Everything is wrong with this

Over at the always excellent Depleted Cranium last week, the topic was GM foods. At comment 16, we catch the first appearance of Debs in this thread, a girl apparently training to be a case study in a critical thinking class.

The problem with GM crops is that we start to think that man is capable of doing
better than nature.

But we can! Ever seen a strawberry that grows in the wild? It's rubbish. The strawsberry's we buy are the product of centuries of selective breeding with a helpful dose of agricultural technology.

We know nature made these plants a certain way for a reason and because they’re
natural our bodies are able to digest them because we coevolved.

Nature has no reason for doing anything. Nature is just... er... something not man made. Whatever it is, it has no intelligence, no reason. Save the intelligent design rubbish for the next Creationist convention.

Now we start saying that the way to do it is to take a gene from this plant and
put it here and this plant and put it here and move this one here. It’s
Frankenstein!

It's been ages since I've read Frankenstein, and I never did read it very thoroughly, but wasn't the story about the ignorant, hysterical masses reacting negatively to Frankenstein's originally benign creation and then driving the being to murder? And Dr. Frankenstein himself was quite superficial too. The moral being that hysteria is your own undoing (well that might not have been Mary Shelley's intended moral).

We don’t know what we’re doing because the system is beyond what we
understand and it exists a way for a reason.

While there is much more for us to learn, we do understand the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. To imply we don't understand genetics is simply a self-confessed ignoramus assuming that no-one could possible be more educated than herself.

We will only show how little we know when it comes back to haunt us. This
happened many time before for example nuclear we thought we understood and then
found out that it was blowing up in our face and ruining everything.

Although Debs fails to demonstrate sufficient to convince me that she doesn't think nuclear reactors are blowing up on a weekly basis across the world, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she means Chernobyl. It wasn't a lack of understanding that led to that accident, it was a lack of responsibility.

We can’t afford to ruin all our crops and pollute them with our chemicals that
were never meant for our bodies or the world!

A little apocalyptic foreboding always helps when feeding your prejudices. Who is it that never intended these chemicals for our bodies? This "nature" intelligence? Pure superstition!

All I know about it is the ppl who really care about the earth and the future
and being sustainable are all against it for good reasons. I’m
not an expert on it and I bet anyone who wants it either isn’t or maybe they are
and get paid for it, but those of us who care about it can tell you every
environment group that looked at it saw the problems right away!

Classic poisoning the well fallacy. Define anyone with a contrary opinion as either being a corporate $hill or just plain stupid. Never consider that you may be wrong.

Everyone who cares and knows feels the same way and they’re the ones I
would like to listen to.
Why should I believe you? You’re for it and that’s
why I’m not about to trust you!

Circular argument. "I only trust people who say X and I believe X because people I trust say it."

I suppose it's nice to live in a cozy bubble where you think it is rational to only listen to people who tell you things that reinforce your own prejudices.

Debs seriously needs a lesson on rational thought possibly with a wack on the head if it'll help knock some sense into her.

Ali feeds the beast

Take a look at the latest budget. Here is what Alastair Tracy said about plastic bags. (pdf see page 18)

Legislation would come into force in 2009 and based on other countries'
experience, it could lead to a 90 percent reduction, with around 12 billion
fewer plastic bags in circulation.

The money raised should go to environmental charities.

Yes, the marionette gave the royal Thunderbirds are Go to shovelling a load of tax money into the pockets of the Usual Suspects, who, as they tend to do, will funnel it to their terrorism direct action division, where they will use it to further their brand of "non-violent" violence, including attacking the new nuclear power stations the government itself wants to build.

It's like giving money to Gerry Adams to organise the St. Patrick's Day celebrations.

Many environmental charities these days, particularly the more well known ones are nothing of the sort. They're political campaigning organisations masquerading as charitable organisations, who use donations made in good faith to fund illegal campaigning tactics.

And more to the point, a charity is supposed to be dependent on, you know, charity, not subsidy. A charity receiving state funding is no longer a charity, but is a QUANGO. Not only do we have enough in this country, but we certainly don't need ones which financially support criminal behaviour.

Still, it is a very effective policy by El Gordo and the marionette. By giving the revenues from the plastic bag tax to environmental charities, it means their profits are directly related to plastic bag use. I can think of nothing more likely to stop me from using plastic bags than the thought that it will be sending wads of cash straight into the pockets of Greenpeace.

Now where are resuable shopping bags my asset gave me?

The mystery of the final eleven

According to Reuters, the UK government has offered up another 18 sites as candidates for new power reactors in addition to the four originally outlines (Bradwell, Sizewell, Dungeness, Hinkley Point).

Only 14 sites have ever been used to house power reactors in the UK. If we assume that El Gordo is not going to pick a fight with the Exalted One and that none of the new sites are Scottish, then that eliminates Chapelcross, Hunterston and Torness. So that leaves only seven exiting nuclear power stations.

Where are the final eleven?

Politics of vanity

A great post at Depleted Cranium concerning environmentalist misconceptions.

I particularly liked this point.

Go after pollution sources with the highest cost/benefit ratio, not those which
are most noticeable

This sums up everything that is wrong with the environmentalists' campaigns. They're just so damn superficial! It's all about be seen to care more than actually doing stuff that is genuinely worthwhile.

Aviation generates 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions, half that of shipping, and yet it is their favourite whipping boy. Why? Why is there a climate camp at Heathrow but not one in Southampton? The reason is because aviation is a more high profile target. It's closer to lot more people than shipping. Airports are located across land masses, whereas ports are confined to the coast. Planes are the primary mode of long distance travel, whereas relatively few people take boats these days. Aviation is something that will confront most people directly in the face whereas, despite the real effect it has on all our lives, for most of us, it isn't in full view.

For something as prominent as aviation, environmentalists can suddenly pop their heads in like a zealous salesman, tell us all that is evil about it, and then invite our adulation for their dedication to the fight against this highly visible thing. If they tried the same thing with the shipping, most of the land lubbers of the West Midlands and Greater London would say, "Nothing to do with me."

Attacking aviation is a simple strategy for simple minds. Perfect if all you're concerned about is self-agrandisement.

Today of all days is a reminder as Brussels has just banned patio heaters (can politicians say "law of unintended consequences"?). Though patio heaters are not a particularly effective contributor to carbon dioxide emissions (they'd be even less so if they were nuclear powered), (il)Liberal Democrats delight in banning them because they can be seen to be "doing something".
Environmentalism has been turned from politics of saving the whales (being fair to Greenpeace as much as I loathe it, they having been honouring their original commitments are fair bit lately) into politics for the terminally vain.

BTW, on the anniversary of Guy Fawkes' gunpowder plot, MPs remind us that he was right all along.

EDF Energy are going to save us

EDF Energy has a new advert out. It's interesting to watch. They play on the global warming angle with a vengeance, scary predictions and all. But it's okay! Because they're are going to save us by reducing the carbon intensity of their electricity generation.

What is particularly fun is that EDF Energy is going to achieve this by building new nuclear reactors in the South of England. Of course they don't tell us that. But why should they? Global warming is the greatest threat the planet has ever faced we're constantly told (even more than that planetoid that hit us 5 billion years ago creating the Moon). If it is the greatest threat we've ever faced, then surely it is greater than the threat from nuclear accidents, nuclear proliferation, nuclear waste blah blah blah.

So all hail EDF Energy. They're picking the lesser of two evils.

(Not that nuclear power is really evil at all. In fact, it's lovely.)

What to be done about Heathrow?

London Heathrow has consistently been voted the worst airport through which to travel. It's terminals are old, outdated and vastly overused, making them cramped and dingy (ever seen Terminal 1?). Decades of post hoc extensions of gate peers and new lounges have turned them in a labyrinthine dungeons, which snake their way across the property like cancerous lesions creating congestion prone cul-de-sacs and a hodge podge of architectural indecision. The airport looks like it was cobbled together from scraps of other countries disused ones.

Then there's the runway situation. The airport is the third busiest in the world. Yet it must operate with only two runways on a system of alternation where only one can be used for takeoffs and one landings at any one time, limiting movements to 480,000 a year. The runways operate at 98% so any hiccup, such as a bit of fog or a 777 belly landing at the threshold of one of them and the whole system comes crashing down. Then the media recommence their obligatory Heathrow travel misery stories, featuring delayed and angry passengers huddling in tents sleeping rough on benches. It's so familiar that it's become something of British tradition.

The problem for Heathrow is that there is no where to go. The airport is surrounded by housing practically up to the fence, which makes any attempt at expansion an operation in pulling teeth. Being situated to the West of London in the first place means that arriving aircraft must fly over large parts of the conurbation to make their approach, bringing with it a massively enlarged constituency of NIMBYs (all 8 million of them!).

There is some hope on the way though. After years of dirt grinding, the new Terminal 5 will be opening in March. I've seen it (although incomplete) and can say that, while it is hardly the Palace of Heaven that BAA and BA make it out to be, it is a phenomenal improvement over what has gone before. Tourists and foreign business travellers arriving in the UK through this terminal won't be greeted by such a dire first impression of the country. What this new terminal finally does is give a bit of overcapacity to the airport, which means that finally they can close terminal 2, which is half a century old, and rebuild it as Heathrow East, a modern terminal that can replace both terminal 2 and terminal 1 (good riddance to that one too!).

By 2012, with these two new terminals in full operation, the airport will be transformed into something completely unrecognisable. The dark days of the current Central Terminal Area, will be relegated to the status of legend told around the camp fire to scare the children.

However, ultimately what T5 and LHR-E offer is a much nicer place in which to be delayed. While the inefficient designs of the CTA, with its narrow cul-de-sacs causing each aircraft to have to take their turn maneuvering in them, do play a part in some delays, the biggest problem is runway capacity. T5 and LHR-E will have a much more sensible and useable ground layout, but they will do nothing to stem problems of congestion at the holds, both in the air and on the ground. The airport needs more capacity.

BAA and the government wants to be build a third runway to the North of the airport. But this solution is just too messy. Too many houses will have to be demolished. The airport's influence will extend up to the M4 bringing in a brand new generation of NIMBYs. It will also no doubt mean the extension to the North of the London Control Zone, which will consume Denham and Elstree aerodrome. AOPA are not going to like it either. The West of London it just too cramped. There is no room for Heathrow to expand any further.

The only solution left is to make better use of the current runways. That is the introduction of "mixed mode" whereby both runways can be used to take-off and landing at the same time. This would allow theoretically 550,000 movements a year. This is actually very useful for more than just capacity. It also means that taxiing becomes more efficient. Terminal 4 is located to the South of the South runway, which means that whenever the North runway is being used for departures, aircraft operating out of T4 must cross the active South runway to get to their departure runway. This is a source of ground congestion as well as a needlessly expending fuel on taxiing. With mixed mode, aircraft could use the most convenient runway reducing taxi times and with it, delays, noise and fuel consumption.

Ah but what about those NIMBYs? How would mixed mode help relieve congestion if that extra capacity was simply translated into more movements? The answers are of course as feared. The NIMBYs would be in a strop and allowing a rise to 550,000 movements will mean the extra capacity will be absorbed by increased traffic. The runways would remain congested and the terminals put under greater strain.

But the solution to that is already in place. Currently, the airport is already capped at 500,000 movements. Even with the extra capacity mixed mode would bring, Heathrow is not allowed to utilise it to its fullest. This type of approach would reduce runway utilisation factors giving more wiggle room in the system to allow for hiccups. It would also make ground movement more logical eliminating a source of congestion that way. And a limit on movements would keep the NIMBYs from being anymore irate than they already are. Job done. Oh and Gatwick should get a second runway too.

So how does this relate to nuclear power? Er... um... Heathrow is the largest consumer of electricity in Great Britain. This electricity should be generated on site with their own nuclear reactor.

Is Clegg on course for calamity?

Mike Smithson has got the scoop on public opinion to the government's green light to new nuclear reactors. Unsurprisingly, Conservative supporters are largely in favour. Labour supporters are fairly onboard too. But the funny bit is that among LibDem supporters, approval is much higher than disapproval.

Kind of goes to show how far away planet LibDem is from the real world and the people who would vote for them.

NB if you want a laugh, get a load of Tim13 in the comment thread trying to use Three Mile Island and Browns Ferry as an example of reactors polluting their surroundings.

Just when you thought it was safe to like Auntie

Here's how the BBC does analysis of the government's nuclear decision. By dedicating an article to romanticising the ignorant antics of the aging dinosaurs of yesterdecade. All the other articles are pretty hard headed factual accounts of the situation (though you can almost hear the Beeboid journos' teeth grinding as they force themselves to give the pro side its share of lines as well).

The only one to stray into the realm of a more personal account is this article, which focuses purely on the opponents and their views. When are we going to get this kind of star treatment? Maybe we don't qualify because we're not in the habit of committing acts of vandalism, aggravated trespass, intimidation, disturbance of the peace and all those other wonderful things for which the quintagenarians are so honoured.

Edit: As quick as it appeared, it's gone. Replaced by this saucy number. Now this might be the article, which puts me in my place, you could say. But, I still have a gripe. While the beginning does indeed opening with what is essential a view from the perspective of benighted nuclear worker, and would indeed serve as a good counterbalance to the tribute to the opponents, they still can't resist pooring cold water on the proceeding by inviting cynicism. The final line is,

The fact is, it won't be his generation that knows if his decision was the
right one.

As a stand alone article it is fine in terms of trying to capture the inside story while offering some balance; a perspective from the nuke worker, while also raising the doubts. However, the other article is an exercise in Greenpeace propoganda. The BBC (and media in general) line is that pro-shifting articles must balance with a hint of doubt, but anti-shifting articles can go off on one all they like. In the end, it's a media victory for the opponents... as always.

NB This bit amused.

But when our short tour begins, and we cross a thick red line painted on the
ground, new attire becomes compulsory: a bright blue shopkeeper's coat, white
construction helmet, heavy plastic glasses and shoes with steel caps.

Ooh how dangerous and scary nuclear power stations must be. Not really. Sounds like just the kind of thing we wear round the yards of oil field suppliers.

Edit edit: The second article is now on the front page while the first article is still missing. Maybe the Beeb is not too bad after all.

Does radioactivity becomes more hazardous once we've touched it?

Of course not. Radioactivity is radioactivity (of the various varieties there is of course) whether it's just lying in ground for 2 billions, or whether we dig it up and manufacture some fuel rods out of it.

So then what is this neurotic obsession with radioactive material, that was lying in the ground, once it is extracted?

Timmy makes a good observation.

Further, think about what the actual complaint is even if it does leak. There
used to be lots of uranium in the ground here. Now some of it has gone back into
the ground. Scary, eh?

Once we take some uranium out of the ground, what's wrong with allowing it seep back in? It was already there in the first place!

It's like the epic tale of 10ft metal pipe. A nuclear operator orders 10ft of metal pipe. As with all materials, there is some natural radioactivity in this pipe. The technicians get the pipe, but only need to use 9ft of it. The remaining 1ft is scrap. However, because of this natural radioactivity, the pipe must be treated as low level waste. Can't see a coal fired power station being particularly bothered about that.

This highlights more stupidity about waste arguments. Best one is depleted uranium and the outrage that opponents display towards the buildup of this EEvil substance. We take natural uranium out of the ground, which has a specific activity of 12.8 MBq.kg^-1* and return it as depleted uranium, which has a specific activity of 12.3 MBq.kg^-1. In doing so, we've made the ground less radioactive. Surely the radiophobes should like that. But because the radioactivity is something that we've touched, it automatically becomes worse than what was sitting in the ground naturally.

On nuclear waste as a whole. By disposing of vitrified fission products, which will decay to below the activity of uranium ore within 600 years, the legacy we are actually leaving for future generations is a ground, which is less radioactive in the long term than it would be otherwise.

Think about that!

*Figures are in becquerels per kilogram of uranium, ignoring all the other stuff in the ore.

It's on

It's all going down on Iain Dale's Diary. Two anti-nuclear Tories and grumpy highlander.