APR: your source for nuclear news and analysis since April 16, 2010

Monday, September 12, 2011

The Rabid Media - and the Marcoule incident

From time to time, I like to do the sort of thing you're about to see me do. I always thank Fintan Dunne for putting me on to this. Let's go!

First, look at the headline of the following article:

"What You Need to Know About the Nuclear Explosion In France."

There was no nuclear explosion in France. There was an industrial accident involving a furnace used to melt contaminated metal parts together into ingots for disposal. While this could involve, say, a fossil fuel explosion there isn't even a nuclear reactor in the facility in question.. and even THEN, there could not be a nuclear explosion because reactors cannot explode like nuclear weapons. So this has to be one of the most highly exaggerated headlines yet.

Here is just a horrible headline, and an even worse article:

France aims to limit fallout from nuclear accident.

Where shall I begin?

-Clever use of the word "fallout" hints at radioactive fallout, but they really mean public reaction to the event.

-Note the use of the different serious scary words such as "blast" and "blown up."

-See the implication that the press has learned from anti-nuclear Fukushima press hack media guidelines vis a vis age of sites in this article when it mentions that this is one of the oldest nuclear sites in France. This is one of their new hot button things - age.

-Note how the article ends with "hasn't learned the lessons of Fukushima." Yes, well, lessons learned from one of the most massive natural disasters in modern times and how that relates to GE-Toshiba-Hitachi boiling water reactors in Mk I containment buildings really has little to do with an explosion and fire in and around a furnace that melts steel.

"Blast rocks nuclear plant in France."

It's not a nuclear plant. It's a waste processing facility. Can't we get a handle on the differences here, media? Please? What, do I need to issue you all a media guide? Nuclear energy 101, maybe I'll call it. By the way - don't even bother reading the article actually linked above because it's almost perfect in its incorrectness from front to back, top to bottom. It's a masterpiece of total inaccuracy.

"Jitters after nuclear accident in France."

The Voice of Russia here makes it clear that they, and perhaps many others in Russia wish that something worse than Chernobyl would happen so that the spotlight is off them, and so that there's a new yardstick of "bad." Think I'm kidding? Read the last paragraph of this article twice slowly and you'll begin to realize I'm not.

I could go on and on like this, but I'd like you to compare all the articles you'll see in the blog roll on this site, and this site's own articles on the subject, with the various major media articles you have seen above on this post. The comparison - and the intent to scare and misinform by the major media - could not be more clear.

4:35 PM Eastern Monday September 12, 2011


  1. Excellent brief and report! Wish it was mainstream!

    But really, down to brass tacks, just why does it appear that the general media "has it in" for anything nuclear?? How can nuclear energy ever get an even break??

    James Greenidge

  2. So sad, yet so true. Thanks for reinforcing what was obvious to even casual observers: (1) Not a nuclear power plant (2) no nuclear fuel was involved (3) no radioactive material was released

  3. I wanted to comment on the third headline. "Blast rocks nuclear plant in France". Ahhhh..... you do recognize that was rt.com, same as RT TV. Paid for by the Russian government to tell the "truth" about the west. The point is that rt.com and RT TV are held to a different standard than the other sources you quoted.

  4. @pentek: Yes, I'm fully aware of who that was. I watch RTTV from time to time.