PBS Frontline Broadcast on Nuclear Power

[Judd Sills <sillsj@GAT.COM>]

Last week, someone (and I apologize for not remembering who
was the kind soul that forwarded the information on this to
us on RADSAFE) posted information to inform us about the upcoming
April 22nd broadcast of a PBS Frontline program that was
to analyze the accuracy of public impression of the relative
safety of the nuclear power industry to other well accepted
risks.  There was some interest sparked in this upcoming
presentation, so I thought that the group may be interested
in the following news article regarding anti-nuclear activist
actions to try to stop the program.

Best regards
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-nuclear activists mobilize against Frontline documentary

Originally published in Current, March 31, 1997 

By Karen Everhart Bedford 

Environmentalists and consumer groups are objecting to an upcoming 
Frontline documentary that suggests irrational public fear has driven 
America's rejection of nuclear power. 

Reacting to Frontline's press release for the April 22 [1997] broadcast, 
anti-nuclear groups have gone public with their complaints about 
"Nuclear Reactions," which they characterize as "unbalanced, 
retrogressive, inaccurate and misleading," according to a press advisory 
to be released on March 31. 

"The world has changed and Frontline has held on to some antiquated 
freeze-frame," said Scott Denman, executive director of Washington-based 
Safe Energy Communications Council, one of five organizations signing 
the press release. He said PBS was doing "a tremendous disservice" by 
spending an hour of primetime "rehashing irrelevant irrelevancies" and 
not discussing "current, timely issues regarding our energy future." 
Documentaries on the financing of nuclear power under utility 
deregulation or the search for viable, sustainable energy alternatives 
would have been more timely uses of airtime, he said. 

At Current's deadline, Greenpeace, Public Citizen, the Nuclear 
Information and Resource Service, and the Union of Concerned Scientists 
had joined the SECC in criticizing the documentary. The groups went 
public after Frontline rebuffed their private appeals to revise the 
film. 

Convinced that "Nuclear Reactions" would not be substantively different 
than the film described in the press release, the groups are asking the 
media to consider their complaints in reviewing it. "[W]e believe it is 
essential that the public be informed as to the serious problems with 
the inaccuracies and biases in the show." 

"This is basically an intimidation campaign," said Jon Palfreman, a 
veteran producer for Nova and Frontline who now works as an independent. 
He said Frontline's press release, written provocatively to get TV 
critics to watch the program, was to anti-nuclear activists like a "flag 
to the bull." 

The release is setting off political action "to modify or sway or stop a 
piece of journalism." 

"These activists are doing what they are trained to do--they're seizing 
what they see as a political opportunity," commented David Fanning, 
senior executive producer for Frontline. "I suggest they wait and review 
the program when it's broadcast." 

PBS will air "Nuclear Reactions" on Earth Day, April 22, a scheduling 
decision that "only compounds the insult," wrote Bill Magavern, an 
energy specialist for Public Citizen, in a letter to Frontline. 

At the same time, many public TV stations are participating in the 
Public Television Outreach Alliance's new campaign, "Earth & Us," which 
takes a traditional pro-environmental approach. 

"It's sad and disappointing to see something like this," said Denman. 
Frontline is recognized for hard-hitting, well documented journalism. 
"We want the film to be changed to make it accurate and make it cutting 
edge." 

Psychology of risk

That the program would inspire controversy comes as somewhat of a relief 
to Palfreman, who said his "greatest fear was that this film would be 
ignored." He described himself as an award-winning science journalist 
with "an interest in complicated policy stories," especially subjects 
that "really agitate people." 

"It's my job to go in and dissect the scientific meat of the story." 

Most of his earlier films for Frontline also have been controversial. 
"Prisoners of Silence" questioned the scientific efficacy of 
"facilitated communication," a technique for treating autism. "Breast 
Implants on Trial" reported scientific findings that failed to link 
silicon breast implants to systemic diseases. And "Currents of Fear" 
concluded, based on scientific evidence, that electromagnetic fields 
don't cause cancer. 

Palfreman predicted that "Nuclear Reactions" will be the "big one" that 
generates more interest than his earlier films. His objective in the 
documentary is to "take a look, at the end of the 20th century, at what 
happened to the dream of nuclear energy." 

Fifty years ago, nuclear technology was born in war, a scientific 
breakthrough that he compared to the discovery of fire because it 
offered an "incredible new source of energy." After World War II, many 
physicists optimistically set out to "harness the energy for mankind." 

"Their dream was to make energy that was too cheap to meter." 

In "Nuclear Reactions," Palfreman and correspondent Richard Rhodes, a 
Pulitzer-Prize-winning historian and author of The Making of the Atomic 
Bomb, look at what has happened between then and now, as the failing 
industry faces its imminent demise in this country. 

"My aim is certainly not to rehabilitate the industry," explained 
Palfreman. "It's more an analysis of what happened." 

As he described it, the documentary examines the risks posed by nuclear 
power, and compares the industry's safety record to those of other 
complex technologies. 

A fundamental part of the film, Palfreman said, deals with "the nature 
of the psychology of humans and how they perceive risks." It probes the 
public psyche over nuclear power, comparing American attitudes to those 
of the French, who, for various cultural, economic and political 
reasons, have less anxiety about nuclear power. Japan, another 
industrial power with an active nuclear energy industry, is not featured 
in the film "in a big way," although the controversial press release 
mentions its nuclear program as well. 

Another major segment of the film deals with nuclear waste, again 
comparing the American and French approaches to dealing with it. 

What one learns from these examples is that there's a "staggering divide 
between the objective risks of the technology and the perceived risks," 
said Palfreman. 

"Love the Atom"

Anti-nuclear advocates have objected to several elements of the 
documentary, particularly its focus on psychology. "You will insult the 
intelligence of the American people ... if you tell them they just need 
to get over their irrational fears and learn to love the atom," wrote 
Magavern. 

"They're using discredited psychologists, irrelevant and inaccurate 
examples of France and Japan, and they pin hopes on the breeder 
program," said Denman. 

The "breeder" or Integral Fast Reactor is an undeveloped technology that 
proposes to burn nuclear waste as fuel. Palfreman describes it as a 
"fabulously appealing concept" that nevertheless is dead because 
Congress rejected funding for it. Opponents say IFR is too costly, 
inappropriate and a threat to nuclear nonproliferation efforts. 

Palfreman said the final version of "Nuclear Reactions" is unlikely to 
spend much time on IFR, simply because of time constraints. If IFR does 
go in the film, it will be as an example of the U.S. rejecting "any 
potential policy that attributes a value to this waste." 

The producer himself is a target of some criticism in complaints about 
the film. Magavern's letter describes Palfreman's conduct during an 
interview with consumer advocate Ralph Nader as "extremely 
argumentative" and unprofessional. 

Palfreman denied that he behaved inappropriately during the interview. 
"The problem they've had with me is that no one has asked them difficult 
questions for years. ... It's almost a closed issue, there's nothing to 
talk about." 

"If you look at all the stuff I've done, it's a pro-science agenda," 
added Palfreman. The future of nuclear power "makes no difference to 
me." 

"Part of what interests me about this is, I don't think we have an 
accurate view of it," he continued. He dares "anybody to find something 
that's scientifically inaccurate" in the film. 

"The problem [anti-nuclear activists] had with me is that no one has 
asked them difficult questions for years," says the producer. "It's 
almost a closed issue, there's nothing to talk about." 

Current
The biweekly newspaper that covers public broadcasting
A service of Current Publishing Committee, Washington, D.C.
currentron@aol.com
(202) 463-7055
Copyright 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Judd M. Sills, CHP           |   Office: (619)455-2049
General Atomics, Room 01-166C|      Fax: (619)455-3181
3550 General Atomics Court   |   E-Mail:  sillsj@gat.com
San Diego, CA  92121         |