Public Opinon & Nuclear Project --Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Asbury Park Press on Mangano's press conference

Thu Jun 21 15:31:40 CDT 2007

Stewart,
You and I have been on this list for many years.  Do
you think that seeing the same issues being posted
over and over again has changed anything.

I do not think the public is ill-informed.  They just
do not care about issues that are posted on this list.
 Some on the list get all excited about DU, tritium in
ground water, etc.  And the same "facts" are repeated
over and over again.  How often have you commented on
Cs-137?  Has it changed anything?  Does it silence the
criticisms about nuclear power, fallout, etc.?

When you say that the AFDC was banned by the New
Hampshire PUC, was that only for the Seabrook Plant? 
Were other, cheaper construction programs such as coal
plants also affected, or could they finance their way
through completion.  Of course it was short cited, but
what else is new in the world of politics.  

You may think that I am short sighted, but I think I
am realistic.  Nuclear power will be a part of the
energy mix in the future.  How much will depend on the
economics, not the postings on this list server.

--- stewart farber <radproject at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> John,
> 
> I honestly find it hard to believe how short sighted
> your view is on the 
> effect of ill-informed public opinion.  Just what do
> you think drives the 
> "economics" of nuclear energy??
> 
> As was the case throughout the 1980s and forward, 
> nuclear plant after plant 
> was delayed [or 100 or so simply cancelled]  by
> demonstrations and public 
> opposition which influenced Public Utility
> Commissions [PUCs] in ways that 
> killed or vastly increased the cost of many nuclear
> energy projects.
> 
> Once case in point with which I am personally
> familiar: Seabrook Station. 
> Public pressure and blind legislative opposition
> responding to public 
> pressure forced the PUC to ban what is called
> Allowance for Funds During 
> Construction [AFDC]. AFDC has been traditionally
> used, and allowed by the 
> PUC of  almost all States on large capital projects,
> to include the cost of 
> new generating or service capacity in the rate base
> for a given utility as 
> it built a new nuclear plant. AFDC kept costs down
> so the capital cost 
> didn't increase as interest was charged on capital
> expenditures as a plant 
> was built, and interest was charged on interest over
> a long period of time. 
> Kind of like not paying down your credit card
> balance month by monthy, 
> while you are getting hit with high monthly interest
> charges for money 
> spent. A sure path to bankruptcy.
> 
> When AFDC was banned by the New Hampshire PUC,  the
> lead utility had to pay 
> interest on interest as the plant was delayed.  The
> two units planned at 
> Seabrook was cut back to one.  Public pressure
> forced and permitted the 
> Governor of Massachusetts at the time [Michael
> Dukakis -ah yes the Democrats 
> standard bearer in 1988] who wanted to do nothing
> more than please the 
> anti-nuclear electorate in Massachusetts at the
> time,  to exercise a pocket 
> veto on the licensing of Seabrook by ordering his
> State agencies not to 
> cooperate in Emergency planning because the 10 mile
> EPZ overlapped into 
> Massachusetts.
> 
> [Insert:  It was at that time during the general
> election of 1988, I wrote a 
> widely published satire about the health hazards of
> "Strepdukakis 
> antinucleosis" --but that's a story for another day.
> I was also invited 
> during the election to give a talk to the New
> England chapter of the ANS in 
> late 1988 which I titled: "Nuclear Energy and Public
> Information --Suicide 
> on the Installment Plan"].
> 
> In short order, the lead utility Public Service
> Company of NH went bankrupt 
> and the one unit built ended up with a cost overrun
> of about 8 fold, delayed 
> about 10 years during construction.
> 
> Seabrook was delayed for year after year, and the
> plant cost increased as 
> interest was charged on interest as the capital cost
> spiraled upward.  All 
> of this was made possible by ill-informed public
> opinion which did not 
> understand the issues [and the utilities involved
> had done an abysmal job of 
> influencing], and public pressure on PUCs, on
> legislators, on decision 
> makers of all  sorts.  Public opinion doesn't matter
> on nuclear projects?? 
> Ludicrous and foolish to think so.
> 
> After all the fiascos with delays in licensing that
> they could not control, 
> uitilities were afraid to propose or build any new
> nuclear generating 
> capacity because as was said: "you bet your
> company".  Since the late 1980s, 
> the US has gotten by with building more and more
> coal fired electric plants 
> and countless gas fired peaking stations to meet
> growing demand, with gas 
> units now operating as baseload at very high
> generating cost. What a fiasco 
> all contributing to more greenhouse gas emissions to
> meet US power needs.
> 
> I believe we should all defer to the wisdom of
> Abraham Lincoln about the 
> influence and power of public relations and public
> opinion:
> 
> "With public sentiment, noting can fail; without it,
> nothing can succeed. 
> Consequently, he who molds public sentiment goes
> deeper that he who enacts 
> statutes or pronounces decisions."
> ----Abraham Lincoln, July 31, 1858
> 
> One does not need a scientific "study" to see the
> influence of puclic 
> opinion on regulators, legislators, and the course
> and cost of private 
> projects.
> 
> In the 1970s in another famous example of the power
> of public opinion, the 
> FDA banned the sweetener saccharine.  The public
> furor was so vehement, that 
> the FDA quickly backed off from its ban based on the
> Delaney clause, and put 
> a simple warning on the packets. Without public
> opinion against the FDA 
> position, the FDA would NEVER have reversed itself.
> Public opinion doesn't 
> matter on technical and societal decision making?
> Nonsense.
> 
> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
> Consulting Scientist
> [203] 441-8433 [office]
> [203] 522-2817 [cell]
> email: radproject at sbcglobal.net
> ============================
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
> To: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at cox.net>; "'Franz
> "Schönhofer'"" 
> <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>; "'Bjorn Cedervall'" 
> <bcradsafers at hotmail.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:09 PM
> Subject: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] Asbury Park Press on
> Mangano's press conference
> 
> 
> > Sandy,
> > There have been many studies that show that DU,
> Sr-90,
> > H-3, etc. are not causes of breast cancer, brain
> > tumors, leukemia, etc.  Sadly, these studies will
> not
> > stop those who believe that radiation and nuclear
> > power is terrible.  They wander off and have
> another
> > news conference in Trenton, Chicago, etc.  And
> every
> > time they do, someone post the information on
> RadSafe,
> > and we all whine about it.  Nothing changes, or
> have
> > you not noticed that?
> >
> > If the public is so influenced by these groups,
> how
> > come we are talking about new nuclear plants.  Of
> > course, you cannot cite a specific example,
> because I
> > doubt any exist.  The failure of nuclear power in
> the
> > 1970s and 1980s was due to economics.  Companies
> > grossly underestimated the cost of new plants, but
> > hopefully lessons were learned.  I guess that the
> fact
> > that new applications are coming before the NRC.
> >
> > I just you give too much influence to groups who,
> > after 10 to 15 years, have demonstrated little of
> that
> > influence.
> >
> 
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
“All men dream, but not equally. Some dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds and wake in the day to find it is vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible.”
Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T. E. Lawrence

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? 
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/