Nuclear Pacific

Reality or the truth of a matter often comes down to scale, to percentages. But it also comes down to narrative, journos and the money behind those.

Why don’t I immediately embrace this?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-27/the-dome-runit-island-nuclear-test-leaking-due-to-climate-change/9161442

Everything is wrong with it in the eyes of a Deplorable blogger.

Let’s start with the formatting – I’ve mentioned a few times that a website which is ‘professional’, with mucho moolah behind it, which uses a single column in big, friendly, childlike print, which has snippets scrolling over an ever-changing background which is National Geographic type crystal clear drone photography, far from convincing me, does the opposite.

Immediately, the quote by I.A.Richards, in Science and Poetry, 1926, kicks in:

We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcible in his enunciation. In fact, we distrust when he seems to be influencing us by his manner.

Anyone in business, particularly those doing the IT for it, is going to be impressed with slick formats and a ‘professional look’ for a product and in so many cases, he’s right to deal in those. But one must know one’s market and there is a large market who would not be impressed by the ABC presentation. You can rail at us neanderthals all you like but we are neither more nor less than I.A.Richards in this.

That’s before we even get onto the ABC, called ‘Aunty’ downudner, the state broadcaster. One guess what its agenda is, what its politics are.

And that’s before we even start on the arguments in the light of the first paragraph of this post. Let’s go to another:

https://medium.com/stanford-magazine/stanford-research-on-effects-of-radioactivity-from-bikini-atoll-nuclear-tests-on-coral-and-crab-dna-48459144020c

Now you’d trust Stanford, wouldn’t you? It’s a Sientifik [sic] heavyweight, massive R&D funding, the Sientifik Establishment line, the IPCC line.

And just look at that single column format again. However, it has a different readership. The ABC was going for the hoi polloi, the common man, dazzled by the Sientifik – big pics, big fonts. Stanford is going for academics or those who see it as the repository of knowledge on the topic.

So the lettering is much smaller, it all seems far more restrained. Because it has smaller writing.

Again, it may be right about that particular atoll, though I would never trust biased narrative data. But to extrapolate from that is just not on. Also, with that first ABC article, the underlying suggestion was that it was devastation to eternity, yet the whole article was about how it is recovering after 50 years.

In the end, it comes down to which sources you accept and which you don’t.

Addendum

Chuckles points out:

One can find some quite interesting info with a modicum of digging, for oh, say 20 seconds or so…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enewetak_Atoll

Population – 850…..

Section 177 of the 1983 Compact of Free Association between the governments of the United States and the Marshall Islands[22] establishes a process for Marshallese to make a claim against the United States government as a result of damage and injury caused by nuclear testing.

That same year, an agreement was signed to implement Section 177 which established a $150 million trust fund. The fund was intended to generate $18 million a year, which would be payable to claimants on an agreed-upon schedule. If the $18 million a year generated by the fund was not enough to cover claims, the principal of the fund could be used.[23][24]

A Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal was established to adjudicate claims. In 2000, the tribunal made a compensation award to the people of Enewetak consisting of $107.8 million for environmental restoration; $244 million in damages to cover economic losses caused by loss of access and use of the atoll; and $34 million for hardship and suffering.[24]

In addition, as of the end of 2008, another $96.658 million in individual damage awards were made. Only $73.526 million of the individual claims award has been paid, however, and no new awards were made between the end of 2008 and May 2010.[24]

Due to stock market losses, payments rates that have outstripped fund income, and other issues, the fund was nearly exhausted as of May 2010 and unable to make any additional awards or payments.[24]

A lawsuit by Marshallese arguing that “changed circumstances” made Nuclear Claims Tribunal unable to make just compensation was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States in April 2010.[25]

It is projected that the majority of the atoll will be fit for human habitation by the year 2026–2027 after nuclear decay, de-contamination and environmental remediation efforts create sufficient dose reductions.[27] However, in November 2017, the Australian Broadcasting Corporationreported that rising sea levels caused by climate change are seeping inside the dome, causing radioactive material to leak out.[28]

(Couldn’t be about the money, could it?) Notice the terrifying danger everyone is in –
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/01/runit-dome-radioactive-trash-can-on.html

4 comments for “Nuclear Pacific

  1. December 1, 2017 at 5:04 am

    Don’t all rush to comment now. 🙂

  2. Hereward Unbowed.
    December 1, 2017 at 4:30 pm

    The Marshall islands are independent, then, what TF has it got to do with ABC?

    According to wiki the population of this volcanic archipelago and blot on the Pacific is circa 53 k, and erm oh dear da moolah, the money has run out.

    Hmm, what to do……………………….lets stiff the Americans…………….and climate change gets a mention, how bloody convenient is that?

    • December 2, 2017 at 4:59 am

      That’s the key question and the same sort of questions are asked here about the BBC. Impartial? No vested interests? Pig’s.

      And the population pays for all this.

  3. Hereward Unbowed.
    December 2, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    “vested interests”

    of course!

    “impartial”

    ……………………….hear the silence.

Comments are closed.