Watch: Plutonium/MOX fuel ad to air during The Daily Show (VIDEO)

Published: June 19th, 2013 at 1:23 pm ET
By

38 comments


Title: TV ad skewers Lindsey Graham’s pork-barrel plutonium MOX boondoggle
Source: Rock Hill Herald Online
Author: Friends of the Earth and Tax Payers for Common Sense. Washington, D.C.
Date: June 19, 2013

[…] As a key House subcommittee takes up funding for the problem-plagued, budget-busting nuclear fuel program, Senator Lindsey Graham’s obsessive support of the project at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River site in his home state of South Carolina is being targeted in an off-beat, on-target TV ad from Friends of the Earth.  (See http://youtu.be/d2PTwods3Y4.)

The House Energy and Water Subcommittee is this week discussing Department of Energy funding for the MOX Project, which would make nuclear reactor fuel from surplus weapons plutonium. The Obama Administration has requested a large cut to the program both this year and in later years, possibly terminating the project.  Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense and other environmental and public interest groups are campaigning for an end to MOX funding. […]

The 30-second “Oink” ad begins running today in Washington on FOX, MSNBC and on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, with a strong social media push including ads on Facebook and YouTube. It is also running on broadcast TV in South Carolina — in the capital city of Columbia and in the Aiken-Augusta market, near the DOE’s Savannah River site, where the $7.7-billion plutonium fuel MOX plant is under construction. […]

Watch the ad here

See also: [intlink id=”memories-daily-show-going-nuclear-nuclear-industry-will-show-starting-today-advertising-campaign-showing-value-atomic-power-trying-target-younger-audience-bloomberg” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]

Published: June 19th, 2013 at 1:23 pm ET
By

38 comments

Related Posts

  1. Watch: ‘The Daily Show’ debuts cartoon ad by nuclear industry (VIDEO) March 22, 2012
  2. The Daily Show gets nuclear “exclusive” — A “phenomenal story” about processing uranium in U.S. — 12-minute extended interview (VIDEO) March 29, 2013
  3. Nuclear-funded Obama on Nuclear-sponsored Daily Show: Nuclear forgotten as component in energy future — Oil, gas, wind, solar all mentioned… same as at debates (VIDEO) October 19, 2012
  4. ‘The Daily Show’ is going nuclear: Nuclear industry will use program for ad campaign that claims to display value of atomic power — Trying to target younger audience -Bloomberg March 20, 2012
  5. Nuclear Expert: We found ‘mystery’ Fukushima plutonium; Why it’s there is yet to be understood, this was not expected — US Gov’t Expert: I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole too far… There’s speculation about plutonium fuel and about what other fuel they were using (VIDEO) September 26, 2014

38 comments to Watch: Plutonium/MOX fuel ad to air during The Daily Show (VIDEO)

  • weeman

    When 7.7 billion plus extra to contract is about to loose it's funding and the program is terminated the weasels will use anything they can pull out of there hat.
    Mox fuel is dead, they know the consequences far out weights the benifits, I do believe they have seen the light on this particular issue and will have to find another way to dispose of the massive stock pile of plutonium, good luck.
    The daily show is no longer funny, the only thing nuclear power and comedy has in common is the ludicrousity off it. Nuts stark ravin insanity, two neutrons short off a atom.

    • Jay

      " The ad, which asks the viewer to take action against Graham's big-spending , anchors renewed efforts by Friends of the Earth against continued funding by Congress for the troubled MOX project . "

    • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic

      I would like to share that a few months back, when I was reading about all of these nuclear related budget issues of Obama's, I was pretty pissed off.. It only occurred that Obama was cutting the program.. as it was mostly just switched from the DOE budget to NASA(?) budget.. they just changed the funding source, I saw no decrease in actual funding or spending of tax payer dollars on MOX.. I think they intend to fuel space vehicles, satellites, etc. with it.. Mox reactor has been operating on an "experimental" basis since prior to 1996, in Idaho, so, tons of money and progressive science involved. They will not stop or de-fund this program without hundreds of thousands marching in the street, even then I doubt it.

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        Cataclysmic, it might take something like the "Millions Against Monsanto" marches. Only likely billions of us taking to the streets before these monsters realize they're destroying everyone and everything in this "industry" 's path.

      • hogy

        @ cataclysmic:
        You are so right about the subterfuges associated with nuke energy programs and it is worse in the state of Idaho where nuke is the epithet of the state's name!

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Love this comment from the 2012 story about the commercial to air on the Jon Stewart show about nuclear energy being "clean and green" :

      http://enenews.com/watch-the-daily-show-debuts-nuclear-industrys-60-second-animated-commercial-video

      (comment by user: milk and cheese)
      March 22, 2012 at 5:46 pm
      You could watch THE SIMPSONS' "Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish" from Season Two.

  • combomelt combomelt

    John stewart the pawn of the nucleorats. What a low-life bottom feeder stewart has become. But since GE writes the checks, I guess they really do "bring good things to life(like cancer from mox fuel). Screw these PTB. I just threw up A LOTTLE in my mouth and out my nose after watching the propaganda piece. I never watched TDS and NEVER will.

    • hogy

      @ combomelt: I wonder how much he's getting paid for this? He gives the nuke industry and its associated manufacturers broad advertising by putting it on his TV show. They never had it so good.
      What a colossal JERK!

  • ask questions

    The ad is AGAINST Mox fuel, not in support of it.

    http://youtu.be/d2PTwods3Y4

  • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

    I'd like to help Friends of the Earth but am unable to watch the ad, although I have tried several times. The people of Aiken, S.C. and Augusta, GA should rise up in protest of this project. It appeared to be Obama's baby and much treasure has been spent on it, but it would be far better to kiss it goodbye right now. Shame on Lindsey Graham. Maybe he needs to ask the opinion of local, knowledgeable people or the Augusta Chronicle whether or not to proceed!

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      NoPrevarication, maybe you can find the ad on the Friends of the Earth website. There is usually a "media" or "marketing" group link somewhere. Links to pieces such as the commerical in question are often posted there.

      'Hope you find what you're looking for.

      • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

        @Ho Taters

        Thanks for all your comments. I was finally able to see the video and it's wonderful! I'll have to watch the Simpsons now after your comment about the fish with three eyes! :>) I have been praying that the MOX fuel plant in Savannah River would come to an end.

  • I liked the commercial, but I thought it was disrespectful to the pigs by putting 'their' heads onto politicians.

    The ad says a 6 Billion overrun.

    "…near the DOE’s Savannah River site, where the $7.7-billion plutonium fuel MOX plant is under construction." – from article

    I am not a mathamagician, but it seems to me that we could pay people by the hour to ride stationary bikes or run on treadmills that generate electricity and be far more cost effective. It might also help solve obesity issues at the same time.

    Seriously…
    How many windmills could be built for 7.7 BILLION dollars?

    Windmills also come with the added benefit of not damaging DNA or bringing suffering upon future generations. Plus 'no waste' that remains toxic for THOUSANDS of years. Seems like such a 'no brainer' to me.

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Chas, loved your comment. Have (seriously) been considering figuring out how to install a generator connected to a bicycle or other such device (treadmill) in our future home. We have a friend who actually does things like that at his home in Eureka, CA. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) by how much those "small" efforts at energy self-sufficiency add up.

      'Kind of like the solar oven idea, too.

      • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

        @Ho Taters

        That generator connected to a bicycle idea must have derived from the movie "Soylent Green". Even though the cameras were long before the quality we now have available, it was a great movie.

  • nedlifromvermont

    Ein herzliches Wilkommen an das gigantisches FRAUD!!! which is the nuclear power industry!!!

    Shocking! … Disturbing! … Unbeliefable! … these silly scientists with their government funding … to grind up plutonium oxides to mix with enriched uranium to burn hotter and more unstable in a nuclear reactor, increasing the embrittlement of the weldments used in high pressure radioactive piping … for a technological feat (experiment) which is unnecessary to power the grid!!!!

    Brilliant, Coffin!!!

    peace!

    • hogy

      to nedlifromvermont:
      So when will Vermont Yankee nuke be decommissioned???

      • nedlifromvermont

        they just refueled, again, and the courts and public service boards are emasculated in the face of Big Nuke money and spin, so the process is slow and unpredictable … but we're thinking they shut this down before 2016, and a big expense (steam dryer replacement can no longer be pushed off) but it may well go ballistic before then … Goodbye Boston, Quabbin Reservoir and most of central New England … what a STUPID way to boil water … IMHO

        peace …

  • ftlt

    Rare that commercials like this are allowed on TV… Kudos to the Daily Show for it…

    That said, the Daily Show has a long long way to go IMO…

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Maybe Mr. Jon is trying to make up for the gigantic pro-nuclear commercial faux pax which aired on his show last year ….

  • dosdos dosdos

    That the commercial doesn't talk about the inherent danger of MOX after the Unit 3 detonation at Fukushima shows that the opposition who made the commercial is soft peddling the truth to get aired. If they were fully honest, no station or network would air their time spot. They have to go after the pork, not the lack of intelligence in using MOX, to get their point out to the public.

  • HoTaters HoTaters

    " … and tax prayers for common sense …."

    Oops, that read "tax payers for common sense."

    My bad.

  • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

    I might be the only one, but I think it's a quite silly spot which absolutely misses the point. It says: "Even worse – the plant is run by a French company."
    Even worse?? That implies to Joe America that everything was ok if only GE got the contract.
    No word about the dangers, Instead a pig with moustache. Stupid.
    Too bad, a great opportunity missed.

    *peace

    • lam335 lam335

      I think the remark about it being a French company has to be considered in context. Graham is a Republican, and the vast majority of Republican politicians are staunch supporters of pretty much anything relating to nuclear power and/or weapons. But many of the "regular" people who constitute the Republican base are at best highly suspicious of France and some could even be described as truly antagonistic to it (Remember the whole "freedom fries"–instead of "French fries"–silliness a few years back?). French culture is perceived by many on the right as being highly secular (even atheistic) and also very left-leaning/socialistic.

      Also, though many Republicans claim to be all about the "market" (which doesn't in principle care about national borders), many in the Republican base are quite patriotic and advocate "Buy[ing] American" and preferring American companies to "foreign" ones. So exposing the fact that the company Graham so staunchly supports is a French company makes sense, rhetorically, as an appeal to the Francophobic part of the base, while pointing out how economically questionable MOX is as an investment can simultaneously appeal to those who prioritize markets and economic productivity.

      • lam335 lam335

        The ad is interesting, because it seems to have been created by an environmentalist group, but it says NOTHING about the environmental impacts of MOX or nuclear in general. This probably makes sense for that particular electorate, but it also represents a missed opportunity to bring the reality of this issue before the public (who are largely clueless about it).

        I find it very problematic that the current instantiation of Republican and supposedly "conservative" ideology seems to prioritize economic productivity over environmental health and safety. Truly conservative principles should lead to cconcern about protecting the environment and minimizing pollution. Patriotism naturally points to a concern to preserve the well-being of one's homeland. "Family values" and "pro-life" values should lead to a concern about the impact that nuclear-related pollution can have on the youngest members of our society. Conservatism, by definition, is concerned with what we pass on to the next generation, so a conservative should be deeply concerned, not only about the way nuclear pollution taints our homeland, but also about the fact that we are imposing upon future generations an ever-growing burden of nuclear waste that we have no viable long-term means of storing–and MOX is NOT a real solution to this problem.

        • lam335 lam335

          If conservatives truly care about national security, they should reject nuclear, which will always presents a vulnerable target for terrorism. Contrary to the claims of the industry, MOX is absolutely NOT a solution to the problem of nuclear waste. Originally, the sort of re-processing that Graham supports was prohibited precisely because it was recognized to be proliferation danger. It was deemed much safer to simply bury the stuff in forms that were nearly impossible to steal, rather than "re-processing" it in vulnerable facilities. But then the industry realized that 1. disposing of nuclear waste as they were supposed to was very expensive, 2. no permanent depository was being established, and 3. they could stand to make a lot of money (instead of having to spend a lot of money) if instead they "reprocessed" old bomb material and reactor fuel and could sell it as new reactor fuel (regardless of the proliferation and security risks that that policy posed).

          BUT the "invisible hand" of the market is smart enough not to fall for their propaganda, and nobody wants to buy the stuff. But Graham still wants to support the MOX industry, since it supports him. So much for being the fierce champion of national security that he portrays himself as. Nuclear fuel re-processing, including especially MOX processing, represents a true threat to national security.

    • hogy

      to B & butter:
      No it does not imply that. "Worse" refers to the French state-owned nuke company AREVA and its crappy track record of polluting the sea off France's northern coast with rad-pollution, plus accidents galore. Luckily for Idahoans AREVA has suspended its plan to build another reactor or fuel processing plant (i forget which) in ID. It won't come right out and say we are leaving……..but we hope so.

  • Good, finally the hippies are smartening up. With nuclear issues being so complicated, many peoples eyes glaze over when you talk about plutonium, alpha radiation and all the technological language necessary to make an honest point. Lets just cut to the chase. Its a waste of money! Billions being wasted! Even worse the money is going to France. Evil France that tried to rename our beloved Freedom Fries……or something. This is the type of ad that works. And this adds substance to my personal theory that ultimately nuclear energy will be shut down for money not health considerations. Suits me whatever works shut it down.

    • lam335 lam335

      re: "… ultimately nuclear energy will be shut down for money not health considerations. Suits me whatever works shut it down."

      I agree. One can make all the principled arguments that one can, but, at the end of the day, money will decide the issue, not the will of an informed citizenry.

      Sad, but true. But, as your say, "whatever works …"

  • Radiation does cause cancer. There is a huge problem with over crowded spent fuel pools. No long term solution for nuclear waste. Old worn out reactors and a regulatory system influenced by power companirs. Fukushima and Chernobyl making large areas uninhabitable for generations. Etc etc. All worthy arguments that I personally agree with. But arguments that can be refuted and cause confusion in a largely uneducated re nuclear, population. But losing money. How elegant. Everyone relates to that. The nuclear technocrats can buy doctors and scientists and the poison is invisible and they can even call it green technology and confuse many but losing money is right there in black and white. Unrefutable evidence. Tepco will bankrupt Japan. An investor can see the once successful company reduced to a government owned money pit. What other industry loses that big. You can't even sell the real estate.

  • nedlifromvermont

    As usual, Mark, your comments are so right on (the mark …) I agree wholeheartedly, only, some reactors will probably be run to failure, before the money-losing, psychotic and sociopathic owners pull the plug for financial reasons … I wish it weren't so … it's a gigantic game of nuclear chicken …

    probably they should cover the contaminated zones with solar panels (installed by robots??) and done …

    Probably nobody gets strung up … but we can make them feel very stupid in public with some simple questions …

    peace …