Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

118
My next question is what is the significance of the degree of inaccuracy,
misinformation, that came out of our own media in the
first information flow that came out of the Soviet Union? We obviously
were unable, even within reasonable limits, to pinpoint the
significance of those that were allegedly killed or those that were
exposed to such an extent that there would be mass annihilation,
up to a few hundred thousand, or maybe more, much greater anticipated
devastation than actually occurred.
Was this just a situation where the press was over-exuberant, or
was there some other reason?
Mr. Denton. Speaking as a member of the task force, we didn't
rely on ham radios out of Kiev, and those sort of sources that I
think some media relied on in the first few days. We tried to rely
only on facts that we could verify or calculate. I think the absence
of information from the Soviet Union during this first few days led
to that sort of speculation.
Senator Murkowski. The Soviets were denying that it was that
bad and we kept sa5dng it was that bad, or inferred that it was. I
can recall headlines in New York papers that would really scare
the devil out of you.
Mr. Denton. But I can remember the same sort of headlines
during TMI, and it seemed to vary with distance. The further way
from the accident, the more erroneous the report. But I think as
members of the task force, we tried to report information that we
really knew to be essentially correct.
Senator Murkowski. You do not feel at all responsible for the
misinformation that was carried by the media?
Mr. Denton. I think we felt responsible to try to tell the media
what we knew. I don't feel responsible, that is correct, for what the
media prints.
Senator Murkowski. My last question, Mr. Chairman is, there
was reference in the statement of Mr. Delbert Bunch, toward increased
simplicity. I am wondering, Mr. Bunch, if you could elaborate
on why we can't more or less have a customized nuclear powerplant,
one that has met all the requirements—the licensing, not
for the first time, but for the 10, 11 and 12 times, so that we are
not almost customizing each time we do a new reactor.
I recognize if you are going to have technological changes, you
are going to have to have some newness, but it seems like it is an
extraordinary burdening process each time, and why can we not
say—here is a principle that has been operational for x-number of
years. It has passed all the inspections and licenses, it is proven.
The next one and the next one are going to be just like this one.
That is why your word "simplicity" caught my thought process. I
wanted to follow up on why don't we do this? Why don't we direct
that if we are going to have nuclear power generation in this country,
that it have that simplicity, that it have that proven core of
technological design?
Dr. Bunch. Senator, I couldn't agree more with you. It seems to
me that one of the ways to make sure that happens is to secure
enactment of the legislative proposal of the administration. A new
licensing process that would encourage the use of that kind of concept
would be a major step toward realizing the benefits of advanced
nuclear plants.