Recently, there's been a push among supporters of nuclear energy to try and promote nuclear energy-related petitions in the White House's recent propaganda stunt online citizen petition initiative, "We the People". Some of these petition topics included advocacy of specific nuclear prototype projects (such as the integral fast reactor [IFR], liquid fluoride thorium reactor [LFTR], and others), advocacy for nuclear energy education, and so forth.
Rather cynically, the White House decided to raise the signature petition threshold from 5,000 to 25,000 signatures in 30 days. Even still, a few petitions - particularly those related to marijuana and general drug-policy reform, managed to squeak through, along with others tied to topics such as the "Fair Tax" plan and the topic of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Taking a look at the official White House responses - released on a Friday (in other words, "trash day" in media parlance), one can tell that they simply wanted these topics to just go away. The White House takes these kinds of matters no more seriously than a local Congressional representative takes unsolicited letters from individuals: a boilerplate response that simply says, "Thanks, but we still disagree. Now please go away." Pretty clear and convincing evidence what kind of Potemkin Village propaganda fronts initiatives like these are - and a distraction from real advocacy efforts.
Contrast this with actions such as that organized by Meredith Angwin in support of the beleaguered Vermont Yankee nuclear facility. In addition to her blog, "Yes Vermont Yankee," she recently organized a pro-VY rally as a counter to some of the recent anti-VY rallies going on. Originally she expected a turnout of about 25 - and through the power of social media, managed to get over double that (60 total).
This is what effective advocacy looks like. Going out and talking to people - family, friends, and neighbors. Directly engaging with peoples' concerns, many of which are legitimate at their root (in the sense that health, safety, and economics are all legitimate concerns). And they're concerns we have answers for - especially those of us who are educated nuclear professionals.
Some of the most effective actions we can take are simply to educate people - not even evangelizing, but reaching out to organizations like schools, scouting groups, and so on. (Some of the most enjoyable teaching moments I've had so far involve teaching basic nuclear concepts to scouting groups.) One of the chief motivators behind the fear of nuclear energy and radiation is the fact that these issues are poorly understood - the more ordinary mundane they become, the less opportunity there is for the professional scaremongering class to stir up boogeymen.
It isn't always easy - people will often get intimidated when I tell them I'm a nuclear engineer. But the most common way I've found to deflect that and put people at ease is this - I tell them, "Really, it's just a very sophisticated way of boiling water to make electricity." And, bland as that sounds, that really is the root of nuclear energy - controlled nuclear fission which produces heat, which in turn boils steam and turns turbines. That's it.
Getting people to understand this, and the fact that radiation is all around them in nature, are key to allowing the public to make informed decisions on energy, rather than being emotionally manipulated by ignorance and hype.
Online petitions run for the cynical political benefit of their sponsors just won't do this. At best, they are simply used at the discretion of their political puppetmasters, and at worst fruitless efforts like these rob advocates of time better spent on more effective education and outreach efforts.
Effective vs. Ineffective Nuclear Advocacy
Other Posts by Steve Skutnik
Overheated rods & rhetoric - May 8, 2012
Minding the (partisan) gap: partisan divisions in support for nuclear - April 12, 2012
The EPA's coal mandate: An opportunity for nuclear, a giveaway for natural gas - March 28, 2012
Not all energy is fungible - and it matters - March 22, 2012
Looking back at Fukushima one year later - March 13, 2012
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
custom essays said:
Just noted that George Monbiot, in his latest web entry, has switched fully across to the pro-nuclear camp. I don’t wish to criticise him for that, but it does mean that he must have great confidence in the stability of society within the next century. As one very rational argument goes, so long as society is reasonably stable, where nations can manage all the safety procedures and protocols that are needed to make nuclear power reasonable safe, then there is a possible case to entertain nuclear power as the way of the future.
Daniel Ely Rankin said:
I find it interesting the backlash from educated people such as yourself, about the petition I wrote about LFTR.
Yes, disclaimer, I am the guy you are talking about here. I find it absurd that you are claiming that I am ruining your attempts at advocacy:
" ...fruitless efforts like these rob advocates of time better spent on more effective education and outreach efforts."
I will point out that 1500 have signed, which means, either 1500 knew about LFTR already, or the social media evangelism I have been doing has educated people about the technology. I have been using Google Plus, Twitter, Facebook, etc, to discuss this technology with people.
Did I expect 25,000 signatures? Not really. I have used it as a way to evangelize. I am also using it to test the brand new government site. Change I will attempt to believe in. Being American and all.
So. Point is, when you talk about someone on the internet (that monitors keywords of LFTR and Thorium and responds to every post I can) I'd point out, they are listening. And are offended at your view of what 'real' advocates do.
I have taken nothing from you sir. I have a BS in Applied Physics; I am not pretending to educate on a subject I follow as a hobbiest. I will though, discuss with over 200 people directly on social media. And those people will reach countless interested parties.
It took significant much exposure to have 1500 people sign a 'difficult' petition? I have used this petition to approach a fortune 50 company, and discuss the idea of them funding such a project (Spoke with the VP of Engineering and he asked for more information).
#moderated
Daniel Ely Rankin said:
After speaking with the Author via googleplus I recant the harshness of my previous statements.
We are both on the same team, and I understand the frustration of petition systems and their lack of effect. But I have used it as a rallying point to educate.
Thanks for responding Steve.
eddy bons said:
ok, as simple as boiling water to produce steam and move a turbine. just few insignificant details left. not worth it to mention them.
like for instance:
- decommission a plant after 20-40 years will cost as much as building it
- the place will be useless for thousand of years (forever)
- radioactive waste will cumulate and must be maintain safe (costing lot of money) for thousand of years (forever)
- those storage places will be useless for thousand of years (forever)
- in case of accident the affected areas (10% of ukrain, 30% of belarus, not a big deal) will be dangerous for living for thousand of years (forever)
that's it...
JohnEnglert said:
@eddy bons - Since you brought up decommissioning and waste storage, might I suggest you take a look at this website that chronicles the decommissioning of Connecticut Yankee nuclear generating station.
It should ease some of your fears that sites of former nuclear power plants will be useless for thousands of years.
Guy Page said:
Agree completely about Meredith Angwin. Have known her for several years in capacity as communications director of pro-Vermont Yankee organization, and found her to be an almost perfect pro-VY advocate in a hostile environment: personable, informed, polite, unintimidated, funny and above all - persistently engaged. Also true of her co-laborer, Howard Shaffer.
Andy Dawson said:
Steve,
you may be amused to know that the British Government introduced a similar "e-petition" scheme - but made a rather rash promise. They promised that any petition attracting 100,000 signatures would be the subject of a debate in the House of Commons.
So far, it's proven remarkably consistent, in that the petitions passing the threshold have been on populist topics the Givernment would really rather not have to debate, for example:
- the withdrawal of all social benefits to anyone convicted of participating in the riots of this last summer
- cuts in fuel taxation
- restoration of the death penalty (that one failed only because there were several peitions demanding the same thing)
-
Baby You Can Drive My (Electric) Car
Posted May 11, 2012 by Scott Edward Anderson
-
Siemens develops ABS plastic alternative
Posted May 9, 2012 by Doris de Guzman
-
Reduce CO2 and Slow Global Warming?
Posted April 30, 2012 by Willem Post
-
WGC 2012 - 25th World Gas Conference
June 4, 2012, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
-
Ecwatech 2012
June 4, 2012, Moscow, Russia
-
Intersolar Europe
June 11, 2012, Munich, Germany
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Marc Gunther is a writer, speaker and consultant, who focuses on business and the environment. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Jesse Jenkins is the director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. More »
Robert Rapier works in the energy industry and writes and speaks about energy and the environment. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
Dan Yurman is a nuclear energy blogger and writes regularly for Fuel Cycle Week. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Marc Gunther
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Jesse Jenkins
- Lynne Kiesling
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Robert Rapier
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- John Whitehead
- Dan Yurman
NERC CIP Compliance Training
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 08:00
Hidroenergia 2012
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 09:00
Webinar on Transported Asset Protection Association’s (TAPA) Freight Security Requirements and Trucking Security Requirements
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 14:00
Global JOJOBAWORLD 2012
When: Fri, 2012-05-25 09:00
NESCO Town Hall: Security Risk Management Practices for Electric Utilities
When: Wed, 2012-05-30 13:00
Ecwatech 2012
When: Mon, 2012-06-04 09:00

About Social Media Today




