The images coming out of Japan concerning the earthquake and Tsunami of March 11^th are devastating to see. Japanese citizens staring at water-scoured landscapes that were hours ago homes, villages, and roads. The images also show a universal calm and order among the Japanese people as they move forward in spite of Mother Nature’s recent offensive. No looting, for example. Orderly lines of folks waiting for water rations, another.

Sadly, when this could be an  inspirational story of an undaunted people who must rebuild yet again, the binary American media chose instead to fan flames of panic, indeed exploit mass suffereing, all to  promote a “Green” energy agenda that is decidely anti-nuclear.  In fact, a quick Google news search of the recent crisies in Japan result in such  headlines as:

Japan nuclear crisis now seen worse than Three Mile Island

Japan’s nuclear situation similar to Chernobyl Nuclear meltdown

And my favorite:

Japan Faces Nuclear Disaster Somewhere between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl

Well… somewhere between the only two major nuclear situations is a pretty safe bet.

But why the hysteria? Why does every major news source send a reporter to the scene to stand there and report live?

As now Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a crisis go to waste”,  the media is most certainly living up to that motto. The comparison of the problems Japan is dealing with is nowhere near Three Mile Island or Chernobyl but rather it’s own crisis that does not need the American media making it into something it’s not.

Three Mile Island led to  no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.” Here’s the estimate of how much exposure was around Three Mile Island according to the documents at NRC.gov.

“Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a chest x‑ray is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100‑125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.”

Would you like another source? The World Nuclear Association website report on the incident states:

The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant was 0.08 millisieverts, with no more than 1 millisievert to any single individual. The level of 0.08 mSv is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 1 mSv is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year.

So, if  no one died and no one was harmed at Three Mile Island, if  the actual amount of radiation that people were exposed to was equal to a chest x-ray, why is the American media losing their collective  minds?

Why are the media comparing the situation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant to Three Mile Island as a negative? The containment systems worked at Three Mile Island. No one was harmed. Why and how does Three Mile Island fit the narrative? It couldn’t be because the media forced the narrative that Three Mile Island was an awful terrible accident, sensationalizing the event just as they are doing today? Could it be that many on the left, despite their almost religious fanaticism to green energy, do not include nuclear power? Could it be that many believe nuclear is evil and scary because it’s potentially toxic and we have seen too many movies where if you accidentally spill your coffee  into the computer, the whole reactor will shut down and we’ll vaporize half the country.

If we are going to have an energy independent America, we need to honestly look at where our energy comes from and the inherent risks involved in capturing that energy. We have to approach energy aquisition scientifically,  not in the happy hippy mindset that says  the only energy we should have is solar, wind or biofuels.

And speaking of energy alternatives,  what is President Obama’s energy policy? Other than seriously crippling America’s energy needs by passing Cap and Tax, taking profits from the oil companies to supposedly deliver to the American people in a rebate by raising taxes on the Oil companies, and helping organizations such as GE and General Motors with huge subsidies to invest in green technology, what is his plan? Vague, pie-in-the-sky hopes at best. 

He would also like to “Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025” according to his speech in August of 2008. Does wind, solar and geothermal, the renewable sources the President would like is to move to have the energy we need to keep our homes illuminated?

According to the World Nuclear Association, The United States in 2008, “generated 4,119 billion kilowatt hours of net of electricity, 49% of it from coal-fired plant, 22% from gas and 6% from hydro. Nuclear achieved a capacity factor of 91.1%, generating 805 billion kilowatt hours and accounting for almost 20% of total electricity generated in 2008.” “Wind power accounts for just 3% of the country’s electricity”, according to the LA Times. That’s a lot of land devoted to a lot of wind farms when one could just build a clean coal, natural gas or nuclear plant.

Wind power is not going to give us the source of energy that our country needs and desires to power the cell phones, the IPads, the laptops or even our high efficiency washers and dryers. Energy is the future and our future is bright if we embrace energy independence that includes nuclear power. Despite the media’s hyperventilating over the possible meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, Nuclear power is still safe, it’s still economically sound and it can get the US the electric power the country needs so that we can work on other alternatives to coal and oil based products. We can choose to move forward, into the future with a sound energy policy that is free from media sensationalism of the boogie man lurking to kill us all and  includes nuclear as a major player, or we can all just sit in the dark. It’s certain he news networks wouldn’t like that.

One  wonders if the White House knows what is going on when they trot out people like James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, who apparently enjoys the taste of his own shoe leather.  I’m of the mind that he just likes giving his bosses massive heart attacks every time he speaks.

Mr. Clapper has held his position since June of last year and in that short time has had not three strikes as Lindsey Graham believes, but four verbal missteps that the White House has had to ether correct or clarify. This man is head of our national intelligence!

We have the entertaining moment of Clapper being befuddled on ABC with the other two stooges, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Chief Counter-terrorism Advisor John Brennan, when asked by Diane Sawyer about the 2010 arrest of 12 men in an alleged terror plot in London. The reason behind that little mistake? He had not been briefed.  In a world of 24 hour news where anyone with a cell phone, television or internet knew about the arrests in London, including the two people sitting next to him, he asserted that he had not been briefed.

Our second display of intelligence with a small “i” was when Clapper claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood, who looked poised to take over in the wake of the uprising in Egypt, was a “largely secular” group. That’s like saying  elections are largely non-political events. Perhaps he just misspoke or maybe he just doesn’t know the meaning of the word “secular”.

Of course, I’m sure Mr. Clapper had the White House hitting their foreheads this week when he informed the Senate Intelligence committee that the regime of Muammar Ghaddafi “will prevail” in Libya and that our greatest “Mortal Threat” were China and Russia, the latter being the country we just happened to sign the START treaty with. It was nice to see even Senate democrats scratch their heads, including Dianne Feinstien and Carl Levine mention that they would have picked someone like, Iran or perhaps North Korea.

While I can see the Lybian comment as Clapper speculating that Ghaddafi would be able to overtake the uprising in his own country, why he would blatantly disregard the White House’s statement on the subject is troubling. Implicating two countries, China and Russia, that we have uneasy relations with while ignoring the two countries which most of the world considers a threat, North Korea and Iran, brings me into agreement with Senator Lindsey Graham that Mr. Clapper needs to go.

Should the White House choose to keep Mr. Clapper, they will have to continue to revise or rebuke his comments, and U.S. Intelligence will continue to look, well, unintelligent.