I.ll take a terrorist strike on a solar plant over a nuclear one any day.
No terrorist would bother with such an inconsequential target.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
All those arguing that chance of a terrorist attack is negligible or that the only terrorist act in Japan to date was perpetrated by homegrown Aum terrorists sound like they are using the Tepco manual -
Wait...has anyone even argued those points? Let alone made the the foundation of their argument?
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
Now, what is an economically viable (at least, in a few places in Japan), very safe, and possibly even a radical boost to the local environment, would be a land-based OTEC platform. I wonder why this hasn't become more popular.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Interesting technique, Bertie. Mind if I give it a shot?
There are ways to attack everything, and the rather open secret of physical security is that there is little that one can do to completely eliminate the threat of a focused and determined individual (or group) looking to destroy something.
So, since there is no way to prevent all attacks, we shouldn't try to defend against any attacks.
The only result you will achieve from petty sniping is to force the topics underground until another incident occurs because no one wanted to talk about it.
So, since sniping isn't a good way to talk about a topic, we shouldn't ever talk about the topic at all.
In other words, in the event of an incident, without human intervention or computer assistance, the system shuts itself down or contains the threat when limits are passed.
So, since these passive systems can do everything all by themselves, we don't need active safety systems at all.
Huh. That was easy.
Looks like we all missing the main point
I agree. People are all so politically obsessed over being anti-nuclear that they don't even care what the content of the article is. As long as the words "Nuclear Power" are involved, it's free license to post all our opinions on how corrupt the government, TEPCO, and anyone who is pro-nuke is, as well as deriding those mental midget nuclear engineers for not seeing how obviously superior and much more available energy is.
-2 ( +4 / -6 )
How about the " Stuxnet " computer virus ? A program designed to control Siemens control valves etc. Which was also known to cause breakdowns with Iran's nuclear operations.
Well, again, physical security and engineering security are two different things, and protection of the IT system kind of fall under engineering. It is a valid concern, of course, but it isn't the actual topic of the article.
There are ways to attack everything, and the rather open secret of physical security is that there is little that one can do to completely eliminate the threat of a focused and determined individual (or group) looking to destroy something. That said, the main purpose of security is to reduce as much as possible the avenues of attack. Making an attack impossible just challenges those who want to do the impossible; making an attack extremely difficult challenges anyone who doesn't or can't put in the time or effort, and there are a lot more of those people around. In terms of engineering (not physical security), when dealing with something as potentially catastrophic as a nuclear incident, I tend to lean more towards the passive security rather than active security. In other words, systems that default automatically, preferably through sheer physics, to a safe state. In other words, in the event of an incident, without human intervention or computer assistance, the system shuts itself down or contains the threat when limits are passed.
This is not to say that active engineering safeties are not needed; on the contrary, active measures should be the primary line of defense. However, active measures are far easier to sabotage, either intentionally (terrorism) or unintentionally (TEPCO, looking at you now). That's why I specifically mentioned the older plants, which do not have the current technologies we incorporate into reactors today.
-5 ( +4 / -8 )
And whether or not it can be done safely. A single wrong move can destabilize the field, releasing enough greenhouse gasses to double the effects of the last 50 years of CO2.
That's true, shoot, I had forgotten about that...
Unfortunately, the way methane hydrate forms, the sort of environment it requires, also tends to be somewhat fragile in terms of geology. You can't just jump in and start scooping out tons of mud. A sudden collapse or settlement could potentially move enough mud off the underlying hydrates (meaning the weight and pressure of the protective cover is removed) causing a large amount of hydrates to "boil" (so to speak), out of their stable ice crystal form.
But that information could be outdated; I haven't really kept up with this branch for several years.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
If they have found a bed with an estimated 1.1 trillion cubic meters of gas, I am willing to spot them sufficient quantity. I still want to know how they intend to mine it efficiently. It isn't about the physical collection as much as the economic viability of how they do it.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Wow, there are some really petty comments from the anti-nuke crowd. Have any of you made the connection yet between this sort of attitude and the weak, albeit genuine, excuse of "We didn't want to investigate safety measures because the general public would get scared"? We can't even get an article about improving the overall physical security at plant without people getting all snide about it, and the same people wonder at the reluctance to act?
Physical security has nothing to do with the engineering of a nuclear plant. Seawalls, earth-quake measures, containment, cooling towers, those are all valid concerns and topics, but they are not the only ones. It is perfectly legitimate to talk about other aspects of a nuclear facility that also need improvement. The only result you will achieve from petty sniping is to force the topics underground until another incident occurs because no one wanted to talk about it.
And yes, as far as the actual article goes, there is a significant possibility of terrorist interest. Not structurally, not in terms of crashing an airplane or even a missile into a plant, but actual directed sabotage. A group infiltrating or directly attacking a plant and intentionally causing a large scale incident on one of the older plants, without passive safety systems in place (or even with them in place and plans for getting around them) would create a rather dangerous situation.
That said, I do have to wonder what the gain from a terrorist attack on Japanese soil would be.
-9 ( +2 / -11 )
No, it doesn't.
You may just want to drop this one.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
There's nothing particularly new or impressive about extracting methane hydrate from fire ice. The question has always been whether it can be done economically. Up until now, it hasn't been, so I am wondering about how they intend to collect it and bring it in.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
It's not "sound", rather pressure changes that can be recorded at frequencies that are inaudible.
AKA, "sound" ;-)
1 ( +1 / -0 )
When people protest nuclear power, and when they offer alternative energy as the...well, the alternative, there is really a rather large disconnect visible there between expectation and reality.
I think we can all agree that power, electricity, of any kind, is rather meaningless if it can't be used. Like any other product out there, electricity needs to be profitable enough to cover its own cost and make enough of a profit to attract investors. If one thinks of electricity as a product (as opposed to some odd, unlimited, vast sea of energy somewhere out there that we don't have access to because those greedy so-and-so's actively hold us back), then you begin to see where some of the more moralistic arguments begin to break down.
When you are producing your product, quantity of production tends to translate directly into profit. Let's divide them into three broad categories: Renewable energy, fossil fuel energy, and nuclear energy.
Renewable energy suffers from 3 main drawbacks: First, low production. Simply put, there isn't a lot of energy there to begin with, and an enormous quantity is lost in the processing. The reason you don't hear about disasters at renewable energy plants is because there isn't enough energy to actually cause many disasters. The problem with low production is that you end up with not enough product to make it profitable enough to be useful. The second problem is availability. You can't just plunk down a geothermal plant, a solar plant, a wind farm, wherever you like; in order to use alternative energy, there first has to be an alternate energy available. The problem there, is that most places that do have enough of these energies available tend to, due precisely to that amount of energy available, be extremely inhospitable to humans. An active volcano would be an excellent source of geothermal energy, but living next to one would have drawbacks. The third problem is reliability. Very few renewable energy resources have a base load; biomass does, arguably, as well as geothermal, although that one has several issues as well, but aside from that, being that renewable energy tends to draw its power from the elements, it is also subsequently a slave of the elements, which are random and fickle by nature (literally).
The we have fossil fuels. These are energy sources that have been around for a long, long time, and they have, through the expansive time and force it took to produce them, been refined into concentrated forms of energy that outstrip the infant renewable energy that just barely arrived on planet earth. The sheer difference in regards to energy density, as well as the relative ease and efficiency of coverting them to electricity, makes these sources the go to place for energy production. You get so many Kw out of these that, from a production perspective, it is pointless to even look at renewable energy.
And now, nuclear energy. If renewable energy is an electric scooter, and fossil fuel is an internal combustion car, nuclear is the Shinkansen leaving both behind with such a ludicrously huge margin of production that it is a wonder major energy companies didn't go out of business overnight. We are literally talking about an energy density on scale of 1 to 2 million percent of fossil fuels; or, to avoid the whole British/US/personal numbers issue, if you think of coal as averaging 25 MJ per Kg, and gasoline at around 45-50 MJ/Kg or thereabouts, a fission power plant averages 80,000,000 MJ/Kg! We are talking about energy densities we never even dreamed of before. And that's just current fission technology. Fusion promises to double that. Renewable energy..can't even be measured in these terms.
In terms of production, there is really no contest. Nuclear power doesn't just win; nuclear power is the titan striding through a pack of puppies. Renewables are barely the fleas on the puppies. These protestors can demand an end to nuclear power all they want, but ending nuclear power is not going to make the demand that prompted nuclear power to disappear. If anything, demand has grown, just like industry has grown. You can't have your cake and eat it to; if you protest nuclear power, you need to be willing to give up everything that nuclear power brought to you as well.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
It...would never have occurred to me that earthquakes could register at an atmospheric level based on sound alone.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
The protestors mentioned in this news article are demonstrating against the unacceptable risks associated with nuclear power generation.
And yet, the one thing they are not protesting is the one thing that would easily prevent all the other risks: bad administration.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
I don't know how many times I've heard people use 'energy cannot be destroyed. It simply changes form' to somehow further the idea that consciousness survives death. Can someone please clarify this bizarre logical pathway?
Well, you know, the "energy" in the body, it's like the gasoline in the car, when the car stops moving, the "energy" can't be destroyed, so logically...ghost car.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
His conclusion: “The body rots, the soul lives.” A believing Christian will say, “Of course.” A non-believer will say it’s the usual religious claptrap. But Yasaku is speaking as a scientist. He may or may not convince, but his views cannot be written off lightly.
Mmm...well, not here he isn't, speaking as a scientist I mean. If he's read a book or written a paper, sure, I'll give it a read and see what his argument is, but let's not abuse argumentum ad verecundiam. He is a doctor, he has an opinion regarding the afterlife. No problem. His being a doctor, however, does not confer any particular expertise in regards to the existence of an afterlife, nor give the subject any more credibility than anyone else without relevant credentials.
In all cases, I find that this article got it wrong from the get-go:
Roll your eyes, skeptics. We’ve heard it before. Spiritualism is as old as humanity, as old as human gullibility.
Right from the very first line we have the unfounded assumption that skeptics cannot be spiritual, and that skeptics equate spirituality with gullibility. Nonsense, of course.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
yes, that's right. Assuming those sources are correct and not just fear mongering. Though being the globally resources news sources that they are, and their independence from the Japanese nuclear industry, I don't see any reason to be suspicious of their reports' authenticity.
Unfortunately, the rest of us can't really tell whether they are indeed globally respected news sources. I had someone refer to FOX news as that once.
Can you give me any keywords to search for? I am particularly interested in information about the plant after the earthquake, but prior to the tsunami.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
ahhhhhh so its a problem that the water is running down from higher ground? GENIUS THOUGHT IN... 3.... 2.... 1....if Fukushima was built on higher ground instead of TEPCO lowering the ground during construction this problem wouldnt exist.. oh wait, and these nuclear meltdowns wouldnt have actually occurred!!!
One of the reasons they lowered the ground was so that the reactor could sit on solid bedrock, which added earthquake protection. Considering the damage that may have occurred during the earthquake itself while the building was on a secure foundation, had the plant been at the previous height with the less stable rock underneath, who knows what would have occurred? It hasn't taken tsunamis to cause meltdowns before.
As all engineering projects go, this is a shoulda/coulda/woulda sort of thing. I'm not sure how you would have convinced the stakeholders that the bedrock height, which still had a x2.5 margin of safety over the 100-year tsunami height, was worth the money, particularly with the whole earthquake thing. After all, 30 years ago tsunami's were nowhere near as menacing a threat as earthquakes, and having to decide between a stronger foundation that was safer and cheaper to run or the possibility that a tsunami 2.5 times the size of the largest one to hit this area in 100 years, must have seemed like a no-brainer.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
From a public safety and environmental perspective, this is good news. Water seeping into the plant means the pressure inside is lower than outside. This means that whatever contamination is inside the plant is staying inside the plant. It would be terrible if it was the other way around; last thing we need is tons of contaminated water migrating into the groundwater.
From a logistics standpoint, however, this does make things more complicated. A simple patch job taking 5 minutes can turn into a 1 hour marathon when you put it under water.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
You really think the shooter is just going to stop firing when they are blinded and deaf for a few seconds and then only resume firing once they regain their sight or hearing?
No, I think the shooter is going to clamp his finger down on the trigger, shoot out his entire magazine in 3-4 seconds (assuming he had just loaded a fresh clip), and then spend another good 10-15 seconds before he has enough wits around him to strip the clip, reload, and be ready to fire again (which even trained military take anywhere from 5-8 seconds or more in optimal conditions).
Flash-bangs don't incapacitate.
Well, pretty much all law enforcement and military disagree with you. Flash bangs not only afford you a good 20-30 seconds of incapacitated enemy on a regular basis, they have even been known to completely take down a target all by themselves, depending on the physical surroundings (such as the size of the enclosure), the constitution of the target, and the level of aggression or training of the target. There is a surprising amount of pressure, noise, and light coming from that little package, and we tend to forget that because flash bangs are usually used in relatively open areas.
But lets look at a more realistic scenario, where a crazy person goes to the school lunchroom around noon and starts shooting. It is already relatively bright, it is a wide open, non-enclosed space, so a flash bang here, while not at optimal effectiveness, will still produce a good 10-15 seconds of disorientation. The natural physiological reaction to the massive sensory dump of a flash bang is for people to crouch into a semi-fetal position, often raising one hand to the eyes in a sort of reflex, post-injury attempt to protect the eyes. In soldiers carrying firearms, the weight of the weapon, particularly if the soldier releases one hand, makes the weapon point towards the ground. People can train to sense this and compensate, however in those 10-15 seconds, assuming one has trained the extensive hours it takes for this to become reflex, the hand tends to over-compensate and the gun ends up pointing upwards. Remember that flash bangs disorient you because they literally flood your sensory system with too much conflicting information; there is no reasoning your way out of a flash bang, and your most logical and clear thoughts are still going to have to compete with all the chaotic information for actual brain time (a common occurrence for people who have been in this sort of situation is the feeling of telling yourself to do something, like block a hit, and simply not having your body respond).
But that is for trained people. If you are not trained in responding to a flash bang, you are likely to panic, point your gun towards the ground or ceiling and shoot out your entire clip in a few seconds (an M14 shoots 700-750 rounds a minute. A full clip has about 20 rounds. Do the math). You will not have the presence of mind or even the nerve and muscle control to switch out your magazine for a good 10-15 seconds, plus whatever time it takes you to actually get back into the locked, cocked, ready to rock mode of shooting at anyone else. We didn't have professional athletes at any of the high schools I went to, but I am willing to bet that most of them could sprint a cafeteria in that time and tackle someone on the other end. I am also willing to bet that they would be more likely to successfully do that and end up with less casualties, as opposed to everything involved in a multiple person shoot-out in a school cafeteria.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Yes increasing the amount of gunfire during an incident can reduce casualties.:
It can also increase them, particularly when done by a group of people not specifically trained in counterattack, particularly in a target-rich environment like a school.
Please do tell me without those guns on those police officers the casualties would have been lower.
Okay. Without those guns on those police officers, the casualties would have been lower.
Is that true? No idea. I don't have the ability to determine what may or may not have happened, and neither do you.
What I can tell you is that the probability of higher casualties due to stray gunfire had those police officers been teachers without continuous training, would significantly increase.
Flash-bangs produce shrapnel in all directions, just not as much as a HE grenades, just ask the British hostage that was killed in Afghanistan by US special forces.
Military firearms used by insane people (or teachers suddenly thrust into life or death situations) produce bullets in all directions. Bullets are far more deadly than shrapnel. I would submit there are a lot more people dead from bullets than wounded from shrapnel.
Flash bangs don't incapacitate the attacker and a blinded/deaf shooter can still shoot/squeeze the trigger just as well as a person who isn't blinded/deaf....
I disagree. A), because quite a few people would indeed be incapacitated by a massive explosion, pressure wave, and flash of a flash bang (that is, after all, specifically what they are designed for; we've just gotten a bit spoiled by only seeing them in use against military trained people in combat situations), B) because clamping a finger down on a trigger while disoriented is not the same as shooting or squeezing a trigger "just as well" as even the controlled fashion a crazy person employs, and C) even people with military training need a good 10-15 seconds to get their bearings after a flash-bang, which is enough time to tackle a person (or to throw another two or three flash-bangs more accurately at them, which is what would probably happen).
Flash bangs are much more indiscriminate than guns, a flash bang could blind the teachers and the students at the same time as blinding the attacker.
Which is why you train the teachers to cover, throw the flash bang, and take cover again, something that is almost intuitively known by most people due to the vast amount of war movies we see on a regular basis (and the desire to not actually be in the line of fire of the person with the machine gun). With actual training, the behavior is much easier to retain, particularly when compared to the amount of training required to effectively participate in a gunfight.
And I have no problem with teachers or students being blinded, particularly when the alternative is being shot. Considering there are far more teachers and students than there are attackers, sheer probability will tell you that there is likely to be people not blinded who can take down the attackers.
Flash-bangs also have another big problem within buildings, they have a tendency to cause fires.
No, they don't. They have, on occasion, but it is far from being a regular occurrence. Additionally, the vast majority of schools are mostly concrete and vinyl flooring, which massively reduces the chances of an accidental fire. And, to be frank, even if the chances of a fire, particularly an out-of-control fire, were not so low as to be negligible (keeping in mind that we are already talking about an event which is itself low probability), I would still prefer risking a fire than having multiple people shooting it out with guns in a school full of children.
That begs the question why is law enforcement in the US even carrying guns then?
Which begs the counter-question: Why are you comparing law enforcement in the streets of the US to teachers in a school full of children?
Why don't just replace all of their guns and ammo with flash-bangs and only use flash-bangs if they are effective as you claim their are.
A) Because flash bangs are effective in a given niche, such as an enclosed area with a relatively exposed shooter, and not anywhere and everywhere, and B) because arming regular police officers with flash bangs would increase the chances of military style tactics (or accusations) employed out on the field.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Reducing gunfire in schools by increasing the amount of gunfire in schools during an incident? Isn't that like reducing the possibility of a fire by having everyone carry lighters and fluid?
In all cases, what are we going for here, tactically? That the children are going to be trained to evacuate while the teachers take to the halls and ambush the threat? I sincerely doubt the teacher's are going to be open-carrying the entire year.
Why gun against gun? What is the point? Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier to just train teachers how to chuck flash-bangs? Wouldn't it be a lot safer as well? Heck, the teachers could continue their training on a daily basis by just tossing a bean-bag around the office. They wouldn't actually have to put themselves in the direct line of fire of the guy with the military weapon. They wouldn't increase the risk of stray shots hitting the children who didn't pick up on the evacuation by however many teachers were supposed to be returning fire.
Seriously, even assuming you somehow managed to train all your teachers as law enforcement "sentinels" (please tell me we are going to start capitalizing that word...), let's assume the public schools which are already notoriously lacking funds for such things as...education, manage to find both the money and the time (Any teachers here? Remember that thing called "time", that used to have the word "free" in front of it?) and the principal, the teachers, and the janitor (really?) are now trained sentinels:
How often does that training get refreshed? How often do they get to go to the range? How often do they remind themselves to check behind the target for any innocent victims of shots that will miss, which is a not insignificant concern in a school? Law Enforcement training isn't an academic subject that can be learned once and then retained. The entire purpose of the training is to acclimatize one to the levels of stress involved and how to make good decisions while under that stress. That's why training never ends.
We don't need people exchanging gunfire in schools, not trained people, not crazy people, certainly not teachers who took a class on it a few years ago. Gunfire in schools needs to be put down hard, unfairly, and with unnecessary roughness, all the while keeping the students and faculty as safe as possible. I don't care how many fully-automatic weapons someone is carrying, he will still be susceptible to a flash-bang, let alone two or three from multiple teachers, with a minimum of risk to everyone involved. Better a dozen ruptured eardrums than even one child dead from a stray bullet.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Of course, the ideal solution would be to develop an efficient way to transmit electricity wirelessly. Then you could stick your energy generators wherever the heck you wanted and no one would give a damn, as long as it isn't in their backyard.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
There are so many ways we waste energy. So much could be saved with just a little thought. People snoozing in cars with the engine running because it's slightly cooler than outside. Air conditioning in buildings where a more efficient design would reduce the need for it. People discarding things that can still be used or recycled. Wasting food. Burning grass and vegetation that could be put back into the ground as compost. Tearing down concrete buildings and putting up newer ones - concrete production uses incredible amounts of energy. One person in a vehicle designed for four that would comfortably sit six. Buses that seat 50 people running around the city with one or two people in them. There's no end to it.
This is small fry stuff. Sure, a homeowner can make a go of it without changing their behavior too radically, but so what? It isn't the homeowners that need massive, massive amounts of energy. It's the industries that need that energy, and no amount of recycling or composting is going to save them enough to produce heavy machinery, robotics, or any of the hundreds of different things that are essential for the large economy.
People are acting as if the only reason to be pro-nuclear is because you are too lazy to throw your paper cup in the right bin. That's nonsense. If you are protesting nuclear energy, but don't have a solution or alternative, then you are not protesting; You are whining. These people are really not that much different from the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Cheerleaders with no team to cheer.
-3 ( +6 / -10 )
The problem is that if you rely on an argument that is rationally questionably, such as: "The disaster also destroyed a carefully cultivated myth that nuclear power was cheap and safe.", the farther you get from the emotional impact of the initial disaster, the less people are going to be willing to overlook the lack of reason in the argument.
Nobody wants to be the guy who targets a scapegoat. If the problem was not the dog, but the neglectful person who was in charge of the dog, nobody wants to be the one who claims that all dogs should be done away with.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
cabadaje Oh dear.
A word of warning: Attempting to match my level of superciliousness without proper warming up can lead to muscle cramps and torn ligaments.
The claim, my friend, is yours. You see, you said this;
Going on close to 25 years now, and despite the literally hundreds of researchers who have gone through these reports, you don't see an uproar in the scientific community about how these guys are mooching off the international group while producing nothing.
Yes, I did. I am even willing to to use the verb form of "claim" for your benefit, as you do not seem to distinguish between the verb and the noun.
I then provided you with a link to a report that directly contradicts this claim.
Not even close. Heck, not even all that contradictory, when one comes down to it, but let's keep it simple:
"An uproar in the scientific community" is going to require a bit more than 21 people. That they were directly objecting to the subject, conceded (not that it was ever denied, but regardless). There are hundreds of thousands of biologists, tens of thousands of ocean biologists, thousands of cetacean researchers, and about 200 scientists, give or take, of whatever stripe actually in the IWC. Bear in mind, of course, that we are not talking about people who dislike whaling in general, but who actively consider lethal whale research to be relevant.
My claim? It doesn't even contradict your claim of what I claim. The paper you linked to does not actually refer to the data as irrelevant or redundant (at some point we are going to have to decide on which word to use), except in the specific area of population. It even qualifies itself by asserting that lethal research has provided benefits, I can only assume to avoid being accused of what you are attempting to use it for.
A report triggered by the controversy surrounding a letter published in the New York Times in 2002 by a number of leading scientists and biologists, inclusive of 3 Nobel Laureates, who question the validity and quality of the Japanese research findings, as well as the methods. I'm not sure how much more publically and unequivically they need to state it, but anyway. Claphams report contains a link to a far more detailed deconstruction of the merits of Japan's scientific whaling program.
Yes, that's pretty much what I said. Incidentally, this sort of paragraph is what you should have included with your previous link. The problem with slapping a link down on the table and relying on sarcasm or facetiousness is that if what you consider obvious can be countered, you end up being "embarrassed", which I gather from your previous posts, it is something of importance to you). My goddaughter compared it to "dropping the mic" and then having someone rap better than you, for those to whom that makes sense (of which I am not one, but I will take her word on it).
The delicious irony for me is that you go on to point out how credible the scientists are in their field, seemingly unawares that I was being facetious when I said;
Well, aside from not actually being "irony" (as opposed to your original comment, which was, which makes this sentence mildly ironic as well...), having the incorrect focus of you attempt pointed out and declaring unawareness on the other person's side...that's a little like trying to punch someone, being countered, and then claiming the other person didn't notice you were trying to punch him.
Beautiful. Further, you go on to articulate the exact reasons I provided it as a counter to your point, Including the fact that it touches upon criticisms coming from the Scientific Committee members, yes, including Clapham.
And here I was thinking you posted it without reading because it was the first thing you found that sounded scientific enough.
No? Not this;
IWC does not include ecosystem based management; consequently, none of the information derived from the feeding ecology study is relevent to the manner in which the IWC assesses and manages whale populations.
Correct. Not this.
Other fundamental problems include a lack of testable hypotheses or performance measures, innapropriate use of ecosystem models and failure to include sensitivity analyses and key data on other ecosystem components; selective or innapropriate use of data or methods in estimating whale abundance, unnecessary reliance on lethal sampling, innapropriate geographic sampling for population structuring analysis
Lets keep looking. In short, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that JARPN II exists to demonstrate - all data to the contrary notwithstanding - that whales eat too much fish and therefore should be culled by more whaling.
He goes on to call the scientific results of the Antarctic hunt 'remarkably poor' - and points out that only 1 of the 150 articles produced by the Japanese scientists made it to a peer reviewed journal. He says;
JARPA's failure to publish in international refereed journals says much about the quality and motives of it's science And Today, so little of any significance to the IWC can be obtained from only whaling catches that it is impossible to justify killing animals on this basis
Tamaran, in a two-page article, chances are very low that the examples are going to indicate anything different from each other.
He finishes with this;
researchers are right to speak out if they believe commercial activities are being misrepresented as science. In our views, there has barely been a more egrarious example of this misrepresentation that Japan's Scientific whaling program
It is unequivocal. His position is crystal clear. You spin it any way you like, but I suggest prudence if you try.
What's to spin? You aren't saying anything that I did not already state in my previous comment. It's like you are so eager to prove me wrong that you didn't notice that we are agreeing.
1 ( +3 / -2 )