An article worth seeing, if only for its inaccuracy..

Those in the know will find this article either amusing or annoying.

Notice how right off the bat we're told that the fires were not just fires, but BLAZES. We're also told that "disaster was averted." Whew! Uh, wait a minute.. how close were we ACTUALLY to a "disaster?" And what exactly is.. oh, never mind.

The fire at Brunswick occurred in a heat soak blanket where apparently welds were being annealed. That doesn't sound like a blaze, and it sure doesn't sound disaster-worthy given its location.

Look at how Progress Energy responded to two breaker fires at Robinson: "There was no explosion or steam line break (sic)." How many more things would you need to rattle off that didn't happen?

Later we're told that fires are the No. 1 leading path to reactor meltdown. SO, then, although disaster was averted at all three plants (Perry too, don't forget) it must have been a real cliffhanger. Or cliffhangerS.

And then what do we get? Yeah, a rehash of the Browns Ferry cable tray fire incident. Let's recall that all the fixes for that .. 'situation' .. were made years back.

This is just more hysteria by a totally incompetent, uninformed press.. the same press that brought you headlines at TMI-2 like "H-Blast Danger Fades" (that line was repeated in "A Second Nuclear Era" - a book I highly recommend that everyone including the PRESS read.) It sure seems that from the '69-'70 time frame of AEC debate of the environmentalists and the NEPA it's been atomic energy on the defensive, and irresponsible hysterical reporting like this is just keeping that going.

ARE we ready for more nuclear plants, like the administration wants? Yes, certainly-- but the press isn't.