--- snip As Lester Brown, president of Earth Policy Institute, concludes in his new book, World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse--as have many studies and reports--solar, wind and geothermal energy can provide all the energy the world's needs. He dismisses nuclear power as too expensive and dangerous.
It not only can happen, it is happening, emphasizes Brown. "The old energy economy, fueled by oil, coal, and natural gas, is being replaced with an economy powered by wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Despite the global economic crisis, this energy transition is moving at a pace and on a scale that we could not have imagined even two years ago."
But the real energy choices were largely not being discussed by media through the past month of Fukushima disinformation. The classic book on disinformation on nuclear technology is Nukespeak, published in 1982. It is dedicated to George Orwell, author of 1984, and written by Stephen Hilgarten, Richard C. Bell and Rory O'Connor. It opens by declaring that "the history of nuclear development has been profoundly shaped by the manipulation through official secrecy and extensive public-relations campaigns. MORE AT LINK
Title: The Rhetoric of Nukespeak. Authors: Schiappa, Edward
Abstract: Nukespeak--euphemisms or jargon that serve to hide the horrific nature of nuclear weapons systems and nuclear war--uses the strategies of domestication and bureaucratization to represent itself to the public. Domestication employs everyday language to introduce nuclear concepts into public discourse in a non-threatening manner, as when President Reagan named the MX missile "The Peacekeeper." Bureaucratization insulates nuclear concepts from public inspection by using acronyms or sanitized jargon, such as the military definition of the neutron bomb as a "radiation enhancement warhead." If some aspect of nuclear war cannot be conveyed persuasively with friendly metaphors, then the next best option is to use technical terms or acronyms that only "experts" can really understand. Nukespeak, as a thoroughly rhetorical enterprise, warrants attention because of its role in shaping consciousness of speakers and hearers alike. Kenneth Burke has argued that terminologies direct attention by selecting some aspects of reality to focus on while deflecting others. The likely consequence of nukespeak is that its users will tend to understand nuclear weapons, strategy, and war as benign or beneficial rather than repulsive or horrifying, while its receivers (the public) will tend to accept a reality defined by "official others." The challenge for the rhetorical critic is to identify the "Third Persona" of texts--the audience excluded by the discourse of nukespeak. (References are appended.) (NKA) http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini....
Enhanced radiation is exactly what LLNL designed the weapon for. The three major effects of nuclear weapons are blast, heat, and radiation. LLNL designed the weapon to enhance the radiation component at the expense of blast and heat. Therefore, it was much better at killing invading Soviet forces via the radiation with less blast and heat in Europe where the cities and towns are more densely packed, and high blast and heat effects are not desired.
17. Too bad there's no consequences for "blowing hot air"
Are you also aware that there is a difference between potential legal and potential social consequences for violating ethical norms? ===================================
Ethical norms defined by YOU???
Accurate information defined by YOU???
I know you don't have any insight into nuclear weapons by observing and reading your posts.
You don't know about conservation of momentum or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or any of the other principles of physics, so how could you know about the workings of a nuclear weapon which rely on principles that you are so ignorant of?
Stick to economics, or bluster, or what ever it is that you do.
It doesn't require a threat from me to create potential consequences for the role PamW asserted for herself. As I indicated, more than 8% of companies have fired people for the online social networking activities and that has nothing to do with me. However, it is true that I would evaluate the situation as one where, if her link to a National Lab is as stated, then there are definite expectations in place that exceed those of say, a corporate lobbyist.
How those facts affect the behavior of affected individuals is a matter of interest to me. I've made no secret that I'm researching this issue, and since PamW has identified herself as a unique participant in the EE discussions, I'm curious about the nature of the ethical structure she sees herself being obligated to operate within.
PamW has used an assertion that she works at a national lab as a basis of authority for making some very questionable claims. There is an ethic in place within those institutions that would preclude an individual from making such claims when their names are attached, which is why there is a qualitative difference between data from named and un-named sources. The effect of the anonymous internet on the quality of information in the public domain is a matter of intense interest right now, and the nature of the information on nuclear power and its competitive alternatives is of particular interest for reasons that predate Fukushima - which has intensified the focus dramatically.
Do you think society writ large is served well by a primary information distribution system that has little to no individual responsibility for validity attached?
Carter's statement was totally different in tone. It said that reprocessing should not proceed, not only in the U. S. but worldwide, because it was not essential for foreseeable economic or uranium resource purposes. Therefore, his advisors reasoned, since it added to proliferation risks, "it just didn't make any sense to allow reprocessing to proceed." The U. S. position was stated as firm and final, and it expressly included a plan to explain it to the other nuclear nations in order to convince them to adopt it as well.
Although one might think from the above that reprocessing / recycling aided proliferation, even though the USA gave up on reprocessing, and hence begat a nuclear waste "problem", the French, the British, and the Japanese have been reprocessing / recycling spent fuel. Contrary to Carter's hopes, they didn't follow the USA like a bunch of lemmings.
Turns out, that's a little misleading. In the very article you quote, just three paragraphs further down is the following;
In early 1982, President Reagan rescinded the Carter policy, allowed programmatic (as opposed to case-by-case) approvals for reprocessing of U.S. origin fuel by the Euratom nations and Japan, and even said that reprocessing could again be considered in the U. S. But by that time, all the remaining industrial momentum in the United States was gone, and no serious effort to revive commercial reprocessing has emerged since that time.
So the industry had the opportunity and failed to act on it. But you blamed anti-nuclear advocates, lamenting, "and hence begat a nuclear waste "problem"". You've had ample opportunity and failed to respond to the clarification while you're here touting the accuracy of your advocacy. It isn't so.
Since the previous post was apparently unclear (I've reviewed and don't see how) I'll expand and clarify. I'm not interested in finding you or tracking you to get you in trouble, or in any way finding out who you are. For my purposes in understanding the role of the anonymous internet in shaping public opinion who you are is irrelevant unless you bring it into the discussion; and even then *only* what you bring into the discussion is of interest.
Why you do what you do and make the choices you make, however, is of great interest to me.
In light of your stated goals of bringing accuracy to the discussion, for you, validating the authority you are claiming would seem to make sense unless there is a specific reason to not do that. That leads me to this:
If you are, in fact, on staff at a National Lab as you claim; and since you make that claim as an appeal to authority; And since you assert that you are proud of what you post because it is accurate; why would you not participate with your actual name and affiliation in the public realm?
I would if that were my circumstance.
For example, in my case I joined DU to discuss the Iraq War, and moved to EE to do research on the public discussion around energy and where I have been following a specific research protocol that requires me to adhere to the prevailing norms of this community (ie 99.99999% are anonymous). Since my credentials would assist in establishing the legitimacy of my views regarding energy , and since I do not misrepresent data nor make false claims; I find anonymity to be a decided limitation to establishing the validity of my positions. If my primary goal were to win arguments instead of to observe debate among a community of equals, then I would probably have long ago used professional authority to support the opinions I put forth.
I have to presume that you have no such research protocol requiring you to keep your identity secret.
That leads to several possible conclusions:
1) you are not who/what you say
2) you are who you say and you are unaware of the role of ethics in your implied profession and/or the distinction between legal and social sanctions for violating those ethics.
3) you are who you say and are aware that your actions here (what you post and how you relate) require a firewall between this realm and your professional realm because it would result in trouble for you if the posts were linked to your professional identity.
My questions to you in the deleted post were aimed to identify whether it was one, two or three.
Frankly #2 is an almost inconceivable option, leaving either one or three.
Whatever it is, you can rest assured your personal life is not of interest to me.
24. Evidently you are unaware of the protections - I'm not surprised.
Edited on Fri Apr-15-11 10:30 PM by PamW
The National Labs are a National Resource, not generators of corporate propaganda
As far back as 2009 8% of companies report firing employees for online activities that reflected badly on their companies. ================================================================
Evidently you are unaware of the protections afforded by the GOCO contracts. ( Why am I not surprised that you don't know something? )
Sandia National Laboratory has a page on this:
http://www.sandia.gov/about/history/goco / The GOCO allows proven private-sector processes to operate without bureaucratic restrictions. Scientists performing for a GOCO contractor are largely insulated from political pressures. Thus, they have the independence to speak out as honest brokers, acting truly in the national interest.
Evidently you were ignorant of the fact explained above that national lab scientists are insulated so that they can freely speak their minds as "honest brokers".
National laboratory scientists have nothing to fear from jack-booted "greenies" (so-called).
31. That is focused on the legalistic side of ethical violations.
Of course we want our scientists to be open to the public with their opinions. But we also insist that they are responsible for the accuracy of their speech by means of the practice of shunning by peers if a given scientist MIS-USES the authority of ALL scientist by making false claims under the cover of that authority.
That is why when scientists speak out AS SCIENTISTS they attach their name to their work. It ensure responsibility for accuracy. You are claiming the authority, but have none of the responsibility. The demonstrated, extremely well documented result is that you promote a very large body of false information.
It wasn't exactly "Carter's weapon", as you assert, though he CANCELED it.
Testing was authorized and carried out in 1963 at an underground Nevada test facility. Development was subsequently postponed by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 following protests against his administration's plans to deploy neutron warheads in Europe. President Ronald Reagan restarted production in 1981.
He appeared at least on GMA at least more than once when the disaster first happened.
His visibility on MSM seems to have tapered off since then.
I don't monitor all media to see where he's at, but to me it has the aroma that his message is not corporate friendly, in that his solution is bold and requires a lot of cooperation, and he wants final decision making power totally in the hands of scientists, who he wants to be in total command of the Japanese Military.
Secondly, his assessment of the magnitude of the radioactive damage is a lot more DOWNRIGHT FRIGHTENING than the Japanese Government and USA MSM message of "Everything's fine, nothing to see here" minimizing of the gravity of this tragedy.
For all I know Michio could be on all three MSM nightly news shows tonight simultaneously. After all, he really should be. (I like him so much I'm comfortable referring to him by his first name. I sure wish he still sold autographed pictures on his website, though. He seems to only autograph his books now.)
PS post #4 has this encouraging news
"but CNN to their credit has had Arnie Gundersen on at recently as yesterday on John Kings show"
3. Many will relate to the article at the OP link by journalist Karl Grossman
It lays out many of the bs arguments we've been reading on DU in response to posts:
But, he quickly added, "the contamination is described as miniscule, posing no threat to the public." To bolster that assertion he presented Blair Thompson, "spokesman for the Washington Dairy Products Commission."
"Radiation can be a scary word, but I think it's important to remember that actually we live surrounded by radiation every day," said milk industry PR man Thompson.
Indeed, chirped Osgood: "Some of our most common foods--potatoes, carrots, bananas and Brazil nuts--contain radioactive potassium."
*and of particular concern this issue of plutonium - not found everywhere already as claimed by some:
Asked by Jeffrey Brown about "the plutonium found in the ground" around the Fukushima nuclear plants, Dr. Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University, responded: "Well, there are various sources that the plutonium could have come from. But I think we're relieved that the levels of plutonium are actually very low, and actually, typical of plutonium--natural plutonium contamination in this country."
Plutonium is the most lethal of all radioactive substances. There is no level "actually very low." A millionth of a gram inhaled, a microscopic particle, is all that's needed to produce lung cancer. Furthermore, there is no "natural plutonium contamination in this country."
5. Yup. It's contained. It's about to be contained. It's partially contained. It's soon to be
partially contained. Containment is in the cards. Containment makes you happy. Believe in containment. It's happening. And God said "containment" and it "was contained." Units 5 and 6 contained. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 not so contained but soon to be contained. Explosive blowoff of roofs contained. Sea water magic containing the containment. Be not afraid, containment is the thing. Sing it! "Con-tain-ment, con-tain-ment, I love you, Containment!" Dig it. Containment is groovy and full of love. Enjoy containment. Whew! CONtroversy CONtained! Lid on it. CON-fusion of CON-tainment and CON-entertainment CON-founded and CON-troversy washed out to sea.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.