Fukushima: A Month of Media Disinformation

[flamingdem]

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=626416

--- 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

[kristopher]

1. Thanks. I'll review it.

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.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED284302&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED284302


Yes, it is real and it is back...


U.S. Nuclear Regulator Lets Industry Write Rules
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/nuclear-regulatory-commission-industry-ties_n_848982.html

[PamW]

13. Nuclear weapons certainly are not your area of expertise.

As per usual, you are expounding on areas of knowledge where you are totally lacking.

For the LLNL designed W-79 warhead, the term "enhanced radiation weapon" is perfect
for describing how this weapon differs from others. The term "neutron bomb" is the
misnomer.

That is readily apparent because the W-79 "neutron bomb" isn't a "bomb" at all - it
was an artillery shell.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

Plutonium linear implosion weapon, used in XM-753 atomic projectile (AFAP); Mod 0: dual capable - pure fission or enhanced radiation (ER of "neutron bomb")




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.

PamW

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[PamW]

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.

PamW

[kristopher]

19. 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.

I'd imagine that number has expanded.

[Nihil]

20. Why are you harassing her?

The veiled (and not so veiled) threats?

[kristopher]

21. There are no threats, veiled or otherwise.

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?

[LAGC]

22. In other words, you're saying she should lose her job for disagreeing with you.

Nice touch.

[kristopher]

23. Wow, with reading skills like that it is wonder you support nuclear fission.

[PamW]

25. Evidently the moderators disagree with your contention.

There are no threats, veiled or otherwise.
=========================================

Evidently the moderators disagree - I see they deleted the offending post.

However, I did get to read the threat before it was deleted.

I'm proud of what I post - because I post accurate information.

I'm betting perhaps you finally did look up that National Academy article
and saw that I was representing the Academy's finding accurately.

Is that what's got you so "Teed off"? I would be too if I were you and
had to eat a nice helping of crow. Your actions / attitudes say it all.

PamW

[Wilms]

28. Well you posted some really innaccurate anti-anti-nuke disinfo here before.

I found that disturbing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=282854&mesg_id=283671

You lambasted, quoting a PBS document;

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.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin1.html

Then you went on to say;

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.

[kristopher]

30. I'm strictly interested in your posts on DU

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.

What you do and say here, however, is. And your actions are not those a reputable scientist would want associated with their name.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=284964&mesg_id=285370
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=282854&mesg_id=284289
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=280296&mesg_id=280296

[Confusious]

27. I wouldn't trust your opinion of validity

nor of ethics, or much of anything else for that matter.

[PamW]

24. Evidently you are unaware of the protections - I'm not surprised.

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).

PamW

[kristopher]

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.

[Confusious]

26. Boy new low nt

[jpak]

15. The Perfect Capitalist Weapon - Reagan loved this shit

but in reality

it sucked

yup

[PamW]

18. Actually - it was Carter's weapon

The Perfect Capitalist Weapon - Reagan loved this shit
=====================

Actually, it was Carter's weapon.

There weren't any new nuclear weapons designed under Reagan, nor Bush 41.

The next nuclear weapon to be designed, actually it was a modification to an
older design - was the B61-Mod 11, the "nuclear bunker buster" that was designed
at the behest of President Clinton.

PamW

[Wilms]

29. Whoa Pam, there's a LOT you have wrong there.

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.

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

In addition to restarting the production of the neutron bomb, the following nuclear weapons were developed during the Reagan admin:

B90 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B90_nuclear_bomb

W89 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W89

W91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W91

So your claim that "{t}here weren't any new nuclear weapons designed under Reagan" is also in error.


:eyes:

[90-percent]

2. Don't forget Dr. Kaku!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=573181&mesg_id=573217

I don't think humanity and the earth is well served by the BP SCHOOL OF CRISIS MANAGEMENT when you're dealing with nuclear radiation.

Or the Corporate MSM cover up of the real magnitude of this crisis.

For profit corporate nuclear power is simply a crime against humanity.

-90% jimmy

[flamingdem]

4. Kaku is a very effective communicator, not surprising he has disappeared

but CNN to their credit has had Arnie Gundersen on at recently as yesterday on John Kings show.

Arnie tones it down a bit for the MSM but he tells it like it is.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Dr. Kaku has "disappeared"? What do you mean?

I can't always catch his science show but I've heard it enough times on my car radio to know that it is a GREAT science information show. What do you mean by "disappeared"? Off the air? What?

[90-percent]

8. what I mean by "disappeared"

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.

-90% jimmy

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"

[bananas]

7. Thanks for that link - he's right, we should discuss a moratorium.

He makes some excellent points in that video.

[flamingdem]

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."

*Ha ha NUKESPEAK at it's best!

[Peace Patriot]

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.

Believe. Containment. It's you.

[90-percent]

9. My compliments to the above post

Peace Patriot, you could become a regular MSM pundit with work like that.

When you do, make sure it's as a replacement for Pat Buchanan.

Good post!

-jim

[Peace Patriot]

11. Thanks for your praise, 90-percent. I posted it in GD...

along with another comment of mine on this matter.

My Assessment of the Fukushima nuclear disaster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x893571

[flamingdem]

10. Now can you turn that into a Haiku lol nt

[Peace Patriot]

12. Let's see...

Seaweed forms writing.
Containment containing con.
Fool. Cheat. Imprisoned.

-----

LOL! Haiku's are difficult.

[flamingdem]

16. Oh thank you Peace Patriot! That is a lovely poem, you really have talent!

I think you got the gist of the haiku concept too.