Monday Message Board

It’s time again for the Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language. Lengthy side discussions to the sandpit, please.

41 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. @Chris Warren
    Chris..for some reason my link keeps failing but see

    and they say no one saw the crisis of the GFC (and now the US government and economy) coming and Chomsky did more than a decade ago, but more importantly he nails the source of right denialism.

  2. @Donald Oats

    Donald, the “safe levels” are actually “legal levels”. Returning to legal levels will not undo the harm/risk in the system caused by seveal days, (weeks?) release of millions times higher levels.

    If you have time Don, would you run your eqn’s with these figures:

    cesium-137 was 1.3 million times the amount allowable, Halflive = 30 years.

    http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/articles/90043623?Seawater%20near%20Fukushima%20plant%207.5%20million%20times%20over%20legal%20radiation%20limit#

  3. There is the additional problem of the pattern of ‘dilution’. In contrast to washing powder which can be desolved more or less evenly in a washing basin, I understand the dispersion of the radioactive elements in the Pacific is influenced by the currents in the sea. How would anybody know where a fish was, relative to a complex dispersion pattern not known to a typical housewife, when offered for sale in say 5 years time?

    The mess is so comprehensive that it is outrightly silly to try to whitewash it with words.

  4. @Ernestine Gross
    Eww Ernestine. The full horror is not yet realised. Tepco and Japanese Govt have already acknowledged it will take months to get the mess under control and perhaps thats even a whitewash. Where are the barges going with the excess radioactive waste water now? To the nearest safe nuclear waste facility around the corner?. If they had one they would have used it for the spent fuel rods so dont even ask.

  5. Another problem with white-washing the effects of nuclear accidents such as Churnobyl is it misleads people as to the effects of nuclear weapons.

    That the IAEA-WHO figure of 4,000 deaths total. Compared to Iraq occupation deaths of 100,000 to 1,000,000. Or take Barry Brooks figure of 2 poeple kill in Japan compared to the Tsunami deaths of 100,000 on Boxing Day 2009.

    By white washing the real costs of these accidents we conceal from decision makers the impact of prorata levels of radiation released from nuclear weapons use. As more people are influenced the manipulated reports the argunments against use of nuclear weapons becomes erroded and understated.

  6. @Chris Warren
    Chris. Ive just collated the extensive list of why people are being “deleted” on BNC. Thank goodness the good Prof only rarely deletes. These BNC people are really just political animals and its not about the nuclear. Its just another strain of denilaism (especially when they are in there pushing Plimer of all people). But I loved this BNC moderator post below

    “If you look back over the moderation comments on this site(moderation began at the beginning of the Fukushima crisis when traffic to the site increased dramatically along with incivility and insulting comments) you will find that many of the comments by regulars on BNC have also been deleted/edited for violating BNC commenting rules. The same applies to both sides of the argument. We try to keep the conversation civil. Personal attacks on individuals and slanging matches are not allowed. Perhaps you should have a good look at some of the anti-nuclear/green blogs. Few, if any, of them even allow any comment by pro-nuclear supporters to be posted and insults abound.”

    I’d recommend deletion for the last two lines of the BNC moderators own comment, following BNCs own ad hoc and growing list of comment rules, as being inflammatory, not supported by references, a personal appraisal, an ad hominem and a personal opinion that cant be verified because he has provided no link to peer reviewed non out of date papers.

    Plus its a dummy spit.

  7. The Corporatist Apologiest have put their hard right foot forward:

    The new post is likely to pay considerably more than that, with Bolt seen to be something of a favourite of new part owner Gina Rinehart.

    ‘‘I have no idea what Rinehart hopes now to do to Ten, if anything,’’ Bolt wrote in his Herald-Sun column last November shortly after the Western Australian mining magnate bought a 10 per cent stake in the company for $168 million.

    ‘‘Nor could I guess what chances she’d have of turning it into, say, an Australian Fox News, even if she wanted to … But I do have an idea of what worries Rinehart about our future.’’

    That would be the Greens, a mining resource tax and a carbon tax, all of which Bolt has frequently railed against in print.

    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/new-host-bolt-wont-take-on-abc-rival-20110407-1d5n9.html

  8. Now, let put things into perspective. Gina Rinehart can afford the entertainment she wants. Nobody else has to watch it.

  9. @Ernestine Gross

    Like Kerry Packer in that, like Rinehart, he also subsidised the Sunday Program. Unlike Paker in that he subsidised something aspiring to be quality journalism.

  10. Jackerman, sometimes I am careful with my choice of words – wish it would be always.

    On more serious matters: What about desalination plants and nuclear pollution? This is one question I haven’t found anything on as yet.

    Sea salt is another item.

    Imagine the additional costs of production if all the inputs of food products have to be first tested for nuclear pollution content. The tax on ghg emissions seems to be a trivial item by comparison. But, lets see what the experts have to say on these questions.

  11. Bolt might rate well, Fox news does and they have far more opinion than news.

    Strange that Fox is such a well trusted source of news when they a providing 13 hours per day of opinion and editorilising versus 5 hours of news without Editorilising .

    is the Name “Fox News Network” false Advertising?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

  12. @Ernestine Gross
    and I wont be watching it Ernestine after that woman, who made her fortuna from her Dady, set too and organised the billionaires street protest a while ago against the mining tax (placards and all).

    Sheesh – and we have to tolerate these princesses?

  13. Excuse spelling above – its atrocious – but the idea of Gina buying a television station just convinces me that the first thing the wealthy always want to control is the minds of the rest of us.

  14. Some interesting interviews including with Chris Busby, “a chemist who specializes in cases of so-called low-level nuclear exposure”.

    [audio src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/EcoshockNews/~5/KUMWnwG2ay8/ES_110408_Show_LoFi.mp3" /]

  15. This is a really amazingly depressing story on Fukushima that seems to have been missed entirely at so called nuclear political expert sites where they continue to misuse perverse statistics to support the use of nuclear.

    The fuel rods (which it has now come out were blown to smithereens in at least one of the reactors at Fukushima – and which someone accused me of being alarmist when I made that point originally in here some weeks ago) apparently cant be removed or wont be cool enough to handle until 50 to 100 years time. There is no happy ending to the story of Fukushima.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/01/3179487.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s