He argues that nuclear power’s primary drawback — …. is that the amount of energy it requires is too high, from construction costs to waste disposal to the high volumes of water it requires. Kreith says we can’t afford to wait two decades — we need to accelerate the move to renewable energy before we run out of fossil fuels
the idea of nuclear solving our energy problems is “ridiculous” because the types of reactors that would be needed haven’t even been invented yet
CU prof: Don’t buy the promise of nuclear energy Pandora’s Promise is not realistic Boulder Weekly By Jefferson Dodge 26 Dec 13, A retired University of Colorado mechanical engineering professor is challenging a new documentary that espouses the virtues of nuclear power…….Kreith argues that the pro-nuclear stance outlined in Pandora’s Promise is not realistic, given that the technology needed to make it a viable source of energy is decades away. He says society should begin an aggressive transition to renewables like solar and wind now — while we still have the surplus energy needed to make that shift.
Kreith presented his views to a packed auditorium in CU’s Engineering Center on Dec. 12, showing clips from the film and countering its claims with his own charts and graphs. His central argument revolves a concept known as “energy return on energy investment,” or EROI, which compares the amount of energy that a given system, like a nuclear power plant, produces during its lifetime against the amount of energy that needs to be expended in its production. Dividing the amount of energy produced by the amount expended, both directly and indirectly, Kreith translates the EROI into a number.
Gov’t Report: CNN, Huffington Post listed as ‘external stakeholders’ in NRC, alongside nuclear industry and pro-nuclear blogs — Both outlets help NRC to increase online influence, as CNN produces pro-nuclear infomercial http://enenews.com/govt-report-cnn-huffington-post-listed-external-stakeholders-nrc-alongside-nuclear-industry-pro-nuclear-blogs-both-news-outlets-give-tips-nrc-increase-online-influence
Internal Stakeholders (NRC staff) […]
External Stakeholders (Press) Energy Editor, AOL, Huffington Post — Nuclear Writer, Huffington Post — Producer, CNN News
External Stakeholders (Digital Influencers) Blogger, Atomic Power Review — Blogger, Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes — Blogger, Yes Vermont Yankee
External Stakeholders (Nuclear Industry) [...] Senior Manager for Social — Media, Nuclear Energy Institute [...]
External Stakeholders (US Government and US Senate Staff) US-CERT Representative, United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team — Policy Director, US Senate
Excerpts from the evaluation:
As part of the press, I have to be able to quickly communicate a lot of technical information into something our readers will grasp. But it helps if NRC had strong info graphics or a section that provided a breakdown of technical info so I can understand the translation from its source. — Huffington Post
NRC‘s materials are very basic and not very viral. Other agencies do a better job of including information graphics, photos, even clickable links. There‘s no extra. It‘s not influential. — Managing Editor, Huffington Post
One producer from Cable News Network (CNN) suggested that what was currently offered on Flickr does not compel him to return and urged NRC to provide more content that did not involve people in a conference room or of the chairperson speaking from a podium.
Read the report here (pdf) See also: Paper: CNN’s nuclear propaganda film “is dishonest to its core” — It’s “actually an infomercial”
Back then we were closer to WWII and the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We knew the destructive power. Now, time blurs memories and people don’t realize how devastating those weapons are. The kilotons in nuclear bombs today dwarf the power of nuclear bombs when we grew up. ……..
Thanks Kat for bringing awareness in an industry that is more prone to “Hangover III” than hard-hitting documentaries.
When ActivistsMake Movies: The Nuclear Arms Race is Relevant Again With ‘Fallout’ The Wrap, HOLLYBLOGS | ByRichard Stellar on December 10, 2013 The documentary details the making of Stanley Kramer’s epic “On the Beach”
Below – Lily Tomlin, Dr Helen Caldicott, Kat Kramer, Karen Kramer
You wouldn’t know that Kat Kramer was an activist. The daughter of director Stanley Kramer (above, second from right) looks as if she’d be more comfortable on the cover of Vogue than she would in a cramped editing room, poring over footage of films that, in her estimation, “change the world.”
One such film that efforts to do just that premiered a few weeks ago at the famed Sunset-Gower Studios lot,…… “Fallout” details the making of Stanley Kramer’s epic “On the Beach” — adapted from the fertile mind of Nevil Shute’s novel of a post-apocalyptic world ……..“Fallout” is about a movie about “the bomb” — and its relevance to today is staggering. Continue reading
Pandora’s Promise doesn’t live up to the hype – review by Alice Bell Monday 9 December 2013 20. theguardian.com “…….. Pandora’s Promise presents a pro-nuclear documentary……The key problem I had, however, was how politically disempowering their message was, and how they used allusions to science to do this. Clips of news coverage of radiation are used to suggest – oh so sympathetically, but also rather patronisingly – that we normal people can’t possibly understand.
We get references from Rhodes about talking to experts, and a few expert witnesses, but very little detail. Explanations are heavily abstracted and stylised. They feel comforting, but scratch the surface and you’re left with many questions. Moreover, as Damian Carrington’s reviewpointed out, there is a massive hole in its discussion of economics. It also misses a lot from the history of Atoms for Peace. The nuclear story is not just one of images of nature, science and technology, and they shouldn’t be used to obfuscate the politics and economics at play. Because energy policy needs to take it all seriously: science, politics, economics, engineering, culture and more.
The film clearly paints anti-nuclear activists as irrationally emotional; carefully juxtaposed with Brand, Lynas et al as calm, silently brooding in deep, wise thought. There’s even a line from Cravens about women being hardwired to protect their families (apparently as opposed to thinking rationally). At one point it shows activists handing out and eating bananas accompanied by a voiceover explanation of how much naturally occurring radiation there is in the fruit anyway. It’s a neat trick, making the activists look stupid, but it’s science communication by way of laughing at others’ ignorance. I don’t like it…..
I also felt the film seems to exhibit a rather depressing lack of faith in social change, especially when it came to global negations and energy efficiency. The concluding message seemed to be that we should give in to the particular idea of growth we currently work by; spread it, fuel it and accept it but don’t question or imagine anything new. The pro-nuclear lobby often presents itself as the hopeful, optimistic end of environmentalism, but with such a lack of belief in people, who exactly are the pessimists?. …..http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/dec/09/review-pandoras-promise-doesnt-live-up-to-the-hype
Academy Award for presenting: FALSEHOOD AND FABRICATION http://www.rense.com/general96/outrag.html
CNN Airs Outrageous Lies About Nuclear Energy Pandora’s Propaganda By Dick Allgire Honolulu 11-8-13
I happened to catch the CNN special program “Pandora’s Promise” last night. CNN has reached a new zenith of falsehood and fabrication……. Interesting title, alluding to Pandora’s Box, the artifact of Greek mythology that when opened released all the evil that spread throughout the world. We may have indeed opened Pandora’s Box with the full China Syndrome meltdown of three reactors and the upcoming ignition of the thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel rods at Fukushima. But this is not a problem, according to the producers of “Pandora’s Promise.”
The show was produced by the nuclear industry, and dutifully broadcast by CNN without any attempt at balance, fairness or accuracy…… Now, with deadly radiation pouring constantly and continuously out of Fukushima, and no conceivable way to stop it, with the Pacific Ocean being destroyed, CNN gives us these absurd declarations:
“No birth defects resulted from the Chernobyl disaster.”
“No American has ever been killed as a result of nuclear energy.”
“Solar power is many time more dangerous than nuclear power.”
“No one living in the exclusion zone near Chernobyl has ever died of cancer or any other diseases because of the radiation.”
“Nuclear energy is the safe solution to global warming.”
Really, it was better than Baghdad Bob, delivered with great videography, beautiful graphics. The outrageous lies in Pandora’s Promise were so absurd as to be humorous. But this is no laughing matter. Fukushima is the worst catastrophe in human history.
Millions of years from now, when the earth’s crust reforms and obliterates the scars and ditritus of our failed time on the planet, a new civilization may detect a layer of abnormally high radioactivity and wonder how the entire planet was so contaminated all at once. Pandora’s Promise.
Nuclear energy film overstates positives, underplays negatives By Ralph Cavanagh and Tom Cochran, CNN November 6, 2013 – Editor’s note: Ralph Cavanagh is co-director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s energy program and formerly served as a member of the U.S. Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board. Tom Cochran is an expert on nuclear energy and an NRDC consultant. He sits on three subcommittees of U.S. Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee.
The new film “Pandora’s Promise” is a love song to nuclear power that claims to be a documentary, but like all good propaganda it omits key parts of the story, overstates the positives and underplays the negatives.
Built around the (false) proposition that improved quality of life requires commensurate growth in energy use (a recurring visual theme is a globe that glows brighter and brighter), the movie presents nuclear power as the only plausible solution to global warming.
No American utility today would consider building a new nuclear power plant without massive government support. Of 29 power plants on the drawing boards in 2009, only a handful are going forward, with government help, and even those are experiencing delays and cost overruns.
No major U.S. environmental group endorses nuclear power as a solution to climate change caused by fossil fuels, but this movie lionizes environmental activists who have become nuclear power enthusiasts, led by Michael Shellenberger and Stewart Brand. Shellenberger notes in the film that he at one time worked for NRDC and other major environmental groups in a consulting role. Their narratives are juxtaposed against unflattering, decades-old clips of veteran anti-nuclear activists like Helen Caldicott, Jane Fonda and Ralph Nader, suggesting that being pro-nuke is modern and hip……..
James Hansen certainly would not agree, however, with the film’s curt dismissal of the potential contributions of energy efficiency and renewable energy resources to meeting global energy needs….
Meanwhile, the movie contends that anti-nuclear activists have grossly overstated radiation risks, even as it overlooks scientific findings from, for example, the World Health Organization on actual impacts of radiation releases.
The film also dismisses energy efficiency in light of the allegedly inherent energy intensity of modern life, perpetuating the decade-old urban myth that a smartphone uses as much electricity as a refrigerator. (Repeated demonstrations show that if you take everything into account, a smartphone and the cloud data it uses only represent 15-20% as much electricity as an average refrigerator.)………http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/06/opinion/pandora-nuclear-energy-opinion-cavanagh-cochran/
Nuclear energy film overstates positives, underplays negatives By Ralph Cavanagh and Tom Cochran, CNN November 6, 2013 - “………The still-unrealized Integral Fast Reactor is the real star of the film, along with the nation of France, whose nuclear generation program is extolled as “one of the most inspiring stories ever” (“the trains are electric powered, they have clean air, and they have the cheapest electricity in Europe”). Nuclear power debates are the only places where you will ever see those at the conservative edge of the political spectrum argue that the United States should reorganize its economy to be more like France.
The Clinton administration killed the Integral Fast Reactor in 1994 because of concern over the potential diversion of the plutonium fuel by terrorists and non-nuclear weapon states of concern. Yet the film’s closing argument is that a “fourth-generation” reactor modeled on the Integral Fast Reactor will sweep the globe, burning waste created by the first three generations and “solving” the nagging problem of long-term disposal of nuclear waste. The film fails to mention that this would take hundreds to thousands of plutonium-fueled reactors operating over hundreds of years, resulting most likely in an increase in the releases of radioactivity to the environment as a consequence of operations by the Integral Fast Reactor’s fuel processing and fabricating facilities.
The film invokes Bill Gates as one of many forward-thinking new investors in nuclear innovation, but surely even Gates would recoil from the Integral Fast Reactor’s poor economic outlook compared to conventional reactors and the financial risks associated with building just one Integral Fast Reactor, let alone a global fleet of them. The film fails to acknowledge that the flagship fast reactor development efforts in the United States, France, Germany, Japan and Italy all failed, and that fast reactors were abandoned by both the U.S. and Soviet navies, hardly a strong selling point for resurrecting the Integral Fast Reactor program………..http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/06/opinion/pandora-nuclear-energy-opinion-cavanagh-cochran/
Why Divisive Pro-Nuclear Power Film ‘Pandora’s Promise’ is the Right Kind of Doc for CNN to Air, Indiewire, BY ALISON WILLMORE NOVEMBER 7, 2013 “…………”Pandora’s Promise” has its series of experts calmly countering anti-nuclear power arguments, sometimes while posed in the midst of natural landscapes. But its claim that “to be anti-nuclear is basically to be in favor of burning fossil fuels” is a shaky one — not the least because it’s based on the idea that conservation and curbing energy use on any global scale is off the table, as is larger reliance on alternative energy sources like wind and solar power which are by nature sporadic and requiring of some kind of backup, like oil.
How to block Murdoch Independent Australia, Torin Peel 3 November 2013, Sick of News Corp spin? Technology whiz Torin Peel explains how to erase Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda from your computer screens completely. IF YOU’RE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE who simply won’t stand for Rupert Murdoch’s crap anymore, now might be the time to completely erase him from your computer screens for good. There are many ways to do this, and they’re remarkably simple.
If you’re ready to block News Corpse, the first way we can do this is using a plugin for Google Chrome. If you don’t use Chrome, I recommend you download it. It’s a lot faster and more modern than Internet Explorer. It’s also a lot easier to use and works better with most web pages, including websites like Twitter and Facebook.
The Google Chrome plugin is called Murdoch Block, and can be added to Chrome with relative ease through the Chrome extensions library…… http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/how-to-block-murdoch,5861
Tokyo Mother: “Total media blackout” in Japan of lots and lots of people developing symptoms related to Fukushima disaster (VIDEO) — “Many cases of sickness and death among young generations” not reported http://enenews.com/tokyo-mother-total-media-blackout-in-japan-lots-and-lots-of-people-developing-symptoms-related-to-fukushima-disaster-many-cases-of-sickness-and-death-among-young-generations-not-reported
Media false balance as illustrated in the IPCC reporting by outlets like the BBC, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News is largely to blame for this “consensus gap.” This practice of false balance misinforms the public and does us all a disservice.
Conservative media outlets found guilty of biased global warming coverage http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/11/climate-change-political-media-ipcc-coverage by John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli
New studies show conservative and politically neutral media outlets are creating false balance in climate change reporting There’s a 97 percent consensus on human-caused global warmingin the peer-reviewed climate science literature and among climate experts. There’s a 96 percent consensus in the climate research that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming. The 2013 IPCC report agrees with this position with 95 percent confidence, and states that humans are most likely responsible for 100 percent of the global warming since 1951.
Yet a new study conducted by Media Matters for America shows that in stories about the 2013 IPCC report, rather than accurately reflect this expert consensus, certain media outlets have created a false perception of discord amongst climate scientists.
Background of guests who accept and reject human-caused global warming in IPCC media stories, courtesy of Media Matters.
The 19 percent of guests classified as ‘climate scientists’ in the above graphic is also very generous to the conservative American media outlets. Continue reading
A study by Women in Journalism earlier this year found that across national newspapers, 78% of bylined front page stories were written by men, and of those quoted as experts or sources in lead stories, 84% were men. The Women’s Media Centre in the United States, on conducting similar research reported that during the 2012 presidential election, 75% of front page bylined articles at top newspapers were written by men and that women made up a mere 14% of Sunday TV talk show interviewees, and 29% of “roundtable” guests. Women in Journalism were quick to highlight one of the most worrying aspects of this imbalance: most stories involving women in the four week period surveyed, portrayed them as either victims or celebrities.
While the gender gap in print is insidious, in broadcast media it’s glaringly obvious
Women in journalism: not a trivial subject,Open Democracy, DAWN FOSTER 14 October 2013 The biggest newspapers in the United States, Britain and Europe still reserve pages of the most serious political and foreign policy analysis for older white men.
Can girls even find Syria on a map? Jill Filipovic’s (tongue in cheek) rejoinder on the Guardian website last month aimed to poke fun at the bias in commissioning opinion pieces on foreign policy issues, noting the heavy weighting towards male bylines on the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post. Filipovic’s piece swiftly garnered a huge response online, and an article from Buzzfeed’s Sheera Frenkel, claiming that most correspondents covering the Syrian conflict were women. Filipovic’s central argument wasn’t disputed by Frenkel – the vast majority of opinion writers embraced across the global media continue to be male.
This matters, because it frames the national debate, and in the case of Syria, influences political decision on military intervention, purporting to be a bell-weather for public opinion at large. Continue reading
posted on Nuclear-news.net
13 October 2013
This weeks calamities for this blogger included, all dongle data Sims were blocked for half a day, I was unable to get into WordPress to post for whilst I availed my self of the free wireless network at my local library, During another session at the library my wireless became defunct.
Not a boring week by any means..
I thought I would get some thoughts down as the Internet seems to dislike me for some reason..
I uncovered a document where the UK Government body called DECC (Department foe Energy and Climate Change) instructed the UK Science media Centre to “manage” the news on Geo-Engineering, This got me thinking as you might well imagine.
The Science Media Centre (SMC) received a £300,000 boost to their income in the charity fiscal year of 2011. As I have previously mentioned that this “charity” sent a mental health professional to deal with the disaster at Daichi, as far as I could work out the psychologist was paid by a secondary aim of the “charity” that deals in mental health issues.
Considering the recent hurried push to sign nuclear contracts in the UK and get control of the epidemiological research, it makes sense that the SMC was advised by the UK government to shut the bad news down concerning Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, The Home office even sent diplomats to play cricket in Fukushima prefecture the day before the Japanese won the Olympic 2020 bid.
So, we have DECC instructing the SMC to manage the Geo engineering news and it is obvious that the SMC UK was behind the coverup of Fukushima with Ogilvey and Maher from the WPP group (Tony Blair works for WPP for a large retainer).
I have been made aware that the government is possibly undermining representations being made by NGO`s and civil pressure groups and have been helping find the data on this and that is likely why I had was targetted for disruption this week,
I am still awaiting an official statement on behalf of the NGO`s etc and will post the statement when it arrives on my email.
The recent showing of Pandora’s box and many “nuclear is the only solution to climate change” articles and videos are designed to show how pro nuclear the UK is and how ready for nuclear investment the UK is. Offers from China (The BBC does their children’s programming), Japan (Japan is ensnared into the nuclear fuel cycle and decommissioning strategies) and from a broke EDF (currently trying to pollute the whole of the English channel, north sea and just about anywhere they can get away with it) are flowing into the UK as quickly as the dissolution process for the nuclear fuel rods that pollutes our air space and waterways flows outwards. And the UK government wants lots of little La Hagues and Sellafields poisoning the waterways for multiple generations to come and MOX run reactors that give a guaranteed BIG BANG if there are any serious cooling lose incidents (ref; Daichi 3 nuclear reactor).
DECC has reported that the private companies will not share the technical data nor even the names of persons involved with the data. There is also some idea that there are no independent epidemiologists who will be accepted by the private corporations, so therefore they support Richard Wakefords (Ex BNFL) posit of “no effect from nuclear accidents worth talking about”.
I am not going to bash the BBC at this point as they tie in to every aspect of this marketing of nuclear materials and cash because it would make the article to long.. But you can imagine…
In short, DECC appears to be going all out for the large and very expensive nuclear projects that will not reap any rewards for a number of years and likely push Fracking as the interim solution. Meanwhile BP, the Anglo American corporation, is still drilling for the oil like there will be no tomorrow.
EDF charge about £65.00 per mega watt in France whilst in the UK the spot price, on offer, seems to be settling around £100.00? EDF are pretty broke and still have to find a cheap solution to the nuclear waste problem for their existing nuclear sites.
I will be reporting more on the processes that are being used and the new ideas that they are thinking of to cut costs at a later date.
In the recent government report it shows that they value cost cutting as a priority issue and following up that with secrecy concerning epidemiological research. And they didnt seem to interested in any other science from Yablakovs New York Academy of Science presented book that is now in its second edition with the needed corrections. Nor do they take into account the voices of dissent in the nuclear industry in Belgium, USA, Japan, Belarus and UK. Instead they close ranks and hide everything and everyone who might be responsible for a future UK nuclear health tragedy (though radiation has already reached Norway and Ireland (AM241 found near Dublin Bay recently in growing amounts).
That all I have to report for now, UKColumn is doing an in depth investigation on the BBC next week, I will post a viideo up. They have connected the BBC to WPP and they are generally not happy with our great British broadcaster, that appears to be now an arm of the global advertising and media corporations.
Robert Stone and “Pandora’s Promise”, Noel Wauchope, 9 October 13, http://noelwauchope.wordpress.com/ The film’s Australian premiere was shown in Melbourne on October 8th, with director Robert Stone answering questions afterwards.
I found myself liking Robert Stone , for his enthusiasm, and sincere concern about climate change.
I found myself disliking the film, for its sins of omission, and manipulative way of discrediting anti nuclear people.
“Pandora’s Promise” presents as a documentary about climate change and nuclear power. It is very stylishly made and interesting, story on the theme that climate change is an urgent danger, and that nuclear power is the major solution to this. It is a very, very good soft sell for the nuclear industry
“Pandora’s Promise” uses the voices of people, mainly from the nuclear power lobby,The Breakthrough Institute, to present its argument. Mark Lynas, Michael Shellenberger, Gwyneth Craven, Stewart Brand, Richard Rhodes all portray themselves as former anti nuclear activists who have now seen the light, and are pro nuclear.
The film certainly highlights the reality of climate change, the health hazards of the coal industry, and the need for action on climate change. Indeed, that’s the background and stated reason for its main premise – that premise being – the world should now urgently adopt nuclear power.
Here’s where the subtle, and not always so subtle, manipulation comes in. A large part of the film goes over the bad things about nuclear power, the poor safety design of early reactors, the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. We are led to sympathise with the anti nuclear movement and its idealism.
But then – hey presto, we learn, almost magically, that our speakers, having talked with experts, now realise that new nuclear reactors are safe and good. Today’s environmental and anti nuclear movement , we are told, consists of well-meaning, but ignorant and uninformed people who are denying science.
They are shown to have an irrational fear of ionising radiation. In this they are shown as the same as climate change denialists, denying the scientific consensus. But the scientific consensus, including the World Health Organisation, is that ionising radiation is dangerous to health, even at low levels.
On the radiation question, the film is simply dishonest. It misrepresents the World Health Organisation’s position on low dose radiation, and on Fukushima. (WHO has in fact, predicted a later increase in cancer among women exposed to Fukushima radiation).
It trots out the absurd argument about bananas being more radioactively harmful than nuclear radiation. ( Bananas do contain radioactive potassium-40. However, our bodies have a constant amount of potassium-40, and it does not increase through eating bananas. Any excess is quickly eliminated. However, man made radioactive isotopes like cesium -137 accumulate in the body, and are very dangerous)
There is not one voice in this film to provide an opposing point of view – the assumption is made that no scientifically qualified person is against nuclear power.
Having demolished the anti nuclear movement, the film goes on to demolish the clean energy movement, though it does allow renewable energy to be “part of the energy mix”. Advocates of renewable energy are described as having a “hallucinatory delusion”. Nuclear power is safer than solar or wind energy, and, after the initial set up, cost is stated to be much more economical than solar or wind.
The film then goes on to the questions of safety and of nuclear waste. It explains the “generations” of nuclear reactors. Generation 111 (current reactors) are much safer, and Generation 1V , ‘recycling’ reactors , safer still. The Integral Fast Rector (IFR) uses nuclear waste as fuel, and leaves a smaller volume of nuclear waste. However, it’s still radioactive waste, so the IFRs still have that eventual problem.
But anyway, the glory of Generation 1V nuclear reactors (none actually built and operating yet) is that with them, the world’s existing nuclear waste becomes a valuable resource, as fuel.
The film concludes on an optimistic note, enthusing about the “renaissance in reactor design”. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), thorium reactors, Bill Gates’s Travelling Wave Reactor are especially praised. They would need to be mass produced (and ordered en masse) . Gen 1V reactors might take a while – 25 years to come on line, but in the meantime, Gen 111 can go ahead, as their nuclear waste can be safely stored in above ground cylinders, awaiting their new role as fuel.
This film was well received by the premiere audience. It is clear and understandable. It is quite amusing, (often at the expense of nuclear opponents, such as Amory Lovins, Ralph Nader, Jane Fonda, and of course, Australia’s own Dr Helen Caldicott.) The banana story got a good laugh.
The music is good – dramatic where needed, rather sweet and sentimental, where showing healthy people who still live near Chernobyl.
The sins of omission? No mention was made of the terrorism risk, of nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, nuclear transport as terrorist targets. The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation was glossed over. Discussion of renewable energy ignored recent developments in wind and solar technology, their increasing use globally, and falling costs. There was no mention of the high water requirements of the uranium and nuclear industries. Nor was mentioned the vulnerability of nuclear reactors to climate extremes.
The most glaring omission was in not discussing the economics of nuclear energy, which is currently the industry’s biggest stumbling block.
Still, for Australia, the film does carry an important message about the seriousness of climate change. One questioner did wonder whether all the nuclear reactors would be up and running in time to have any effect. Robert Stone thinks that they will.
Complaints focused on the World at One programme on Radio 4 on Friday, which featured the Australian sceptic Bob Carter. A retired geologist, he leads a group called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and is funded by US libertarians. His words also dominated several subsequent news bulletins.
Earlier in the day, the Today programme had said it could not find any British climate scientists who disagreed with the IPCC’s core findings.
The biologist Steve Jones, who reviewed the BBC’s science output in 2011, told the Guardian he was concerned that the BBC was still wedded to an idea of “false balance” in presenting climate sceptics alongside reputable scientists.
“Science turns on evidence. Balance in science is not the same as balance in politics where politicians can have a voice however barmy their ideas are.
a stunning display of false balance when it devoted less airtime to IPCC scientists than it did to Bob Carter, a sceptic who is funded by a free-market lobby group in the US, the Heartland Institute. Carter was allowed to make a number of inaccurate and misleading statements unchallenged.”
BBC coverage of IPCC climate report criticised for sceptics’ airtime http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/bbc-coverage-climate-report-ipcc-sceptics Steve Jones among experts querying BBC ‘false balance’ in giving climate sceptics ‘undue’ voice on global warming study Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent The Guardian, Wednesday 2 October 2013 Steve Jones said he previously advised the BBC not to present climate-change sceptics as having equal scientific weight with mainstream researchers. The BBC has been criticised for its coverage of the most comprehensive scientific study on global warming yet published. Prominent climate experts have accused the corporation of bias towards “climate sceptics” at the expense of mainstream scientists. Continue reading
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- indigenous issues
- marketing of nuclear
- opposition to nuclear
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- MIDDLE EAST
- NORTH AMERICA
- SOUTH AMERICA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- rare earths
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual