Chuck,
I don't receive PBS here so am not really able to judge, but I always
watched PBS, when possible, on my visits to the UBS, mainly because I
found them less partial and less parochial than the major chains. In a
recent post, I wrote:
"I watch regularly US, UK, European, Swiss, Chinese, Arabic and other
satellite news and I'm always astounded at the different distortions
given to a single news item. I'm not "getting at" Americans, but
American newscasts, particulary Fox but also CNN and MSNBC are the most
selective propaganda and narrow-minded of all of them. Strangely, for
international affairs not directly involving China, the Chinese English
Channel 9 is among the most impartial in their reporting."
Subjectively, I give the following scores out of ten for partiality and
parochialism respectively, high score = worst case.
Fox 10 9
CNN 8 6
BBC 5 6
Euronews 4 7
MSNBC 8 8
TSR1 4 9
China 2 NA (international news only)
Egypt 8 9
TF1 7 10
France2 7 9
CyBC1 10 10
(PBS 6 7) (limited experience)
So, you see, I don't think that PBS is any worse than most
newscasting/current affairs media and is better than most. If you wish
to see 100% biased reporting, our local news takes the biscuit - I never
watch it.
Brian
Charles Dolci wrote:
> Steve
> Interesting take. Personally, I consider PBS and its programs to be
> among the most biased TV and radio networks out there.
> The facts they lay out are the facts they want to lay out and they
> underplay or ignore the alternative views and facts that do not support
> their position.
> I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
>
> Chuck D.
>
> Steve Gregory wrote:
>
>> This thread has changed from what it was in the beginning, and I would
>> like to comment about what it now is; lying politicians. I watched a
>> program last night on PBS (Public Broadcasting System) called Frontline.
>> The program was called "Darkside". Of all media programs, I consider PBS
>> to be one of the most unbiased television networks out there. Most of
>> the programs that I have watched on PBS normally just lay out the facts
>> and then let the viewer decide what opinion to form...that's why I enjoy
>> PBS.
>>
>> "Darkside" shows through newsclips, interviews and documents how Cheney
>> and Rumsfeld manipulated information (or the lack of), to get the US
>> into war with Iraq. I can't tell you how p*ssed-off I am with our
>> current administration after watching this program...
>>
>> If you would like to watch this program online, it will be available
>> starting tomorrow at 5:00pm CST at:
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
>>
>> -Steve Gregory-
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:14 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [EN] How tomorrow's nuclear power stations will differ from
>> today's (article)
>>
>> I agree that most countries, including Japan, farm out their
>> enrichment/fuel recycling. That is because they are ensured of supplies
>> from friendly nations. Iran is too isolated in the political world to be
>> sure that Russia or the EU will keep their promises of supply - and I
>> honestly cannot blame them. They therefore consider home-grown
>> enrichment to be a political necessity. I have no idea whether they have
>> aspirations towards nuclear weaponry or not. Nor do you. All we know is
>> that there is a lot of political propaganda in the media suggesting that
>> it is a possibility. However, as this is generated by politicians who
>> are, by definition, the biggest liars on earth and whom I consider the
>> lowest scum form of human life (all nations), I give no credence to
>> their theories whether it is the UK Prime Minister, or the US or the
>> Irani President who speaks. We, the ordinary bloke in the street, can be
>> convinced only by the media we are subjected to. I watch regularly US,
>> UK, European, Swiss, Chinese, Arabic and other satellite news and I'm
>> always astounded at the different distortions given to a single news
>> item. I'm not "getting at" Americans, but American newscasts,
>> particulary Fox but also CNN and MSNBC are the most selective propaganda
>> and narrow-minded of all of them. Strangely, for international affairs
>> not directly involving China, the Chinese English Channel 9 is among the
>> most impartial in their reporting.
>>
>> I said elsewhere that the Irani President was amongst the more
>> intelligent politicians of the day and I was attacked by someone saying
>> that anyone who revised the Holocaust was not intelligent. I question
>> this assertion on the following grounds: a) he is a politician and
>> therefore a liar; b) he will say what is expedient to say for his target
>> audience (his people, not the international scene); c) the Farsi culture
>> is rich in rhetoric and allegory, which is something the West has never
>> understood, interpreting the literal truth out of everything that is
>> said - remember, these are Persians, not Arabs; d) I'm sure that he
>> knows the truth about the Holocaust, just as much as GWB knew the truth
>> about WMDs in Iraq; politicians say what is expedient to say, not the
>> facts.
>>
>> Just some thoughts...
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> Kane, Joseph E (US SSA) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Countries with nuclear power plants do not necessarily need to enrich
>>> their own fuel, and most do not. They farm it out, because of the
>>> investment in people and resources, and the economies of scale. I've
>>> heard it said that you would need about 20 plants in operation to
>>> justify the business case.
>>>
>>> So it's hard to explain why the Iranians would invest all of this time
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> and effort in enriching fuel, when they could be investing in the
>>> actual power plants instead. Especially when the Russians were
>>> willing to give them a very good deal on the fuel, and they turned
>>> them down flat.
>>>
>>> So far from condemning the Iranians out of hand, it's pretty easy to
>>> come to the conclusion that they want to use this technology to
>>> develop a weapon. Face it, sitting in their geopolitical shoes, it
>>> makes a lot of sense. Countries with nuclear weapons don't get
>>> attacked by rival states (of course, non-state actors like terrorists
>>> are another matter).
>>>
>>> And many of us are not inclined to give the Iranians the benefit of
>>> the doubt when they protest to the contrary, given various other
>>> public pronouncements about wiping certain groups off the map. Maybe
>>> it's unfair, but too bad, we're getting way too much craziness and
>>> bluster from these guys.
>>>
>>> I would challenge the armchair diplomats out there who are complaining
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> about the clumsy handling of this issue to suggest a better approach.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Before the US took this on, the Europeans dithered with it for years,
>>> so maybe now it's time for EnviroNet to step up.
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:00 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [EN] How tomorrow's nuclear power stations will differ
>>> from today's (article)
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should have emphasised "with their existing equipment" more.
>>> The present method of enrichment is by centrifuging uranium
>>> hexafluoride, where the gas containing the more fissile isotopes is
>>> very slightly heavier than that with the less fissile ones. However,
>>> the difference is extremely small and enrichment is done by successive
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> stages in very large batteries of centrifuges. Each stage produces an
>>> enrichment of a minute fraction of 1%. I don't have facts and figures
>>> other than the claims that they have enriched a few g to ~4% in 6
>>> weeks, presumably with all their centrifuges working 24/7.
>>> Extrapolation of this to >90% enrichment in the kg quantities for
>>> weaponry is therefore easy to see is impossible in a realistic time
>>> scale, "with their existing equipment".
>>>
>>> Where the danger lies is that they have succeeded in enrichment to
>>> fuel grade on a virtually laboratory scale, therefore they have the
>>>
>>>
>> know-how.
>>
>>
>>> Centrifuges are not rocket science and the old, ex-Pakistani,
>>> centrifuges they have could fairly easily be copied and mass-produced.
>>> If they could get hold of more modern ones, then they could be more
>>> efficient and they probably have engineers who could design better
>>> ones from scratch (they are not a technically ignorant people, make no
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> mistake).
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the West has been so politically clumsy in the way they
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> have handled the affair (and Bush's speech yesterday to the graduates
>>> of the Merchant Marine College in NY has exacerbated this clumsiness),
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> that they are actually forcing Iran to back into a corner from which
>>> the only issue is to stubbornly resist any attempts at appeasement.
>>>
>>> OK, what does Iran want? They DECLARE (and there is ZERO proof to the
>>> contrary) they wish to pursue the civil use of nuclear technology.
>>> Russia is supplying them with pressurised light water reactors whose
>>> disadvantage is that the fuel needs to be enriched to 4-6%. Russia is
>>> hoping to supply them with such enriched fuel. Iran says, rightly,
>>> that they cannot rely on being able to purchase enriched fuel rods
>>> (the recent natural gas crisis in Ukraine and Europe, shows that
>>> Russia cannot be considered a reliable fuel supplier). They say, again
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> rightly, that they should be able to enrich their own fuel from
>>> commercial yellow cake, which they could purchase from any country or
>>> possibly produce indigenously. Up to this point, I don't believe that
>>> there is any legal argument that may be applied against Iran and
>>> security of supply could thus be established.
>>>
>>> The GWB+henchmen argument is that equipment capable of enriching to
>>> 4-6% is also usable to 90+%, which is true, in theory, but requires
>>> scale which Iran ostensibly does not have - yet. The corollary is that
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> they have ordered Iran to stop their rightful enrichment (and,
>>> consequently, their security of supply of nuclear fuel) or be
>>>
>>>
>> sanctioned by the SC.
>>
>>
>>> If, instead, they had told Iran from the start that they could enrich
>>> to 4-6% under IAEA supervision, there would be no problem today, but
>>> the henchmen have escalated their position to a refusal of rights,
>>> applicable only to Iran, while many other countries do enrich U. Iran,
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> obviously, object to this extremely heavy-handed inequality of
>>> treatment. What the henchmen have not understood is the Irani
>>>
>>>
>> mentality.
>>
>>
>>> They are not blunt Westerners. They are not Arabs. They are a country
>>> with a very ancient scientific and cultural background. I suggest that
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> the President probably has more brains in his little fingernails than
>>> GWB and Co. have between their ears. He is a master of rhetoric (which
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> word GWB, RC, TB, DR etc. would probably have to look up in a
>>> dictionary to find the meaning of -- if they can read!), but not just
>>> rhetoric as we know it, but a complex Persian form of rhetoric, which
>>>
>>>
>> few outside of
>>
>>
>>> the Farsi culture could hope to understand.
>>>
>>> There would have been one easy way to resolve the situation, albeit
>>> too late now. If Iran had purchased heavy water reactors, the
>>> situation would probably not have arisen, because enrichment is not
>>> necessary. The downside is that these reactors can be used to produce
>>> weapons grade plutonium, so safeguards to ensure the evacuation of
>>> this spent fuel would have been required, but this is black and white,
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> and not pale gray, as is enrichment. Another possibility would be an
>>> unenriched pebble-bed reactor, but this is trickier to manage. Either
>>> would be much more expensive in capital costs than a light-water
>>> reactor but lower in running costs (?? for the PBR, as this has not
>>> yet been fully evaluated).
>>>
>>> I don't think enrichment by gas diffusion, as used for the Hiroshima
>>> bomb in the 1940s, would even be considered today. The cost and
>>> resources to produce the U-235 were gigantic, over $1billion at 1940's
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> values. The Los Alamos test in 1945 was the most expensive explosion
>>> ever produced by man and I don't believe Iran could ever afford to go
>>> that route. Another point to consider is that an enriched uranium
>>> weapon is easy to make, with sufficient U-235 to exceed criticality,
>>> whereas a plutonium bomb is much more complex for the chain reaction
>>> to be initiated rapidly enough before the bomb blew apart, otherwise
>>> it would just fizzle.
>>>
>>> It is difficult, now, to know what Iran's intentions are. The West has
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> found them guilty before the crime, which has closed the gates to
>>> negotiation. We did not learn from the WMD fiasco in Iraq and we are
>>> all too keen to assume the worst, without real cause. I am not saying
>>> that Iran is innocent and faultless, but I do not like the way thay
>>> are being forced into a corner.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> Charles Dolci wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Brian Ellis wrote, in part:
>>>> "...Yes, if it has taken them 6 weeks to enrich 3 or 4 g to 4% with
>>>> their existing equipment, it would take them many decades to enrich
>>>> sufficient U to sustain an uncontrolled chain reaction (i.e. a
>>>>
>>>>
>> bomb)."
>>
>>
>>>> I am no scientist so I am in no position to debate Brian on the
>>>> scientific basis of his assertion about Iran's ability to make
>>>> nuclear weapons. However, I am an historian and I do recall that the
>>>> US was
>>>>
>>>>
>>> able
>>>
>>>
>>>> to develop two kinds of nuclear weapons (one plutonium and one
>>>> uranium
>>>> based) in just four years, starting from scratch. Not only did the
>>>> US and its British cohorts have to prove concepts they also had to
>>>>
>>>>
>>> overcome
>>>
>>>
>>>> the engineering issues associated with all aspects of nuclear weapon
>>>> development. And they were using technology and tools that, today,
>>>> are at least 65 years old.
>>>>
>>>> Just why will it take Iran "decades" to develop a nuclear weapon,
>>>> when the US and Britain were able to do it all in just 4 years, 65
>>>> years
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ago?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are they that stupid? Do they lack the resources? ... the resolve?
>>>>
>>>> After the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima Werenr Heisenberg, one of
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> top German/Nazi scientists who had worked on the German nuclear
>>>>
>>>>
>>> program,
>>>
>>>
>>>> and many of his colleagues, were initially skeptical that the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hiroshima
>>>
>>>
>>>> bomb was really a nuclear weapon. He was convinced that the Americans
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> could not have possibly developed, in such a short time, enough
>>>> fissionable material for one bomb, much less two. The fact is the US
>>>>
>>>>
>>> had
>>>
>>>
>>>> the ability to drop many more A-bombs. A third bomb was being
>>>>
>>>>
>>> assembled
>>>
>>>
>>>> and could have been dropped as early as August 17 or 18 (the first
>>>> was dropped on August 6). Many more were scheduled for completion
>>>> over the following weeks. History is replete with instances of
>>>> someone underestimating the abilities of their enemies, much to their
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> mortal danger.
>>>>
>>>> Even if Brian is right, I don't get a lot of comfort from the claim
>>>>
>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> Iran may have nuclear weapons after ten or so years.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Dolci
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.cypenv.org Cyprus environment/energy
>>> http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv World environment/energy
>>> http://www.cypenv.org/weather Cyprus weather
>>> http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php Environment/energy forums
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypnature/ Cyprus nature forum
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.cypenv.org Cyprus environment/energy
>> http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv World environment/energy
>> http://www.cypenv.org/weather Cyprus weather
>> http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php Environment/energy forums
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypnature/ Cyprus nature forum
>>
>>
>>
>
--
http://www.cypenv.org Cyprus environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv World environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/weather Cyprus weather
http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php Environment/energy forums
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypnature/ Cyprus nature forum
|
