Nuclear Resources

This section will give you an extensive look at nuclear power related resources on the web. This page is still under construction.

Nuclear Bias

What do we mean when we label the nuclear industry as biased? This is rather simple. Whether it is your job, or interest to promote an issue, you are biased. Proponents of nuclear fission, have used sophisticated tactics with a less than sophisticated public, implying that only opponents of nuclear power are biased. For example, nearly all media coverage labels industry spokespeople as experts, while labeling scientists who speak out critically as "anti-nuclear opponents".

Media bias for nuclear power is extreme. For example, General Electric, the largest nuclear development company in the U.S. also owns NBC. NBC has pulled controversial programs off the air that criticized nuclear safety issues. The only regularly aired commercial program to ever have a negative bias towards nuclear power on american TV is the Bart Simpson program.

Bias Levels: (X=Extreme)(H=High) (M=moderate)

It is impossible to find unbiassed views about nuclear power issues. Most government agencies that have been set up to regulate the industry are also its most powerful ally in protecting its survival. These agencies are revolving doors for nuclear industry personel.

Opponents have amassed huge histories of corruption by government agencies that have hidden information from the public to protect the industry. If you as an individual killed or injured another person, you would be prosecuted, possibly put to death. Yet safety standards that have resulted in death or environmental disasters costing billions result in petty fines. There has never been a nuclear industry individual put to death or given penalties anywhere near the same kind of punishment citizens receive. In fact, we are still living under the cold war dictate of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, that places the development of nuclear weapons and power as the U.S. government's highest priority goal!

Most educational institutions that are involved with nuclear technology obtain funding and resources from the nuclear industry and are also highly biased.

This is not to say that there are individuals who aren't biased. For example, a top plasma physicist at UCLA stated that he felt the development of fission technology to be a mistake.

An example of the tactical bias built into agencies was the Diablo Canyon Safety Committee set up by California as part of the final rate settlement for the reactors. The process of selection for the committee makes it impossible for an opponent of the reactors to ever sit on this committee. This same built in bias against opponents has been in place for 40 years at every level of government oversite.

When President Clinton first came into office, he appointed several anti-nuclear activists to top positions in the Department of Energy for the first time ever. With the cold war over, there was a push to clean up the contaminated sites, deal with health impacts to the public and thousands of workers, and open up the DOE's Top Secret crimes. A campaign to close the DOE, handing all of its nuclear weapons related activities to the Pentagon, where secrets could be protected from the public barely failed. By the end of Clinton's first term, the hysterical tirade of nuclear insiders had all but reversed the push to clean house.

Anyone who has spent a decent amount of time investigating nuclear power issues can describe the extreme bias and priveledges nuclear proponents have. Its usually buried nicely under seemingly rational arguements. They have received billions in federal funding, which without they would not exist.