Nuclear apologists in full-court press downplaying Japan disaster

To hear the nuclear industry’s lackeys describe it, the ongoing disaster in Japan is not much more than an inconvenience.

Let’s start with our friends at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Their position is, as always, “no threat to the public safety, no need to worry.” And of course, there’s the ever-popular “it can’t happen here,” line of argument, because our nuclear power plants are so much better. Just take a look at Vermont Yankee – it’s been leaking radioactive tritium for more than a year, and a cooling tower collapsed for no other reason than it was badly built.

Their position is contradicted by the facts. First, U.S. Navy ships heading to Japan changed course when their instruments detected high levels of radiation in the air. The explanation? Their instruments were too sensitive.

Then there was Callie Crossley, Boston media commentator, appearing on CNN, objecting to the use of the word “meltdown” when all the reactor did was explode. She said she felt much better that it wasn’t actually melting down. Now officials are referring to a “partial” meltdown, whatever that might be.

And then there was an NBC correspondent this evening whose story was that the quake/tsunami victims had more the worry about than a little radiation.

All these reports, and plenty of others, seem to be designed to lull the public into thinking that we should plunge on with more nuclear plants. Where are the calls to re-think this idea?