Dick Smith shows up a likely nuclear power scam
“I predict that Mr Rossi will delay and delay in producing machines or in getting a proper scientific test done, while behind the scenes more and more people will be investing. “
Dick Smith: “Rossi E-CAT … too fantastic to be true” Forbes, Mark Gibbs, 24 Feb 12, Recently Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith offerred Andrea Rossi $1,000,000 if he could prove that Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) cold fusion (or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) system actually works as claimed. Rossi immediately turned down the challenge. Continue reading
Australia’s phony grassroots group or ‘astroturfers’
The list includes several Australian organisations:
the Institute of Public Affairs (the driving force behind Australia’s skeptic movement – surprise, surprise) and
Australian Climate Science Coalition established by the
Australian Environment Foundation, itself a front group for the
Handles like “Citizen”, “Coalition”, “National” and eco-friendly sounding names like “Earthwatch” or“Environment” abound.
In Australia, the word “Foundation” or “Landscape” is popular with climate skeptics and their paymasters (dominated by the mining lobby), to convey authority or a veneer of enviro-cred. Examples include:
- Australian Environment Foundation Note: the look-alike name and logo resulted in the Australian Conservation Foundation suing for trademark infringement.
- Landscape Guardians (also called Coastal, Spa Country and other forms of Guardians, modeled on the UK’s nuclear-funded Country Guardians)
How to spot an astroturfer or an online fake Independent Australia 15 Feb 12, How do you spot an astroturfer, or an online fake? Australia’s finest investigative journalist, environment editor Sandi Keane, provides perhaps the most comprehensive ever guide. A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO TRICKERY & FAKERY IN THE DIGITAL AGE. DECEPTION IS OUR PRODUCT – Part 2 Phony grassroots group or astroturfer
The following are a list of questions this writer employs when on the trail of an astroturfer. They are by no means finite, but proved successful in exposing the Landscape Guardians and the Waubra Foundation in July last year. The third part of this trilogy on “deception” will be the actual Case Studies. Continue reading
New website challenges the pro nuclear “radiation is OK” spin
Look – I know that this one is “heavy going” for those of us who are not crash hot on science.
I don’t usually publish items that are so scientifically challenging. But the thing is – we’re all gonna have to get a bit more informed scientifically.
Why? Because, along with the Climate Denialists, and the Creation Scientists, – we’re now facing the “Radiation Denialists”.
These guys, fronting for the nuclear industry, have now come up with two dodgy “scientific” slogans – “radiation hormesis” and “adaptive response”. Sound good – don’t they? But they are both no more than a bodgy attempt to con us all into thinking that low level ionising radiation is not harmful, is even good for you. They want the current radiation standards changed – for the benefit of the nuclear industry.
The new web page – below – will counter their scientific bullshit. It is my hope that not only the great unwashed are reading this page, and aspiring to become better informed, but also scientists, who need to become aware of the radiation “spin” now going on. All need to be aware of this new con. – Christina Macpherson
RADIATION HORMESIS AND ADAPTIVE RESPONSE Radiation Hormesis and Adaptive Response – Definitions. by nuclearhistory , 16 Feb 2011, “……. Adaptive response and 
hormesis are often mentioned to minimize the risk of radiation or sometimes to deny any adverse outcome below a dose threshold…
We may wonder why the proponents of the hormesis model acknowledge a radiation threshold value for harmful effects, but reject it for beneficial effects…..
The Linear No Threshold hypothesis should remain so far the basic guide line for the radioprotection authorities. It appears clearly that the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle, which is currently the basis of radiation protection policies, should be followed as long as no relevant scientific facts provide other insights. …..
Belgian Nuclear Research Centre http://www.sckcen.be/
The European Radiation Research Society, contact person Dr. Louis de Saint-Georges, secretary-treasurer. The European Radiation Research Society (formerly the European Society of Radiation Biology) is an Europeannon profit organisation founded in 1959 with the aim of promoting radiation research http://www.errs.eu/….
http://hormesishistory.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/radiation-hormesis-and-adaptive-response-definitions/
Lowy Institute debased public debate on uranium sales to India
The Lowy Institute takes money from Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, the two companies that stand to profit most from the Labor government’s policy change. I’ve never once seen that funding disclosed in relevant Lowy Institute publications. …
The think tank that didn’t, Online opinion, By Jim Green – , 16 February 2012 “………The opening up of nuclear trade with India − which began with the 2008 US-India agreement − is problematic on several levels. For starters, Medcalf wants us to believe that we can play a more effective role in promoting non-proliferation and disarmament in India by first permitting uranium sales. The US, Australia and some other suppliers have conspicuously failed to use their bargaining chip (the opening up of nuclear trade) to leverage outcomes such as Indian ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. According to Medcalf’s ‘logic’, we’ll be in a better bargaining position after we’ve given up our bargaining chip (for nothing) than before.”..
…[The Lowy Institute] did seriously debase the [nuclear] debate…….Let’s get to the main problem: Medcalf dimisses weapons proliferation-based objections to nuclear trade with India as “false” and “fallacious”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nuclear trade with India also alters the proliferation equation for other countries. Ron Walker, a former Australian diplomat and former Chair of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said: “Yes, India is a democracy and yes we want to be in their good books, but that is no reason to drop our principles and our interests. To make an exception for them would be crass cronyism. If you make exceptions to your rules for your mates, you weaken your ability to apply them to everyone else. How could we be harder on Japan and South Korea if they acquired nuclear weapons? Could we say Israel is less of a mate than India?”…… Continue reading
Sandi Keane explains how Australia’s fossil fuel industries deceive us with ASTROTURFING
The Landscape Guardians, their front group, the Waubra Foundation, with their links to mining interests, skeptics, the Liberal Party and the Institute of Public Affairs, were first exposed by this author in an investigation in July last year. Their bogus health scare campaign is a classic example of how genuine citizens were duped to disregard the mounting evidence by the large and growing body of evidence (now numbering some 17 reviews) from around the world debunking “Wind Turbine Syndrome”.
Deception is our product Independent Australia 9 Feb 2012, http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/environment/deception-is-our-product/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=IA+Newsletter%3A+PR+astroturfing+-+deception+…&utm_source=YMLP&utm_term=Astroturfing.jpg
Environment editor Sandi Keane exposes the shadowy world of PR, where astroturfing and propaganda is used to coerce the public into sacrificing their own interests for those of big corporations.
Deceiving the public these days is a lucrative industry. Experienced PR practitioners now coerce you through astroturfing and other socially engineered forms of brainwashing to sacrifice your interests for those of their clients – especially those with the biggest war chest – the fossil fuel industry….
Classic examples were Hands Off My Healthcare in the US, and, in Australia, the watering down of tax on miners, the about-turn by the public on the ETS, and the recent success of the Landscape Guardians to stop wind farms replacing coal-fired power in Victoria. Continue reading
Grattan Institute”s misleading attack on Solar Feed-in Tariffs
The new Grattan, FOOT OFF THE GAS:GRATTAN WRONG ON SOLAR WRONG ON FEED-IN TARIFFS, Beyond Zero Emissions, 6 Feb 2012 Institute report “No quick fix for Australia’s future energy challenge” contains misleading comparisons, flawed analysis and glaring omissions on vital energy issues confronting Australia.
#1. The report makes a misleading comparison between the cost of wholesale fossil fuel electricity and the cost of solar photovoltaic electricity which currently competes in the retail electricity market and not the wholesale market.
“We do not expect a suburban Woolworths to compete with food prices at the Footscray Wholesale Fruit and Veg market. Yet this is what the Grattan Institute has done by ignoring the differences between the wholesale and retail electricity markets” says Matthew Wright,
Executive Director of Beyond Zero Emissions. “Rooftop Solar photovoltaic has halved in price in the last 24 months. This is a staggering cost reduction, and is in stark comparison to rapidly increasing rising gas prices”.
#2 The report claims that there are no viable energy storage options for renewable energy.
Matthew Wright explained that the Grattan Institute report’s conclusions “ignores Solar Thermal Power (Molten Salt Power Towers with integrated thermal storage tanks). It ignores this game-changing technology, already commercially deployed in baseload, intermediate and peaking configurations in Spain and under construction at a number of sites in the US. This technology is commercially available, off the shelf and ready for deployment in Australia. Rapid cost reductions have been projected by the International Energy Agency, the US Continue reading
Giles Parkinson questions Grattan Institute’s pro nuclear spin
No easy choices, but a strong case for energy action, REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 6 February 2012 “……..There are several glaring omissions from the report: it does not adequately take into account energy efficiency and the impact that that will have on future energy demand, nor does it adequately address the prospects that large scale renewables and small scale distributed energy will have a dramatic change on the function of the grid– it assumes that it will continue to be defined by baseload and peaking sources, when studies in Europe and elsewhere suggest a more dynamic change.
It’s right, though, that renewables will be limited to their scope without cost-effective storage, and the technologies for these are promising but uncertain. And it’s put off the highly contentious discussion about which policies and how to a later report…. the Grattan Institute’s energy program director Tony Wood, also seems un-necessarily pessimistic about costs. The report recognizes that the costs of incumbent technologies will rise to $100-$150/MWh – up from
around $40-$60/MWh – which it uses as its benchmark. Wood, says, however, that if CCS fails to deliver and nuclear is not deployed, then the price of energy could go “through the roof.”
That’s not the view, however, of the EU, which believes that the transition to renewables will cost no more than continuing with fossil fuels, or the IEA, which notes in its “high renewable scenario” that the increased use of renewables – up to 75 per cent – in the event that nuclear is not deployed as widely as some may hope and CCS fails to deliver – may be less than 10 per cent more than otherwise. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/no-easy-choices-but-a-strong-case-for-energy-action-98145
Grattan Institute shows its true pro nuclear colours
Australia’s relatively new “think tank” – the Grattan Institute, has done some good work on 
environmental and climate change issues.
However, let’s not forget that it is largely funded by BHP.
And, sure enough, today, Grattan Institute shows itself in its true pro nuclear colours. Its latest report puts a subtle case for nuclear power, and a subtle brake on renewable energy development.
A good clue to when there’s a sophisticated and subtle spruik for nuclear, is when they drop the term “renewable” in favour of “low emission” – Christina Macpherson
Low-emission technology ‘needs support’ SMH Julian Drape, February 5, 2012 Once Labor’s carbon tax kicks in governments will need to decide how to best provide extra support for low-emissions technologies, including nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS), a Melbourne-based think tank says.
The Grattan Institute has studied the potential of wind, solar, geothermal, bio-energy, nuclear and CCS to generate near-zero emissions power. Its report, No Easy Choices, to be released on Monday, says that given the lack of any “sure bets” Australia should keep all options on the table.
That includes perhaps the most controversial technologies, nuclear and CCS, Grattan energy program director Tony Wood told AAP.
Both may be needed if Australia is to meet its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
“If you ignore those two that’s very risky because it’s very difficult to believe that renewables can get there without prices going through the roof,” Mr Wood said.
He argues that while Australia might be better off waiting for other countries to develop cheaper and better nuclear plants, it has a very strong interest in developing CCS…….
The report acknowledges that nuclear and CCS are unlikely to be demonstrated in Australia anytime soon “unless government takes on most of the material risk of the project”….The Gillard government, at the behest of the Greens, is establishing a $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation which will leverage private sector financing for renewable energy and clean technology projects…..
But the Grattan Institute report says more needs to be done aside from support for research and development.
It advocates scrapping all existing subsidies for fossil fuels and technology-specific programs such as solar feed-in tariffs.
Further, it calls on governments to expand exploration and mapping of solar and geographical resources to aid in the development of solar thermal and geothermal energy and the location of suitable sites for carbon storage.
Finally, the think tank’s report stresses the need for a complete overhaul of Australia’s distribution network.
Australia’s fossil fuel, nuclear lobbies behind anti-wind power movement
The British equivalent of landscape guardians, ”country guardians”, was funded and supported by elements of the British nuclear energy industry.
Wind farm opponents ‘aided and abetted’ by climate sceptic groups SMH, Ben Cubby, Josephine Tovey, 20 Dec 11 THE anti-wind farm movement that is gaining influence in the NSW Parliament is being ”aided and abetted” by climate sceptic groups and some mining figures.
The cabinet debated new wind farm guidelines yesterday, with division over whether NSW should follow Victoria and order wind turbines to be set further back from houses. The Shooters and Fishers Party, which shares the balance of power in
the upper house with the Christian Democrats, said yesterday it wanted a moratorium on new wind farms.
Industry sources said a US Tea Party-style ”astroturf” campaign, which mimics grassroots local opposition but is at least partly directed from elsewhere, was being waged against wind energy in NSW, which was expected to bring up to $10 billion in investment this decade as it accelerated to meet the national 20 per cent renewable energy target. Continue reading
Climate denialist adopts creationist tactics to “educate” children
Plimer does very nicely from the mining industry which has set him up for a very comfortable retirement. He is a director of mining companies Ivanhoe Australia, Silver City Minerals and the UK-listed Kefi Minerals, , and is chairman of TNT Mines. He is reputed to earn more than $350,000 in director’s fees and shares — a lot more than he receives from the University of Adelaide where his fellow academics have written him off as a joke. He is also closely in cahoots with Australia’s richest miner, and individual, Gina Rinehart.
The launch of the book is funded by the notorious “cash for comment” right-wing skeptic group, the Institute of Public Affairs. . The IPA is run by ultra-right Liberals and funded by organisations which include BHP Billiton, Western Mining, Caltex, Esso Australia (subsidiary of Exxon), Shell, Woodside Petroleum, News Ltd, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, to name a few. Rio Tinto was a sponsor.
Plimer and Howard ape creationists, Independent Australia, 14 Dec 11, http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/politics/plimer-and-howard-ape-creationists/ The mining lobby, with a helping hand from long-time chief climate change action roadblock, former Prime Minister John Howard, has taken a leaf out of the creationists playbook and is now trying to inculcate children with their unscientific nonsense. Environment editor
Sandi Keane reports. Oh my goodness, what next? The mining lobby, desperate to stop any regulation on Co2 and having failed to convert the grownups to climate skepticism, are now taking aim at our children! Climate skeptic, Ian Plimer, has really lost it this time. His new book is called “How to Get Expelled from School”, and it targets school children and teachers. According to Plimer:
“…these children are being fed environmental propaganda and these children are too young to be fed ideology.”
Does the book’s name ring a bell? The anti-scientific film entitled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” was trotted by those crazies, the creationists, in the U.S. to try to stop the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in American schools. Continue reading
BHP chief Marius Kloppers tries to make out that Olympic Dam is not a uranium mine
Further delays to force BHP’s hand, BY:MATT CHAMBERS, The Australian November 18, 2011, BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers has warned that further regulatory delays on the $20 billion-plus Olympic Dam copper, gold and uranium expansion could mean the company looks at other options for its huge cashflows.
Senator Scott Ludlam refutes the spin of Australian Uranium Association
Uranium and health: industry has to face the unpleasant facts, SENATOR SCOTT LUDLAM, AUSTRALIAN GREENS SENATOR FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA, 22 Oct 11, Mr. Michael Angwin of the Australian Uranium Association has
objected to my statement to the ABC 1 that ‘Uranium mining has killed a lot of its workforce’, and has demanded I withdraw the comment.Michael Angwin spins about radiation for the Australian Uranium Association
Uranium miners accuse Greens of fearmongering, ABC News, Myles Morgan, October 21, 2011 “…….Uranium association chief executive Michael Angwin says the industry is relatively safe.
“There have been two recorded fatalities in the Australian uranium industry, neither of them caused by radiation,” he said.
“There is no evidence of deaths from radiation in the Australian uranium industry.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-21/20111021-uranium-miner-response/3592108
Misleading headlines and terms in uranium propaganda
We’ve been seeing a lot of “wobbly words” lately – from the nuclear/uranium industry. You’ll recognise them – “the fundamentals” (always great, of course). And in today’s hype for Uranium SA’s Whyalla plan – “robust” economics.
But the headline is the best in this one – “numbers stacking up”. – Well – the information that the share price of Uranium SA has fallen, and that it hasn’t secured financing – doesn’t bear out the enthusiastic headline. – C.M.
The numbers stack up for Uranium SA, The Age, Barry Fitzgerald, September 20, 2011 SOUTH AUSTRALIA is in line to get another uranium mine, this time from a new uranium province being opened up by ASX-listed Uranium SA to the south of the industrial city of Whyalla, on the Eyre Peninsula.
A study by USA into the likely financial returns from the development of one of the sediment-hosted uranium deposits it has outlined at its Samphire project – the Blackbush deposit – has confirmed ”robust” project economics…..
USA’s managing director, Russel Bluck, said USA’s financing options for the project development would include discussions with global integrated nuclear power groups. USA shares closed 0.5¢ lower at 15¢.
Global unpopularity of nuclear industry, but nuclear leaders do not ‘get it’
People do not like this [nuclear] industry, not because they misunderstand it but because they understand it perfectly well. That is going to be very difficult to fix with little video clips on websites and new fact sheets….
… the magnitude of the disconnect, the dissonance, that exists in the minds of the strongest advocates of the [nuclear] industry. All they need to do is somehow just fix up the image of the industry and everything is going to be fine. I think we will be hearing a lot more of that on the part of the nuclear industry and its supporters in government.
Adjournment speech – Fukushima 6 months on – Australia’s Nuclear Free Alliance Spokesperson Scott Ludlam 14th September 2011 “……..It will be very interesting to see how the democratic aspirations of the people of Japan now play out in the light of the permanent radioactive nightmare that has been unleashed in the Tohoku region of Japan.
If we take a very quick trip around the world, a Washington Post/ABC poll in April 2011 found that 64 per cent of Americans oppose the construction of new reactors, so there are no surprises why the industry is at an absolute standstill there. Support for nuclear power was similar or much lower in countries as varied as Chile at 12 per cent, Thailand at 16½ per cent, Australia at 34 per cent, and the United Kingdom at 35 per cent support.
That, I think, is a problem that has dogged the nuclear industry right from the beginning but to read some of the things they say you would think perhaps they have an image problem. Continue reading
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 