- On The ABC Science show
- "Oh my god we have to close them all down surely ?"... that's what the normal listener is saying
- but hang on a moment didn't I read that in the US forest fires alone emit more mercury than that So it's not a true picture to imagine we are all being poisoned by the coal industry when more mercury is emitted by nature than by all industry

- Now that man made mercury and other pollutions are in addition to nature, but we can't really say whether we should be worried without putting figures in some kind of CONTEXT.

- Why doesn't the media give us the truth ?
- Ideally science should give us a true picture of the world, but mass media by it's very nature becomes a tool of the Devil in action as it spins every story into a hyperbolical headline.

- To manage the world along the correct path we could do with more science and less propaganda films. So I contacted them to point that out. "The reply was did I know Prof Suresh had found that mercury effects the brains of 40,000 babies each year .. we have to stick with published science"

- Look how they have misremembered one of their own programmes and then extrapolated unconsciously distorted the science.
- 1. They putting all the mercury down to coal, yet their own words just say mercury
- 2. Prof Suresh has come up with a revolutionary device for measuring mercury .. He doesn't seem to be involved with actual studies. Their own programme actually says that the 40,000 study comes from the EPA. When you check this a year 2000 report so definitely was not done with Sureshes new device. The study was a one off; a mercury industry site vigorously contests these figures claiming it's a poor study, cos it based an an extrapolation and assumptions about pregnant mothers fish consumption.

as ever The ABC Science show are getting too much of his info unfiltered from activists. This is a very common occurance ... one can only presume that since they are intelligent people then their unobjective attitude comes from some activist must have a photo of them with their trousers down or something

- The industry site claims
" Although environmental activists correctly point out that industrial pollution is largely to blame for mercury deposits in rivers, lakes, and estuaries, mercury “pollution” in the oceans—where most commercially available fish (including tuna) are harvested—occurs nearly 100 percent naturally. It comes from volcanoes, forest fires, and the weathering of mercury-bearing rocks. In fact, American coal-burning power plants are responsible for only about 1 percent of global mercury emissions."
That's a big difference activists claim 100% of mercury comes from coal

- Of course natural mercury emission is difficult to quantify. A 1997 report can't estimate natural http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/volume2.pdf
- A current Geology Society fact sheet quotes "According to EPA estimates, emissions from coal-fired utilities account for 13 to 26 percent of the total (natural plus anthropogenic) airborne emissions of mercury in the United States."

- The EPA has a whole Mercury website, but the actual scientific data is difficult to pin down

- The Science Show did have one interesting segment
: pre-burning coal in oxygen less environment increases power station efficiency from 31% to 41%
- I hope this one does turn out to be true.

- Is it something from "the madness of crowds"
...Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a history of popular folly by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay, first published in 1841

- but hang on
The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, published in 2004,
- interesting theory works sometimes e.g. in guessing the weight of a pig , but not if people are aware of others choices as then become self conscious
-also when expert is needed doesn't work e.g Kasparov can beat amateurs

- It's a strange phenomenon most presenters are fine; they let the issues or music speak for themselves, so the audience figures remain steady. Then for some dumb reason the BBC decide to put one of these "personality presenters" into the slot and cause many many people to switch off. God I can't stand listening to people like Richard Bacon, Chris Moyles, Jonathon Ross, Chris Evans, Stephen Nolan, Davina Mcoll they seem to spend most of the time talking and talking about themselves ... there's so much crap and waffle, giggling etc.

- What is happening is the BBC gets dazzled by "personalities" who are able to cultivate a cult appeal to a section of the population failing to realise that they are letting the majority of the population down.

-Good personalities can carry it off : Don't get me wrong there are some presenters who can carry personality without being overbearing and irritating like Kenny Everett, Noel Edmonds, DLT.. I can even listen to James Whale who is really terse with callers, but actually uses this method to keep the programme tightly controlled so cutting out the boring bits. And there is a market for niche presenters like the very good actor Rush Limbaugh who pretends to be an outrageous right winger and so right wingers know they can tune in hear the right wing spin they want. However this niche type programme is not suitable for a BBC network which is supposed to be serving the entire population.

- These second rate personalities do have a base of cult listeners. So the BBC controllers seemed to get dazzled by this. They don't realise by getting over enthusiastic about second rate personalities the BBC is killing radio .. as many many of us listeners switch off !

- And their coverage of climate is so appalling it's a definite switch off topic. They start off with a biased angle, but then don't even keep to their own rules.
- They will cover a scientific report which says Artic ice is decreasing, but they wouldn't cover a scientific report which says Antartic ice is increasing, cos in their simple model of the Climate story they feel they shouldn't give equal balance to skeptics opinions, but they get confused and think that means they shouldn't cover any evidence which points to the skeptical side.