The BBC and EDF corrupts nuclear science with the help of the USA
“….In 2011, as their share value continued to plummet[Because of fukushima Arclight2011], EDF formed a stakeholder advisory panel, employing Chris Patten, chair of the BBC Trust, as chair of the panel and Diane Coyle, vice chair of the BBC Trust, as a member the panel. She is married to BBC News Technology Correspondent, Rory Cellan-Jones. Other members of the panel include Will Hutton, former editor of the Observer and a leading commentator on social and political affairs, and Sir Richard Lambert, former director of the CBI and former editor of the Financial Times. Chris Patten is linked to David Cameron through Patten’s former chief of staff, who is now chief of staff to Cameron….[Also, The UK SMC and the USA senseaboutscience began its promotion of the “right” science. Arclight2011]”
18 Sep 2013
The Nuclear Industry, Government and the Media
http://ruscombegreen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-nuclear-industry-government-and.html
Have you ever wondered why we receive so little information about the ill-fated nuclear reactors at Fukushima? Or the massive, year-long protests against proposed new nuclear reactors on the East and West coasts of India? Or even about Scotland’s decision to be nuclear-free? Why do we hear so little about the ill-effects of nuclear power, its enormous cost and legacy of dangerous radioactive waste?
Both talks will take place in the Old Town Hall in Stroud, from 7.30 till 9.30pm.
Risk Perceptions about Nuclear Power and the UK’s Energy Infrastructure
30 Jan 2013
Ms. Fox added that focus shifted away from panels of science experts set up by the Science Media Center to brief government officials and the media on the real risks associated with the crisis. The pressure to sensationalize headlines is real, according to Ms. Fox. “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.” She described instances where journalists she knew were taken off stories for presenting a more “measured, balanced, accurate narrative” instead of the “scare stories” that their editors wanted.
[…]
A second source of risk misperception at Fukushima, according to Ms. Brown, is overly conservative national safety regulations. As an example, she cited Japanese officials who reported that tap water in the areas around Fukushima showed 210 becquerels per liter of iodine-131 – more than twice the Japanese recommended limit of 100 becquerels per liter for infants. Media picked up this statement, headlining that the water was not safe to drink. (Becquerels is a measure of radioactivity). However, the recommended limit for adults in Japan is 300 becquerels per liter. Further, IAEA international guidelines set the safety limit ten times higher, at 3,000 becquerels per liter, for major events like Fukushima. “What was set out to be a precautionary measure to protect the public,” stressed Ms. Brown, “actually became a source of concern and a source of alarming stories.”
USA Science Media centre
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/about-us.html
UK Science media centre (Formed in 2001 and running by 2002)
10 Comments »
-
Archives
- April 2024 (236)
- March 2024 (335)
- February 2024 (345)
- January 2024 (376)
- December 2023 (333)
- November 2023 (342)
- October 2023 (366)
- September 2023 (353)
- August 2023 (356)
- July 2023 (363)
- June 2023 (324)
- May 2023 (344)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Hi Arc; how do?
Was surprised to see this in my Vancouver Courier.
http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/editorial-cartoon/editorial-cartoon-1.630827
I remember that kind “little old lady”, harassed by an utter ass.
Comment by Dud | September 24, 2013 |
Alright, Sons of Scota!
I hope you get the Stone of Destiny back.
Somebody there may be a rightful heir.
Say, i thought that it was GE that was (ir)responsible for the Fuku’d-up design.
How was Hitachi (ir)responsible?
PS: Got anything on Chinese cities in Candu, er Canada, as alleged by Jim Stone and his paranoid Android?
Apparently it would seem to either be nonexistent, or media has conveniently forgotten to tell us Canadians (not that that would ever happen, neh?).
I have learned to smile, as it can confound biometrics.
PPS: Am concerned about Bobby1’s blog. http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ says that it is not just me. 😦
PPPS: Good eye, mate!
Comment by Dud | September 24, 2013 |
Well blah blah – I don’t understand what you are talking about. But perhaps others will
Comment by Christina MacPherson | September 24, 2013 |
Comment by arclight2011part2 | September 24, 2013 |
Think you might like Helen Dawson’s comment.
http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/09/tepco-leakable-type-of-tank-costs-tens-of-million-yen-to-build/#comment-1229956
Ah, before you continue, i might need a little time to review this.
After all, you have likely only just grazed the surface! 😛
Don’t stop on my account though. Don’t want to interrupt genius at work.
♫ “My music at work” ♫ – tragically hip
Comment by Dud | September 25, 2013 |
just keeping all the research in one place for the budding investigator..
coca cola???????? lol! easy tax free money marketting scheme.. imo
little or none of this funding seems to be for good causes and the finances are tightly managed ..
list of past funders of the Science media centre
Current Funders
(To date: August 2013)
AbbVie
Airwave Solutions
Alzheimer’s Research UK
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry
Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC)
AstraZeneca
BASF
Bayer Plc
Biochemical Society
Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
Boeing
BP International Ltd
Bristol University
British Heart Foundation
British In Vitro Diagnostics Association
British Pharmacological Society
British Psychological Society (BPS)
Cancer Research UK
Cardiff University
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers
Chemical Industries Association (CIA)
Chilled Food Association (CFA)
Coca-Cola
CropLife International
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)
Diamond Light Source
DMG Media, including Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, Metro and MailOnline
Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)
Elsevier BV
Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
EUK Consulting
European College of Neuropsychopharmacology
Food and Drink Federation
Food Standards Agency (FSA)
The Gatsby Charitable Foundation
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority
Human Tissue Authority (HTA)
Imperial College London
Institute of Food Science & Technology (IFST)
Institute of Mental Health
Institute of Physics (IOP)
Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine
Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE)
Institution of Civil Engineers
Institution of Engineering and Technology (The IET)
Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE)
John Wiley & Sons Inc
King’s College London
L’Oreal UK
Life Technologies
Medical Research Council (MRC)
Mental Health Foundation
Mental Health Research Network
Mental Health Research Network Cymru
Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) Limited
The Met Office
Mobile Manufacturers Forum
Mobile Operators Association (MOA)
National Grid
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
National Institute for Health Research
National Nuclear Laboratory
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
Nature
Newcastle University
Novartis
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)
Nuclear Industry Association
Oxitec
Proctor & Gamble
PR Works
The Physiological Society
Queen Mary, University of London
Research Councils UK (RCUK)
Rolls-Royce
Royal Academy of Engineering
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
The Royal Society
Sanofi
Sanofi Pasteur MSD
SAGE
Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
Scottish Mental Health Research Network
Smith & Nephew
Society for Applied Microbiology (SfAM)
Society for General Microbiology (SGM)
Society for Radiological Protection
Society of Biology
Maudsley Charity
Springer science+business media
Syngenta
Technology Strategy Board
UK Cleaning Products Industry Association (UKPCI)
UK Energy Research Centre
University College London
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
University of East Anglia
University of Oxford
Wellcome Trust
Previous Funders
AAAS and the magazine Science
Alcohol Research UK
Allied Domecq
ARM Holdings Plc
Association for Science Education
BASF Plc
Baxter
Beeson Gregory
BBC Worldwide
Boots UK Ltd
British Computer Society (BCS)
British Energy Plc
British Geological Survey (BGS)
British Embassy in Washington
British Land Plc
British Neuroscience Association
British Transplantation Society Council
Cadbury Plc
Charlie Waller Memorial Trust
Chiron Vaccines
CNAP Artemisia Research Project
Coalition for Medical Progress (CMP)
Colgate-Palmolive
Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the European Union (CIAA)
Conoco (UK) Ltd
Conoco-Phillips
Co-operative Group (CWS) Limited
Copus
Daily Express
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
Dixons Group Plc
The Dow Chemical Company
The Drayson Foundation
Du Pont (UK) Ltd
EDF Energy
Eli Lilly & Company
Emergent Biosolutions Inc
EnergySolutions
Engineering UK
Environment Agency
European Science Foundation (ESF)
ExxonMobil
GE Healthcare
The Government Office for Science (GO-S)
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI)
Independent Climate Change Email Review
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Techology (IMarEST)
JH Ritblat Charitable Trust
Kraft Foods Inc
Lever Faberge
The Marmot Review
Merlin Biosciences
Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Association
Monsanto UK Ltd
National Physical Laboratory (NPL)
New Scientist
News International Ltd
Northern Foods
Parkinson’s Disease Society
Pfizer Limited
Philips UK
The Posen Foundation
Powderject
QinetiQ
Rathbones
RDS
Regenesys
Rethink
Rothamsted Research
Royal Astronomical Society (RAS)
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP)
Royal College of Pathologists
Royal College of Physicians
Royal Society of Medicine
Science Council
Shell UK Limited
Siemens Plc
Simon Best
Smith & Nephew Plc
Tate & Lyle Plc
Tesco Limited
Trinity Mirror Plc
UCB
UCL Institute of Health Equity
Unilever UK
University of Portsmouth
University of Teesside
Vodafone Group
Weizmann UK
Wi-Fi Alliance
World Health Organisation (WHO)
Wyeth
download pdf from charity commision.. the bbc is getting training advise from the smc for their bbc journalist college.. hmmm??
more to come after some digging..
ps 500,000 pounds approx income a year to pay 9 staff members and there are 12 volunteers.. 320,000 approx staff costs.. and 120,000 approx expenses..
limited donations to have the perception of avoiding financial obligations but these funders are largely having some product they sell..
the nuclear lobby is well represented on this list as are the big pharma and gmo`s and big oil for fracking.. fair and balanced science reporting???? not really..
now i am off for more ferreting..
Comment by arclight2011part2 | September 25, 2013 |
the power of the media
19.09.13: Opposition to nuclear power in Britain has fallen since 2005 despite Fukushima accident.
Similar proportions of people now support and oppose the use of nuclear power, according to research findings published today by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC).
Researchers based at Cardiff University and the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Japan carried out a number of nationally representative surveys in Britain and Japan, both before and after the Fukushima accident, asking detailed questions about attitudes to nuclear power and covering aspects such as perceived risks and benefits, trust in safety and regulation, and the future of nuclear power in the Britain and Japan.
The research found that the Fukushima nuclear accident had virtually no impact on British public attitudes to nuclear power, despite being responsible for a near-total collapse in public confidence in nuclear energy in Japan.
Attitudes in Britain have become somewhat more positive in recent years, with similar proportions of people now supporting (32%) and opposing (29%) the use of nuclear power, compared to 26% (supporting) and 37% (opposing) in 2005.
While a similar number of people want to continue nuclear at current levels or with expansion (43% in 2005, 46% in 2010 and 44% in 2013), fewer people now want to see nuclear power phased out or shut down (50% in 2005, 47% in 2010 and 40% in 2013).
Even though there is still a substantial level of public concern over the storage of radioactive waste and nuclear accidents, concern over nuclear power in Britain has dropped since the Fukushima accident, from 58% in 2005 and 54% in 2010 to 47% in 2013.
The proportion of respondents who agree that the risks of nuclear power outweigh the benefits has fallen from 41% in 2005 and 37% in 2010 to 29% in 2013, while the proportion of people who agree that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks has increased from 32% in 2005 to 38% in 2010 and 37% in 2013.
While there has been a shift in recent years in favour of nuclear power, fewer people now than in 2005 and 2010 are willing to accept the building of a new nuclear power stations to tackle climate change (47% in 2013 vs. 55% in 2005 and 56% in 2010). However, this may be associated as much with an increase in climate scepticism as with changing attitudes to nuclear power.
The survey found that just under three-quarters of the British public (72%) accept that the world’s climate is changing. Nevertheless, the proportion of people doubting the reality of climate change has risen to one of the highest levels since 2005 (4% in 2005, 15% in 2010 and 19% in 2013).
Dr Wouter Poortinga of the Welsh School of Architecture at Cardiff University, lead researcher, comments: “British attitudes towards nuclear power have been surprisingly robust in the wake of the Fukushima accident, and trust in regulation has held up fairly well. It even appears that the attitudes to nuclear have softened somewhat after Fukushima. However, in reality, nuclear power remains relatively unpopular as compared to renewable energy sources”.
“We hope these findings will prove beneficial to both policy makers and industry, and help to ensure that key decisions about the future of Britain’s nuclear policy are informed by the best available evidence on public values and attitudes”.
In comparison, very few Japanese people want to continue nuclear at current levels (15%) or with expansion (2%), and a majority wants to see nuclear power phased out gradually (53%) or immediately (23%). Only 17% of the Japanese public are now willing to accept the building of new nuclear power stations to tackle climate change, as compared to 22% in 2011 and 33% in 2007.
While trust in the regulation of nuclear power was already low in Japan before the Fukushima accident (19% in 2007), it dropped to even lower levels after the accident (9% in both 2011 and 2013).
Dr Midori Aoyagi of the National Institute for Environmental Studies states: “Our research shows that nuclear power has become very unpopular in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Public trust in the regulation of nuclear power is now at an all-time low. Instead most people would like to see the development of more solar and wind energy to replace nuclear power in the longer term”.
– Ends –
Notes to Editors
The nationally representative survey in Great Britain was carried out as part of Ipsos MORI’s face-to-face omnibus that took place between 8 and 26 March 2013 (Great Britain, n=961). Respondents were aged 15+ and weighted to the profile of the known population.
The findings from previous years were from nationally representative in-home quota surveys conducted by Ipsos MORI in Great Britain. Respondents were aged 15+ and weighted to the profile of the known population.
2010: Survey took place between 6 January and 26 March 2010 (n=1,822).
2005: Survey took place between 1 October and 6 November 2005 (n=1,491).
The nationally representative survey in Japan (n=1,121) was carried out between 9-24 February 2013. Respondents were aged 20+.
The results of the study were presented at a seminar on Nuclear Power after Fukushima, 19-20 September 2013, supported by the UK Energy Research Centre, the Great Britain Sasakawa Foundation, and the DAIWA Anglo-Japanese Foundation.
To download a full copy of the Working Paper, titled “Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power and Climate Change in Britain Two Years after the Fukushima Accident”, go to http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=3371
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/article3253-British-public-split-on-nuclear-power
Comment by arclight2011part2 | September 25, 2013 |
Research intelligence – Shock troops check ‘poor’ GM study
4 October 2012 | By Paul Jump
Science Media Centre’s rapid rollout of experts’ views sway most media. Paul Jump reports
The gentle folk of Middle England must have spat out their cornflakes a fortnight ago when confronted with a Daily Mail headline reading: “Major trial links Frankenfoods to cancer dangers”.
Illustrated with a photo of an anti-GM protester dressed as the Grim Reaper, the article began: “Eating a GM food diet over a lifetime can cause breast cancer, severe organ damage and early death, according to a scientific study.”
The study in question was carried out by a team led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor of molecular biology and co-director of the unit on multidisciplinary risks, quality and sustainable environment at the University of Caen in France, and was published in the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.
The paper, “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize”, claimed that rats fed for two years with a form of maize that had been genetically modified to be resistant to a particular weedkiller were several times more likely to develop lethal tumours and incur severe liver and kidney damage than those fed on standard wheat. The effect was also observed when the rats drank water containing the weedkiller.
According to the Mail, “scientists” believed the results “raised serious questions about the safety of GM foods”. Michael Antoniou, reader in molecular genetics and head of the Nuclear Biology Group, King’s College London, was quoted as saying that he was “shocked by the extreme negative health impacts” reported in the study.
Only those resolute enough to read as far as the last three paragraphs of the 22-paragraph story would have encountered any quibbles. Anthony Trewavas, professor emeritus at the University of Edinburgh’s Institute of Molecular Plant Sciences, was quoted as saying that the number of rats involved in the study was too small to draw any “meaningful” conclusions. He also described Professor Seralini as an “anti-GM campaigner”.
Most scientists unimpressed
But this comment was the mere tip of an iceberg of frosty reactions to the paper gathered from scientists by the UK’s Science Media Centre and circulated to journalists. Concerns centred around Professor Séralini’s statistical approach, selectivity with data and images, and choice of a strain of rat known to be prone to tumours.
Tom Sanders, head of the diabetes and nutritional sciences division at King’s College London, said it looked like the paper’s authors had “gone on a statistical fishing trip”.
David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, added: “The methods, statistics and reporting of results are all well below the standard I would expect in a rigorous study.”
Even Food and Chemical Toxicology’s former editor, Alan Boobis, professor of biochemical pharmacology at Imperial College London, expressed reservations.
Fiona Fox, chief executive of the Science Media Centre, insisted that the centre had not deliberately targeted pro-GMO scientists when eliciting responses. “No one would be happier than us if this paper had shown real effects because it would have been the biggest story in a decade,” she said.
But she took pride in the fact that scientists’ emphatic thumbs down had largely been acknowledged throughout UK newsrooms: apart from the Mail, only The Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times covered the story in their print editions – and both used quotes supplied by the Science Media Centre. She had also heard that several television news programmes had also rejected the story after reading the quotes.
Ms Fox took this as evidence that the 10-year-old centre was fulfilling its remit to prevent a repeat of incidents such as the uncritical reporting in 1998 of the claim – heavily criticised by the scientific community – made by Árpád Pusztai, a former researcher at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, that rats fed on GM potatoes had stunted growth and a repressed immune system.
She said that the relatively muted coverage in the UK contrasted with how the story was reported in other countries, particularly France, where it was “front-page news everywhere”, prompting the French government to launch an inquiry into the study’s findings.
According to Ms Fox, the Science Media Centre’s ability to gather a lot of expert comment quickly was particularly valuable in this instance because journalists who were shown the paper in advance of its publication were required to sign a highly unusual agreement that prevented them from sharing it with third parties. Critics claimed that this minimised the time journalists had to gather potentially negative commentary.
Stand by for (book) launch
The press liaison for the paper was also handled by an unlikely source: the Sustainable Food Trust. In a statement, the trust said the terms of the embargo had been dictated by the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), a Caen-based non-profit organisation whose scientific council features Professor Seralini as president and Professor Antoniou as a member.
The committee’s aim is to supply “scientific counter-expertise to study GMOs, pesticides and impacts of pollutants on health and environment, and to develop non-polluting alternatives”.
A spokesman for the committee said: “An embargo is needed for any research published.” He denied that the paper’s release was timed to coincide with the late-September publication of Professor Séralini’s book Tous Cobayes! OGM, Pesticides, Produits Chimiques, which translates as (We Are) All Guinea Pigs! GMO, Pesticides, Chemical Products.
The Sustainable Food Trust agreed that “due to the sensitive nature of the research outcomes, any leak might jeopardise their subsequent publication”. It said it believed the paper would make “an important contribution to the debate” about GMOs and herbicides, and noted that it “had been peer-reviewed for publication in a respected journal”.
But that publication is regarded by some scientists as a demonstration of the fallibility of peer review. Professor Spiegelhalter noted the Mail’s claim that peer review guaranteed that “the experiments were properly conducted and the results are valid”. “Any scientist who has been subject to the vagaries of peer review knows this ‘guarantee’ to be nonsense,” he said.
Show your work
Maurice Moloney, institute director and chief executive of Rothamsted Research, an agricultural research station funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, said the paper would “need to undergo another round of peer review”, but that would be possible only if Professor Seralini released all his data. An online petition calling on him to do so had garnered nearly 600 signatures within less than a week of the paper’s publication.
The editors of Food and Chemical Toxicology, which has a relatively low impact factor of 2.999, did not respond to invitations to comment.
Both the Sustainable Food Trust and CRIIGEN have posted detailed responses to the criticisms on their websites.
Professor Seralini dismissed most of the concerns as “non-serious, erroneous, false or stupid”. He told Times Higher Education that he was surprised by the “violent and rapid [reaction] by scientists” and questioned the motives and expertise of his detractors, adding that most of them “have not published any peer-reviewed scientific papers on mammalian or human pathophysiological and toxicological studies”.
He said his study was “the most comprehensive lifelong mammalian toxicological study ever performed on an agricultural GMO and a pesticide in formulation with its adjuvants”, and had used the same experimental design as a previous, shorter safety study conducted by the GM maize’s manufacturer.
“If 10 rats is a too small number per group to [draw conclusions about] safety, then the [GM maize] and most agricultural GMOs should be forbidden,” he said.
paul.jump@tsleducation.com
Readers’ comments (4)
04 Oct 2012 2:58pm
Here’s a brief backgrounder on 7 of the 8 experts quoted by the SMC in its press release – see if you notice a pattern: *The first one is Prof Maurice Moloney, Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research. What the SMC fails to tell journalists is that Moloney doesn’t just drive a Porsche with a GMO number plate, but has a c.v. to match. It is in fact Moloney’s GM research that lies behind Monsanto’s GM canola (oilseed rape). He also launched his own GM company in which Dow Agro Science were investors. In other words, Prof Moloney’s career and business activities have long been centered around GM. *Another expert quoted by the SMC is Dr Wendy Harwood. Dr Harwood is a GM scientist at the UK’s John Innes Centre, which has had tens of millions of pounds invested in it by GM giants like Syngenta. In fact, a previous director of the JIC told his local paper that any major slow down or halt in the development of GM crops “would be very, very serious for us.” *Prof Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh is another of the experts that the SMC GMO corn caused increased risk of tumor risk in ratsquotes. They don’t mention that Prof Trewavas is also a GM crop scientist, as well as a fervent opponent of organic farming, or that he is notorious for his attacks on scientists who publish research critical of GM. *Prof Mark Tester is yet another GM scientist quoted by the SMC. He is described by the SMC as Research Professor, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide. His University of Adelaide profile tells us: “His commercial acumen is clear from his establishment of private companies and successful interactions with multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Pioneer-DuPont.” *The SMC describes Prof Ottoline Leyser as Associate Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge. They don’t mention that the Laboratory is funded by the Gatsby Foundation of Lord Sainsbury, the well known GM enthusiast and biotech entrepreneur, who also set up and funds the GM-related work of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the John Innes Centre. *Prof Alan Boobis is described by the SMC as Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology, Imperial College London. They don’t mention that he is a long-time member of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), i.e the very body that approved the GM corn in question, or that he has also long been on the board of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) – a biotech and food industry lobby group whose backers include the GM giants BASF, Bayer and Monsanto. *Prof Tom Sanders is described by the SMC as Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London. Like Prof Trewavas, Prof Sanders was involved in attacking the Pusztai study that earlier suggested concerns about GM. His criticisms do not appear to have been well founded. This was back in the late 1990s. According to an article in The Independent in 1996, Prof Sanders was at that time “Nutrasweet’s professional consultant”. Up until 2000, Nutrasweet was owned by Monsanto. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14224
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
04 Oct 2012 4:17pm
I’m shocked that the TES fell for the line that the SMC or its “experts” are in any way independent. The SMC takes corporate funding and its experts can be relied on to deliver packaged quotes casting doubt on studies that cast into question risky technologies like GM and mobile phone masts. Here’s more about the SMC: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Science_Media_Centre You only have to attend one of the many scientific conferences on environmental risks to know that there are plenty of scientists who say there’s evidence that GMOs, mobile phone masts, and endocrine-disruptor chemicals are very dangerous. But somehow we never hear from them via the SMC. All we get are the SMC’s “shouters” defending dodgy technologies, who often don’t seem to have even read the studies they dismiss! http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14243
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
09 Oct 2012 1:15pm
Since Anthony Trewavas is keen on expertise, perhaps he’d like to tell us what expertise he has in toxicological feeding studies on animals, which Seralini has published lots of? And contrary to Klaus Ammann’s claims, I couldn’t see any actual scientific arguments being made in this article. The rude and possibly libellous comment of Tom Sanders is not a scientific argument as no data is given to back it up. I agree that the industry affiliations of the Science Media Centre “experts” quoted in the attacks on Seralini should not matter, that what matters is the scientific arguments. But their criticisms are not scientific but are ill-informed, emotional, and have no basis in fact: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14243
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
09 Oct 2012 6:08pm
Lisa: Just reporting what I read. “China is the leading producer of glyphosate in the world. In 2008, China contributed to more than 30% of the world’s total glyphosate production. More than 80% of China’s total glyphosate production is exported to around 95 countries around the globe”. [http://www.prweb.com/releases/glyphosate_agrochemical/technical_glyphosate/prweb8857231.htm] Here in Scotland glyphosate is selling for 60% the price of equivalent Roundup. And how did Monsanto `in effect’ extend its market share of an out-of-patent product? Farmers are not stupid. I repeat: Séralini’s findings hit China harder than Monsanto. If Séralini had wanted to show Roundup was toxic then he should not have tried to show GM maize was toxic in the same experiment.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/421361.article
Comment by arclight2011part2 | September 25, 2013 |
[…] https://nuclear-news.net/2013/09/24/the-bbc-and-edf-corrupts-nuclear-science-with-the-help-of-the-usa… […]
Pingback by Fukushima cover up special – Science Media Centre UK DOES the BBC, in fact, DOES the whole country!! « nuclear-news | September 26, 2013 |
[…] https://nuclear-news.net/2013/09/24/the-bbc-and-edf-corrupts-nuclear-science-with-the-help-of-the-usa… […]
Pingback by Fukushima cover up special – Science Media Centre UK DOES the BBC, in fact, DOES the whole country!! | bbcastrophy | September 30, 2013 |