FW: PBS Frontline - Viewers Beware

["D Beidelman" <BEIDELDL@inel.gov>]

I thought that the following would be of interest to the RADSAFE community; this
note was circulated to some employees at the Idaho National Environmental and
Engineering Laboratory for information.

Any comment on Mr. Magavern's note/letter would be superfluous.

D. Lee Beidelman (beideldl@inel.gov)



******* CRITICAL MASS ENERGY PROJECT *******
CMEP: VIEWERS BEWARE-PBS' "FRONTLINE" TO AIR BIASED PRO-NUCLEAR SHOW
By Bill Magavern, Critical Mass Energy Project

On April 22, Earth Day, PBS' "Frontline" will air a show called "Nuclear
Reaction." Having been interviewed for the show, and having seen the press
release promoting it, I believe (as does Ralph Nader, who was also
interviewed) that it will be a very biased piece of pro-nuclear
propaganda.

My letter to "Frontline" (attached) spelled out in detail many of the =
reasons
why I believe the producers are planning an unbalanced, elitist, obsolete =
and
inaccurate look at nuclear power. In response, I received a cursory letter
from "Frontline" Senior Executive Producer David Fanning, brushing off my =
comments and refusing to pursue a dialogue about the problems I raised. It =
is clear that Fanning has refused our request to make the show more =
balanced.
The "Frontline" press release includes producer Jon Palfreman's assertion =
that
"an objective analysis of the nuclear industry's accident record shows it t=
o
be extremely safe in comparison with other complex technologies. So some
researchers have concluded that people's extreme reactions to it are driven=
 =
as
much by psychology and politics as by actual risk." What is truly extreme i=
s
the length to which a pro-nuclear zealot like Palfreman is willing to go to=

try to resuscitate a failing industry.

The "correspondent" for "Nuclear Reaction" is Richard Rhodes, author of
"Nuclear Renewal," published by Whittle Books in 1993. "Frontline" has give=
n =
Rhodes an hour of national television time for an adaptation of his book, =
which has not fared well in the marketplace of ideas-an Atlanta bookstore is=
 =
selling it for $2.98. Rhodes advocates plutonium reprocessing and building a=
 =
new generation of "inherently safe" breeder reactors. He lionizes the =
nuclear programs of France and Japan and minimizes the risks of the nuclear =
=
fuel cycle. His main purpose is to convince Americans to stop worrying and =
learn to love the atom. He was present when I was interviewed, and seemed =
confused about the difference between plutonium and high-enriched uranium, =
or HEU, which he referred to as "HEW."

If you think public broadcasting owes us something better than this =
claptrap,
contact David Fanning, "Frontline" senior executive producer; =
ph:617-783-3500;
fax:617-254-0243; 125 Western Avenue, Boston, MA 02134.  Send copies of you=
r
comments to your local PBS channel. You can also comment on the "Frontline"=

web site at www.pbs.org.

_________________________________________________________________________


March 11, 1997

David Fanning
Senior Executive Producer
Michael Sulllivan
Executive Producer
Frontline
125 Western Ave.
Boston, MA 02134

Dear Messrs. Fanning and Sulllivan:
On Wednesday, January 8, I was interviewed by Jon Palfreman for a =
"Frontline"
show on nuclear power. The interview took place at Ralph Nader's office, =
and,
because Palfreman's interview with Nader ran late, I observed a substantial
part of that interview as well.

Based on that experience, I am very concerned that the "Frontline" show
Palfremanis producing will be extremely biased, and will contribute nothing=
 =
valuable to the debate over nuclear issues. Having been told by the =
Palfreman Film Group that it was preparing a comprehensive look at nuclear =
energy and nuclear waste, I was surprised to find that the interviews =
instead focussed on a small number of issues, many of them peripheral to the=
 =
topic.  During the interviews with me and Nader, Palfreman went well beyond =
=
asking questions-he consistently advocated pro-nuclear positions. Although =
he behaved politely throughout, he was extremely argumentative. In fact, =
Nader, who must be one of the more interviewed people on the planet, said =
he'd never seen anything like it.  He was very upset by Palfreman's =
unprofessional journalism. I urge you to watch the unedited videotape of the=
 =
interviews and judge for yourselves whether Palfreman was engaged in an =
attempt to gather information for a balanced report or an effort to argue =
the pro-nuclear position with nuclear energy opponents. Palfreman's =
questions and assertions make his thesis pretty clear: nuclear power really =
=
isn't so bad, but people have an irrational fear of it.

He quoted a Robert Dupont as saying that nuclear power would be the first
industry destroyed by fear. This false argument is extremely elitist. You =
will insult
the intelligence of the American people and your viewing audience if you =
tell
them they just need to get over their irrational fears and learn to love th=
e
atom. In fact, almost all of  the people working to protect communities =
across
the country from the dangers of nuclear reactors and nuclear waste are quit=
e
rational, and history has proved them right. That the show is scheduled to =
=
air
on Earth Day, April 22, only compounds the insult.

Palfreman took extremely pro-nuclear positions, making ridiculous claims =
like
"No one's ever died from nuclear power." He spent a lot of time with both me
and Nader trying to downplay the dangers of radiation released by the =
nuclear
industry and play up the dangers of other sources of radiation, like radon.=
 =
He
even seemed to disagree with the scientific consensus that the biological
effects of radiation increase linearly with the dose. Palfreman perhaps has=

aligned himself with the lunatic fringe that believes some doses of =
radiation
are good for you.

Palfreman was scornful of the energy contributions and potential
of energy efficiency and renewable energy, both of which have much more
promise than nuclear power. When I talked about efficiency, he said he
wanted to talk about the "real world." His bias took him to some blatant
self-contradictions. For example, he asked whether ruling out nuclear
power in a country like China, with its vast coal reserves, might worsen
global warming. I replied that, in fact, we should encourage China to
invest in energy efficiency rather than coal or nuclear power, because
efficiency investments are far more effective in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. When I pointed out that the U.S. had made enormous energy
efficiency gains, he discounted that by saying the U.S. was a rich
country. But if China can not afford to pay for energy efficiency
technology, how will it ever be able to afford nuclear plants, which are
far more expensive than efficient refrigerators, light bulbs and motors?
Oddly enough, Palfreman expressed no interest in the current debate over
nuclear power's future in an electricity industry undergoing restructuring =
=
and greater market competition. He was interested only in rehashing the same=
 =
tired, old arguments nuclear apologists have made for decades. "Frontline" =
viewers would benefit much more from a balanced discussion of what will =
happen with nuclear power plants in states that are moving toward retail =
competition for
electricity. But, of course, that would require an admission that nuclear
power in most parts of the U.S.  can not compete with other electricity =
sources, and Palfreman refuses to even talk about the economics of nuclear =
power. Every time Nader or I brought up economics, he insisted on changing =
the subject.

Palfreman was quite enamored of a discredited Department of Energy
research program into an Integral Fast Reactor, a breeder re
ctor project
terminated by Congress in 1994. Although its proponents touted the IFR as
a miracle machine that would burn radioactive waste, the program in fact
had so many environmental, proliferation and fiscal problems that it was
rejected even by pro-nuclear experts at the National Academy of Sciences
and the DOE.

One of the IFR's few champions is Richard Rhodes, your report's
"correspondent." Rhodes, who was present when I was interviewed and asked =
one or two questions, has written a pro-nuclear propaganda piece, Nuclear =
Renewal, which, among other things, buys the pro-IFR arguments that =
Congress, DOE and NAS rejected.

Furthermore, it seems likely that the show will focus on the handful of =
major
countries that still have active nuclear construction programs, in an effort
to make it look like the U.S. is missing out on a promising technology. You=
 =
have
an obligation to point out that most of the world has turned away from =
nuclear
power, and that important allies like Germany, Great Britain and Italy will=

probably never again build reactors in their countries.

On Friday, January 10, I spoke over the telephone with Kathy Boisvert,
associate producer for the Palfreman Film Group. I told her that I believed=
 =
the show was headed toward being very biased toward the nuclear industry. =
She assured me that they were doing a "fair and objective" look at nuclear =
power, and said they had given us time and space to present our views. (In =
fact, we gave them time and space.)

I have also found that Palfreman produced a "Frontline" show on breast
implants.  Consumer advocates knowledgeable on the breast implant issue =
consider the show to have been an extremely biased hatchet job that tried to=
 =
downplay the problems with silicon breast implants and portray the implant =
manufacturers as victims of our legal system.

The Palfreman Group, of course, has every right to produce a pro-nuclear
report, but it should not pretend that the piece is fair and objective. I =
will
certainly not make any effort to block the airing of the report, but I do =
hope
"Frontline" will try to make it as balanced as possible.
When Boisvert originally contacted me to ask questions and schedule the
interview, she identified herself as being with "Frontline." I have watched=
 =
many
"Frontline" shows over the years, and have often been impressed with their
quality (the breast implant report being a major exception). I also was
interviewed more than once for the research for a "Frontline" show on energ=
y
in 1992. That report did an excellent job of covering events leading to the=

passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.  Based on that experience, I
believed that any interviewers representing "Frontline" would be =
professional and fair.  Therefore, I agreed to be interviewed for this =
report on nuclear energy. This recent interview destroyed my belief in the =
fairness and professionalism of
"Frontline" interviewers. Please respond to this letter as soon as you can.=
 =
I thank you in advance for your consideration of the issues I have raised.
Sincerely,



Bill Magavern
Director
Critical Mass EnergyProject

___________________________________________________________________________=



To receive regular alerts on energy policy through the Internet, sign up
for the Critical Mass listserver by sending the following message to:
listproc@essential.org
SUBSCRIBE CMEP-LIST Your Name - Organization (no acronyms) - Home state The=
 =
Critical Mass Energy Project world wide web site is located at:
http://www.citizen.org/CMEP
The Critical Mass email address is cmep@essential.org


-------------------