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
The nuclear advertising film ‘ Pandora’s Promise’ will be showing around Australia, and in Edinburgh and London in the next couple of weeks. It is largely funded by people from the pro nuclear Breakthrough Institute, including people like Bill Gates, who has his own nuclear power company Terra Power. It is directed by passionate nuclear enthusiast, Robert Stone, who does Q and A afterwards, and over-talks any critical questioners.
Weaknesses of this film include the way that it:
- mocks anti nuclear opinions as a bunch extremists and zealots. It makes no effort to portray any sensible opposing opinion.
- minimises the health effects of ionising radaiation with downright untruths, for instance, telling us only that Chernobyl killed 56 people. It leaves out that a United Nations World Health Organization agency predicts 16,000 more will die from Chernobyl cancers and that the European Environment Agency estimates 34,000 more. It omits that non-fatal thyroid cancer struck another 6,000, mostly children
- does not mention the crippling economics that is now closing nuclear plants in USA (Florida, Wisconsin and California), nor the imperative for tax-payer subsidy
- does not mention insurance: the nuclear industry, alone among industries is exempt from risk through USA’s Price Anderson Act, as well as every home owner’s insurance policy stating that this policy does not compensate you for any radiation damage from a nuclear power plant.
- avoids the economics of Small Nuclear reactors (SMRs) Even under the best of circumstances, there will be no SMR prototype for as long as a decade or more. There are serious questions over the economics of mass producing these, over their safety, and the huge costs of maintaining security over thousands of little nuclear reactors scattered around the land. None of this is discussed in the film.
- promotes Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) – fast breeder reactors. but doesn’t mention the past failure of these, in USA , France (Super Phoenix) Japan (Monju), and their enormous cost.
- Dishonestly minimises the nuclear waste problems of IFR’s. Film does not explain that the final wastes, while smaller in volume, are far more radioactive and dangerous than existing nuclear wastes, and therefore require the same amount of storage space and security.
Nuclear Industry Report: ‘Reduced stability’ of fuel pool in Fukushima Unit 4; Admits there’s damaged fuel inside? — Gundersen: Fuel racks moved and damaged; Fallen debris distorted tops (AUDIO) http://enenews.com/nuclear-industry-report-reduced-stability-of-unit-4-fuel-pool-at-fukushima-admits-some-fuel-inside-is-damaged-gundersen-fuel-racks-moved-from-quake-fallen-debris-distorted-tops-audio
World Nuclear News,Sept. 26, 2013 (Emphasis Added): [...] Underwater inspections in the [Unit 4] pond have shown most of the fuel to be undamaged, but the pond contains a lot of dust and debris which will complicate operations. [...] Its full core load of fuel, plus used fuel from previous operation, was being stored in a fuel pool at the top of the reactor building. [...] The stability of the pool was then reduced by major structural damage to the building caused by the ignition of hydrogen [...]
World Nuclear News is funded by the World Nuclear Association. The WNA represents the interests of the international nuclear industry. -Source
Bridging the News Gap, with Professor Matt Noyes
Fairewinds Energy Education Podcast, Sept.. 26, 2013 (at 21:15 in) – Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Chief Engineer: These racks [in the Unit 4 fuel pool] have moved, they’ve been distorted by the earthquake, there’s junk that’s fallen on top of them and distorted the tops. […] One of two things is going to happen. They’re either going to pull too hard and snap the bundle, or they’re going to be unable to pull all of the fuel out of the pool. Full podcast available here
He says investigative journalism in the US is being killed by the crisis of confidence, lack of resources and a misguided notion of what the job entails…….
“Our job is to find out ourselves, our job is not just to say – here’s a debate’ our job is to go beyond the debate and find out who’s right and who’s wrong about issues. That doesn’t happen enough.
Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the ‘pathetic’ American media by Lisa O’Carroll Friday 27 September 2013 theguardian.com Pulitzer Prize winner explains how to fix journalism, saying press should ‘fire 90% of editors and promote ones you can’t control’
Seymour Hersh has got some extreme ideas on how to fix journalism – close down the news bureaus of NBC and ABC, sack 90% of editors in publishing and get back to the fundamental job of journalists which, he says, is to be an outsider. It doesn’t take much to fire up Hersh, the investigative journalist who has been the nemesis of US presidents since the 1960s and who was once described by the Republican party as “the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist”.
He is angry about the timidity of journalists in America, their failure to challenge the White House and be an unpopular messenger of truth……..
Snowden changed the debate on surveillance Continue reading
(Ed Note: “trolls” – comments, put out in large numbers by a political lobby – can be by people paid to send them “Spambots” are computer generated messages – can be put out in thousands to swamp articles with supposedly genuine opinion comments by individual people)
Even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader’s perception of a story.
A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again.
Why We’re Shutting Off Our Comments http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comment
Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here’s why. By Suzanne LaBarre 09.24.2013
Comments can be bad for science. That’s why, here at PopularScience.com, we’re shutting them off.
It wasn’t a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former,diminishing our ability to do the latter.
That is not to suggest that we are the only website in the world that attracts vexing commenters.Far from it. Nor is it to suggest that all, or even close to all, of our commenters are shrill, boorish specimens of the lower internet phyla. We have many delightful, thought-provoking commenters.
But even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader’s perception of a story, recent research suggests. Continue reading
At the dawn of the 21st century in a little room in the UK an idea was hatched to provide media with scientists.. this 2 woman enterprise was to be funded by Monsanto and 80 odd other organisations.. The founder and director of this service was the brainchild of Fiona Fox.
guess which is Fionna?
This is the bbc`s Rebecca Morelle who knows one of the above or maybe both?
Does this guy have the hots for Fionna or Rebecca?
The connections to the BBC and other outlets in the UK gives the UK Science media an unparalleled power to manipulate the scientific argument.
Journalism would usually be looking from the outside of the science community as a check balance to fraud, incompetence or just plain mistakes.. A trained science journalist would assimilate the technical data and make a report based on unbiased oversight (depending on which newspapers they come from ).
Fionna Fox and the UK SMC decided that this oversight was getting in the way of her preferred scientists and has had many campaigns to sideline any other independent scientists or researchers.
Not content with fully corrupting UK science discussion especially on the BBC (who she has deep connections with ), as well as other main stream outlets. Fionna decided to open another in Australia.. Killing off some good critical thinking journalists and news outlets with the help of the likes Ashursts legal corporation (A UK headquartered corporation, currently trying to silence an Australian blogger – Christina Macpherson from http://www.nuclear-news.net ), therby, silencing the last of the independent voice in Australia (nearly)
Then came the Fukushima tragedy.. Fionna Fox then came swinging into action with her nuclear contacts to counter the truth of the situation in japan along side the likes of PR corporations like WPP (PR conglomerate and think tank and employer of Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson ). She opened the pre crime division of the SMC Japan to counter “illegal rumour”, though this branch of her SMC empire was to fail only a year later as some truth escaped her “science blockade” .
As most people are aware by now that there are some serious deceptions going on concerning the Japanese nuclear disaster and Fionna has been quoted as supporting the nuclear Science Media Centre lobby who says “no health implications as the dose was to low”. this SMC in Japan was supported by the Australian SMC and was further enhanced by the UK SMC “experts.. The problem occurred as the news of the thyroid cancers in Fukushima began their steady upward rise.. The Japan SMC was abandoned and now lies idle as far as its public presence is concerned. However Geraldine Thomas (imperial College Uni. and Chernobyl Tissue bank)was recently quoted once again saying ther is no health effects and that the sudden rash of thyroids cancers are not proved to be from radiation. And this is good balanced science? So, maybe Fionna still has a contract in Japan or the Empire of SMC has left licking its wounds in this case. Proving the adage that ” THE TRUTH CAN HURT”
Still supporting the Japanese in an open way is good old BBC favourite, Geraldine Thomas and the small cohort of UK nuclear advisors giving an outdated and simplistic approach to explaining nuclear events such as Fukushima.
The SMC`s and the chosen ones of the science community will not allow other points of view concerning the dose arguments that are raging across the planet. They also spread rumours to usurp any faults in their corporate backed view of radiation risk assessments. A good example of this is attacks on the likes of independent researcher and scientist Prof. Chris Busby, or even attacking a huge research paper such as the New York Academy of Science (NYAS) released “http://www.globalresearch.ca/chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment/17571“
The NYAS book review was taken up by the BBC and their SMC friends and a rumour was spread that the book (a research of Chernobyl of staggering importance to the dose argument) was flawed and not reliable. This was an outright lie perpetrated by science “experts” from the BBC then onto the rest of the media. Dr Yablakovs book will NOT be seen in any of the 3 UNSCEAR meetings set for October 2013. No balanced research allowed there.
Below are some links and quotes. There is also some critiques of the SMC and Fionna Fox. Also, there is links to the impact of SMC`s on science journalism (and its not a good effect)
More on the BBC as i connect the dots. I will be posting more on the above issues in detail in the near future.
Here are some of my preliminary findings on the dodgy global Science Media Centres/Centers
Fukushima – Science Media Centres and their part in corrupting truth. 福島－科学Ｍｅｄｉａセンターとその腐敗してしまった真実について
I dont know why i would want to connect Ashursts with Imperial college University.. hmmm??? watch for the rabbit hole here http://nuclear-news.net/?s=imperial+college+university
And heres the connection
Ashurst advises Imperial College London of Science, Technology and Medicine on £140 million rights issue and placing of warrants
Ashurst is advising Imperial College London of Science, Technology and Medicine as a major shareholder of Imperial Innovations Group on a £140 million rights issue and issue of warrants by Imperial Innovations Group. Imperial College London of Science, Technology and Medicine was issued with warrants to subscribe for new convertible shares in consideration of the undertaking not to take up rights under the rights issue.
J.P. Morgan Cazenove placed the whole of the warrants allocated to the College with Invesco, another major shareholder of Imperial Innovations Group plc.
Mayer Brown International LLP advised Imperial Innovations Group plc and Macfarlanes LLP advised J.P. Morgan Cazenove.
Hey!! Christina, I think Ashurst are being paid by someone to nobble your blog!!
And this from a survivor from the Australian Thought Crime Purge, a dedicated independent science journalist cutie called Christina MacPherson makes some relevant points.
And finally some of the links and articles that inspired me to put together this article.. sorry about the clutter but i am too busy to tweak.. please feel free to change, reblog or disseminate in any way.. i am a great believer in free crowd sourced news, so feel free to improve, correct or copy… The public is being fooled by the science and its up to us bloggers to unfool the public.. imo.. Arclight2011
September 17th, 2013
The Mail, Telegraph and Financial Times were the only papers to publish the story in their print editions. According to our source, who wished to remain anonymous, the BBC had two programmes lined up to cover the study on the day it went public but mysteriously pulled the broadcasts.
Fiona Fox, chief executive of the pro-GM Science Media Centre (SMC), which receives funding from biotech companies including Monsanto, publicly claimed credit for killing media coverage of Séralini’s work in the UK.1 The SMC enjoys an exceptionally cosy relationship with the broadcaster: it has pocketed cash from BBC Worldwide and BBC staff are on both its advisory board and board of trustees. Fox has her own BBC blog.
17 June 2013
By Sandy Starr
Appeared in BioNews 709
The director of the Science Media Centre (SMC), a charity that seeks to improve public trust in science, has been awarded an OBE. Fiona Fox, who has been given the award for services to science, founded the SMC in 2002 following a House of Lords report that called for better communication between scientists and the media.
and another version of the OBE story
Genocide-denying director of the SMC awarded an OBE
More rabbit hole past this point…… you have been warned…
Japan voices anger over French cartoons that use Fukushima disaster to mock Olympics decision ABC News, By North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy, wires 12 Sep 2013 ,Japan says it will lodge a formal complaint with France over newspaper cartoons that poked fun at the decision to award the 2020 Olympics to Tokyo despite the ongoing Fukushima nuclear crisis.
Satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaine has published a cartoon depicting two sumo wrestlers, each with an extra leg or arm, facing off with the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant in the background.
In the foreground an announcer says: “Thanks to Fukushima, sumo is now an Olympic sport.”
Another cartoon shows two people standing in front of a pool of water while wearing nuclear protection suits and holding a Geiger counter, saying water sport facilities had already been built at Fukushima………
“This kind of journalism gives the wrong impression about the waste water problem.” [ -Japanese government spokesman Yoshihide Suga]
The government has repeatedly claimed the accident and its waste water problem are under control and should not affect the Olympics.
Mr Suga says Japan will formally complain to the French embassy in Tokyo……….. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-12/japan-protests-french-fukushima-cartoons/4954462
In 2010 multinational mining companies were behind the push to remove Kevin Rudd, and his Mining Super profits tax. I don’t buy the argument that Kevin Rudd was such a difficult personality that Labor had to kick him out. Anyway, Julia Gillard replaced Rudd’s mining tax with a weak as water mining tax. But the corporate powers still weren’t happy.
How were these foreign owned companies, like BHP, able to prevail? Predominantly by promoting the message of climate change denial. And how did this message prevail in Australia, where in 2007, Kevin Rudd was swept to power on a wave of public enthusiasm for action on climate change?
Despite some well informed coverage on climate change, by the Fairfax media, the ABC and SBS, the denialist message, taken up by the right wing politicians and friends of polluting industries, was steadfastly pushed to the public by Rupert Murdoch’s media, with its 70% ownership of Australian media.
There was an easy puppet waiting there for them. Tony Abbott has but one over-riding value – and that is To Be Topp. There might be a few very right-wing Catholic religious themes in there – (ones which many Catholics would be ashamed of) But as for other trifling subjects like climate change, – well they don’t bother Tony Abbott, as he doesn’t understand them.
Nobody seems to notice the fact that Australia is now President of the United nations Security Council. And the UN has not sanctioned an attack on Syria. But the USA might very well attack Syris unilaterally, with out waiting fir the UN. And what will Australia do?
And how confident do you feel about all this, with the vacuous Tony Abbott at the helm of thegood ship Australia?
Dear Ms Wauchope
Thank you for giving me ths opportunity to respond to the article which you have posted on your websites. I trust that you will post this letter with equal prominence. Fairfax is no longer publishing it, has accepted that I and Ashurst acted ethically and competently at all times, and has withdrawn and apologised for the suggestions in the article to the contrary.
Your article contains a number of errors and says anumber of false and damaging things about me. In particular, when I sent you the letter on 10th December 2012, I had no way of knowing who you were, as we were sending it to you as a domain name registrant. Your site appeared to be published by an organisation. Further, I at all times acted in accordance wit proper legal practise, and my professional obligations to my client.
I hope that you will rethink your decision to continue to publish incorrect and harmful allegations about me.
Editor’s note: I don’t understand why Fairfax withdrew the article from their online publication, as I thought that the article was true. I understand that the journalist who wrote that article stands by the story and has not accepted the claims made by Ashurst. I am posting below , the article in question, published earlier on this website.
Glowing Green with Outrage By Adam Smith OpEdNews Op Eds 8/27/2013 ”………Unfortunately the reality has been that the media have simply not been doing their job. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) has been allowed to dictate the narrative of what is occurring with basically no oversight. It turns out that the site was never actually contained and radioactive water has been leaking with “no accurate figures for radiation levels.” You may say that since this issue is being reported by all major news organizations now, the media is doing their job albeit in a very tardy fashion.
However, that would be missing the reality that this leaking radiation water is the least of our worries vis-a-vis the plant. Much less reported by the media is what will be required by the clean-up crew to end this whole saga. Reliable old Reuters often provides the on-the-ground breaking scoops that our local media then report to us. Despite their well-deserved reputation, it seems that most media organizations have chosen to ignore their recent scoop about the dangers involved in the clean-up process.
Essentially, Tepco needs to remove 1300 spent fuel rods, containing 14,000 times the amount of radiation dropped onto Japan in WWII, from a dilapidated, flooding, and collapsing power plant that still sits in an earthquake-prone location. The whole process will take about 40 years and cost about eleven billion dollars. Each rod weighs 660 pounds, is 15 feet long, and cannot get too close to each other or will trigger a chain-reaction. If exposed to air, they may also trigger a chain-reaction. Usually, when these rods are moved as part of normal operations, a sophisticated robot is used to guide the work and ensure accuracy down to millimeters. Due to the damage caused by the earthquake/tsunami, this is not possible and the cranes will be operated in a poisonously radioactive area by scared human hands with all of their limitations. These rods will be removed individually, one at a time, and a mistake on any of them could trigger an unstoppable chain-reaction…….. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Glowing-Green-with-Outrage-by-Adam-Smith-Cancer_Energy_Energy_Energy-130827-96.html
World of advertising undergoes digital change By Chris Betros EXECUTIVE IMPACT AUG. 19, 2013 Takahiro Uchinaga, CEO of Isobar Japan TOKYO —
The world of advertising has seen many innovations in recent years as the media landscape changes. The changes are being driven by digital communications.
One of the companies at the forefront is the Aegis Media Group, a global communication agency established in 2003 (and bought by Dentsu), that operates in over 30 markets with digital at its heart. One of the group’s subsidiary companies is Isobar, a professional full support digital marketing group working on strategic planning, creative system planning, media planning, analytics, consulting and application service, to support clients with technology all over from the world.
Isobar’s global clients include Kellogg’s, adidas, Reebok, Disney and P&G, while its Japan-based clients include Panasonic, Fujitsu, Casio, H.I.S., Jetstar and Pernod Ricard. Continue reading
Fundamentally, a green future is inevitable and the next industrial revolution will be low carbon. Why? Because clean technology is fast becoming recognised as lower cost financially, socially and environmentally than carbon dense alternatives. The sooner it’s recognised as the low cost political road too the better.
Has Europe pulled the plug on renewables? http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/21/renewable-energy/has-europe-pulled-plug-renewables#ixzz2cjFBwgch
First, Peiser is incorrect to say that green growth is dwindling. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Continue reading
[Column] The reason why I published only one article today -Invited by BBC and given 0 sec to talk on the radio show http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/08/column-the-reason-why-i-published-only-one-article-today-invited-by-bbc-and-given-0-second-to-talk-on-the-radio-show/ Iori Mochizuki August 21st, 2013 In the quiet morning of 8/21/2013, I was communicating with my readers on Twitter.
Suddenly a lady talked to me if I can be on BBC at 19:30 in JST. After nearly 2 years blank, BBC and some other international media are coming back to cover Fukushima. Since this morning, BBC has been featuring the latest leakage of 300m3 water.
I talked to her on the phone and we arranged the schedule. She was supposed to call me in 2 hours from that time.
She was nice and professional. She asked me what I think about the leakage. I answered this is only the beginning.When she asked me if I trust what government says, I laughed and said obviously no. She asked me why.
I was “Because the government has been saying no meltdown, no meltout was going on. There is no short term health effect etc. Then last year, the chief cabinet secretary of Japan said they didn’t announce Fukushima was having meltdown because he thought everyone was already aware of it.”.
She said, “Sure.”.
It was the radio show “World Have Your Say [URL]“.
We had 30 mins. Japanese commentators found each other on Twitter and we waited for them to call me.
I was supposed to talk on the phone.
I found the program relatively fair in the beginning except for the “coughing” on the background. (Is it normal to catch someone’s coughing on the radio show of BBC ?) and they started leaning to the “safer” side as it went toward the end. Continue reading
“If sunlight coalitions are to succeed, they won’t succeed by outwitting surveillance. Not better technology, but greater legitimacy is their edge.”
The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: “You’ve had your fun. Now we want the stuff back.” There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. “You’ve had your debate. There’s no need to write any more.” —Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian
That’s the government telling the editor of a national newspaper: Time’s up, no more of that journalism stuff! We’ll decide when there’s been enough debate. Stop now or we’ll make you stop. Rusbridger’s response: We will continue our careful reporting of the Snowden material. “We just won’t do it from London.” (The Guardian has a U.S. operation based in New York.) FromReuters:
The Guardian’s decision to publicize the government threat – and the newspaper’s assertion that it can continue reporting on the Snowden revelations from outside of Britain – appears to be the latest step in an escalating battle between the news media and governments over reporting of secret surveillance programs.
This battle is global. Just as the surveillance state is an international actor — not one government, but many working together — and just as the surveillance net stretches worldwide because the communications network does too, the struggle to report on the secret system’s overreach is global, as well. It’s the collect-it-all coalition against an expanded Fourth Estate, worldwide……. http://pressthink.org/2013/08/conspiracy-to-commit-journalism/
- 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