JUNE 23, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In the fall of 2008, EnergySolutions Foundation, the charitable arm of one of the world’s largest nuclear-waste processors, began approaching nuclear utilities with an offer. Guided by a team of science teachers and industry p.r. staffers, the organization had developed a trove of materials on nuclear power for use in sixth-through-twelfth-grade classes. Among them was a 100-page teacher’s guide, which waxed lyrical about the “beneficial uses of radiation,” and a trivia game that highlighted the drawbacks of most energy sources—from the toll windmills take on migrant birds to the damage solar farms supposedly do to desert ecosystems—while sidestepping the pitfalls of nuclear power.
The foundation’s aim was to get utilities to distribute the materials to teachers in their service areas. A number signed on, including New Orleans-based Entergy. That winter, Entergy approached the Mississippi Department of Education, which receives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in donations from the company, and asked it to review the materials and pinpoint ways they could fulfill curriculum requirements. Officials gladly obliged. “We found they could be very beneficial,” Trecina Green, director of curriculum for Mississippi’s public schools, told me. The department later sent a memo heralding the materials to teachers statewide and held a press conference with Entergy touting their “unique partnership.” Entergy, meanwhile, began doling out materials at teachers’ meetings, hosting free teacher workshops, and offering up EnergySolutions-trained employees to “guest teach” classes. Ann Day Becker, who manages Entergy’s outreach to schools, estimates that the materials are now being used in at least 400 Mississippi classrooms.
Industry-funded materials in public schools are nothing new. For decades, corporations have been flooding classrooms with propaganda. In their heyday, nuclear power companies were among the most aggressive; a 1979 survey of corporate-sponsored materials in public schools found that, when it came to targeting kids, utilities—particularly nuclear utilities—went to the greatest lengths. These efforts dwindled in the late ’80s. But they’re making a comeback as the once-moribund nuclear industry gears up for a revival.
ENERGYSOLUTIONS HAS MADE the deepest inroads of any nuclear group. In addition to its work in Mississippi, Entergy is distributing the organization’s materials and holding teacher workshops in parts of Louisiana, New York, and Michigan. Florida Power & Light, Southern Nuclear, and the Pennsylvania-based reactor manufacturer Westinghouse have similar programs—all based on the EnergySolutions materials.
Other industry groups have taken a similar tack. Each year, the American Nuclear Society hosts some 20 workshops on nuclear energy for teachers. Those who attend get a trove of classroom materials with a pro-nuclear slant. One student handout claims that it’s “safer to work in a nuclear power plant than an office” and that any spike in cancer rates due to the Chernobyl meltdown is “too small to measure.” (In fact, according to the World Health Organization, at least 9,000 people are expected to die of cancer as a result of fallout from Chernobyl.)
Government has gotten in on the act, too. The Department of Energy (DOE) recently finished updating the Harnessed Atom, a pro-nuclear power curriculum that it distributed to middle school teachers nationwide in the ’80s. The revised version is being piloted in three public school systems and will be officially rolled out in classrooms next year. “We needed a counterbalance to the standard textbooks,” one person involved in the project told me. “They put so much focus on things like accidents and nuclear waste. No one’s going to read that and say, ‘I want to be a nuclear engineer. That sounds like a great career!’”
Meanwhile, the DOE website features an interactive, animated city called Neutropolis, a space-age utopia where kids zip around on hovercrafts. There’s Electra On, a “fashion-forward teenager” in purple knee-boots who cares about the environment and plans to study nuclear engineering; Newt R. On, “a scooterriding, fun-loving middle-schooler” in baggy jeans and a hoodie; and Ura Nehum, a pigtailed tween who loves shopping and “space sports.” These youngsters-envoys of a “smart, successful society that embraces and uses clean, safe nuclear energy”—guide visitors through a maze of multimedia propaganda.
Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)—the official industry watchdog—is doing its part to peddle nuclear power to children. The agency’s website features both a “Students’ Corner” and lesson plans for teachers, which tout the glories of radiation while barely touching on the hazards of nuclear power. Between early March, when reactors in Japan started melting down, and early June, the NRC materials received more than two million hits.
The industry, meanwhile, continues to expand its toolkit. EnergySolutions is currently putting the finishing touches on a video game, which revolves around a broken-down reactor buried in the jungle. Players—acting as technicians, reactor operators, even p.r. people—have to try to get it up and running so they can power civilization. “Nuclear energy is a tough subject to grasp,” says EnergySolutions’ Executive Director Pearl Wright. “Our goal is to package it so it’s accessible to young people. We’re always looking for new ways to reach kids.”
Mariah Blake is a writer in Washington. This article originally ran in the July 14, 2011, issue of the magazine.
5 comments
I am pro-nuke both as an engineer and environmentalist. Nuclear power should be seen at least a little in the context that we exist at all times with an out-of-control fusion reactor that is blanketing the entire planet with highly toxic radiation that may within our lifetimes drive many if not most species extinct and even genetically alter humans! (the sun) However, I don't like children being propangandized, but with schools constantly under-funded it is no wonder that they grasp at any free "content".
- polijunky
July 5, 2011 at 9:09am
"Big Nuclear infiltrate" yea! The big Red Scare in a new format, Nuclear energy. I prefer nuclear energy to coal energy raining acid rain on all of us. Dams ending salmon runs forever. Oil from Saudi Arabia financing Arab terror. You name it all have a problem. First and foremost plans to limit energy consumption should be the way to go. It just brings us back to a realistic way of living without wasting. Second, of course nuclear energy after making sure every possible precautions have been taken. It doesn't cause global warming and will not pollute if we do it correctly. Today, they tout gas out of the shale while hiding the fact that ground water and rivers can't be protected from horrible pollution that no municipal water can clean up for us to drink. We should go nuclear after reducing consumption. You bet!
- Poupic
July 5, 2011 at 10:40am
Poli and Poup: Your comments can be taken seriously when you provide a REAL answer to the question: "Where DO you safely store long-term the long-lasting nuclear waste? in the absense of an answer, it's the scientific equivalent of: "aside from THAT mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play??"
- drofnats1
July 5, 2011 at 3:41pm
Mr. Drof Gnat, you should consider that both reduce consumption and nuclear waste are not actual today because of public reluctance not because it is not doable. OK, forget nuclear if you are willing to drive a car with 60 miles per gallon and all other paying a high tax for their wasting energy. On the other hand the French have solved the waste problem we have with vitrification. They just declared that they will build more and more nuclear power stations. If the Frogs can do it, we can do it too.
- Poupic
July 6, 2011 at 10:48am
Actually, I live in Japan in the Yokohama area. The incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plan does loom heavy here. Trains run less often, we all worry about how we will get through the very hot and humid summers of Japan with all the "power saving" (setsuden) demands. Industry is effected by these "power saving" issues as well and it may eventually have a serious impact on the economy and the demographics in the Tokyo area. Moreover, people who have lost their homes in the Fukushima area are not simply moving to another house, some of them are leaving a land that several generations have toiled over. Looking at what has happened, we will probably have to redouble our efforts to seriously think about how to develop technologies that will reduce demands for power. Probably for households, that may be a largely doable proposition. However, for the industry that makes the solar energy collectors and 60 miles per gallon transportation, you need a reliable power source. Oil is likely to be gone in some 30+ years, or certainly we will face increasing risks of another oil well disaster in the deep ocean. There is coal, but in due time, that too will run out. Where are we going to get the reliable power to make the solar and wind technology that we might prefer? We can certainly do a lot more, but I am not convinced that it is enough to sustain the entire civilization of the modern world. So like it or not, we do not have a whole lot of choices on the short term (at least with what we know at this time). In the US, we could store nuclear waste in relatively geologically inactive regions on the country. Japan does not have that luxury, but there are some places in the world that are quite stable. Moreover, if we work on technologies, we will find better ways to control and utilize them. That is at least the good side of technology; risks, yes, but solutions also. Evidently, the disaster preparation at Fukushima was greatly flawed or inadequately planned. That has tainted the relationship between the public and the energy companies throughout the world it seems. It's difficult not to get angry about how badly the power company Tepco messed up here in Japan. But if I can put it any constructive picture on this, let's first consider how well prepared we typically are ourselves for some personal disaster. What about car accidents, are any of us particularly prepared? Tornadoes? How many people were prepared? How many homes are really earthquake proof in known earthquake zones? How many people are sure that precious stuff in their china cabinet will not fall out and break? I'm not trying to excuse Tepco's hubris, but most of us don't do a lot of thinking, if we really look at ourselves seriously. The authors have a point to make, maybe it is not such a good idea to present the idea of nuclear energy as if it is as clean as alpine spring water (minus the bacteria). Dosage does depend on how far away you are from the radiation. Moreover, a lot of the cancer is regional to Chernobyl where children regrettably drank milk from cows who ate grass exposed to the radioactive iodine. The price due to a mistake like this are potentially severe. So these are risks that we need to think about. However, the risks of war due to quarrels about oil, and its eventual demise (at least by current estimation and lack of a viable alternative), all mean that we have little choice but to continue to develop many technologies (including nuclear) and to insure their safety in as much as that is possible. Business in of itself is not evil. TNR itself is a business. Each of us has to sell something to make a living. So the intentions of these companies was not necessarily nefarious. Rather, let's recall that it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, and this is what we need to be careful about; putting the love of money over safety, putting the love of money over investing in back up plans, or putting the love of money ahead of wise public planning. I would suggest that we do best when we learn from bad mistakes rather than waste time judging the people or organizations who made them. There are some things that really should have been thought about carefully and evidently were not, but how many of us even do that with our own household matters? I think the people here in Japan want to fix some of these things, and I hope that they succeed.
- wkdawson
July 8, 2011 at 4:46am