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

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Associated Press "hack job" article draws responses

The AP has produced a now widely-disseminated article covering supposed serious failures of the NRC, and implying a highly reduced level of safety of our nuclear generating plants in this country. The article is a masterpiece of shoddy journalism, mentions no names of actual analysts or nuclear experts, and is clearly based on misinterpretation of partial information.

Naturally, the nuclear establishment has a right to respond, and it has.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has responded: See here.

Nuclear Engineering Institute has responded: See here.

Also see the blog roll and link list on this site for various rebuttals of the article.

Given the weight of the response, the AP article falls like a house of cards. As well it should.

6:00 PM Eastern Tuesday June 21, 2011


  1. That collective reponse is well and good, but the slander's done and the public poisoned a little more just because of AP's massive coverage and outlets. The only real way to refute them is to face them toe-to-toe in their own medium else most the unwashed public will be clueless about the truth. The nuclear blogs are great, but we have to be in AP's (a'la Huffington) face on the TV screen to drive home their coy agenda, but they're smug in the fact pro-nukers have no opposite number to them in the mainstream media.

    James Greenidge

  2. Thanks for these links! It's good they address not just the obvious flaws in the AP article (obvious even to me, that is), but also the underlying issues.

    One question:
    Clearly it is easier politically, and cheaper, to maintain an existing nuclear plant than to find a new site, get it approved, and build a new one. Does this introduce a bias against new or replacement builds, where from an engineering and/or safety point of view these would be the better option? Does it not also imply that newer (better, more efficient, inherently safer) reactor designs never get built and the field as a whole does not advance?

    The underlying concern would be that, yes, it is possible to keep maintaining a Ford Model T and you can even add SatNav to it, but beyond a certain point is that not a bit limiting?