On his eponymous program Tuesday, MSNBC anchor Martin Bashir interviewed a
liberal environmental activist aiming to scare viewers into believing
that nuclear energy poses an imminent threat to the safety of the United
States.
Bashir allowed a spokesman for Friends of the Earth, a left-wing
environmental group, to declare nuclear facilities in California
dangerous and unsafe, but neglected to report that the nuclear industry
claims it has protocols in place to ensure safety.
"The fact of the matter is that what's happening in Japan could
certainly have happened here," predicted David Moglan, director of the
Climate and Energy Project for Friends of the Earth.
Bashir failed to acknowledge that Moglan is a former campaign
director for Greenpeace, a liberal environmental organization that was
labeled "
environmental terrorists" by the Japanese government for attacking Japanese whaling vessels.
The former ABC "Nightline" anchor also refused to challenge Moglan
after he made it clear that he takes umbrage with nuclear power in
general and not just with the construction of reactors near coastlines
and fault lines.
"And I think we also need to realize that it doesn't take natural
disasters to have terrible accidents," lectured Moglan. "It doesn't take
a natural disaster of the magnitude of Fukushima and the horrific
Japanese earthquake and tsunami to cause a terrible nuclear accident."
Instead of reporting both sides of the story, Bashir hailed Moglan's
"extensive experience on nuclear issues" before lamenting that the
nuclear industry builds reactors "so close to the water's edge."
If Bashir had done his job properly, he would have at least cited
industry reports claiming there are safeguards in place to prevent
meltdowns and plans drawn up to respond to emergencies.
One report by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association for the nuclear industry,
found
that "nuclear power plant design and construction ensure the plants can
withstand powerful earthquakes" and that operators conduct "thorough
analysis and testing of the plant structures, systems and equipment,
using simulated earthquake-induced vibrations."
Another NEI study
showed
"a variety of measures work together to protect public safety: the
design and safety features built into the plant; the multiple layers of
physical barriers that protect the reactor; and highly trained,
federally certified professionals who operate the plant safely and know
how to respond in the event of emergencies."
Wrapping up the interview, Bashir summarized the environmentalist
perspective without giving a shred of recognition to the industry's
view: "Damon Moglan, fearful expectations, thank you."
A transcript of the March 15 segment:
3:30 p.m. EDT
MARTIN BASHIR: There are 104 nuclear power reactors here in the United
States. Operators are currently seeking permission to build up to 20
more. But in the wake of the disaster in Japan there are fresh concerns
over the safety of these facilities here. Consider the San Francisco
earthquake in 1989. It lasted 15 seconds, yet caused bridges and
highways to collapse and destroyed entire neighborhoods. By contrast,
the quake in Japan lasted 2:30. Now, look at this map of California,
which shows two nuclear facilities, both on the coastline in the state
most susceptible to earthquakes. Damon Moglan is director of the Climate
and Energy Project for Friends of the Earth. He has extensive
experience on nuclear issues and he joins us now. Good afternoon, Damon.
DAMON MOGLAN, environmental activist: Good afternoon, Martin, thank you for having me.
BASHIR: Let's take a look at these two photos for a moment. The first
photo is the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant near San Luis Obispo,
California. As you can see it's essentially a beach front property. The
second image shows the nuclear facility at San Onofre, near San
Clemente. Again this is literally a few feet from the Pacific Ocean. Is
there any chance of either of these surviving an earthquake, should one
happen, like that in Japan on Friday?
MOGLAN: Well, I think, first of all, Martin, we have to realize that to
millions of Americans who have been seeing these horrific images and
look at reactors right there in the ocean on a fault line, everybody is
thinking we have to be mad. Why should we be having reactors there? And I
think they're right. The fact of the matter is that what's happening in
Japan could certainly have happened here. And I think we also need to
realize that it doesn't take natural disasters to have terrible
accidents. Three Mile Island was basically created by a series of
human-created errors and Chernobyl was created bay series of human
errors. It doesn't take a natural disaster of the magnitude of Fukushima
and the horrific Japanese earthquake and tsunami to cause a terrible
nuclear accident.
BASHIR: Why do we build these plants so close to the water's edge in a
state that is known ostensibly, evidentially, for earthquakes?
MOGLAN: I'm afraid we probably need to use an ancient Greek phrase,
which is hubris. I think that we really do not appreciate what's at
stake and I think in an interesting way the American public may be
better informed about this now than the nuclear engineers. They have
been watching images for days of buildings exploding, of children being
checked for radiation, and I think the public realizes there's a huge
amount at stake and we shouldn't be building nuclear reactors on fault
lines and right on the ocean in this way.
BASHIR: The head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission appeared at
White House press briefing and asked about the safety of U.S. plants.
Here what happens he said.
GREGORY JACZKO, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Bottom line right
now we believe that the plants in this country continue to be designed
to a very high standard for seismic and tsunami-type events. We will
look at whatever information we can gain from this event and see if
there are changes we need to make to our system.
BASHIR: Now, as I understand it, these plants here are built to
withstand a magnitude seven but as we know the Japanese earthquake was a
magnitude nine. Should he be as confident as he sounds?
MOGLAN: Well, I guess it's his job to sound confident if that way. I
think it's unfortunate because I don't think it serves the public
interest. I think the fact is that there are a lot of problems we need
to be a lot more serious about. Over the weekend Representative Markey
sent a letter to the president say he was concern we'd didn't have an
agency that would be responsible for dealing with a nuclear accident in
this country that just as we had in the BP situation we didn't have an
agency clearly in charge and ready to deal with it. Mr. Markey was
saying we don't have it here. The list of problems that we have is very
long and I think public fear and anxiety about the technology is going
force change of policy in our country.
BASHIR: Damon Moglan, fearful expectations, thank you.
- Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.