Wednesday, October 14, 2009

SJ pwned again

Guardians in the mistThis picture, titled "Guardians in the Mist," nicely illustrates the role that newspapers SHOULD but so often fail to play -- helping people navigate through the fog generated by shills like Patrick Moore. Image by Coast Guard News via Flickr

The pros and cons of nuclear energy merit intensive study and debate, that's for sure. But one thing that derails the debate faster than anything else is deception, such as when paid propagandists hide their status behind an "astroturf" (fake grassroots) title, as Patrick Moore successfully did yet again, this time fronting an article into the Salem Statesman-Journal while pretending to be simply an interested citizen:
Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, co-chairs the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy) a grassroots coalition which promotes the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear power as part of a green energy economy.
The reality is that Moore, whose doctorate is in Ecology, not in Physics or Nuclear Engineering, spent a brief few years involved with Greenpeace and has spent the next few decades trying to profit from that stint by selling himself and his opinions to industry for "green credibility."

By failing to perform a few seconds of checking on the background of a "contributor" and publishing the misleading attribution whole, the Statesman Journal offers yet another exhibit in the long line of examples of why we're going to miss newspapers like the SJ less than we thought.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

1 comment:

Walker said...

A LOVESalem foreign correspondent sends this from Bellingham:

Sounds like a slimeball, all right. Articles that don't delve into finance risk, construction cost risk (mainly from oil depletion & prices), longer term uranium supplies/prices, and an economy that loses trillions per year now really will never get why nuclear is now the impossible dream in the U.S. The logic behind nuclear initiation and development that was extant when I was in school still applies - uranium fuel would only work for the first phase, then we would have to shift to Pu/breeders to keep it going. We've given up on the latter for what I think are good enough reasons, to wit, that humans are nowhere mature enough to manage a world-wide Pu fuel economy safely. Nuclear was a luxury we could afford during rampant growth good times, and then only. If any industrial nations continue with nuclear, it will be because of heavy government backing by a government that is not broke, and they will have to shift to the Pu-breeder fuel cycle sooner than they now anticipate if the EWG assessment of U supply is correct (this shows a U peak around 2050). Finally, whoever stays in the nuclear business must reconcile with the idea of permanent guadianship of spent fuel/HLW outside of a permanent repository - or have an authoritarian government that dictates & enforces permanent disposal location. As resource constraints become ever tighter with time, we are likely lose rights steadily, so the latter eventuality could come to pass in a few cases, I suppose. But in the U.S., nuclear's about as dead a horse as I can imagine, and it's even possible I'll live long enough to see most of present capacity shut down. We'd have to quadruple today's nuclear capacity to take over today's fossil-fuel-supplied electricity! And my degree is in nuclear physics, with experience at the world level in advanced nuclear fuel cycles & reactors, pushing a nuclear option, until I gave it up in 1993 and surfed into an early retirement.
tooj