How about this for misleading tripe from the Grauniad:
Yup, according to them the reactor has killed 4277 people. Or at least, that is what it looks like. Of course, you could also argue that they are trying to claim that the reactors have made the Nikkei go up 5.68%, but no-one would believe that.
Incidentally, the NYT has some good disaster porn.
[Updates: for a non-panic-stricken view of Tokyo, JEB is worth reading. For some quiet discussion of nuclear power, Brian has the good taste to ref me, and to remind us of some discussions from 2005. Meanwhile, the Japanese appear to be reduced to doing apparently random things and the Germans are busy proving that they can be prone to panic too (though now I look closer at that story I see it suffers from the usual problem of lying-by-tense in the headline: the headline says “has” shut down, the text says “will be” -W]
It seems shame to root thorugh the trash, but people do, and JM points out the following weird ref in t’ Wegman report:
Valentine, Tom (1987) “Magnetics may hold key to ozone layer problems,” Magnets,
The odd thing is that is doesn’t appear to be a ref for anything. What is it doing there? And what is this odd paper? Or is Wegman one of those people that wear magnetic bangles to cure rheumatism?
* Is this the same Tom V?
* Of course, you should read Deep Climate
A headline stolen blatantly from HH. But it seems rather applicable to the Institute of Physics. The Grauniad are still pushing them (go big G!) but the IOP are stonewalling: they won’t say who wrote their pap; but it seems one Peter Gill was involved.
In an apparent attempt to take the Irony Prize back from the gunmen of Caracas, the institute supplied a statement from an anonymous member of its science board, which said: “The institute should feel relaxed about the process by which it generated what is, anyway, a statement of the obvious.” It added: “The points [the submission] makes are ones which we continue to support, that science should be practised openly and in an unbiased way. However much we sympathise with the way in which CRU researchers have been confronted with hostile requests for information, we believe the case for openness remains just as strong.”
I’ve added the bold myself, because the IOP somehow failed to link the two halves of their statement together. Ho ho.
The IOP fiasco refers.
* You can see PG here at… weatheraction! The Corbyn connection emerges, ha.
* A href=”http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/scientists-see-signs-of-global-cooling-14502380.html”>TERRI JACKSON (where does she fit into this; but she claims to be a “a scientist dealing in climate facts”) writes some tosh in the Belfast Torygraph (is it Tory, over there? I don’t know) whereupon one Peter F Gill pops up in the comments recommedning you google my article in IOP South Central Branch Newsletter April 2008) (and other tosh).
* Scary pic of TG here plus some of her views. Mmmm, sounds just like the sort of person you’d want.
* And (I’m getting lost in this crap; Eli or Frank please help me out) SPPI are now repackaging the IOP junk. Why? Can’t they think of their own junk?
* TG also makes the “650 list“, which is odd, because that says she is a “a physics teacher at Belfast Institute Further and Higher Education for 30 years”. Hold on, *that* is supposed to be a list of scientists. And her letter to the BT said she was a scientist. Could she be… stretching her credentials at all?
* An agenda item for EMG Committee meeting on 21 January 2004: Proposal: what steps can the EMGroup take to suggest how the IOP can become more pro-active in physics related energy matters. This vitally important matter has come from the useful discussions held by Peter King and Peter Gill with Professor Peter Main. (30 minutes).
* More waacko Gill stuff here.
* Deltoid picks up on this.