How the nuclear industry uses its bloggers network to lie to the public

[kristopher]

There is a network of "nuclear bloggers" that work with and are coordinated by the nuclear industry. There is a point person at the nuclear industry lobbying group the "Nuclear Energy Institute:" that is responsible for social media outreach and at nuclear industry conventions the bloggers are invited to attend hosted workshops (promoted and planned by employees of US Dept of Energy Labs) designed to spread the nuclear gospel.

One of those bloggers is "the next big future" where a particularly repugnant and persistent lie has been concocted and has spread in a fashion where it is accepted as a "truth" all around the internet. It purports to be a complete comparison of the rates of death associated with production by the various types of power generation. Here is the website and the chart that represents the authors handicraft::

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl

Coal – USA............................................15
Oil.......................................................36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas............................................4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass.....................................12
Peat.....................................................12
Solar (rooftop).......................................0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind.....................................................0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro....................................................0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao ............1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear................................................... 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Solar: the stats are simply fabrications; numbers made up out of whole cloth by the author of the blog.

Wind: Cumulative deaths per TWh for wind isn't 0.15/TWh. Using the same source cited by the NBF blogger it is clearly 0.07/TWh and has been for several years. The author at nextbigfuture had to go back to the year 2000 to get the 0.15 number. That is simply lying.

Readers can download the spreadsheet themselves: http://wind-works.org/articles/DeathsDatabase.xls
The per TWh tab is labeled "deaths by year". It is also worth reading the "deathsdatabase" tab to see that the nature of the deaths includes everything that could possibly be related.

Similar gimmicks are used to under-report the deaths related to nuclear power. The author's source is available at his site where it is the third graphic of 4; just click any of them for a readable close up:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

Note that the 0.04 quoted for nuclear is strictly "occupational fatalities" even though the more comprehensive number of "public fatalities", right next to it, is 0.65. The author uses a "piublic fatalities" number for wind - that is what Gipe tracks. He also goes to extra effort to use it for coal (see below). So what possible logic can justify choosing the far lower "occupational fatalities" only for nuclear except the deliberate intent to present fraudulent data?

Also, if you go to the Externe analysis and read it you'll find that Chernobyl is excluded from the total. To make up for that the author takes the most conservative estimate available - 50 deaths - and notes it as an aside. See study below for most recent independent and authoritative analysis of the health consequences to date from Chernobyl.

The source nextbigfuture post also makes available an estimate (from Externe E which he used for nuclear) for the coal fuel chain - the range is 0.04-0.23. In order to push that up the author goes to the trouble of finding and incorporating the deaths from particulate pollution associated with coal. It is a commendable effort but it begs the question of either why such diligence wasn't applied across the board or why the direct comparison number from Externe, which was considered accurate for nuclear wasn't used coal? Obviously it is that both are rated at the low end as 0.04 deaths per TWh and that simply wasn't the impression the author was striving to communicate on behalf of the nuclear industry.

In short, this blog entry , and its continued use by nuclear industry proponents that know it is a deliberately crafted lie, is one of the reasons I turned against nuclear power in recent years. If you can't trust them on matters so easy to check, how in the hell can you trust them to promote the public welfare when they are shielded by the secrecy shrouding the technology itself?

Chernobyl study

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

<snip>

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[freshwest]

1. Thanks. An honest discussion of what's important would serve better than these corporate con jobs.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

24. In a perfect world...

But when some people know their deepest desire is not able to be defended with reason and commonsly shared values then they are apt to try and cheat.

[bananas]

2. Great post, thanks for putting it together. nt

[txlibdem]

10. I love this bananas poster but sheesh! Sometimes I wonder if the gears are engaged

Look at the chart! Which power source kills more people?!?

Look at it again if it didn't sink in the first time!

[bananas]

18. I've seen it before, go look at where the numbers come from

I read the ExternE report several years ago, it lists a bunch of things they didn't include in their numbers.

I read the Next Big Future post when it first came out,
there were already reader comments explaining why his numbers were bullshit.

[kristopher]

22. The nuclear indsutry has built a firewall by using the bloggers to tell their lies for them

It is routine. They are the nuclear industry's version of the Heritage Foundation and Rush Limbaugh rolled into one.

[kristopher]

27. Apparently you can't read.

The table is not a valid source of information. I've noticed that doesn't seem to bother you as long as the deliberate inaccuracies favor your beloved nuclear industry.

[kristopher]

21. You're welcome.

I've posted the bits and pieces before but this is the first time I've put them in one thread (OP & post #19).

[intaglio]

3. Thanks for this

Recc'ed back up to 5 - so the naysayers are having a go at your post.

BTW I suggest you send this post off to Climate Denial Crock of the Week, they would love it!

[Downtown Hound]

4. A lot of those bloggers have posted here

especially during the early days of Fukishima. They were the ones telling you that the radiation from Fukishima was no worse than the radiation you got from rocks or trees.

[slay]

5. Oh I remember that

people i had rarely seen post before - or since. Talking about how safe it was - as I recall DU'ers routinely knocked down all their arguments (lies) until it became clear that their BS wasn't being bought here - then quite a drop off in pro-nuke posts. I wouldn't be surprised if MANY corporations/industries engage in this type of shit.

I got in one argument on here a couple years ago with someone about how shitty Windows Vista was and he kept defending it to the point where I asked him if he worked for microsoft. He half-assed denied it at the time and many others called him out on his lies about Vista too. few weeks later Win7 was getting a lot of press and the guy who had been posting pro-Vista propaganda just vanished. Yep.

[madokie]

6. Good post

Simply too many people believe the lie that is nuclear.

rec

ETA: Thanks, Kris for all the work you do in trying to remove the lipstick on that ugly nuclear pig

[FBaggins]

7. Paranoia and conspiracy theories are often found together.

Really two sides of the same coin.

[Wilms]

8. .

:eyes:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute

[txlibdem]

11. Yes, that is proof of true evil

"Sponsoring auto racers" http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute#Clean_Energy_America

It seems as though the Mountain Dew Corporation is an evil organization as well. We MUST begin the fight against their delicious caffeinated beverage today!!!

[Wilms]

13. Cherry picking?

You cooling tower huggers are so entertaining.

[txlibdem]

14. You are referring to the coal power plant cooling towers?

The same ones that have spat out enough Mercury to make all the fish in the majority of American lakes and rivers POISONOUS and INEDIBLE!

Choose your smokestack wisely, my friend. Please check out the risk of death from coal power plants in your area:
http://www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing/

[Wilms]

15. Ah. So now you accuse me of loving coal.

More of the typical tactics.

[txlibdem]

16. No, just a double standard

Look at the recent posts by our resident anti-nuker agenda posters. Then look at the facts and figures about how many deaths are caused by coal, how many by oil, natural gas, and then compare those to the number of deaths by nuclear power.

If you look honestly, you will see that the true enemy of us all are the fossil fuels. But nuclear makes an easier target for zealots (and those with interests in the fossil fuels industry).

[Wilms]

17. Oh please. Why are you tossing words like zealots into this?

And you can't say there is any less protesting against oil, gas, and coal.

[Webster Green]

20. And If you look honestly....

..you will see that the true enemies of us all are the fossil fuels and nuclear.

Renewables are the obvious solution.

[kristopher]

25. Not only are renewables "the solution"

But they are the least cost, quickest and safest solution where a significant part of the cost structure goes to local jobs instead of fuel.

[txlibdem]

12. Seriously. Just think if some poster said the same about Solar power or Wind...

We'd all think they'd gone off the deep end. But this person gets a pat on the back for hyping up some wacked out conspiracy?!?

What will become of the world with such people at the helm.

[kristopher]

19. Supporting Links for OP (sorry for the extreme length)

From the American Nuclear Society Newsletter 2010 Winter Meeting

A gathering of bloggers
An unofficial session was held by nuclear bloggers attending the ANS Winter Meeting. Like the nuclear industry in general, the bloggers wrestle with the problem of getting their messages out to the public.

These bloggers generally are skilled communicators who are passionate about nuclear technology. It shows in the depth of their coverage of industry issues, from Dan Yurman’s piece on the nuclear renaissance and small reactors at his blog site, Idaho Samizdat , to Rod Adams’s article about efficiency improvements and cost- reduction efforts related to uranium enrichment on his Atomic Insights blog, to John Wheeler’s comments on the media’s misinterpretation of a tritium incident at a nuclear power plant in India at his Web site, This Week in Nuclear.

More than 40 people attended the session, which was organized by Yurman, Adams, Wheeler, and the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Dave Bradish, and sponsored by Areva and the Cool Hand Nuke Web site. Using an open-dialogue format, the bloggers and others in attendance shared their experiences in the use of the new social media, including blogs, Twitter, Face- book, and other online tools and services. The discussion touched on issues such as the Department of Energy’s ill-fated Yucca Mountain Project, the DOE’s loan guarantee program, and the rhetoric of antinukes who connect commercial nuclear power to nuclear weapons.

Many attendees commented during the session. Lisa Stiles, project manager of workforce planning for Dominion Resources Services, related a story about how Twitter was used in an effort to frustrate noted antinuclear author Helen Caldicott during a book tour. Stiles related that nuclear engineering students sent out “tweets” about Caldicott’s planned visits to various universities, and students flocked to Caldicott’s appearances to question her about the nuclear misinformation in her book. Eventually, according to Stiles, Caldicott stopped taking questions from the audience during her book tour.

Bradish, a blogger on NEI’s site...

http://www.new.ans.org/pubs/magazines/download/a_677


Sample "experience" for bloggers:

Two Meetups At ANS Winter Meeting - Value of Face to Face Interactions
Rod Adams

Like many people who blog, I use it as a tool to communicate with people who share a common interest, but not a common location. Sometimes, however, there are wonderful opportunities to actually meet people in person with whom you have shared thoughts and ideas for several years. I had just such an opportunity last night - in fact, in a "cup overflowing" kind of way, I had two such opportunities.

The first event was a gathering of nuclear bloggers, micro-bloggers, podcasters, and even a few lurkers who read a lot of what the rest of us continue to produce. Dan Yurman of Idaho Samizdat (BTW, Dan, will you be changing the name of your blog when you make that move?) was the primary spark with the idea, but Jarret Adams of Areva Blog, David Bradish of NEI Nuclear Notes, and John Wheeler of This Week In Nuclear jumped in and worked together to make it all happen. (I am sure that there were others who made sure that the food showed up on time, that the room was arranged, and that the posters were prominently displayed. I apologize if I have forgotten to provide credit where it is due, but that is why I have comments enabled here.)

A good time was had by all, the conversation was lively, and renewed sense of fellowship was reinforced. We have a strong foundation of knowledge that we are learning to share with others in a way that makes our technology more accessible and understandable.

...Finally, on my way back through the hotel lobby to my car, I ran into an friend that I have known for years - ever since she invited me to speak to a group of nuclear engineering students at Penn State in the mid 1990s. Madeline told me to check out the recent press release from her organization that detailed the successful results from advanced gas reactor fuel testing....

http://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/34417/two-meetups-ans-winter-meeting-value-face-face-interactions

Madeline's link identifies her as
AGR TRISO Fuels Contact:
Dr. Madeline Anne Feltus (NE-33)
madeline.feltus at nuclear.energy.gov


Blogger side organizer:

Nuclear Bloggers achieve critical mass at ANS Atlanta (2009)

...There was a peak experience at the annual conference of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) this week (June 14-18, 2009). In a first-of-a-kind meeting Rod Adams from Atomic Insights, John Wheeler from This Week in Nuclear, Kirk Sorensen from Energy from Thorium, and Dan Yurman from Idaho Samizdat met in person and conducted a free-wheeling three-hour long panel titled “Communications in the New Media.” This is an exclusive report to the Energy Collective with highlights from the panel discussion.
It was organized by Dave Pointer, a nuclear scientist from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) with help from Candace Davison, Penn State, Laura Scheele, ANS, and Laura Hermann, Potomac Communications Group. Ms. Davison moderated the session.

http://theenergycollective.com/djysrv/31012/nuclear-bloggers-achieve-critical-mass-ans-atlanta


Potomac Communications Group (credited with helping to organize meetings with bloggers. rep: Laura Hermann)

List of clients:
Corporations
AREVA Enterprises, Inc.
Butterball
BWX Technologies, Inc.
Constellation Energy
Entergy
Enterra Solutions, LLC
Intellectual Ventures
Lafarge North America
National Grid
Northeast Utilities
Pepco
Progress Energy
Southern California Edison
UniStar Nuclear
USEC Inc.
Washington Group International

Associations/Societies
Alliance for Competitive Taxation
AMT-The Association for Manufacturing Technology
American Institute of Building Design
American Occupational Therapy Association
American Petroleum Institute
American Physical Society
American Society of Microbiology
Circuits and Systems Society of IEEE
COMMON: A Users Group
Components, Packaging and Manufacturing
Technology Society of IEEE
Construction Specifications Institute
Direct Selling Association
Edison Electric Institute
Envelope Manufacturers Association Foundation
Industrial Research Institute
International Association of Forensic Nurses
International Tax Policy Forum
National Fenestration Rating Council
National Mining Association
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
Nuclear Energy Institute
Steel Shipping Container Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
Government Agencies
NASA
National Energy Technology Laboratory
Navy Seals
US Army
US Coast Guard
US Department of Commerce
US Department of Energy
US Department of Transportation

Science & Education
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Aspen Institute
DC Children First
Fight for Children
George Washington University
Idaho National Laboratory
National Academy of Engineering
National Science Foundation
Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (Japan)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Washington Scholarship Fund

Cultural and Charitable
Asian Pacific American Film Festival
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Historical Society of Washington
Open Circle Theatre
Washington Shakespeare Company
Washington Theater Review

http://pcgpr.com/clients.html


And Laura Hermann?

Potomac Communications Group Adds Laura Hermann for Energy/Technology Practice
WASHINGTON, January 17 - Potomac Communications Group, Inc. has strengthened its energy and technology communications practice with the addition of Laura Hermann, who until recently managed public outreach functions for the American Nuclear Society at its headquarters in Illinois.
Hermann also has experience in strategic communications planning and stakeholder outreach with educational and nonprofit organizations, including the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago and a boutique public relations firm specializing in grassroots development. She has also been an adjunct instructor and guest lecturer in the Undergraduate Leadership Program at Northwestern University. She joins PCG as a strategic communications program director...

Download full press release http://www.pcgpr.com/graphics/HermannRelease.pdf

ANS Social Media Meet Up June 28 (2011)
A meet-up of anyone attending the ANS National meeting in Florida June 26-30 who is interested in the use of social media in the nuclear industry will be held Tuesday June 28th, from 6:30-9:00 PM in Rm 307 at the Westin Diplomat hotel in Hollywood, FL. This is the conference hotel for the ANS meeting.
Conference registration information here
http://www.new.ans.org/meetings/c_1

The ANS Public Information Committee is the official host of the social media meet up.

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/search?q=ANS+Winter+Meeting

Social Media Meet Up November 1 at ANS Winter Conference
A meet-up of people attending the ANS Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, interested in the use of social media in the nuclear industry will be held Tuesday, November 1st from 6:30-8:30 PM in the Congressional “A” meeting room at the Omni Shoreham hotel. This is the conference hotel for the ANS meeting. (Google Map) (Red Line: Woodley Park-Zoo)
The ANS Public Information Committee is the official host of the social media meet up. There is no registration or cost to attend the social media meeting, which takes place after hours of the regular ANS conference sessions. Food and beverages will be available.

Sponsors

This conference social media meeting is made possible by the generous support of our sponsors.
· AREVA North America
· Nuclear Energy Institute

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/search?q=ANS+Winter+Meeting

American Nuclear Society Organizer

American Nuclear Society
Home / About / Committees / Public Information Committee

Committee Chair: W. David Pointer

http://www.new.ans.org/about/committees/pic/

David Pointer
Manager, Engineering Simulations Section at Argonne National Laboratory
Greater Chicago Area | Research
Current: Manager, Engineering Simulations Section at Argonne National Laboratory, Principal Nuclear Engineer at Argonne National Laboratory
Past: Guest Graduate Appointment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory

From Linked In

[bananas]

26. The nuclear industry has a long history of "astro-turfing"

Back when I worked in DC in the 70s-80s,
some of my friends and colleagues mentioned weird encounters with nuclear evangelists,
eventually I had weird encounters with these nuclear evangelists myself.

And when I say "nuclear evangelist", I mean that is the impression they left on me, my friends, and colleagues.
These nuclear evangelists seemed like whacked-out religious nutcases.

We discovered that apparently the nuclear industry was hiring people to act as "man-in-the-street" promoters of nuclear energy.

They would strike up awkward conversations on the subway, at cab stops, diners, etc,
but it kind of backfired,
the most common interpretation was that they were weird cultists like Hare' Krsna' or Charlie' Manson',
people you're not sure if you should just avoid them or notify the authorities,
either way they were people you couldn't trust.

[kristopher]

28. All around the world in every social media they can find to exploit.

[kristopher]

33. Another case of it in Japan...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x317474

[bvar22]

23. They're Heeeeeeeeaaaarrrr.

Recced back UP to +5.

This is information some people at DU don't want YOU to know.



Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[pscot]

29. This debate makes me tired

Nuclear may be problematic but it is really peripheral to the central issue, which is global climate change caused by burning fossil fuels. If we don't act very soon, the survivors of the ecological holocaust we're facing are not likely to be overly concerned about ambient localized radioactivity.

[kristopher]

30. Good way to make a decision!!

Let's lock in a core technology that has massive negative social and environmental implications for the next 100+ years because you're "tired" of the debate.

Portraying the choice as one that has to either 1) include nuclear or 2) not be the *most effective* way to address climate change, could not be more false.

[pscot]

31. Unless we act very soon on CO2

What we do or don't do about nuclear power won't matter. It is peripheral; irrelevant; not germane. You're looking a dead horse up the ass.

[kristopher]

32. How is that supposed to make any sense at all?

Are you saying that there is no other problem that humans are allowed to consider until and after we address global warming?

Presuming that is true (a huge and unrealistic presumption) that stll leaves the FACT that nuclear is no more a solution to climate change than is coal with carbon capture. If your position is as you say you would be right beside me hammering on the need to make a complete break with centralized thermal generation and a 100% commitment to building a global, fully renewable, sustainable noncarbon energy infrastructure instead of yammering on trying to make it sound like the present system is just fine if we'd just make it a little bigger.