Saturday, October 15, 2011
However this Dalgety bay radiation story was the main item on the Scottish bit at the end of the BBC news last night. This despite the fact that the BBC know, with absolute certainty, that SEPA have lied about it. Once again we see that there is nobody at the BBC who is a journalist rather than a state propaganda flack and that they are all willing to tell any lie and censor any fact to promote the state's agenda. SEPA are, once again producing a scare story about radioactivity found at Dalgety Beach. This is a spurious story which has been disproven several times - the level of radiation is easily consistent with natural background radiation. Indeed an expert hired by SEPA assured them that the level of radiation here is 1/3rd of that naturally found in any street in Aberdeen.
SEPA have previously been caught telling at least 2 major lies on the subje
ct. Firstly claiming, on the BBC, to have made studies of the radioactive materials and chemically proven them to be made of paint. Repeated FoI searches have proven that no such finding of paint particles has ever been made. SEPA have also claimed to have found the "radium and its daughter elements" in the beach rock. In fact the "daughter element" that radium breaks down into is radon - a gas not a rock. The scientific illiteracy required to make such a silly claim is obvious. Since SEPA have promised to use public money to sue those who criticise them I will not specify exactly what degree of illiteracy would be required by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency but it seems inconsistent with SEPA being capable of being anything but a propaganda organisation using false scare stories to get more money from the public.
Their recent revival of this scare is that they have found a "piece of metal" that is "highly radioactive." As with most anti-radiation scare stories, no actual figures are given although it is claimed that this particular piece of metallic slag was 10 times more radioactive than the previous particles (which would make it a whole 3 times more radioactive than Aberdeen granite. 10 times more than normal natural background is insignificant and not particularly unlikely for something containing heavy metals. Certainly soluble paint containing minute quantities of radium on cardboard dials which may, or may not, have been present in immeasurably small quantities 66 years ago, seems unrelated to a piece of metallic slag. A reasonable assumption is that had this come ashore anywhere else, except Dounreay, it would never have been commented on. But since we are paying these people to pop round to Dalgety with their Geiger counters every few months they feel it necessary to make a big scare out of a perfectly natural occurrence. Set a geiger counter at a low enough setting and it will show anything is radioactive. Bananas for example give off 1 mSv, sharing a bed gives you 0.5 mSv, which puts the 3 mSv occasionally found in the Fukushima zone in perspective.
This beach probably contains around 3 tonnes of uranium and 6 tonnes of thorium because that is what any square mile of land contains. It is perfectly natural and a fraction of a gram of soluble paint 66 years years ago is of no importance.
The BBC, in particular, choose to promote this because it fits their own Luddite anti-nuclear agenda. The same tactic is seen of hyping "discoveries" at Dounreay of "hot spots" where the "heat" of the hotspots is never named. Even under the official theory one would have to eat Dounreay beach down to a level of several inches to have any chance of receiving significant damaging radiation (or one could choose several tons of bananas).
I say even under the official theory because that theory, that there is no level of radioactivity which is not dangerous is scientifically unjustifiable. There never has been any scientific evidence that it is true. It was simply invented by bureaucrats because it was easy to measure. On the contrary the evidence is undisputed that for plants, laboratory cultures and small animals (with whom experiments are possible) that low level radiation is beneficial to health. For humans (where experiment is not possible) there is still strong statistical evidence for the beneficial effects (known as hormesis) in that the health of populations in places with high background radiation are routinely better than those where it doesn't exist.
If SEPA are unaware of this they are unfitted by incompetence to be paid out of the public purse. If they are aware of it they are ethically unfitted.
DALGETY BAY - DISSECTING SEPA's RADIATION LIE
21/8 Dounraey natural radioactivity found shock
12/6 SEPA say no money spent on investigating Dalgety Bay
10/6 Dunfermline Press article
29/5 Letter in the press & Journal
27/5 Guest article on the science
22/5 Dundee Courier article
19/5 Unpublished newspaper letter
15/5 My reply to SEPA
14/5 SEPA's response to FoI enquiry - they break the law by not answering
1/4 appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner over SEPA's ignoring Freedom of Information Law
24/3 Putting in FoI appeal
2/2 Radio Scotland programme - I phone in & SEPA representative deliberately lies
7/2 SEPA lied
10/2 SEPA's reply
11/2 how SEPA lied - see the science
12/2 SEPA's reaction
25/2 Deliberate Scottish government complicity
Since SEPA has previously threatened to sue me, using public money, if I say anything untrue about them I will am sending them, and the Scottish civil service and government and the BBC, copies of this and ask them if they wish to claim thatI have said anything whatsoever about SEPA's dishonest claims here. Or if they wish to suggest that these claims, maintained for so long, represent anything other than the very higherst standard of scinetific and ethicl behaviour SEPA aspire to. Or, since the Scottish government are using our taxes to fund this fraudulent scare story, it represents other thjan thestandard of honesty to be expected from them. Or, bearing in mind that the BBC already know, apparently beyond any possible dispute, that this is a fraud they are promoting, whether this represents other than the highest standard of honesty to which any BBC employee aspires.
I al;so ask them if they dispute, in any way, that,this scare depend on the facts about radium paint having been found are true (the FoIs prove they are a lie) and that the LNT theory is correct. If even 1 leg of this 2 legged stool exists SEPA, the BBC and the Scottish government must know of scientific evidence supporting the LNT theory that low levels of radiation are harmful. In which case they will be able to supply such evidence that 1 leg of their alleged case actually exists.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Most of them were first presented on 26th August but some have had to be rewritten after what may, or may not, be reasonable reasons for rejection and some just spend a long time in limbo. There are still some in limbo and one, about considering the legality of the war against Yugoslavia and subsequent atrocities in Kosovo which has been twice rejected. so I will do another listing in due course.
An American authority says
What can we lose?
sub 21 sept
The problem with balancing the budget is that there is always pressure from civil servants to increase the size and cost of government. Currently 50%+ of the country's money is spent by the state.
26/9 THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Parliament should debate whether the people have a right to set a limit.
We don't because local authorities can demand small changes in any building thus preventing mass production.
House prices have gone up 4 times, compared to the retail price index, over a century. There is no technological reason for this, proving 75% of all housing prices are government regulation.
Parliament should debate ending the power to make such minor changes instead giving type approval; allowing people to build anywhere except on land specifically limited by Parliament as national parks or Green Belt - limited to 50% of the country; guaranteeing a minimum price of £20,000 on each of the 1st 20,000 houses - reassuring banks which must put up the capital to start the industry.
4/10, 7/10 WAS THERE A POLICY OF ENCOURAGING MASS IMMIGRATION?
A senior Labour party ministerial speechwriter has said that his party had a quite deliberate policy of encouraging mass immigration "It didn't just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers .... was to open up the UK to mass migration" http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do , but "ministers wouldn't talk about it". because they didn't want "their core voters" to know. This has since been denied, admitted, justified and half denied. Parliament should debate having a full inquiry, led by a lawyer with a record of being both apolitical and not coming up with politically convenient conclusions, with evidence taken under oath from politicians, civil servants and anybody else whose testimony might inform to determine if this happened and if so the extent and those involved.
A senior Labour party ministerial speechwriter has said that his party had a quite deliberate policy of encouraging mass immigration "It didn't just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers .. was to open up the UK to mass migration" http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do , but "ministers wouldn't talk about it". because they didn't want "their core voters" to know. This has since been denied, admitted, justified and half denied. I propose that Parliament debate and vote on having a full inquiry into whether this did happen and whether the British people were not told of it. Led by a lawyer with a record of being both apolitical and not coming up with politically convenient conclusions, held in public with proceedings televised & evidence taken under oath from politicians, civil servants and anybody else whose testimony might inform to determine if this happened and if so the extent and those involved.
UPDATE I have signed this and ask anybody else to do so.
"If you haven't signed my e-petition please do so supporting starchaser's launch of a uk rocket, http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/16684. It may not be a trip to Mars or a British Space program but I think that it is achievable and could hopefully get the British people thinking about space. Please also if you would add a link from your website. Many thanks in advance Christan Mills."
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Jiang Kejun, a director of the Energy Research Institute at the National Development and Reform Commission, the top Chinese economic planning agency, said that the government was sticking to its target of 50 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2015, compared to just 10.8 gigawatts at the end of last year.
Mr. Jiang said in an interview that nuclear power construction targets for 2020 had not yet been set and might end up slightly lower than they would have been without the meltdowns in Fukushima. But he and other Chinese officials say that China’s rapidly rising electricity consumption makes nuclear power essential. ...
China allowed existing reactors to continue operating during the safety review from March to July and allowed construction to continue at reactors where it had already begun. Chinese regulators have also encouraged electric utilities to continue planning future nuclear power plants.
... Beijing’s project to build two reactors in northeastern China, using a new generation of technology known as a pebble-bed design. Critics and advocates describe it as safer than current reactors, though its cost-effectiveness unclear.
China now has an unusually varied fleet of nuclear reactors, using French, American, Russian and homegrown technology. While awarding contracts to a wide range of multinational nuclear power plant contractors, it has required that they provide documentation on exactly how to build the reactors.
That will give China the ability to export reactors in a few years, in competition with industrialized nations, nuclear power industry experts warned. Demand outside China could revive ....
China is not only acquiring technology. It is also creating economies of scale by building dozens of reactors at the same time.
Nuclear power represented only 1.1 percent of China’s electricity generation capacity at the end of last year. ...nuclear power is on track to account for no more than 4 percent of electricity capacity by 2015.
New York Times article
We know that energy, particularly electricity is, along with economic freedom, the prime driver of growth.
Look at the sheer amount of power here. 50 gigs of continuous flat baseload power is considerably more than all of Britain uses. Indeed in the winter peak last December we hit 60 gigs for the first time ever when it was up to 20 below zero. That involved pulling out all the stops including importing French nuclear (though it only 0.2% of the total came from windmills, since, as with such cold weather generally, there was no wind). That was the top we could manage and we came close to blackouts. But it is only to be just over 4% of what China will be producing.
I have previously said that 93% of our electricity bills are the result of government parasitism and could be ended by a sensible nuclear programme. That was including a sensible regulatory programme and substantial savings from mass production. The article confirms the latter and implies the former.
China's growth has been on the back of electricity prices far lower than ours - or rather our industrial decline is directly caused by our industry being loaded with grossly uncompetitive energy prices. Our prices are set to soar by at least 60% because of ever increasing subsidy of ever more windmills. China's must be expected to fall to something closer to 7% of our current ones (not all the way to 7% because their coal power, while remarkably cheap by our standards, is still higher than that.
My guess is that the very fact of China's success here will be sufficiently persuasive of all but the most Luddite countries to ensure "Demand outside China could revive" and let them dominate the world market.
Good luck to them. Our "world recession" which is, whatever our politicians and media say, merely an EU & US recession is not China's fault it is entirely the fault of our own political parasites. We could be out of recession in days and ultimately probably exceeding their growth rate if the politicians would allow it.
The term "technocracy" is often used to describe our own (Scots/UK/EU) smug numptocracy and their obvious contempt for the electorate. I disagree
While those running the country in are certainly "smug & insulated" I would dispute that the term "technocracy" is in any way accurate.
China is a technocracy since all of the Presidium members are engineers or have some scientific qualification. It is hardly my ideal but it certainly has something goi8ng for it.
In our Parliament the more experienced ones are lawyers, the more noisy studied PPE (a dilettante degree providing expertise in nothing but woffling) before becoming Parliamentary interns. The civil service is also led by PPE and other classics graduates.
This is how we can have politicians who don't understand simple arithmetic waxing lyrical about windmill power and global warming. The country would be much better off if the "heights" of British politics were even open to genuine technocrats.
China's economy has been growing at almost exactly 10% a year for over 30 years. Its electricity generation has also been growing at almost exactly 10% a year. For all that time we have been told that the Chinese boom is going to collapse real soon now. Wrong again. China's national power consumption (all types of energy) from January through August, 2011 reached 3,124 TWh, up 11.9 percent on the year.
HT Next Big Future
One way out if we insist on not building for ourselves.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
BRITAIN is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades and bring with it a series of bitterly cold winters.
And it could all begin within weeks as experts said last night that the mercury may soon plunge below the record -20C endured last year.Not a word about catastrophic warming. You would think the Met Office and the press hadn't spent 20 years telling us that warming was producing massive sea level rise, drought, warmth, disease, famine plagues of locusts, boils and the death of the first born.
... research from the Met Office indicating the nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters...
The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, is based on observations of a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which may, over a long period, trigger Arctic conditions for many years.
.... ministers have warned transport organisations and emergency services not to take any chances. Forecasts suggest the country could be shivering in a big freeze as severe and sustained as last winter from as early as the end of this month....
The National Grid will this week release its forecast for winter energy use based on long-range weather forecasts.
Such scare stories go round and round and have done for over a century. How long will it be before the ecofascists and government parasites are trying to bully us with a new cooling scam, like the one in the 1970s?
BBC Radio Scotland reported it too and I sent them this bit of sarcasm. No answer yet.:
Re Radio Scotland's 4 o'clock news report today of the Met Office admitting that we are heading for even colder winters.
I wish to protest. The BBC have spent £140,000 hiring one of their own to make an impartial report saying that there should never be any attempt to balance news confirming the BBC's official position that catastrophic warming is more widely accepted than the law of gravity. Clearly it is wholly improper for the BBC to report the Met Office admission which is wholly counter to your official truth.
Next thing we will have the BBC saying that the BBC reports, over more than a dozen years, that we are experiencing catastrophic warming & that children born in recent years have never seen snow, were untrue. These claims unquestionably represent the very highest standard of honesty to which anybody at the BBC ever aspires and it is quite improper of the BBC to report something which proves they are all lies told to promote dishonest government scare propaganda.
Even though it is.
This disgraceful lapse into factual reporting by the BBC was not seriously mitigated by the decision, over a later item, to have a Green politician on. Legally the BBC is required to show balance, particularly in party issues yet gives 40 times more coverage, compared to voting strength (virtually all supportive) compared to UKIP (virtually all negative) and once again we see Green politicians and their scare stories being promoted with no slightest attempt to invite a balancing speaker for rationality. Maintaining this tradition of party bias, lying scare stories and contempt for legality and democracy is entirely in the BBC's tradition, but hardly enough. I trust this brief and minor lapse. only on radio, towards reporting the truth will not be repeated.---------------------------------------------
The other news that proves, from a political rather than "scientific" position, that warming alarmism is in fast retreat is George Osborne's speech at Tory Conference in which he said , near the end
Britain makes up less than 2% of the world’s carbon emissions to China and America’s 40%.Not a change sufficient to eliminate or even much reduce the political parasitic load put on the economy but a 180 degree change in direction which is a considerable start. Also encouraging is Chris Huhnes response to it which was that he never wanted anything different.
We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business.
So let’s at the very least resolve that we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.
That’s what I’ve insisted on in the recent carbon budget.
I am certain Osborne knows that we could get out of recession within days, simply by getting rid of all this Luddism and would like to do at least something in that direction but that the Pseudoliberals and Cameron, the Pseudo Conservative would not allow it.
However they clearly know they have been caught lying and thieving for years and are engaged in a rearguard action.
Our job is to keep at them and to prevent them rallying around some new ecofascist scare story such as global cooling again, continuing the century and a half of such alternating warming and cooling "hobgoblins".
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Neighbours complain about Paul McCartney wedding party.
It must have been a hard day's night for Sir Paul McCartney's neighbours after they complained about the noise in the early hours at his wedding party.
The party at Sir Paul's home in St John's Wood, north London....
Enforcement officers arrived at the property at around 1.30am today after complaints.
Head of noise and licensing at Westminster City Council Andrew Ralph said: "A complaint was received about an address in St John's Wood. Officers visited and the volume was reduced on request. No further action is being taken."
A Press Association release and picked up, within minutes and repeated verbatim by various papers and broadcaster.
- Allegedly "neighbours" complained but not one paper has any quote from any allegedly complaining neighbour.
- Anybody think any of the neighbours didn't know that this was a wedding?
- Sir Paul does not live in a semi-detched house or flat (just a gues) where noise pasees easily to the neighbours.
- 1.30 Try calling the police any time to complain about the noise at 1.30 and watch them turn up, if at all, the next day or later.
- Then try it with the Noise Enforcement Department. Does this council really keep a Noise Enforcement Officer on call at 1.30 every day of the week.
- Sorry make that team of "Enforcement officers" (not police)
Anybody think that the media reporting this don't know the truth perfectly well?
Anybody think any of these journalists, who don't actually do journalism but merely rewrite press releases for a living are actually going to try and find a complaianant? If one exists that would give the story some human interest, if they don't it produces a reasl story. But chuirnalists today are to lazy and cowardly to do real reporting.
Compare and Contrast
In 1967 the police carried out a drug raid on the Rolling Stones and caught them smoking pot. It is a well known secret that at least one of the Beatles had been present but the police deliberately waited till he had left before raiding. The Stones being rock's bad boys and the Beatles nice lads. This was widely and correctly seen as a bit of officiousness by the police against Jagger who was harming nobody. Indeed the ultra respectable Times published an editorial "Who break a butterfly on a wheel" saying that and Jagger and Richards were released on appeal.
How times have changed. Then the police were seen as officious for targeting "bad boys" for a real, if harmless crime.
Today minor bureacucrats fake a wholly dishonest and pointless disruption of the wedding of of what is widely seen as one of the nicest guys in the music industry, because they think it will be fun, good publicity and possibly career enhancing and the media, obviously knowing it is a lie, entirely support it.
Of course if the alleged complainants get named I will owe a public apology to Councillor Andrew Ralph and would give it. Any bets?
Monday, October 10, 2011
Sunday Post Letter - Sea Turbine Nonsense
Al Gore, believer that smoking is a significant cause of global warming has taken time off from his move towards becoming a billionaire through government subsidised industries to tell us he is "inspired". Scotland has introduced the most expensive Climate change Act in the world. However those of us who doubt we have seen yet another of the "barbecue summers" we have been promised for a decade, must doubt that it is worth it.
However Scotland has some of the most expensive electricity in the world.
We have 2,500 pensioners dying annually of fuel poverty.
Our industry can't be competitive with countries where electricity is 1/4 the cost.
Alex Salmond has boasted that the sea turbine power he has made his personal totem is almost ready for us to start buying .
But the people actually building it said "As we move to 2020, we will get to a cost curve where we will be more competitive than wind."Since windmills are not "commercial" by any standard, being roughly 6 times more expensive than nuclear electricity (the cheapest option), moving to a "cost curve" that, optimistically, may someday match the most expensive is not good
On the other hand, so long as government is willing to pour hundreds of billions of £s of our money into subsidies, rather than allowing freedom in the single most important industry in the country, no doubt there will be money to be made.
I am largely impressed with the editing here and have put the bits published in bold. It has been shortened and split into pragraphs in a way that emphasises the points I was making. The Post does do as serious news as anybody else despite selling itself on its folksy image. Deleting the reference to Gore was sensible since it dates the letter, Gore having now gone home.
Only problem is that the last paragraph as published says the "Government pour millions" instead of hundreds of billions. The latter is correct if include not only current spending but the £200 billion they have said they want to spend in future. Millions is, even if we just count annual subsidies in Scotland alone, an understatement. We spend approxiamately £1 billion on combined subsidies and carbon levies here annually - a figure which just about matches the the 3p cut in income tax we are allowed to make.
Ref Guardian quotes on "more competitive than wind" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/27/wave-and-tidal-power-alex-salmond?newsfeed=true
Sunday, October 09, 2011
The E-Cat is deceptively simple: hydrogen is passed over a special catalyst based on nickel in a container about a litre in size, and enough heat is produced to boil water. A demonstration in January appeared to show a several kilowatts of output from a four hundred watt input. The catalyst is secret, but Rossi says it can be produced at low cost. The two questions that matter: does it really work? And what are the implications if it does? [if it works the implications are unlimited]
The E-Cat is the latest incarnation of cold fusion, an area long shunned by respectable scientists. In 1989, researchers Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann claimed to have produced a small amount of energy by nuclear fusion on a lab bench via electrolysis. This was unprecedented and appeared to contradict accepted science, as fusion only occurs at temperatures of millions of degrees in the Sun and stars. Other scientists failed to replicate this cold fusion, and the whole field was soon labelled bad science at best. Few journals will cover it these days. In science terms, an interest cold fusion is up there with astrology and alchemy.
A few scientists do still work in this field, notably at the US Naval Research Laboratory. Occasional papers are published claiming positive results in the area of "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" and "excess heat generation". Nobody calls it cold fusion, and this is an area led by experiment rather than theory [experiment should always take precedence over theory, otherwise you have "climate science"} But some scientists are breaking cover.
Frank Acland has been following Rossi's work closely, and has a website, E-Cat World, tackling the latest developments. He reels off a list of scientists who have examined the E-Cat for themselves and verified what was happening.
"They have all gone on the record to say that they believe that there is a nuclear reaction taking place, " says Acland, "that the levels of energy output the E-Cat produces could not come from a chemical reaction."
The demonstrations appear to show a lot more heat is coming out of apparatus than goes in. Two Swedish scientists from NyTeknik magazine ruled out any hidden power source and concluded: "The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production." Unlike the Pons and Fleishman experiments, where the excess heat was tiny, this is on a massive scale. Rossi even claims to have been heating a factory using E-Cats. It's a big effect -- or a big hoax.
Rossi's heavyweight supporters include 1973 physics Nobel prize winner Brian Josephson. Josephson also supports telepathy research. Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at Nasa's Langley Research Centre, appears to be a believer in the E-Cat, commenting in a recent interview with Electric Vehicle World that the science was being worked out and, "I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now". However, Nasa scientists are still at the stage of exploring whether there is valid physics behind the E-Cat rather than actually buying them.
Darpa, the Pentagon's advanced science wing, has also been involved in this field. Budget documents reveal a longstanding interest in low energy nuclear reactions, and the plan for 2012 includes the line "Establish scalability and scaling parameters in excess heat generation processes in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy."
Ex-Darpa chief Tony Tether told New Energy Times that "If it is a hoax, it's a damned good one."
Inventors often complain that their technology could change the world if investors would just give them a few million to produce it. Rossi will get his chance. The one-megawatt device Rossi plans to soon demonstrate is made by combining 300 small E-Cats.
What will it mean if it does work? The E-cat will provide a lightweight source of cheap energy, without any CO2 emissions. (And unlike nuclear fission, there is also no radioactive waste.) This could turn the world upside-down, and trigger a new industrial revolution which would shift away from fossil fuels and into an era of clean, plentiful energy.
...Rossi eventually hopes to make 300,000 E-Cat modules a year. (which is "only" 1 large nuclear power station a year. However if "cold fusion" works and works consistently like this the field must be open for far larger developments, just as the Wright Brother's aircraft was not the end of the line but merely proof that heavier than air flight was practical.
This has had remarkably little coverage but then it took several weeks after their flight for the Wright's plane to reported by the national press.
If it doesn't turn out to be a hoax, and if Rossi was doing so to make money he could just have claimed to have a design for a better windmill which he only needed millions to complete, then it cannot fail to change the world. Conventional nuclear could only be suppressed because it is a very big and visible technology and so easily squashed by government parasites. If this is genuine it can clearly be mass produced in small scale in which case nothing short of a global ban by a global government, which fortunately we do not yet have, could prevent its widespread use. Which in turn would make any countries that did ban it look stupid and get poor.