Stratagy for make western US carbon-negative

Originally posted by DeepThought
How do either of you know that the reports you saw were deliberately untrue?

The first point is that while the events were unfolding what they could report were the press releases from TEPCO and the Japanese government. They didn't have access to the plants themselves and were not able to do an inspection. So if TEPCO or the Japanese government were ...[text shortened]... here, which it didn't for Fukishima or Chernobyl (which didn't have any thanks to cost cutting).

I never said that the reports were deliberately untrue.

That's all metal brains wild imaginings and distortions.


My point, and I'm mildly incredulous that I have to explain this to you, was that
they are not sufficiently reliable source of information generally, and on scientific
issues in particular, for me to recommend them as a good source of accurate unbiased
true information for someone who is not an expert to base their opinion on one way or
another.


That is and was all.

The rest was metal brain being his usual brainless conspiracy nut self.

The Fukashima incident only came up as it was a recent example of nuclear coverage in
the media that I remember and observed how clueless and inconsistent and inaccurate
some of the reporting was of the basic science, ignoring the specific unfolding details.

However, the reporting of that incident in general [and not just at the time] does serve
as a good example. With huge amounts of breathless reporting about 'radiation clouds'
and such and how they might 'threaten the USA' and other such nonsense when in
reality the levels of radiation were so tiny that for all but a few small areas they never got
outside of the natural range of background radiation and nowhere close to dangerous.

They gave little to no context, delivered information that was grossly inaccurate in tone
as well as sometimes of content, and gave a largely misleading impression that has had
a detrimental effect on the industry as well as many now unjustly fearful individuals.

I don't believe that much of that was intentional, but it was biased, and inaccurate.

Biases and heuristics are everywhere and often subconscious, but as we know how to
correct for them, the fact that they are unintentional is no less excusable than intentional
biases.

Like the article I referenced in my thread on memory and eyewitnesses in spirituality,
the fact that we know how to compensate for and remove these biases means that
professionals who work in fields where truth matters [although where doesn't it?]
like journalism should be expected to follow practices that ensure biases are removed and/or
minimised/compensated for. And the organisations that employ them should have mechanisms
in place to ensure that this is the case.

They don't.

And thus they are not trustworthy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, I believe you on that one. The problem is, governments lie too, and so does industry, so who is someone like me to believe when we do not have training in nuclear technology?

It occurs to me that you [deep thought] might have missed my original
and I thought innocuous post on this topic... So here it is again.


Yeah, I know that pain.

If only we had an unbiased news media capable of analysing the facts and
applying rational methods for determining as best as possible what the truth
is... Sadly we don't.


I'm not sure I actually have a good answer to that one...

I'm not sure there is any way out other than investigate the issue yourself,
but it's not possible, let alone practical to do that for every important issue
we face.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It occurs to me that you [deep thought] might have missed my original
and I thought innocuous post on this topic... So here it is again.


[b]Yeah, I know that pain.

If only we had an unbiased news media capable of analysing the facts and
applying rational methods for determining as best as possible what the truth
is... Sadly we don't.


I'm ...[text shortened]... ,
but it's not possible, let alone practical to do that for every important issue
we face.[/b]

It's a long thread with some long posts in it. I still don't think that the media, in general, are particularly biased about this, and if they are it is for banal reasons to do with viewing figures and their editorial staff's ignorance of nuclear safety rather than a conspiracy.

The International Atomic Agency (assuming I have the name right) almost certainly have a publicly available list of nuclear incidents. Including all direct fatalities - I doubt it's possible for deaths to be suppressed at least in countries which have functional democracies - so one can make a reasonable safety comparison with coal. Admittedly there's a comparing apples and pears problem, since the problems with coal and nuclear are different, but that's unavoidable.

For more a more detailed assessment of the various designs going to the industry body (Institute of Nuclear Engineering if it exists) and seeing what publications they recommend would be my first step. Outside P.R. exercises (which anything through the mainstream media will be) they have a strong interest in making the right decisions regarding nuclear design, getting systems right, and not generating nuclear incidents. The informations almost certainly there, you just have to circumvent anything aimed at a mass audience and look for things aimed at a non-technical industry audience.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It's a long thread with some long posts in it. I still don't think that the media, in general, are particularly biased about this, and if they are it is for banal reasons to do with viewing figures and their editorial staff's ignorance of nuclear safety rather than a conspiracy.

The International Atomic Agency (assuming I have the name right) almost ...[text shortened]... nything aimed at a mass audience and look for things aimed at a non-technical industry audience.

I think that falls under the "investigate the issue yourself" category I mentioned.

'Biased' includes things like "not having mechanisms to deal with confirmation bias" ect.

Everyone is biased, and basically the entirety of rationality is to create methods and
tools that allow us to overcome and minimise those biases to make the best decisions
possible based on the best evidence possible [at the time].

Most of the bad reporting I see [being generous and not assuming intentional spin]
is due to poor methodology and lack of rationality.

Which to my mind makes the news media as a whole vastly less valuable or worthwhile,
[which might explain why I don't pay any news agency for their reporting, aside from the
BBC with the licence fee] than they might otherwise be.

It means that you cannot just check the papers to find out a true and balanced picture
you have to go digging yourself.

So what was the point of the news again?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think that falls under the "investigate the issue yourself" category I mentioned.

'Biased' includes things like "not having mechanisms to deal with confirmation bias" ect.

Everyone is biased, and basically the entirety of rationality is to create methods and
tools that allow us to overcome and minimise those biases to make the best decisions
...[text shortened]... balanced picture
you have to go digging yourself.

So what was the point of the news again?

What is the point of the News, given that they are biased?

Well, you know a given event has happened, which wouldn't be the case if they didn't operate at all.

There's some interesting things they can do to public opinion by their choice of news to report - which is how they'd intentionally bias the news. Interestingly the BBC managed to bias the global warming debate by giving equal coverage to both sides [1, 2]. Since the informed skeptical position is a minority position, held mostly by people who have a vested interest, treating it as equal actually biased the argument. The catch here is that sometimes the minority position is correct...

[1] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100265903/biased-bbc-but-not-the-way-you-think-climate-change-reporting-and-false-balance/
This is a fairly entertaining blog entry.
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26845103

Originally posted by DeepThought
What is the point of the News, given that they are biased?

Well, you know a given event has happened, which wouldn't be the case if they didn't operate at all.

There's some interesting things they can do to public opinion by their choice of news to report - which is how they'd intentionally bias the news. Interestingly the BBC managed to bi ...[text shortened]... /
This is a fairly entertaining blog entry.
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26845103

Yeah I know. I've gone on many a long rant about their bad reporting.

And that kind of thing is definitely part of, but by no means the only problem.

Originally posted by DeepThought
How do either of you know that the reports you saw were deliberately untrue?

The first point is that while the events were unfolding what they could report were the press releases from TEPCO and the Japanese government. They didn't have access to the plants themselves and were not able to do an inspection. So if TEPCO or the Japanese government were ...[text shortened]... here, which it didn't for Fukishima or Chernobyl (which didn't have any thanks to cost cutting).

"The first point is that while the events were unfolding what they could report were the press releases from TEPCO and the Japanese government."

I believe the Japanese government deliberately downplayed the seriousness of Fukishima. Much of the reporting here in the USA was derived from Japanese reports, but the news media here did point out that the USA government advised Americans in Japan to stay futher away from Fukishima than the Japanese were advising. This should not be surprising to you. Sometimes panic can cause more problems than the disaster, but I'm not implying that about Fukishima. I'll let you be the judge of that. Sometimes politicians simply do what is convenient for them so it could go either way.

The news media here in the USA had film of the fuel rods falling to the ground. I saw it myself and thought they looked like fuel rods, but nothing was said. I would think they would at least speculate what else they could be if they were not fuel rods. The first report here in the USA that they were fuel rods came from Alex Jones (the conspiracy theorist) and it was not until the next day that the corporate news media finally admitted they were fuel rods. It is pretty bad when you have to hear it from Alex Jones first.
My guess is that because people listen to American news all over the world that the reports of the ejected fuel rods were deliberately delayed to assist Japan's desire to prevent panic in Japan. Maybe the same is true of the BBC. I don't know. I have noticed that BBC has shortwave broadcasts just like VOA and many Japanese people speak English.

Preventing panic can be important, but that does not mean the panic is not justified either. What I am certain of is that it is naive to think that the danger is not often understated to make evacuations as orderly as possible.

Google would not explain his point of view. His preoccupation with endorsing Thorium reactors is puzzling. It is not proven technology yet.

Originally posted by DeepThought
What is the point of the News, given that they are biased?

Well, you know a given event has happened, which wouldn't be the case if they didn't operate at all.

There's some interesting things they can do to public opinion by their choice of news to report - which is how they'd intentionally bias the news. Interestingly the BBC managed to bi ...[text shortened]... /
This is a fairly entertaining blog entry.
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26845103

Google started out by posting his assertion that greenpeace lies. He didn't say what they were lying about or why, but I suspect (for good reason) it was about nuclear since that was the topic at that time. He would not be specific then with me and he will not be specific with you because he knows his position is weak and he would rather be evasive than let me make a fool out of him again.
Google later went on to criticize the news media in general. I guess slandering greenpeace was not enough for him. Criticizing the news media is actually something I do fairly often and it is one of the reasons google calls me a conspiracy theorist and insults me at the same time. That is why I implied he sounded like a conspiracy theorist and I'll bet he secretly is. Most global warming alarmists are. I can't tell you how many times the alarmists have alleged that certain climate scientists were in the pocket of the oil companies. By definition that is a conspiracy, but because conspiracy often has a negative implication he will do anything to avoid that label himself, especially since he is quick to do it himself.

You should ask google what specific inaccuracies were reported and how he knows they are inaccurate. I have no doubt there are inaccuracies, but I doubt they are as anti-nuclear as he implies. As I pointed out much of the inaccuracies I noticed were to downplay the dangers.

I also want to point out that you are not being specific about what your criteria is for minority climate scientists and majority. Since government is not in the habit of funding things that are not a problem I don't dispute that Fred Singer is in the minority, but it really depends on your criteria. Some people are careless enough to ask if I deny climate change. That is a ridiculous question. I usually answer it by saying I don't deny the ice age. I think you will find that minority and majority positions in the climate scientist community are not so easy to define. I will leave you with this Singer quote just in case you overlooked it:

Anything else? . . .

Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view.

For example, they came up with a conclusion--the only conclusion of this 1996 report--that there's a discernible human influence on climate. I don't know what that means. Nobody really knows what that means. On the one hand, it's easy to agree with a statement "a discernible human influence on global climate." Sure, why not? Nights are getting warmer. Maybe that's it. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean--as politicians think it does--it does not mean that the climate models have been validated, that there's going to be a major warming in the next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

What is the specific criteria for your perception of the minority opinion? It is very important to make that clear.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"The first point is that while the events were unfolding what they could report were the press releases from TEPCO and the Japanese government."

I believe the Japanese government deliberately downplayed the seriousness of Fukishima. Much of the reporting here in the USA was derived from Japanese reports, but the news media here did point out that the ...[text shortened]... His preoccupation with endorsing Thorium reactors is puzzling. It is not proven technology yet.

Oh yeah, the panic was justified. How many people died in the Fukushima disaster, a dozen? How many hours does it take on average for coal mines to yield this death toll?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Oh yeah, the panic was justified. How many people died in the Fukushima disaster, a dozen? How many hours does it take on average for coal mines to yield this death toll?

That is extremely ignorant of you. How many people have not died but will from cancer later. Does a shorter lifespan count or is that irrelevant to you?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That is extremely ignorant of you. How many people have not died but will from cancer later. Does a shorter lifespan count or is that irrelevant to you?

Very few. The lethality of small doses of radiation has not been firmly established. This means that there is at most a small increase in the risk of cancer due to exposure to small doses of radiation, such as going on a skiing holiday, having an x-ray taken or going close to the Fukushima site.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Very few. The lethality of small doses of radiation has not been firmly established. This means that there is at most a small increase in the risk of cancer due to exposure to small doses of radiation, such as going on a skiing holiday, having an x-ray taken or going close to the Fukushima site.

I'm not talking about right now. I was referring to the time it was all happening. You know, the meltdown.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Google started out by posting his assertion that greenpeace lies. He didn't say what they were lying about or why, but I suspect (for good reason) it was about nuclear since that was the topic at that time. He would not be specific then with me and he will not be specific with you because he knows his position is weak and he would rather be evasive than ...[text shortened]... c criteria for your perception of the minority opinion? It is very important to make that clear.

I have heard climate skeptics claim that the reason for the warnings from academic climatologists concerning anthropogenic climate change is so that they can obtain grants to further their careers. Neither this nor the claims of some of those on the other side of the debate that climate scientists who deny anthropogenic climate change is anything more than a debating trick. In order to undermine their argument one casts doubt on their integrity. I don't think these claims deserve the dignity of being called conspiracy theories.

Besides, it's difficult to completely suppress payments and so forth. If these scientists have been receiving payments and grants and so forth from the oil companies then the payments should be traceable - so the claim of the some holding the main stream position is testable. The climate skeptic claim that climate scientists are exaggerating the problems in order to further their careers is somewhat hard to test.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"The first point is that while the events were unfolding what they could report were the press releases from TEPCO and the Japanese government."

I believe the Japanese government deliberately downplayed the seriousness of Fukishima. Much of the reporting here in the USA was derived from Japanese reports, but the news media here did point out that the ...[text shortened]... His preoccupation with endorsing Thorium reactors is puzzling. It is not proven technology yet.

It's a lot easier for American tourists to avoid the area than it is resident Japanese. I'd say the additional caution of the US government was entirely on practical grounds. At the time they didn't know how bad the disaster was going to be so it made sense for the American government to give more cautious advice than the Japanese, who would have the practical problem of relocating a few million people compared with the problem of relocating a few thousand tourists. There's only so much risk you can eliminate in a given situation and the differing advice reflected this more than anything.

EDF (I think) are building a couple of PWRs in Britain, during the bidding process one option was a CANDU reactor capable of including thorium in its core. I assume, but do not know, that these things operate in Canada. I don't think thorium reactors are unproven. Liquid salt reactors have also been operated, although I don't like the concept as in the worse case scenario the fuel is a large volume of liquid escaping the reactor rather than a small volume of melted fuel rods.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I have heard climate skeptics claim that the reason for the warnings from academic climatologists concerning anthropogenic climate change is so that they can obtain grants to further their careers. Neither this nor the claims of some of those on the other side of the debate that climate scientists who deny anthropogenic climate change is anything more t ...[text shortened]... ntists are exaggerating the problems in order to further their careers is somewhat hard to test.

In principle, an academic grant is usually non-binding in the sense that after the money is granted, it cannot be revoked if the researchers end up doing something else or finding something surprising. A climate scientist getting a grant to study the climate will have a strong incentive to publish results challenging man-made climate change, because if strong evidence for natural causes would exist it would be interesting and/or controversial, and journals tend to be biased towards work that is novel or controversial. Such work tends to be cited more by other researchers and leads to media exposure for the journal, potentially boosting sales. The conspiracy argument just shows ignorance about how the academic world works, really.