Wednesday, March 16, 2011
MEDIA COVERAGE OF JAPANESE REACTORS AND THE TRUTH
Last night Channel 4 "News" broadcast an item from somebody standing in front of a taxi rank in Tokyo who said that the fact that there were taxis there unused (2 of them) proved that residents were staying home, which in turn proved a level of panic.
My girlfriend, who has been in Japan, said that, because people downsized from Japanese industry, had gone into taxiing there was always a considerable oversupply of taxis. It is not like Britain and in particular London, where licencing regulations keep the numbers artificially below market demand. Clearly C4 were deliberately lying to promote their anti-nuclear scare story to the British audience.
The fact is that nobody has been killed in this "catastrophe"; nobody has been injured; less radioactivity has been absorbed by anybody offsite than would be absorbed from an X-ray, air flight, or probably from eating a banana; far less radioactivity is being emitted than a conventional coal burning plant would over time (coal contains natural radioactives, like bananas & everything else). There is no honest journalist or politician who says or implies that nuclear is less than 100s of times safer than conventional power.
-----------------------
That is a comment I put up on Channel 4 News' site this morning. It has yet to appear.
I also sent a letter based on Saturday's entry to dozens of newspaper's worldwide, none of whom, according to Google News, have published it.
The coverage of an incident which has neither killed not injured anybody at all now clearly greatly exceeds that for the rest of the entire Tsunami/earthquake. Occasionally MSM reporting will include, very quietly, a mention of the fact that the amount of radiation anybody is going to experience is on the level of eating a banana. However far more often they get somebody on from some eco-fascist organisatio9n to tell all sorts of alarmistt lies without allowing any balance (eg C4 again had a Greenpeace spokesman balanced by a government one in the knowledge that the government one would not dismount from the fence).
Sensible discussion comes from Jerry Pournelle and interestingly enough from The Register. Do yet again we see the blogsphere is where you go for actual information. Presumably why in America now and Britain next year, more people choose to get their news online than from the press.
On the other hand if you think journalists talk nonsense look at how the EU are describing zero injuries as the "Apocalypse"
My girlfriend, who has been in Japan, said that, because people downsized from Japanese industry, had gone into taxiing there was always a considerable oversupply of taxis. It is not like Britain and in particular London, where licencing regulations keep the numbers artificially below market demand. Clearly C4 were deliberately lying to promote their anti-nuclear scare story to the British audience.
The fact is that nobody has been killed in this "catastrophe"; nobody has been injured; less radioactivity has been absorbed by anybody offsite than would be absorbed from an X-ray, air flight, or probably from eating a banana; far less radioactivity is being emitted than a conventional coal burning plant would over time (coal contains natural radioactives, like bananas & everything else). There is no honest journalist or politician who says or implies that nuclear is less than 100s of times safer than conventional power.
-----------------------
That is a comment I put up on Channel 4 News' site this morning. It has yet to appear.
I also sent a letter based on Saturday's entry to dozens of newspaper's worldwide, none of whom, according to Google News, have published it.
The coverage of an incident which has neither killed not injured anybody at all now clearly greatly exceeds that for the rest of the entire Tsunami/earthquake. Occasionally MSM reporting will include, very quietly, a mention of the fact that the amount of radiation anybody is going to experience is on the level of eating a banana. However far more often they get somebody on from some eco-fascist organisatio9n to tell all sorts of alarmistt lies without allowing any balance (eg C4 again had a Greenpeace spokesman balanced by a government one in the knowledge that the government one would not dismount from the fence).
Sensible discussion comes from Jerry Pournelle and interestingly enough from The Register. Do yet again we see the blogsphere is where you go for actual information. Presumably why in America now and Britain next year, more people choose to get their news online than from the press.
On the other hand if you think journalists talk nonsense look at how the EU are describing zero injuries as the "Apocalypse"
Labels: eco-fascism, International politics, Media
