San Onofre Nuclear Plant Mounts Info Blackout When We Want to Know Most

By Dennis Romero Tue., Mar. 22 2011 at 7:08 AM

San Onofre.

So people are scared again about the safety of nuclear power. President Obama has ordered a review of plant safety across the nation. California's two U.S. Senators want the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct inspections of the two generating stations in the state. And California lawmakers met this week to discuss nuclear safety.

You need to get the people's approval to keep on generating radioactive power. So what do you do if you're the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Southern California?

You clam up.

That's right. The folks at Southern California Edison, which runs San Onofre, told the Weekly that "we are not able to accommodate interview requests at this time."

anthony_goto

Surfing 'Old Man's' near the San Onofre plant.

Really? You mean at this time of utter, serious concern?

People are scared shitless about the situation at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan, and you stop talking to reporters?

Wow.

We get the high-level media strategy involved here. No info is good info when it comes to telling us, say, that San Onofre might not survive the kind of double whammy -- major earthquake and tsunami -- suffered in Japan.

SCE's job is to make sure it can do its business. It doesn't have to serve the people. Still, it needs the people's approval and trust.

And while we don't want to cause a panic, SCE and other nuclear operators would seem a lot more cool under the collar if their best answer wasn't "no comment."

That makes us scared.

And lawmakers, do us all a favor and remember how forthcoming these folks who need the help of the peoples' representatives to renew their licenses were following the Japanese disasters. Just remember how cooperative they've been with the very public you serve.

Tags:

Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power, San Onofre, SONGS

We Recommend

TriplenetRwolf

Nuclear Reactor Risks

If Japan’s damaged nuclear reactors continue to leak radiation into the air and oceans, many exporting industries may be damaged by radiation contamination. For example fishing industries. How far will millions of gallons of radioactive water travel dumped from damaged Japanese reactors? Will Radioactive Fish migrate to other nation’s waters affecting other countries? One can foresee grocery store and seafood restaurant customers checking purchased seafood with a Geiger counter. If Japan’s damaged nuclear reactors continue leaking radiation into the air, could over a period of time that cause dangerous levels of radiation to be absorbed by U.S. farm crops and cattle, making U.S. farm products unmarketable; cause U.S. food shortages and high prices. Could several of Japan’s industrial products become too radioactive to export? So much for clean nuclear energy.

In the U.S. most nuclear reactors have to be subsidized by taxpayers. When nuclear reactors leak as shown in Japan, it can be hugely expensive; unaffordable when damaged reactors melt down spreading high levels of radiation. In the U.S. too many nuclear reactors are close to large U.S. populations; 500 miles may be too close when communities are downwind. In addition to catastrophic health costs, a leaking reactor can contaminate for decades and longer large geographic areas, destroying real estate values of entire cities, shutdown industries. The potential risks of operating or building more nuclear reactors in the U.S. can’t be justified considering their catastrophic downside. The U.S. has approximately 104 nuclear reactors. From a military standpoint, U.S. enemies would only need target several U.S. nuclear reactors to spread deadly radiation to large cities crippling America. Nuclear reactors are a losing bet.

TheLongView

If you are concerned about the risk of the San Onofre Nuclear Power Station being located within a megalopolis of 18 million people, you will be even more alarmed when you read this research paper about evidence of past tsunamis along this stretch of coastline. http://mahabghodss.net/NewBook...

The experts who plan for worst case scenarios may have underestimated the natural hazards of the San Onofre Site.

Anon

Dennis, why are you so scared? If there was really any danger, the government would let us know. That is what they are here for. They tell us when things are safe (our nuclear power plants, gas lines, food, water, countless barrels of oil in the gulf and the dispersant added so that we could not see it, debt levels, etc.) and when things are not (bringing water on a plane, marijuana, raves, video games, prostitution, etc.)

Come on Dennis, I know you are on board, why are you trying to ask the hard questions? Fall back on the things the government says are not safe where you can use all the talking points they gave you.

By the way, great blog.

la_weakly

They stopped talking because you fear mongering reporters will continue to spout ridiculous bullshit. Why don't you guys explain that nobody can prepare for such a large earthquake *and* tsunami and the situation was far beyond anyones control and we are fragile creatures who cant cope that the people in charge wont "make it better".

Also California is going to be in a far, far worse condition then japan was.

Michael Collins

Ten years before the Fukushima meltdowns, and two months after 9/11, the Weekly was all over how dangerous San Onofre was and is: http://www.laweekly.com/2001-1...

Twirps who triumphantly defend such disasters waiting to happen are not only stupid but un-American because they don't give a rat's ass as to the consequences.