Brian
Interesting exercise, and it gives one an idea of where you are coming
from. Lies and distortions (something the New York Times excells at) are
one thing, partiality is another. For as I said in my earlier posting,
partiality is largely a matter of perspective.
In defense of parochialism, one can lament the fact, but it is a fact
nonetheless, that it is of slightly greater importance to the world what
happens in the US than what happens in Burkina Faso. Secondly, American
media, by and large (CNN pretends otherwise), are reporting American
news and relevant world news to an American audience, so it should be
neither surprising nor distressing that they give the news an American
perspective. We do not object to others eavesdropping on our news, but
it remains American news for an American audience.
Personally I listened to PBS for many years but got tired (nay, sick and
tired) of its one dimensional and biased approach to the news. Besides
it had a snobbish, holier than though attitude in everything it did. I
don't listen to or read any of the main stream media (only rarely listen
to Fox News). CNN makes me want to puke.
Don't speak French so France 2 is out.
Chuck
Brian Ellis wrote:
> 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
>
|
