Tampering with the evidence--Bush Admin and Environment

[ChoChiyo]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4075986.stm

Bush aide 'edited climate papers'

The documents outlined US climate change policy
A White House official edited government reports in ways that played down links between global warming and emissions, the New York Times reported.
Philip Cooney removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, the newspaper said.

The White House denied Mr Cooney, a former oil industry advocate, watered down the reports.

It said the changes were part of a normal inter-agency review process.

The reports were "based on the best available science", spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Mr Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which helps devise and promote the administration's policies on environmental issues.

The administration of President George W Bush has consistently questioned the need for quick action on climate change, and the US has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol aimed at cutting down greenhouse gas emissions.

'Uncertainties'

Before working at the White House, Mr Cooney was a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil industry trade group.

He is a lawyer by training, with no scientific background.

The New York Times said he made dozens of changes to reports issued in 2002 and 2003, and many appeared in final versions of major administration climate reports.

They included the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties", and tended to produce an air of doubt about findings most climate experts say are robust, the paper reported.

In another instance, the paper said Mr Cooney added the word "extremely" to the sentence, "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

The newspaper obtained the documents from the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit group that provides legal assistance to whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that co-ordinates government climate research and which issued the documents that Mr Cooney edited.

[dennisrwood]

edit

[Avatar]

Probably not I guess.

--A

[dennisrwood]

edit

[Avatar]

...but money has always run that debate...

You're certainly right about this one.

--A

[Cail]

Dennis, Three Mile Island was about as close to nothing as you can get.

Now, can you name me any other major energy source that has had two or less big-name accidents like nuclear power?

[ChoChiyo]

Dennis, Three Mile Island was about as close to nothing as you can get.

Now, can you name me any other major energy source that has had two or less big-name accidents like nuclear power?

wind power and solar power?

[dennisrwood]

edit

[Cail]

Dennis, Three Mile Island was about as close to nothing as you can get.

Now, can you name me any other major energy source that has had two or less big-name accidents like nuclear power?

wind power and solar power?

Neither are major power sources.

Next?

[ChoChiyo]

Dennis, Three Mile Island was about as close to nothing as you can get.

Now, can you name me any other major energy source that has had two or less big-name accidents like nuclear power?

wind power and solar power?

Neither are major power sources.

Next?

Ah, but they could be....and they would be "clean" as well.

The question is, Why aren't they??

Could it possibly be the Powah of the dollar waved about by the oil moguls?

[dennisrwood]

edit

[Sheriff Lytton]

Three Mile Island was about as close to nothing as you can get.

Cail, you're absolutely priceless.

For anyone wishing to find out a little more about this "as close to nothing as you can get" incident in which the core of a nuclear reactor became exposed due to a combination of inefficiency, ineptitude and incompetence, check out this website here

[Cail]

Yes, and I'm sorry Sheriff, what actually happened? How much radioactive material was released? Are you goint to try and tell us that TMI was of the same magnitude as Love Canal or Bhopal?

[Sheriff Lytton]

Cail, what actually happened was that thanks to serious failures on the part of the NRC, the core of a nuclear reactor became exposed.

So far, the only reason anyone's come up with for the fuel not burning through the reactor walls and triggering a major nuclear disaster is that voids formed in the coolant and prevented a meltdown.

This is significant because:

a) Nobody knew this would happen, it was totally unforseen.
b) It's a good job it did happen because the efforts of the staff at the plant were falling on deaf atoms.
c) It means that the only thing that prevented about 15 million curies of radiation from being released was luck.
d) Nobody's sure if it would happen again in another meltdown situation.

Check out this page of the site I linked to in my previous post for this and other interesting information that wasn't in the official version of events.

This includes some interesting information about the incidence of various cancers that were (of course) totally unrelated to the radioactive plumes that came from the plant.

Here's my favourite telling line that contradicts the official story:

"Rather, our findings support the allegation that the people who reported rashes, hair loss, vomiting and pet deaths after the accident were exposed to high level radiation and not only suffering from emotional stress.”

Oh, and it also goes on to mention (among other things) the unlawful operation of the facility by the NRC, how the criteria for evacuation had been met but were ignored, and the illegal venting of radiactive Krypton 85 and somewhat naughty evaporating of Tritium by Met Ed.

But for dumb luck, 3 Mile Island would have been right up there with Bhopal.

[Cail]

Sheriff, I'm not denying that there were serious screw-ups regarding TMI. Quite the contrary, my point was that even with the gross negligence, there was a very limited impact from the incident.

[Plissken]

Sherrif, I hate to agree with Cail, but everything you've pointed out about 3-Mile Island just shows things we've learned about the design and running of a nuclear facility. There's every reason to believe that it is a more viable fuel source today than it was when 3MI was built.

[Sheriff Lytton]

Sherrif, I hate to agree with Cail...

Well, even I do it from time to time when we're not talking politics. Take two of these and the headaches will go away...

Oddly enough, I don't discount nuclear power outright. We have exactly the same debate going on in the UK right now, and the simple fact is that with population growth/increase in energy consumption per household being what they are, the indications are that energy demand cannot be satisfied without it.

The problem with nuclear fuel is that nuclear waste is very dangerous stuff indeed and until we can start getting it off planet we don't really have an acceptable way of dealing with it. (Don't worry, I promise not to start banging on about the space elevator.)

My point was simply that the Three Mile Island incident was most certainly not "as close to nothing as you can get" and to dismiss it as such is dangerously complacent. TMI was a hair's breadth away from being a full blown nuclear catastrophe and if it hadn't have been for the most extraoardinary piece of luck we'd all be having a conversation of a completely different tone.

I'm glad to hear that lessons have been learned from TMI. I only hope they involve the regulation of the businesses that run these facilities, the training their staff recieve, telling the truth about what really happened afterwards and not disregarding the little people who happen to be in the path of the atomic plume when the Nuclear plant goes tits up.

Because they were the problems with TMI, not the design of the facility or the validity of the fuel source.

[Cail]

Point taken Sheriff. I came off a little flippant about what could have happened, but didn't.

I'm a big proponent of nuclear power, but admit that we need a better means of waste disposal.

Sherrif, I hate to agree with Cail,......

I think, I'm not sure, but I think I should be offended...

[Avatar]

Great post Sheriff.

Cail, look at it this way: As far as Plissken is concerned, it's a compliment.

--A

[Plissken]

Oh, hell. Cail and I have been being disturbed when we agree with each other for months now. (And it happens more often than either of us care to admit!)