How The Mainstream Media Is Failing Us With Its Nuclear Hysteria

[FBaggins]

The news from Japan is both awful and appalling. Awful: 23,000 confirmed dead or missing, and counting. Appalling: pretty much anything to do with the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant. Nuclear meltdown like Chernobyl! Deadly contaminated milk and radioactive tap water! Tokyo a postapocalyptic ghost town! A plume of radiation that threatens America’s West Coast!

Where do they get these morons? Again, twenty thousand people are dead, and the drooling dimwits of the media can’t stop babbling about Fukushima, where exactly one person died – a crane operator who had the misfortune to be up in the cab of his vehicle when the fifth largest earthquake in recorded history hit – and fewer than 30 were injured, only a handful of whom required treatment for radiation exposure.

But all the nattering nabobs can talk about is the hysteria cited above. I used to have time for CNN, but next time I visit America, it’ll be Fox News all the way. At least their idiocy is entertaining. I dare you to try to watch this CNN clip without cringing. It seems Bob Dylan was wrong: you do need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

...snip...

Of course I’m far from the first to be furious about this. Talking Points Memo, James Altucher, and Tim Bray, among many others, led the way. Noted environmental activist George Monbiot argues that Fukushima should turn people pro-nuclear power. But the voices of reason are mostly lost in the hurricane of panicked nonsense. What went wrong? Well, never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to ignorance, so I’m going to optimistically argue that the basic problem is that most journalists simply don’t have a clue when it comes to science and engineering. They don’t understand what they’re writing about; they don’t know which questions to ask; they don’t understand that science, unlike the arts, is ultimately about provability and falsifiability, not interpretation and opinion; they don’t know when government advice is reasonable and when it’s terrified CYA boilerplate; and they don’t know when to call bullshit on whatever source they have dredged up to provide “balance,” which they worship beyond all explanation.



http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/media-nuclear-hysteria/

[jpak]

1. Is someone having a meltdown?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wilms]

3. You mean to tell me there wasn't a disaster?

I, for one, would be relieved.

[FBaggins]

5. There was a MASSIVE disaster

It's just that it was 99+% natural.

Tens of thousands dead is certainly a disaster.

[jpak]

4. Umm...it is a disaster - and it's nowhere near "over"

sorry to inform you

yup

[FBaggins]

6. Still a hope that you guys were right, eh?

Keep clinging.

[jpak]

7. Those are the facts

yup

[FBaggins]

9. A nuclear disaster that doesn't kill anyone?

I guess when your starting position is that even HAVING a reactor is a disaster... it wouldn't be hard to mislabel this one.

OTOH, the people of Japan know what the REAL disaster has been.

[jpak]

11. You are not making sense - have a nice day

yup

[monmouth]

16. They haven't laid down and died yet, wait a few months....n/t

[FBaggins]

26. This isn't Chernobyl, it's an advanced society.

The people in the greatest danger are actually wearing dosimeters and know how much radiation they've been exposed to.

What's the highest reported dose to date?

It isn't a "lay down and die in a few months" level. It's the "wonder whether the cancer you get at age 70 was caused by this event or something else" level.

[jpak]

31. That is why they are busily obfuscating and spinning the true dimensions of the DISASTER

yup

[FBaggins]

32. Just because you don't hear what you want... doesn't mean that they're lying

or hiding it from you.

It just might not be as serious as you would prefer (from a debating standpoint... not a humanitarian one).

Or do you think they're lying about what the workers' radiation badges say?

[jpak]

33. They are lying - by omission - and the IAEA has the same problem with TEPCO and the Japanese gov't

yup

[FBaggins]

34. What kinds of omissions?

Are there people that they know have higher doses by they choose to hide them from you?

[jpak]

35. they sequestered the Fukushima 50 - they cannot talk to anyone outside the plant

The US and IAEA have asked repeatly for basic information about this DISASTER and they have received little in return.

The fact that many embassies fled Tokyo and a US carrier group left its Japanese homeport to escape fallout from Fukushima speaks volumes about the slick happy talk and no-information being provided by TEPCO et al.

yup

[FBaggins]

36. Can you link to some reporting on that?

You're saying that the initial 50 (of which there were really 100-200), are hidden somewhere?

The US and IAEA have asked repeatly for basic information about this DISASTER and they have received little in return.

And so have you and I. I'd love to have a webcam set up where we can see each of the fuel pools directly while theyre at it... and a live feed from automated temperature and pressure monitors along with water depth.

But the fact that they haven't given it to me doesn't mean that they're "hiding" something.

The fact that many embassies fled Tokyo and a US carrier group left its Japanese homeport to escape fallout from Fukushima speaks volumes

Nope. the fact that you would read IN to those actions a presumption of a growing catastrophe is just ridiculous.

[jpak]

37. I posted all that here recently - pay attention

yup

[FBaggins]

38. Sorry... I don't hang on your every post

Was it from a legit source?

Can you at least link to your thread?

[godai]

8. So, disaster, massive disaster...what is it if it gets worse?

These words are mostly meaningless and used mostly by those who seem to be strongly anti-nuclear. There are 2 huge problems in Japan. One is over, as far as the final damage. One is not. The nuclear situation is a huge problem that, in my opinion, is not yet a disaster. Lumping all the problems in Japan makes it too easy to call them a massive disaster or whatever sky is falling term is used. If the nuclear problem is resolved with minimal impact, it will be something less than the disaster it has the potential to become. Let's all hope that this is moving to a least possible impact solution. We can all work to ban nuclear reactors after that but this emergency should not be used now for any type of gain.

The people of Japan have suffered enough and deserve our best wishes as the begin to rebuild.

[FBaggins]

10. Which of your "2 huge problems" is "over as far as final damage" ?

n/t

[godai]

12. I presume that you are aware that clearing and rebuilding has begun.

They have begun building 5000 temporary houses in one town. Plans are in place to begin to clear the debris, separating vehicles to one area, general debris to another area. Food and fuel are becoming more regularly available. Electricity is being restored. This is great for the more than 200,000 people who have lost everything.

I won't debate the definition of 'over'.




BTW, try to put 'n/t' in the title of your post. That way, one does not need to click on the post to see that there is no text.

[FBaggins]

13. That doesn't mean that the final damage is done.

There are people without adequate food supplies or clean water.

I'm not saying that progress isn't being made... they're making HUGE strides at great personal sacrifice. But there are people who are healthy now that will still get sick and even die in the aftermath of the tsunami/earthquake.

[godai]

15. Agree that MSM puts too much emphasis on the nuclear crisis.

MSM lost interest in the humanitarian crisis last week. As the days and weeks go by, things will improve for the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost everything. Fortunately, it's the end of winter, not the beginning.

Unfortunately, they've been through tough times before. Just before the earthquake, there was a commemoration ceremony in Tokyo for the firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945, when 100,000 died. There are all too many similar disasters in the history of Japan. They will get through this.

[madokie]

21. I seriously doubt that any 'anti-nukes' were wanting to see that happen

but that doesn't seem to be important enough to get in the way of a good rant now does it? :hi:

[FBaggins]

25. Not the rational ones to be sure.

But they aren't all rational.

[madokie]

27. Your using 'they' as you did

says a lot about you :-)

[FBaggins]

28. Using it as a pronoun says a lot about me?

That would take some incredible mind-reading abilities.

Is there another way to refer to a group of people when pointing out that the group contains both rational and irrational members?

[madokie]

40. Many ways to structure a sentence

I see nothing irrational about someone who opposes nuclear energy for producing our electric. Like I've said in other post and replies before I believe that with our manufacturing base gone as it is now and the fact we only get about 19% or our power from nuclear that we could possibly shut down the more dangerous ones and possibly all of them. Nuclear power plants were pushed on us long before the technology was ready for prime time if you ask me. Still 60 years later we're piling up the dangerous to all waste. We put a stop to a nuclear power plant being built upwind of me here a few miles back in the '70s and largely because of two reasons, one was they couldn't conclusively tell us what they planned to do with the waste and in our inquiring about that we seen that they would tell us anything, truth be damned. You like nukes go live by one, myself I'll stay as far as I can away from one and if someone tries to build another plant near me I'll get off my ass and fight to stop it just like I did PSO's Blackfox years ago.
We've got several old plants near some large population areas and just as sure as I'm typing here now at some point someone is going to make a mistake or the plant itself is going to cause some serious problems. As Kris has been trying to point out we do not and I repeat, do not need nuclear energy to supply our electrical needs.

[FBaggins]

42. And many ways to misread one apparently

I see nothing irrational about someone who opposes nuclear energy for producing our electric.

Nor do I... and it isn't reasonable to read that post as saying otherwise. There are however, people who oppose it for irrational reasons and who do so using irrational/dishonest methods. There are some who see a potential human tragedy, not as a tragedy, but as an opportunity to advance an argument.

This group is a subset (perhaps a SMALL subset) of "them", but it is a vocal subset.

believe that with our manufacturing base gone as it is now

Sorry. That's incorrect. Our manufacturing employment base is gone... but levels of manufacturing (and the power it consumes) aren't down that substantially.

we could possibly shut down the more dangerous ones and possibly all of them.

I'd rather shut down a comparable number of MWs of coal generation. Does more for the environment... dose more for human health and safety... and it saves lots more money. This, of course, assumes that cutting power generation overall is an option rather than figuring out how to meet increasing demands.

[madokie]

45. We disagree with a couple things there

about our manufacturing base and the cleanliness of the two plants. Go talk to the Navajos sometime if you want to find out a little bit about the dirty of sudo "clean" Nuclear

As I was saying earlier of the few people who I know that works in producing our power whether it be hydro, pumped hydro for later use, coal and natural gas and they all say that their plants aren't producing as much energy as they are designed for as they are producing today.

We can get there we just need to put a stop to this one facet of our energy production that we really aren't ready for, as Japan is a testament to today. Just think of the pollution those 6 plants are making right now.

I against nuclear for anything but medicine.

[FBaggins]

47. That's ok.

Disagreeing isn't a bad thing.

Go talk to the Navajos sometime if you want to find out a little bit about the dirty of sudo "clean" Nuclear

The comparison here was to coal. Ever seen the impacts of black lung? Uranium mines tend not to suffer from fires and explosions. This doesn't mean that the Navajo were probperly treated or that anyone should have to go through that... but it's not the same as coal.

about our manufacturing base

I'm not sure what's to disagree with. Our manufacturing employment, until very recently, has been on a long-term decline. But we continue to produce more and more (just with fewer people).

As I was saying earlier of the few people who I know that works in producing our power whether it be hydro, pumped hydro for later use, coal and natural gas and they all say that their plants aren't producing as much energy as they are designed for as they are producing today.

I don't understand the point of that. Can you elaborate?

We can get there we just need to put a stop to this one facet of our energy production that we really aren't ready for, as Japan is a testament to today.

With respect... I don't think that you would have that position is you didn't come into the debate already believing that. One coal mine explosion or one natural gas plant blowing up kills more people than it looks like this will kill. And they both harm human health and the environment all the time... not just when they fail.

[madokie]

50. What exactly are we making more with less right now

where are the products sold that we're supposedly building that we need all this power for that we used when we were actually building things.

Most time death from radiation is not immediate so that argument of yours how this one has cost no lives rings hollow as hell. radiation is as it is that my lung condition can't really be monitored because of the fear of the radiation causing more harm. My pulmonary doctor says that one ct scan can cause cancer twenty or thirty years later. if I was a 20 year old they wouldn't have done as many scans as they have but since I'm already old and more that likely won't live for 20 or 30 years more they put me through a whole battery of test, ct scans, xrays, pet scan. My age was a factor here in all this.


Peace

For you information you don't have to copy and paste what I typed as I can keep a thought and most here can. I know what we're talking about as most here do to. so cut it out :-) ok

[FBaggins]

51. Let's not go that far afield.

I can't tell you how many times I've read "we don't make anything anymore". It isn't true, but why argue it in this context?

Most time death from radiation is not immediate so that argument of yours how this one has cost no lives rings hollow as hell.

Can we agree that the people in the most danger are the ones working at the plant every day? Can we also agree that they're wearing very sensitive measuring equipment that keeps track of their dose?

Until we get ONE person with a dose that has been associated with a mortality risk, is there really a debate?

I have no doubt that they will discover a statistically significant increase in thyroid cancer some years down the road.


Sorry about copying your content. I've never met anyone that annoyed. If there are half a dozen points in a post it always seemed to me to make more sense to be clear. I can't tell you how many times kris here has misread part of a post as applying to one thing when it really applied to another.

I'll see what I can do.

[jschurchin]

14. You still here?

I figured by now you would be standing next to the #2 reactor telling us how, "See there isn't a problem here, all you anti-nuke nutjobs."

Be a pal, give us some on site reporting, Please!!!

[godai]

17. Just shows how wrong you can be.

I hope that you realize that there are a lot of possibilities between 'no problem' and 'nuclear meltdown'.

[jschurchin]

20. You there?

Go there. And let us know how thing's are going. If nuclear power generation is so fucking safe, go to Fukushima and stand next to the reactor buildings and let us know how things are. Come on, don't be a pussy, go there.

[godai]

22. Ahhh...obscenities...you didn't let me down.

It's so predictable when someone has no logical response that they resort to bullying and obscenities.

[jschurchin]

24. So the answer is NO, you won't go there.

Talk about predictable. "It's safe, no really." Hey where you going? "Montana, it really safe there."

Come on, go there. If it's so fucking safe, go to Fukushima.

[quabbin]

29. Pro Nuke folks

They just can't let go of the nuclear genie. It doesn't matter how dangerous accidents continue to show this technology to be. They are in serious denial now. The world is going to move away from this technology after this latest demonstration of it's fallibility. They should all go back and read Admiral Hyman G. Rickover's testimony about nuclear power during a congressional hearing decades ago. The "Father of The Nuclear Navy" advised against developing nuclear power for commercial electricity generation. The old man could be pretty sarcastic at times. He said he was against any nuclear power that created RADIATION.

[wtmusic]

53. Global warming was also unknown when he said it. nt

[quabbin]

57. Global warming

Looking at the unfolding events in Japan make it obvious that depending more on nuclear power to ameliorate the effects of climate change is going to be like playing Russian Roulette. I don't think most of humanity is willing to play this game with the most dangerous technology on the planet.

[PamW]

64. ...then why did he build Shippingport...

The "Father of The Nuclear Navy" advised against developing nuclear power for commercial electricity generation. The old man could be pretty sarcastic at times. He said he was against any nuclear power that created RADIATION.
=============================================

First ANY power source is going to create "radiation". It may be non-ionizing,
but it's going to create radiation.

I seriously doubt that Rickover was against the use of commercial nuclear power.

Many here evidently don't know that the USA's very first nuclear power plant ( that
wasn't just an experiment lighting up 4 light bulbs, but an actual power plant ) was
the Shippingport plant at Shippingport PA, and that power plant was Rickover's baby:

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

The Shippingport Atomic Power Station, "the world’s first full-scale atomic electric power plant devoted exclusively to peacetime uses,...

Shippingport was created and operated under the auspices of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, whose authority included a substantial role within the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Its design team was headed by Alvin Radkowsky


Another in a long series of anti-nuke fabrications disproven.

PamW

[SpoonFed]

67. hrm

and how many possibilities between "partial or complete meltdown" of 2-3 units and "we're completely fucked!" pls pls pls tell me.

[quabbin]

18. Nuke Disaster - Media Coverage

Why would anyone turn to the U.S. mainstream media for coverage of the nuclear disaster in Japan? Why would you even bother with their coverage or waste your time critiquing it? There are many sources on the web providing unbiased expert scientific coverage of this event. The Union of Concerned Scientists is covering this extensively on their website. They are holding daily press briefings that are posted on their site. MIT has a very good blog covering this tragic event. The event in Japan is unprecedented in the history of commercial nuclear power generation given the number of reactors and spent fuel pools involved. Decades after Japan rebuilds from the immediate effects of the earthquake and tsunami they will continue to be impacted by the aftermath of the nuclear accident. Good luck with relying on Fox News in your quest for unbiased accurate reporting on any topic in the future. Are you serious?

[godai]

19. Don't shoot the messenger.

The Fox News sarcasm is from the link.

I'd add NHK TV and Statistical (on DU) as reliable sources.

[FBaggins]

23. He wasn't relying on Fox

He was saying that if he came to the states and needed to watch TV news he would watch Fox. Not because they are less idiotic, but because their idocy is more entertaining.

[kristopher]

46. MIT has become a shill for the nuclear industry. They have a distinct conflict of interest

All the students in the Nuclear Engineering Department are watching their future jobs wither on the vine.

MIT NE dept is already on the hook for basically falsifying (they took anything the industry claimed as gospel fact) a critical study that was used to justify a new effort to rebuild the nuclear industry.
And immediately after the disaster started, their students "accidentally" used a pronuclear blogger to circulate a fictitious letter trying to downplay the accident.
http://geniusnow.com/2011/03/15/the-strange-case-of-josef-oehmen /

They've tried to whitewash it, but given the nature of the "Staff" that is overseeing them, I'm personally confident it is a case of the fox watching the hen house.

Here is why: Look at this graph. One of the 4 lowest pink numbers - the one that is at $1500 - is MIT. That number was used to lock in funds with the 2005 Energy Bill. Then look at what happened when independent (non-industry funded or affiliated) analysts started looking at the same set of circumstances with a critical eye.

Jonathan Porritt, chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission and advisor to Gordon Brown, says it does. "Cost estimates from the industry have been subject to massive underestimates—inaccuracy of an astonishing kind consistently over a 40-, 50-year period" (Porritt, Chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission 2006). A UK-government commission agrees, claiming virtually all nuclear-cost data can be "traced back to industry sources" (UK Sustainable Development Commission (UK SDC) 2006). University of Greenwich business professor, Stephen Thomas, says nuclear-industry sources "are notoriously secretive about the costs they are incurring" (Thomas 2005). Such charges suggest the need to scrutinize industry claims that, to address climate change, nuclear power is "the most cost-effective power source" (European Atomic Forum 2006). - p 2

Consider first the nature of a COI. As defined (p. 6) in a classic 2009 US National Academy of Sciences report (Lo et al. 2009), "conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. Primary interests include promoting and protecting the integrity of research," the quality of scientific education, and the welfare of the public, whereas "secondary interests include not only financial interests...but also other interests, such as the pursuit of professional advancement." What happens when one applies this COI definition to nuclear-cost studies that are performed/funded by nuclear interests? The circumstances of the nuclear industry’s performing/funding nuclear-cost studies (whose results could affect industry profits) — may "create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest," scientific integrity, may be ‘‘unduly influenced by a secondary interest," nuclear-industry financial interest. - p 13

-Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Journal of Science Engineering Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y

So MIT might have some good information, but you should never forget who they are working to protect.

[FBaggins]

48. Those shills must be incredibly easy to spot.

"Anyone who disagrees with me" makes for a wonderfully convenient standard.

[flamingdem]

30. Don't worry! Over soon! Water safe to drink now!

snark quote:

...radiation levels are perfectly safe now, and will be for the subsequent years, and that yes, while there are fabrication defects in the containment vessels, those are not likely to be stressed that much because Fukushima has unique atmospheric values, and 800 to 1200 degrees fahrenheit there is like maybe 121 degree fahrenheit in Los Angeles.

Anyways, quit panicking so much and realize that everything is fine, radiation tends to settle down and degrade over a short period of time, and the air and drinking water and irrigation water, which are the most important things, are safe - and even if they weren't - Japan is surrounded by fresh water on all sides, and China has clean air that can be imported - so they have lots of choices.

Okay?

[miyazaki]

39. Fukushima's toxic legacy: Ignorance and fear

-from the register uk:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/22/fukushima_tuesday_2/

more perspective between science and superstition.

[Nederland]

41. And it is not the first time

Study after study has shown that the most serious consequence of Three Mile Island was the impact the accident had upon the mental health of the residence of the area. In other words, the media's coverage that exaggerated the real danger had much greater effect on people's well being than any actual radiation did. I suspect in 20 years we will learn the same thing of the Japanese people.

http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.867/pub_detail.asp

http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/16/bromet.psychological.effect.japan/index.html

[FBaggins]

43. Indeed.

I'm willing to guess that there will be more people in the U.S. hurt from an overdose of some form of iodine (etc) than from any form of radiation from Fukushima.

[quabbin]

44. Three Mile Island?

Comparing the event at TMI with what is unfolding on the Northern coast of Japan is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

[Nederland]

56. Hard to say

The Fukushima accident is by no means "over". Only after things are stable again will we be able to make a fair comparison. At this point in time all you can say is that in some respects what happened at TMI was worse than Fukushima, and in others the reverse is true. Yes, obviously the severity of the accident at Fukushima is much worse than what happened at TMI. However, radiation was released from the TMI reactor while the residences of the surrounding area were still there, while the people around Fukushima were evacuated long before things got really bad.

[quabbin]

58. Comparable to TMI?

The Japanese government extended the evacuation distance this morning from 12 to 18 miles. People at 12 miles distance have been exposed to elevated levels of radiation for several days now. The safe allowable exposure limit for one year has now been reached by exposure to the outside environment in 9 hours at 12 miles distance from the site. There is no longer and hasn't been for several days any legitimate comparison to TMI. This is magnitudes greater in danger than TMI. I suggest you follow the online coverage by MIT, The Union of Concerned Scientists, the IAEA (which is finally on the ground in Japan) etc.

[Nederland]

63. I never said it was comparable to TMI

In fact what I specifically said was: "Only after things are stable again will we be able to make a fair comparison."

Is that sentence hard to understand?

[quabbin]

66. The factual evidence of the Japan nuclear disaster

You implication that more time is needed to make an accurate factual comparison of the Japan nuclear event with the TMI event is patently absurd at this point. I think you know that.

[Fledermaus]

49. The Main Stream Medias audience it the general public! They are doing what they are entitled to do.

Its called a Democracy!
:bounce:

[wtmusic]

52. It's called prurient interest

If it bleeds, it leads.

[Fledermaus]

54. Worker charged with lying about inspections at TVA nuclear reactor under construction in Tenn.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/worker-charged-with-lying-about-inspections-at-tva-nuclear-reactor-under-construction-in-tenn/2011/03/24/ABkXFUOB_story.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1TMZASCR-I

[wtmusic]

55. Sheesh. I sure hope they don't have a 9.0 earthquake in Tennessee. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

59. The earthquake didn't break these reactors in Japan.

The Tsunami did.

Is Tennessee in danger of a tsunami?

[wtmusic]

60. I don't think so

but with a lying contractor, the only prudent thing to do is bail on a multi-billion dollar project.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. In fairness, there is water present.

The Mississippi can do 'odd things' in an earthquake.

[wtmusic]

62. And...

you can bet design specs will change as a result of Fukushima. Wherever the plant is.

[miyazaki]

65. Fukushima scaremongers becoming increasingly desperate

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/fukushima_scaremongering_debunk/

[SpoonFed]

68. tl;dr

I stopped reading that article as soon as I hit the spot where it said the situation was brought into control days ago.

Nice work!