on 10/19/2011

I realize that you and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum in our thinking about nuclear power, but I am going to "favorite" your response to MrBlgp. Thanks for setting him straight.

[Jim NLN]

02:59 PM on 10/17/2011

You cannot hug your children with Nuclear Arms!

[Joffan]

03:42 PM on 10/17/2011

.... or indeed, Conventional Arms. In fact weapons of any kind don't mix well with children.

[MrBIgp]

05:41 PM on 10/17/2011

I am not advocating nuclear weapons,.

[Joffan]

02:17 PM on 10/17/2011

A book that will no doubt sell its confusion of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Already in the limited portion available for preview on Amazon, it's straightforward to see the course beng plotted - that of fear and paranoia, loaded with innuendo and argument-by-adjectives, with numbers only used for bedazzlement and never for illumination.

[Richard Bell 1]

03:00 PM on 10/17/2011

As a co-author of Nukespeak, let me say that there is no "confusion of nuclear weapons and nuclear power" in our book. The confusion lies in believing that we can create a long-lasting global regulatory system to keep the military uses of fissionable materials (uranium and plutonium) separate from the reactor uses. If making such a distinction were easy, there would be no need for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or any of the other unsuccessful efforts to prevent countries from using so-called "peaceful" nuclear programs to create the foundation for nuclear weapons programs. Joffan is correct that there are numbers in the book, but every single number we use is sourced so that readers can check for themselves to see whether we are using such numbers for "bedazzlement and never for illumination."

There are plenty of numbers in the book, and each one of them is carefully

[Joffan]

03:44 PM on 10/17/2011

The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty does not do what you are claiming. It promises help to countries in setting up nuclear power programs in exchange for countries not pursuing nuclear weapons programs. It is the exact inverse of what you attempt to say in this comment.

[niumarmion]

05:24 PM on 10/17/2011

Why are you dimissing nuclear energy as a solution to climate change, at least temporarily until alternative energies are feasible to replace carbon-based enegies? Climate-based consequences are more dire to the planet than nuclear-based consequences, and we are reaching a point of no return with respect to climate change.

[alvdh1]

06:46 PM on 10/17/2011

This coming from a professed nuclear sycophant where facts have little meaning unless they are filled with denial, misrepresentations, half truths and outright lies of the nuclear fanatics.

[Joffan]

08:11 PM on 10/17/2011

I'm not going to try to match you for insults, personal attacks, and vague condemnation. I'm not in your league.

I do wonder who awards such invective a "Fav" though.

[Atoms4Peace1]

10:48 PM on 10/17/2011

you still have no point - why do you even come on here? Your missives are becoming more and more caustic

Its the sign that you are losing the argument, Fukushima is not endangering the planet, and the world moves on with nuclear.

So stew in your juices a little more. It angers you that the technology survived this test.

[GRLCowan]

01:42 PM on 10/17/2011

In the 30 years since they first authored "Nukespeak," the authors have stood by while nuclear power increased about 2.5-fold worldwide. No country in that time, or ever, has used a nuclear power program as a stepping-stone to nuclear weapons, but that 2.5-fold increase -- the BP statistical summary can give you a more precise and accurate number, but 2.5 should be close -- has amounted to many more hundreds of millions of dollars per day, in oil and gas revenue that might have been, being replaced by tens of millions or less.

Not that that was *ever* on their minds. I'm sure no mention of it is in the book, after all.

[Genders]

12:16 AM on 10/18/2011

India.

[Rory O'Connor]

07:51 AM on 10/18/2011

Iran?

[Joffan]

04:17 PM on 10/18/2011

India is probably the closest you'll get. But even there, their nuclear weapons program was not part of or even dependent on their nuclear power development - the two were separate. Simply, the political imperitive for India to have a nuclear weapon to face in China's direction was too compelling.

[Genders]

01:57 PM on 10/18/2011

2 people faved your lie?

"CANDU reactors are the only commercially available nuclear reactors that produce both plutonium and tritium. India's first nuclear explosion in 1974 used plutonium from a heavy water reactor that was a gift from the Canadian government­."
http://www.ccnr.org/india_press.html

The physical connection is simple: The fuel
and by-product of light-water nuclear power
reactors—enriched uranium and plutonium—
can also be used to produce nuclear weapon
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23205/Sagan_Causesof_NuclearWeaponsProliferation.pdf

[Joffan]

04:22 PM on 10/18/2011

Of course, like any good high-pressure salesman, you omit the part of the story that doesn't accord with what you're selling.

The Indian reactor in question was not a power reactor, and was not part of a power reactor program. It was a research reactor, a gift of both Canada (hardware) and the United States (heavy water).

Plutonium from power reactors, especially light-water power reactors, is not suitable for nuclear weapons. It's been tried, even with power reactor fuel that was as close as possible to weapons production standards, and it was still a failure. And uranium enriched for power reactors is also completely useless for weapons.

[Atoms4Peace1]

07:57 AM on 10/20/2011

All nuclear reactions with 235U produce plutonium to a degree. The tricky part is getting it out in a usable fashion. This is not a trivial undertaking and is quite readily detected by the most sophisticated methods. The operative word "can" is mainly theoretical in this case. No LWR spent fuel has EVER been converted to bomb grade plutonium and separated successfully. Its just not technically feasible. It would be better to design special production reactors like at Hanford or Savannah River. The Russians used RBMKs and we all know how that turned out.

[gneep]

12:01 PM on 10/17/2011

A simple minded actor, remembering lines, is not a very good way to make the public aware of the dangers of NUKYALER power. Since when is a drunk's opinion count for anything. (he is high in every other picture I see of him)

[Jim NLN]

03:00 PM on 10/17/2011

It is called ACTING!

[alvdh1]

06:51 PM on 10/17/2011

And what exactly is your claim to fame fella??????????

[Atoms4Peace1]

10:50 PM on 10/17/2011

I won an R&D 100. What have you done?

[Atoms4Peace1]

07:59 AM on 10/20/2011

Winning the R&D 100 flies in your face because you tout green technology and my efforts were in direct relationship to nuclear safety, yet R&D Magazine felt the invention had much wider appeal than just in the nuclear industry. This was what happened with the PostIt Note, and other inventions.

BTW the R&D 100s are called "Oscar of Invention" They are very prestigious and the recognition within ones circles is enough to last a while, until they say "what have you done lately".

[StephenBP]

11:11 AM on 10/17/2011

The nuclear power industry needs to be honest about the various causes of the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima events and show that they have addressed and corrected all known causes of those disasters. Otherwise, they will not be trusted by the public, and will have to strong arm their way to any future growth.

The nuclear industry is suffering the slings and arrows of bad sentiment because of its failures. It would do well to own up to its mistakes, and show that they are not going to happen again. In the mean time, a number of upcoming catastrophes are likely waiting in the wings while investors and plant neighbors hope and pray that their nuke plants end their natural lives before disaster has a chance to stike them. That is not a great way to run things.And if and when they screw up again, it will be that much harder for them to win public support.

When nuclear plant executives are willing to raise their families right next to their own plant, the rest of us might rethink nuclear.

[Joffan]

02:01 PM on 10/17/2011

Most nuclear plant workers - including the management - live close to their plant. Support for nuclear power, even excluding such workers, is high close to existing power plants, and has stayed high even in the inevitable public reaction to the Fukushima crisis.

The nuclear industry is not perfect, for sure. I could wish for a lot of changes to the rules under which corporations operate in general. But many of the "problems" touted in public forums are inflated beyond all recognition.

Facing up to past problems - I actually do think this has happened, and will continue to happen in the case of Fukushima as more details are known of the equece of events.
- Three Mile Island was a case of sloppy working practices being allowed to escalate, combined with poor control design for human use. Nevertheless the outcome was no injuries.
- Chernobyl was (ironically enough) a disastrously-conceived safety test. Completely unnecessary but also totally mishandled, driving the reactor into an operating regime that it simply shouldn't have been near. Almost a deliberately induced explosion, massive direct aerial contamination from the entire reactor core, plus Soviet secrecy and low regard for human life.
- Fukushima was distinct in that the operation of the reactor was not a problem; the massive earthquake/tsunami wrecked the plant in a way that overcame its redundancy for cooldown after shutting down. Nevertheless regulators and operators across the world have scrambled to seek ways to improve their plants' resilience to extreme conditions.

[Steelheadangler]

02:56 PM on 10/17/2011

In all likelihood if the reactors at Fukushima had not been shut down the accident would not have occurred. This is a case when safety protocols backfired.

[desertlabs]

10:51 PM on 10/17/2011

Of course workers and plant management live near reactors. Most people live near where they work. They are convinced that it's safe, or they would not work or live there. That doesn't prove that it's safe. The Industry pumps a lot of money into these communities to convince people that the "benefits", calculated by their scientific equations, outweigh their calculated "risks".

It's curious that every "accident" is explained away as being caused by a unique set of extraordinary events that couldn't possibly Be anticipated by the Industry and therefore could not be factored into their formulas. Come to think of it there is a common thread...human error...including the failure of the Industry to realize they're human too and have made so many arrogant mistakes.

[GRLCowan]

02:04 PM on 10/17/2011

"When nuclear plant executives are willing to raise their families right next to their own plant ..."

I know of one senior reactor operator who is. Is StephenBP aware of any who are not, or is he just lying in a way that is helpful to the fossil fuel interests?

[Genders]

12:19 AM on 10/18/2011

Operator, not executive.

[Atoms4Peace1]

07:00 PM on 10/19/2011

When I was at SONGs, the plant manager lived in one of the most exclusive areas of San Clemente, near Nixon's summer home. I lived in San Clemente as well as many of the local workers. Now a days they cant afford to live near the plant, real estate being the way it was, most of the affordable housing was down near Oceanside.

[Kenz300]

11:02 AM on 10/17/2011

Nuclear energy is too dangerous and too costly.

The disaster at Fukishima is far from over.

It is time to transition to safe, clean alternative energy. The cost of oil, coal and nuclear keep rising while the price of wind and solar are dropping. Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future. The world produces a lot of trash every day. Let's turn that trash into both fuel and energy.

[Atoms4Peace1]

10:52 PM on 10/17/2011

tidal waves are too costly and too dangerous. Its time to transition to a dry land economy where the first 20 miles inland are not inhabited.

LOL!

[Genders]

12:23 AM on 10/18/2011

When will you give up on your old failed nukes? Stop being such a Luddite. Get with the new world. Solar: no moving parts, space age tech. Offshore wind, space age magnets, and composites. Waste bio char bio fuels. Finally closing the waste loop, and ending dumping, and massively carbon negative.

Funny it's nukes that have to be 20 miles inland!

[Genders]

12:20 AM on 10/18/2011

Absolutely! you got it. rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels are the way to go, and already cheaper than nukes.

[Cliff coppen]

07:28 AM on 10/17/2011

It is , a given, that the nuclear industry in the US is now to big to fail. Therefor, we must find and implement accomodations to always guarantee its safe operation
.I think that the federal government must find a perminent solution very soon, for the long term storage of nuclear waste. Plant owners, the government and NRC must stop the license extensions for older plants and establish decommissioning schedules that are in line with the design life cycles.Old, worn out plants must not be allowed to continue operations because there are no provisions for their shutdown(s) The NRC must become separate, non political, non owner influenced in order to control safety. New technology must be persued, like Thorium reactors. It appears that there is little interest currently in order to protect the status quo.which is wrong. New technology that does not utilize fuel rods is the future for the industry and the planet.

[Rory O'Connor]

11:12 AM on 10/17/2011

The best way to ensure that the nuclear industry in the US does not fail is to emulate Germany and get rid of it entirely, replaced by renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency!

[Joffan]

02:36 PM on 10/17/2011

Germany has already switched from being a net exporter of energy to a net importer, by closing its older nuclear plants. That shortfall is being made up - partly in Germany, partly elsewhere - by burning more fossil fuels.

Germany's full phase-out - if it happens, in 2022 - will result in yet more fossil fuel burning. No matter what dreamy goals are set for the heavily- and directly-subsidized harvesting of wind and solar, they will not replace the nuclear output of the start of this year, and ex-Chancellor Shroeder's move to Gazprom (the Russian gas producer) will prove to be hugely significant.

[Malcolm Hensley]

02:57 PM on 10/17/2011

http://economicsnewspaper.com/policy/spain/germany-doubled-its-imports-of-nuclear-energy-from-france-9106.html

Do you think we can convince the French Canadians to build a bunch of nuclear power plants on our border and supply us with electricity and then we can declare we are phasing out nuclear power also?

Seems Germany is assuming the same risks as before without the cost saving benefits!

Well I guess political capitol has it's own value!

[Genders]

12:24 AM on 10/18/2011

Yeah phase out the nukes, but ramp up green energy, it's cheaper, safe, 24/7 in combinations and forever. rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char.

[Malcolm Hensley]

12:08 AM on 10/17/2011

We have energy demand on this planet growing geometrically! We have CO2 growing at the same ratio.

Like it or not the world needs to think in terms of nuclear - maybe we need to rethink how we currently use nuclear - maybe the Navy has a better idea, maybe someone else but this crazy phobias many of us have has got to stop or we need to embrace man-made Climate Change!

[Atoms4Peace1]

03:37 AM on 10/17/2011

Antinukes dont get it - its power density. The most power per acre. Nuclear wins.

[ycplum]

09:35 AM on 10/17/2011

Case in point.
The total commercial solar power produced in teh United States today is in the order of 500 Megawatts.The Indian Pount Nuclear power plant can generate about 2 Gigawatts. Basically, this one nulcear power plant generates 4 time the commercial solar power of the entire country.

Don't get me wrong. I am not anti-solar. I believe it should augment commercial power where it can and it should definately be used to augment private residential homes. However, it it simply not feasible for soalr energy to even come close to a silver bullet that many make solar power to be. The same goes for wind power.

[Genders]

02:01 PM on 10/18/2011

high power density is bad, not good. LOL! Hint: Grid load.

[Rory O'Connor]

11:13 AM on 10/17/2011

Investment in and subsidies for increased energy efficiency will reduce demand!

[alvdh1]

01:49 PM on 10/17/2011

F&F Energy efficiency and energy conservation should be the cornerstone of our nations energy plan. Without them, we are needlessly wasting electrons.

[Joffan]

02:47 PM on 10/17/2011

Well, that's true no matter what method we use for generating electricity, if we're looking at existing electricity use. It still won't be enough to eliminate coal burners though.

The other issue is that we need more electricity, not less, if we are to make any inroads into transport fuels. All serious large carbon cut-back plans show efficiency gains alongside increased electricity requirement.