Frontline Response

Frontline, a high-quality PBS investigative journal, recently aired a program entitled Nuclear Reaction. It was a masterpiece of pro-nuke propaganda. This letter was sent to PBS's e-mail address less than two hours after the program was shown on WGBH in Boston, on April 27, 1997.


4/27/97

Sam Miller
224 Mast Road No. 9
Durham, New Hampshire 03824
stm@kepler.unh.edu



Dear Frontline,


Your program on April 27, 1997, entitled "Nuclear Reaction," was an appalling whitewash of the Nuclear Reality. It was so full of distortions and lies that I hardly know where to begin...

To name only a few -

1. You claim that only 31 people, some of the volunteer firefighters, were killed as a result of the Chernobyl nuclear accident of 1986. Yet you have completely ignored the claim of the Ukraine Ministry of Health that the real number is more than 130,000!

2. You repeat the claim by the U.S. nuclear industry that nobody has died or been injured as a result of the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. You have completely ignored two important facts here:

   • That the original study was conducted under the supervision of utility lawyers, with the a priori assumption that nobody received a dangerous dose, and

   • The presence of a new, more scientifically accurate study, which finds that thousands of people DID receive a dangerous dose, and WERE sickened as a result. (See Environmental Health Perspectives, January, 1997.)

3. You repeat the claim that coal-burning plants put more radioactive effluent into the environment than nuclear reactors. But the American Physical Society has already published on this (Physics Today - sorry, I don't remember the issue and page number), and found that fossil-fuel burning plants put out only about one percent as much radioactivity as nuclear reactors.

4. You claim that nuclear reactors release "nothing but steam," yet with five minutes of research you would have learned that normally operating nuclear reactors release a plethora of radioisotopes, and, in fact, must file annual reports on the amounts of each isotope released into the air and water with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (See 10 CFR 20.)

5. You state that 20 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by nuclear power. That might have been true several years ago, but the current figure is only 13 percent.

6. You point out that there is as much energy in one gram of plutonium as there is in a ton of oil. How much uranium ore did they have to dig up to get that one gram of plutonium? How much work (energy) did they have to put INTO that ore to get that one gram of plutonium? Did you know that the single reactor fuel processing plant in the U.S. uses, all by itself, three percent of the electricity generated in the entire country? That's a lot of energy! Is nuclear really that efficient when you consider all these other facts?

7. You lament that Americans just seem to have an irrational fear of nuclear power, and an unreasonable distrust of the officials and engineers that run it. But what about:

   • The Thermolag Scandal, wherein industry officials lied for years to cover up the fact that the fireproofing material they used to protect vital electrical control systems in reactors simply didn't work? The fact that this led to Justice Department involvement? That several officials confessed to faking important documentation? That two thirds of the reactors in this country are still using the stuff?

   • The NRC's refusal to enforce its own rules, in the Thermolag and countless other examples, until forced to do so by lawsuits, embarrassment in the national media, or congressional inquisitions?

   • The legal lynchings and outright harassment and threats made against nuclear whistleblowers from within the industry, such George Galatis, an engineer with Northeast Utilities, who brought forth reports of thousands of uncorrected maintenance discrepancies at the Millstone reactors?

   • The premature aging of critical reactor systems in many of the nation's older plants, such as the cracked pipes in the steam generator at Maine Yankee, which could have led to an accident that would have released thousands of gallons of highly radioactive water? What about the industry's PR attempts to ridicule the initial reports (please contact the Union of Concerned Scientists with questions), then minimize, and finally delay as long as possible any repairs? What about the nearly identical goings-on at the Rowe Yankee reactor, except in that occasion it was parts of the reactor vessel itself? And the same pattern again at Connecticut Yankee?

   • The falsified weld x-rays at Seabrook?

   • The faked safety-related computer programs at Wiscasset?

   • The already-leaking, "low-level" radioactive waste dump in Barnwell, South Carolina, where the reactor vessel from the retired Rowe Yankee plant is now bound?

8. You claim that all is well overseas. In France, where you paint a rosy picture, some of the largest anti-nuclear demonstrations anywhere, ever, have taken place. There have been recent scandals in Japan's nuclear program, surrounding the release of radiation from one of its new reactors, the subsequent, inevitable cover-up, and the public firing of the official in charge.

9. About containment: The U.S. nuclear industry has been quick to claim that the Chernobyl-style reactors have no containment. You repeat this claim. It is a lie. The reactor that blew up was capped with a one thousand ton steel and concrete cover. The explosion blew it clear off. It flew up into the air, flipped a 3/4 turn, and jammed itself back in the hole sideways. The hydrogen gas explosion that nearly happened at TMI could well have ruptured that reactor's containment structure.

There's a reason why the majority of people in America want to be rid of our reactors: They are the dangerous product of a corrupt, bankrupt industry that could poison thousands of people through its reckless attempts to recover the money it lost on its nuclear programs, and the blind pursuit of new profits. A U.S. government study found that up to 50,000 people could be killed or injured as a result of a single nuclear accident, and the NRC itself estimated a 50:50 chance that a major nuclear accident could happen within twenty years. Why take such a risk when it isn't necessary? Americans oppose nuclear power because they are reasonable people.

Sam Miller

Back to Propaganda Busters index.

Downwinders' Homepage