The BBC are being meanies again

[Glom]

They've got a lot of stuff on the nuclear debate. They even had the gall to mention the threat of Chernobyl style disasters. (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/acc/chernobyl.html)

Why do they have to be such meanies?

It is produces toxic waste? And other industries don't? Stupid BBC. :evil:

[Glom]

They never mentioned France at all. That rather well known country across the Channel that is committed to nuclear power. It's like we're the only ones who use it. We're the only ones who use AGRs. Did they think that might be the weak link? They don't even know what an AGR is. Not to mention that half of our reactors of old Magnox, which are more primitive AGRs.

And who's fault is it that half the country don't like the idea? As long as the pride of British Broadcasting are still suggesting there is the remote chance that the physically impossible can happen (Chernobyl disaster in an AGR) of course the public will scared smegless.

:evil:

[Glom]

You may have noticed that the country isn't dead and this demonised waste from the past fifty years plus all the weapons waste is still being stored in a single facility.

Dogma dies hard. :evil:

[Maksutov]

Somehow I get the impression you're less than pleased with the BBC.

Just a wild guess... :wink:

But, good to know that even the government-funded media are not immune from sensationalism and pandering. Proves even more that such symptoms are endemic to all media. It's still amazing how prophetic Paddy Chayevsky's Network was. :roll:

[Fram]

Just so we can judge for ourselves (as the only link was to your own site): are you talking about articles like this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4485003.stm) or this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4028729.stm) or this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4535899.stm)? Or was it on TV (what show)? Or the radio? Or... ?

And if it was one of those articles, what about it irks you?

There are also other articles, not mentioning Chernobyl, but an article like this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4549313.stm) or this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4532051.stm) seems fairly balanced to me. I know you don't agree with all the views expressed in them, but what does the BBC do wrong here?

[captain swoop]

Unfortunately the BBC is a target for everyone. Both sides of an issue will attack the Beeb for being biased in favour of the other. It's a no-win situation

[Fram]

Unfortunately the BBC is a target for everyone. Both sides of an issue will attack the Beeb for being biased in favour of the other. It's a no-win situation
Of course, but at least it would help if we would know exactly what they are attacking about the BBC. This thread was a bit empty, making it a bit hard to debate (or even to agree).

[Glom]

It started out here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4549313.stm) and just went downhill from there.

[Amadeus]

You talking about the debate on newsnight where the BBC had experts from all sides plus energy ministers from all major partys?

I saw that. Didnt strike me as biased at all.

[Glom]

I didn't see that but I heard it was full of misinformation about waste (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/cyc/waste.html) and terrorism. (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/saf/terrorism.html) Just because it was unbiased, doesn't mean it was good if falsities were allowed to be spread without challenge.

Did the experts include anyone from the unmentionable groups?

[papageno]

I didn't see that but I heard it was full of misinformation about waste (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/cyc/waste.html) and terrorism. (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/saf/terrorism.html) Just because it was unbiased, doesn't mean it was good if falsities were allowed to be spread without challenge.

Did the experts include anyone from the unmentionable groups?

What I saw about it, was not particularly interesting.
A guy from the Liberal Democrats spouted the usual FUD about nuclear, somebody else went on about the huge cost of using nuclear power.
They did not seem to explain anything about security and safety of modern nuclear reactors, and depicted the private sector as in crisis or obsolete.
Overall it was not particularly biased, but it did not point out very well the advantages of nuclear power compared to other systems.

[Glom]

A guy from the Liberal Democrats spouted the usual FUD about nuclear,

Yeah, they suck.

somebody else went on about the huge cost of using nuclear power.

15 year public inquiries are not good keeping costs down. Neither are 30 year old designs originally made for producing nuclear weapons. Technology has come some way since then.

They did not seem to explain anything about security and safety of modern nuclear reactors, and depicted the private sector as in crisis or obsolete.

Tell that to Electricité de France. Strange that on this one occasion, our neighbours across the Channel get very little mention. Is it because they contradict the paradigm?

(I'm criticising them of course, papageno, not you :wink: )

[papageno]

Tell that to Electricité de France. Strange that on this one occasion, our neighbours across the Channel get very little mention. Is it because they contradict the paradigm?

Was there any serious accident in France, involving a nuclear reactor (some part of the plant which is specific to a nuclear reactor, and not due to unobservance of the established procedures)?

[Glom]

Was there any serious accident in France, involving a nuclear reactor (some part of the plant which is specific to a nuclear reactor, and not due to unobservance of the established procedures)?

WNA note an accident at Saint-Laurent, where the fuel apparently ruptured in the reactor. This was considered a level 4 event (accident mainly in installation). TMI was a level 5 event (accident with off-site risks, which in the case of TMI did not appear). There is no mention of any casualties. There was a radiation release of 8E10 Bq, which is around a couple of curies, which makes me so not care.

[Lianachan]

This isn't that relevant, and not very serious, I'm just providing a link in case you weren't aware of the story.

The incident it relates to has been classified as Level 3.

http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/newsapp/pressreleases/pressmain.asp?StrNewsID=212

[Glom]

Level 3? WNA said it was considered level 0 because there was no release from the cell.

[Fram]

I can't comment on the TV debate, but I have no problem with that article. Seems fairly neutral while giving room to both sides of the debate. Decent journalism, nothing spectacular.

[Lianachan]

Level 3? WNA said it was considered level 0 because there was no release from the cell.

I read that it was going to be classed as a level 3 due to the volumes involved. I'll check when I get back to work and let you know.

EDITED PRE-WORK:

Found the following link - http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/38041.html

I'll still check my emails when I get to work. There was quite a bit of correspondence about this.

EDITED AT WORK:

Yup - this is a tiny excerpt from an email about the incident.This event has been graded Level Three on the International Nuclear Event Scale because of the amount of material involved

[papageno]

The problem of nuclear power in the UK came up agan in Question Time.
I managed to see only the Liberal Democrat ranting against it: "Blah, blah, blah... Nuclear is dangerous... blah, blah, blah... nuclear is evil... blah, blah, blah... Windpower über alles!"
The painfully stereotype FUD propaganda.
Do these people actually do any research?

[frogesque]

There is so much evangelical zeal and mis-information from both pro and anti camps that the nuclear debate is sterile. It seems it's impossible to have a sensible discussion on the subject.

[V-GER]

I watch BBCworld a lot and often it seems that they deliberately go out and seek "problems", when they find it, they milk it for all it's worth and just throw more fuel to the flames. Yesterday, they ran two seperate global warming-glasiers melting-stories all day, I was at my computer till early morning and had the tv on in the background, it became quite irretating hearing the same things every 15 minutes.

[Lianachan]

I watch BBCworld a lot and often it seems that they deliberately go out and seek "problems", when they find it, they milk it for all it's worth and just throw more fuel to the flames. Yesterday, they ran two seperate global warming-glasiers melting-stories all day, I was at my computer till early morning and had the tv on in the background, it became quite irretating hearing the same things every 15 minutes.

So why, er......didn't you......you know..... change the channel?

[Glom]

I can't comment on the TV debate, but I have no problem with that article. Seems fairly neutral while giving room to both sides of the debate. Decent journalism, nothing spectacular.

I don't call it decent journalism when they allow one side to make blatantly false arguments like we should be worrying about Chernobyl type events.

As a wise man once said, all ideas are not created equal.

[Glom]

The problem of nuclear power in the UK came up agan in Question Time.
I managed to see only the Liberal Democrat ranting against it: "Blah, blah, blah... Nuclear is dangerous... blah, blah, blah... nuclear is evil... blah, blah, blah... Windpower über alles!"
The painfully stereotype FUD propaganda.
Do these people actually do any research?

:cry: :cry:

Meanies! The only thing I can do is plug my site again. So here it is (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/).

Yup - this is a tiny excerpt from an email about the incident.

I see. Nevertheless, it seems like real reason for concern about a level 3 event, exposure to the public (although minor but anything is enough to whip up the frenzy) and acute health effects to workers, aren't an issue. Basically, they made a mess. So what? It'll be expensive, but it hardly demonstrates any threat to anyone. It validates the precautions taken to ensure that nuclear power is safe, even in the event of negligence.

It's a shame about THORP. Britain seems pretty useless at nuclear power, just like trains, hospitals and airports, but France has operated the closed cycle competently, not to mention their trains, hospitals and airports (aside from the occasional roof collapse). Probably Gen IV is what is needed to support the closed cycle. It is simplified and more economical. I'll add a bit about this to my site.

[Glom]

I've appended the waste (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/cyc/waste.html) page.

This is the added part.

A recent accident at the Sellafield THORP facility has prompted British Nuclear Group to suggest only open cycle for Britain. Clearly the closed cycle is impractical.

Tell that to the French, who have successfully operated the closed cycle for many years. The British nuclear industry has wanted to move to the open cycle for a while now because it has not proved economical in this case. Of course, if the failure of Britain to successfully close the cycle is taken to a hasty generalisation, then the impracticality of trains, hospitals and airports are also implied. Again, a look to France shows this is not the case, despite the occasional collapse of a roof.

There is a bit about MOX and the LibDems at the end. Does this latest development contradict that?

[V-GER]

Lianachan wrote:
So why, er......didn't you......you know..... change the channel?

Hmm, I'm kinda wondering about that myself right now, I guess I'm a news junkie and just kept it on in case "something" happens.