Why does nuclear power have such a bad reputation? | Editorial

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo won applause bragging about closing a nuclear plant “14 years ahead of schedule.”

“Why would they applaud?” asks former nuclear engineer Ray Rothrock in my new video. “They shut down New York’s finest source of clean energy.”

Rothrock has met with presidents, trying to persuade them to embrace nuclear power, but “nothing was ever addressed.”

President Donald Trump ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to speed up licensing of new plants.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called that a “flagrant disregard for nuclear safety.”

“Not conducive to nuclear safety,” complained Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

“That’s just a bunch of crap,” says Rothrock. “They’re afraid of something that they don’t need to be afraid of.”

We don’t? What about that meltdown at Three Mile Island? 

Time magazine called it a “nuclear nightmare.” The Washington Post: “nuclear crisis.”

“The result … should be the abandonment of nuclear power!” said a widely quoted “analyst.”

It was the usual media hysteria.

“Nobody was hurt!” Rothrock points out. 

It didn’t matter. Media still called nuclear energy an “unacceptable risk.”

Then there was another accident in Fukushima, Japan.

People did die there, but not from radiation. Not one. People died because the government’s required evacuation disrupted their medical care.

The United Nations reported, “No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects.”

But my media colleagues, as usual, made radiation the villain. Nuclear power was set back further. 

It’s why more countries didn’t do what France does: get most of its power from nuclear reactors. 

People in France are OK with that, but in most of the rest of the world, anti-nuclear protesters persuaded people to be frightened about “radiation leaks.”

The scare works because most people don’t realize that radiation is everywhere.

Just flying in a plane exposes you to it. So does living in Denver.

A beach in Brazil has natural radiation levels much higher than our government’s safety standards.

“Thirty times the safety standard!” says Rothrock.

People who use that beach don’t get more cancer. Our bodies can handle low levels of radiation.

“Why take any risks?” I ask Rothrock. “Why don’t we just use solar and wind?”

“Wind stops blowing sometimes. … You need a lot of land for solar and wind. Throw in all those costs and it’s pretty darn expensive.”

In America, new nuclear plants are pretty darn expensive, too. But that’s mainly because of the NRC’s cumbersome rules.

“’Thou shall do it this way,’” complains Rothrock. “Thou all shall have that. Thou shall have this.’ The regulators said, ‘If it takes a 3-foot, 6-inch wall to protect from the radiation … why don’t you make it 4? Better still, why don’t you make it 10?’”

Regulators rarely adjust rules to account for new technology.

The NRC required plants to be covered by a dome. But some new reactors, says Rothrock, are “not pressurized! There’s no need for a dome. But the rules say you have to build a dome!”

Just to get approval for a new plant “got to be five, six, seven years. Then people stopped completely. For literally 30 years, the NRC has not seen a new reactor proposal.”

Only now have the rules been changed, and for the first time in 10 years, a new reactor has been approved.

So protestors shout: “This nuclear nightmare is back! … You can have a full-blown reactor core meltdown!”

This time, they are losing. 

Eighteen reactors have had operating licenses extended. Many new reactors are in development. 

Private entrepreneurs are making better fuels and reactors that are easier to install. 

If bureaucrats get out of the way, we should soon have cheap, clean energy.   

John Stossel is the former host of “Stossel” on Fox News who posts weekly videos about the battle between government and freedom.