Archive for the ‘English’ Category

The Swedish ban on nuclear power lifted after 30 years

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

 

By Michael Karnerfors, 2010-06-17

By a narrow margin, after over 10 hours of debate (minus breaks), the Swedish parliament just made the decision to lift the 30 year old ban on giving permits for new nuclear reactors. While this is very uplifting, and certainly a big thaw in this deadlocked issue, it’s not over quite yet. We have an election coming… (more…)

We do not need nuclear power

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010
By Michael Karnerfors, 2010-06-15

A common argument against nuclear power is this:

“We don’t actually need nuclear power, because we could potentially use other clean sources of energy”.

I am not going to argue against that particular statement, because it is true. We could potentially rid ourselves of nuclear power and have clean energy from other sources.

There are a few implications and practical matters that must be addressed though. So let’s take this kind of reasoning a few steps further. What other areas is this statement true for? What more could we potentially be without?

Not needed?

Do we actually need any of these?

(more…)

On a lighter note: Money For Trolling

Thursday, March 4th, 2010
Credits to Mark Knopfler and Sting for this excellent song, 25 years and still going strong(er).

Credits to Mark Knopfler and Sting for this excellent song, 25 years and still going strong(er).

Everyone that has debated online has come across them: the trolls… the Phelps of forum debate… those that are living breathing proof of the Dunning-Kruger effect. And when it comes to haters of nuclear power, there certainy is alot of them!

They normally piss me off something immensely. But in two particular instances, I was inspired. I noticed that the trolls in question had lots of ads on their blogs where they did their inflammatory postings. And with that, a riff got stuck in my head.

So the next time you find yourself deadlocked against some troll that seems more impervious to logic, reasoning and science based fact than a vogon is to water, just hum this to yourself.

Enjoy. :)

You can find the music for listening on Spotify (requires client) or Grooveshark (web-based).

Money For Trolling (And The Clicks For Free)

Music and original lyrics: Money for Nothing – Mark Knopfler, Sting, 1984
Parody lyrics: Michael Karnerfors, 2010
License for music and original lyrics: Commercial – Vertigo Records (UK), Warner Bros. Records Inc. (US)
License for parody lyrics: Creative Commons 3.0 – Attribution, Share-Alike

I want my revenue…

Now look at them bloggers. That’s the way you do it.
You post some nonsense on the web with glee.
That ain’t working. That’s the way you do it.
Money for trolling and the clicks for free.

Now that ain’t working. That’s the way you do it.
Let me tell you. Them trolls ain’t dumb.
Maybe get a blister on your mousing finger.
Maybe get a blister on your thumb.

We got to post and do some more flaming.
Get TradeDoubler and some Google ads.
We got to click these ads and banners.
We got some mighty big trolls to feed.

That little spammer with the adverts for Viagra.
Yeah buddy that’s his own site.
That little spammer got his own web startup.
That little spammer he’s a millionaire.

We got to post and do some more flaming.
Get TradeDoubler and some Google ads.
We got to click these ads and banners.
We got some mighty big trolls to feed.

Ooh I click my…

Got to post and do some more flaming.
Get TradeDoubler and some Google ads.
We got to click these ads and banners.
Got some mighty big trolls to feed.

Look at him, look at…

I should’ve learned to post on WordPress.
I should’ve learned Blogspot too.
Look at that mama. She’s got it stickin’ in the webcam.
Man, we can have some.

And he’s up there. What’s that? A shocker website.
He’s banging some gorilla while he’s in a tree.
Oh that ain’t working. That’s the way you do it.
Get your money for trolling and the clicks for free.

We got to post and do some more flaming.
Get TradeDoubler and some Google ads.
We got to click these ads and banners.
We got some mighty big trolls to feed.

Listen here. Now…

That ain’t workin’. That’s the way you do it.
You post some nonsense on the web with glee.
That ain’t workin’. That’s the way you do it.
Money for trolling and the clicks for free.

Money for trolling
and the clicks for free.

Get your money for trolling
and the clicks for free.

Look at that, look at that.

I want my…
I want my…
I want my revenue.

I want my…
I want my…
I want my revenue.

Aiming for the climate change conference

Friday, December 11th, 2009

UPDATE: Voting is now closed. Thank you all who did vote for us. We got 49 thumbs up and 10 thumbs down. Not too shabby. Now let’s aim for COP16. :)

Vote for us at COP 15.

Click here to go to the voting page.

At the time of writing, world leaders are gathering in Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

YouTube, their owners Google, and the host of the conference, the Danish foreign ministry is allowing people to post questions to be voted for. On tuesday the 15′th, the most voted for questions will be asked to the world leaders.

Nuclear Power Yes Please has a question to ask too…

“Nuclear power is unsafe because it’s so safe”. Wait… what?!

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009
By Michael Karnerfors, 2009-11-04
This is an very unsafe stairway, because it is physically impossible for you to fall over the side and hurt yourself. Uhm... what?!

This is a very unsafe stairway, because it is physically impossible for you to fall over the side and hurt yourself. Uhm... what?!

(Image source)

Every now and then I come across (link in Swedish) the following argument against nuclear power:

“All the safety devices, procedures, regulation and supervision prove that nuclear power is unsafe.”

And it baffles me every time, because what that boils down to is someone saying something that means: “It’s unsafe because it’s so safe!”.

The (lack of) logic reasoning applied to something else, say a staircase, is exemplified thus:

- This staircase is unsafe, because it has a railing!

- How do you mean?

- Because if the railing wasn’t there, I could fall over the side and hurt myself.

- Yes but the railing is there to stop you from falling over the side and hurting yourself.

- Exactly, so the staircase is unsafe, because it needs the railing.

- But the railing is an integral part of the staircase now. Are you suggesting you can run right through a two inch thick stainless steel railing?

- Well if I could I’d fall over the side and hurt myself.

- So… can you make your way through stainless steel railing or not?

- That’s not the point! The point is that it needs the railing so it’s unsafe!

- Look, not only does it have the railing, but the railing is in turn stuck to a concrete wall that goes all the way up to the ceiling.

- Oh my!! Then it’s really unsafe if it has that much safety! Now I won’t got near that damned thing because I just know I’ll fall over the side and hurt myself!

…and so on.

Kafka would have a field-day with this…

Michael, the saboteur?! Part 2: asking for email

Saturday, October 31st, 2009

By Michael Karnerfors 2009-10-31, continued from part 1

“Every Swedish citizen shall be entitled to have free access to official documents, in order to encourage the free exchange of opinion and the availability of comprehensive information.”

The paragraph above is the first act of the second chapter of The Freedom of The Press act, a cornerstone of the Swedish constitution. In short chapter two, titled “On the public nature of official documents”, says that if I as a Swedish citizen wish to take part of any official document, I am entitled to have swift access to it, no questions asked. (more…)

Michael, the saboteur?! Part one…

Sunday, October 25th, 2009
By Michael Karnerfors, 2009-10-24

I have had some crazy last few days, culminating with a Swedish newspaper calling me and asking me if I am a saboteur trying to wreck a scientist’s work on behalf of the nuclear industry! Whatever prompted anyone to ask something that bizarre? Well, the whole thing started over 30 years ago…

Anyone using fissionable material in Sweden is by law responsible for the safekeeping and disposal of the end-products. We’re not allowing reprocessing, and we’re not allowing the export of highly radioactive waste products, so we have to deposit any such materials.

To that end, the Swedish nuclear power companies formed the Swedish Nuclear Fuel And Waste Management Company, SKB for short for the purpose to researching a viable method to deposit spent nuclear fuel that is acceptable for the public as well as politically. Not that we didn’t know of viable methods since such methods were known since the early 70′s. But only very few of them were palatable, so we needed a bit of research of our own.  The project “KärnBränsleSäkerhet” (Nuclear fuel safety), or KBS for short, was started in 1976. In 1983 the third report of this project, KBS-3, was put forth and it proposed what is most likely a solution to the nuclear waste problem. (more…)

Merkel wins big in Germany; can drop anti-nukes.

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

This just in on the news: Angela Merkel and her party CDU/CSU wins the 2009 federal election in Germany, along with the Free Democrats while the Social Democrats does their worst election since World War II. Merkel has announced her intention to form a government with FPD.

The upshot of this is that Merkel does not have to have the nuclear hostile SPD or the Green Party on her government, which in turn means that the German moratorium on nuclear power can now be reviewed and perhaps dropped.

If this happens it means that with Sweden, the UK, Italy and Germany reconcidering their stances on nuclear power and moving in favour of this form of energy, 2009 is a year of tremendous success for European nuclear friends.

How to get professionals to agree with your opinion

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

…or…

How the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives used nurses to lie to the government.

Surveys and questionnaires are a simple and effective way of gauging people’s opinions. The result can then in turn be used to influence the opinions other people hold, most often to become opinions you want people to have.  And the more supposedly trustworthy the people you survey are, the greater you can expect the compliance to be.

Let me show you an example of this. This is a TV advert from 1949.

Simple enough isn’t it? If many medical doctors like this brand of cigarette, it must be really good, right? Right! Doctors can’t be wrong. Moving along…

Surveys and questionnaires that you make yourself have a nice bonus: you can make them any way you want. The advantage of this is that if you phrase the questions just right, you can get any answer you want.

(more…)

Greenpeace admits “emotionalizing” is one of their tactics

Friday, August 21st, 2009

Gerd Leipold, executive director of Greenpeace International appeared on the BBC show “Hardtalk”.

When pressed about a specific issue where Greenpeace appeared to have exaggerated their claims, Leipold admitted they are “emotionalizing issues”, and that they do it willfully and consciously. He went on to defend this practice saying that they do not feel they gain enough sympathy for their statements if they do not “emotionalize” their messages.

We, as a pressure group, have to emotionalize issues, and we are not ashamed of emotionalizing issues.

Gerd Leipold – Executive Director of Greenpeace International, 2009

He may call it “emotionalizing”, but  that is merely a euphemism for scare-tactics, FUD and propaganda. When he calls it “emotionalizing” he is in effect green-washing the act of lying.

Greenpeace was not late to react to this and the signature “Brian” posted a blog entry lambasting BBC, saying they got it wrong about the factoid that triggered the confession. But while that blog post may be technically correct, it is insignificant because Leipold still admitted that “emotionalizing” is indeed a Greenpeace tactic.

If Greenpeace cannot argue their cases without “emotionalizing”, they are not only justifying skepticism, but rather necessitating it. This confession shows that scrutiny is long overdue. It proves it’s time we started looking at if they know what the heck they are talking about or just bilking sympathizers for money with whatever fairy stories they can come up with.

After all… we don’t exactly lack examples of  “emotionalizing” in the nuclear issue from Greenpeace…