Any Clearer on Nuclear?

Nuclear is a scary word. Shrouded in mystery and misconception, it has captured the minds of scientists, politicians, activists and tyrants. The word still conjures up the worst images and ideas that humankind has to offer, even though we are in some way indebted to nuclear energy whether it is something so local such as powering our homes or something on a massive scale like our existence on this planet. A nuclear reaction is the starting block for human life in the core of a star and yet a nuclear reaction also has the power to take the lives of millions. I am in awe of this word.

Next month we will be remembering the 25^th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. A partial meltdown of the reactor core at the plant occurred, leading to an explosion of the core causing plumes of irradiated smoke and ash to smother a large area around the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Although disputed, over 50 people were killed as a direct result of the accident. However, the total number of people affected by the fallout from the accident is believed to be anywhere from 20,000 to 1million. We have also been witness to the recent nuclear crisis at the Fukushima plant in Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake on March 11^th. Because of this, there is much political stigma and divided opinion over whether nuclear is a viable option and the debate has once again reached a head. Do the potential dangers, waste and legacy left from these power plants outweigh the colossal amounts of power that could be generated from nuclear fuel?

Before plunging head first into the debate, I think it is important to know some facts about Nuclear energy and why it is used. Firstly, we have to look at the current state of the energy industry, and our reliance on fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas. In the UK alone, there are around 70 fossil fuel power stations currently operating, providing the majority of the UKs power. Only 7 Nuclear reactors are currently operating, and renewable energy such as wind turbines, tidal power and biomass only provides a tiny fraction of the power that fossil fuel reactors are capable. We are so reliant, in fact, that should all fossil reactors be shut down we would need to construct roughly 30 more nuclear reactors operating at around 2000MW to meet the current power requirements.

A recent study from scientists at the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre in London believes that our oil production will have reached a peak this year. As known reserves of oil begin to dry up, there will be a race between the major companies to claim what little oil there is left, thus increasing the rate of depletion even further. Within the next 15-20 years, there will be very little, if any, oil left. In order to preserve the precious black gold, we need to look elsewhere when it comes to fuelling power plants. Coal is simply out of the question now; the amount of waste and harmful gasses produced from the coal fired plant severely damages the atmosphere and health of anyone unfortunate enough to be living near one. And since our natural gas reserves are being depleted and even used for oil extraction, we are realistically left with two options; Renewable energy, and nuclear.

We all know how wind turbines, hydroelectricity and biomass works. And we know that unfortunately the amount of power produced from these methods is significantly less than the power produced from fossil fuels. However, there is much misconception and mystery surrounding nuclear energy. A number of people I have spoken to have absolutely no idea how power can be produced from nuclear fuel or what happens in the event of a meltdown. It is this uncertainty, as it has been prevalent during the ongoing Fukushima crisis that polarizes the debate between pro and anti nuclear preference.

Nuclear fission is the process that extracts energy from a heavy and naturally fissile element, such as uranium. In order to do this, you must breakdown the nucleus of the atom by bombarding it with a smaller sub atomic particle, causing the nucleus to change. When the nucleus of a uranium atom splits, it produces a lot of thermal energy. This energy can be used to heat water to create steam, and ultimately power a turbine to create electricity. A nuclear reaction is a chain reaction; once it starts you cannot stop it altogether, you can only control it. As the reaction progresses over time, more heat is produced and more radioactive elements are emitted so it is important to regulate this by keeping the overall temperature down using water as a coolant. Control rods made from boron are used to ‘interfere’ with the reaction. Boron absorbs the neutrons emitted from the uranium, helping to control the reaction. However, it will not keep the temperature of the reactor down. If the uranium rods are exposed to air, they react faster and produce more heat which is why it is so important to keep the rods submerged at all times. Should the cooling process be compromised, you could potentially end up with a meltdown.

Imagine filling and boiling a kettle for a cup of coffee. The element inside the kettle reaches a certain temperature and then cuts out, leaving you with boiling water and steam. This temperature is regulated to a degree by the water inside; should you boil the kettle continually with no water, then the element inside will burn through the plastic case of the kettle. Replace the element of the kettle with uranium rods and the plastic cover with steel reinforced concrete and the same process will happen on a grander scale. This is a meltdown; it is not a nuclear explosion however it is just as dangerous. Explosions at nuclear plants are caused by a build up of pressure within the core. This is usually vented harmlessly into the atmosphere. However, if the uranium rods are exposed to air, there will be a build up of hydrogen inside the core. If large quantities of hydrogen react with oxygen in the air, it will explode so venting this becomes very dangerous. A steam explosion could occur, rupturing the outer containment of the reactor and the reactor building. However, this could prevent a total meltdown of the core, as we have witnessed at the Fukushima plant.

With regards to the current Fukushima incident, the facts are continually shown to us through the news and there is a continual comparison with the Chernobyl accident that seems to be causing so much uncertainty. Of course there is always the possibility of a meltdown; it should never be ruled out. However, the public seem more glued to the screens and the blanket coverage of the crisis rather than taking it upon themselves to do the research. Dr Josef Oehman, a scientist working with MIT in the US, has posted a thread online explaining why he believes the reactor will not meltdown in a Chernobyl style incident, and how the radiation currently emitted from the damaged reactor will not be harmful to humans, since the majority of radioactive elements released including the noble gasses decay within seconds. Other scientists are more concerned, saying that so long as fuel rods are exposed to air there is always a potential for a meltdown. We know that the pool surrounding the old rods are drying up, but the Japanese authorities are doing everything they can to keep water levels at reasonable levels.

But what the public are failing to understand above all is that this is a crisis caused by an enormous earthquake and tsunami; a freak weather event that knocked out the auxiliary power systems that meant coolant could not flow to the reactor. A chain of unfortunate events led to the disaster that under normal working conditions would never have happened. The majority of Japan’s power plants use nuclear fuel, and no other plant has been in trouble to the same extent as the one at Fukushima. So perhaps there is an argument when it comes to building reactors in volatile regions. The one thing that has been most troubling with this incident, however, is the ineptitude of the Japanese authorities communicating with the power companies and the international community. Across the Pacific, US pharmacists are running low on iodine tablets as the public believe that the radioactive particles from the plant will actually affect them. And in China, stocks of salt tablets are running low as the public are misinformed that this will protect you from radiation sickness. The record must be set straight.

This confliction in theory undermines the facts and leads to uncertainty, so the public tend to take a cautious view when thinking about nuclear power. I believe that nuclear should not be used as a long term solution to our problems; however it really is the only viable option alongside renewable energy in the short term. Cynics will argue that the power companies operating the plants are deliberately withholding information when it comes to renewable sources in order to make more money. However, there is so much money in renewable energy, with solar panels, small wind turbines and biomass fuel that it is economically and environmentally more friendly for the consumer, and the corporations. But we need nuclear to power our infrastructure while the changes are made; changes such as new homes being built with the ability to produce their own energy from renewable sources.

While many people will disagree with my stance on nuclear energy, particularly while events in Japan continue to unfold, most would agree that there needs to be more clarity and understanding when it comes to nuclear energy. If you want to read the thread from Dr Josef Oehman, you can read it here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

Music Progression Gone Stale

The following link is a piece I wrote looking at the current state of music; how it has developed over the years and how it is, in my opinion, reaching a dead end in terms of revolutionary genres and acts. This is partly down to the (lack of) social and cultural revolution, technological advances and possibly due to a 'comfort zone' that many artists and producers are afraid to stray from.

It was written for a website, 'Dreaming Genius'; a site 'committed to creating a watering hole for independent creative talent'. I would strongly urge anybody who is interested in independent film, writing and creative arts to get involved and contribute.

http://www.dreaminggenius.com/2011/03/has-music-reached-dead-end-in.html

Why I hate iPhones

DISCLAIMER – This piece might leave you pissed off.

Anyone who knows me well will know that I have a strong hate of iPhones. These smug little gadgets gnaw away at my brain like some pestilent disease whenever I see a room full of them. Whenever anyone challenges my opinion I usually struggle to put into words just how much I hate them. So anyone who wants to know why I hate them so much and why my opinion about these is so against the grain then read on. If you’re the sort of person who is easily offended or might actually consider ritually burning the thing after you have digested this then you have been warned.

iPhones are technically brilliant things. They look sleek, and have a crisp, clear, and relatively user friendly touchscreen. And, it is not made by Microsoft so you don’t have to wait an eternity for the thing to boot and it won’t inconveniently shut itself off just for it to update its software. There are a few minor issues when it comes to uploading music to the device and trying to set music as a ringtone or whatever but that is a trait of buying something from a company that is desperately trying to assert itself as THE market brand for all things technological. The HD video camera is good, the screen is big enough, it’s quite heavy so you know when it’s in your pocket and from what I hear the after care service is pretty good. Great stuff, but it still does not make me warm to it.

For a start, the iphone is so pretentious if it actually had a voice and an arse it would demand to be licked at every possible opportunity. It’s called an ‘i’Phone for fucks sake. Straightaway I’m thinking of socio connotations. It sounds like it should be a high maintenance, self centred, early twenty something’s, preppy right wing toffs remote control into a more perfect and elitist existence. But the more I’ve thought about it the more I’m thinking about a mentally deficient child who’s just figured out how to call their mother in the next room: “Look mummy!!...iiiiii-Phooooonnnnne yooouuuuuuuu!!!”

Apps, like all games are a way of escapism. At least if you’re in the company of other app users then you can escape reality together as you slash pieces of fruit with your finger, or projectile two dimensional creatures, destroying some scaffolding, and believing that they are in some way saving the virtual species of some pissed off birds. So I have rebranded apps with a new term: Conversation Replacement Apathy Products, or Crap for short. More and more useless and malignant Crap can be downloaded for free or for a small price. And the primary function of this isn’t done to help pass time by some new creative means, it’s so the user can show off their new Crap finds with mates like some pioneering virtual Crap explorer.

If you don’t have an iPhone, then that makes you a loser. No two ways about it. A new Nokia N8 or HTC just isn’t cool enough I’m afraid. Even though you get nearly exactly the same Crap as an iPhone you are alienated from the masses and pitied like some ageing, arthritic dog begging not to be put down. There is no way in to the VIP section of the iPhone elite until you get one; your just left breathing heavily and your nose pressed hard against the window looking into some morbid virtual dreamworld. “What the fuck is Angry Birds all about, please tell me more? Have I seen the Crap that ages you? Yes, I’ve got the picture on my Facebook somewhere, it made me laugh for about 30 seconds before I had to remind myself that because I don’t have an iPhone I’m not allowed to be amused by it. Instead I’m far too poor and stressed so I make do by smoking ten a day in the hope I’ll have REAL crows’ feet appearing soon.”

The problem for me is that I really have no need for an iPhone and all the promises of downloadable Crap. But this means I’ll have no common ground with the iPhoners. All I want in a phone is something that will easily connect to the internet, reads e-mails, takes basic pictures and text. Oh, and of course makes phone calls, something that the latest generation of iPhones seems to struggle with.

Apparently the genius designers at Apple did not take into account that some mentally superior and articulate individuals in the world are left handed. The iPhone 4 has a stainless steel case which acts as the antenna of the phone itself. By holding the phone in the bottom left hand corner you effectively ‘bridge’ the gap between two sections of the antenna therefore cutting reception. Apple claim that all mobile phones have sensitive areas where firm contact may possibly interfere with a phones performance. Well if they knew this, why didn’t they think to resolve the issue before releasing it for sale? Oh yeah, silly me. They can make more money from it by selling rubber johnnies to go around the phone.

I love the irony in that telephones were designed to make communication easier, yet the iPhone has done the complete polar opposite. Not only has it not addressed a major technical issue with the reception, but if you sit in a room full of iPhone users talking to each other about real life issues, then at some stage the conversation reaches a brief period of awkward silence where perhaps reality becomes just a little too scary. Then they will simultaneously get their iPhones out to escape the nightmare before it gets too much, and you are left to make your own entertainment with your pathetic Nokia. But for all non iPhone users you can take pleasure in the knowledge that for the next 15 minutes while you are alienated from this ritual, you will remain psychologically and mentally pure while they will all become absorbed in their Crap.

Liberalism, not 'Multiculturalism'.

David Cameron has spoken out over how ‘Multiculturalism’ has ruined Britain.

The timing of these words could not have been worse. The revolution across Egypt and his plea for a transition to a ‘westernized’ democracy seriously devalued the shit coming from his mouth. It seems our imperialist ideals in telling the rest of the world how to behave are a little hard to shake. Oh, and the statement was made, as our very own ironic Nazi group stages one of its largest demonstrations in Luton on Saturday. Cue anger and allegations of propaganda for the English Defence League from the far left.

Mr Cameron’s statement is certainly radical, and a change from the previous, so called ‘softly softly’ approach to the number one divisive issue.

He believes that ethnic minorities are living secular lives from the rest of society, and are failing to assimilate into our culture. Yeah, fair point. The cause for all this, apparently, is because ethnic minorities are not prepared to learn and accept British values and beliefs. Erm, hang on...

In his speech he talks about the need for a new policy of ‘muscular liberalism’. Aside from sounding like the physical after-effects of a severe stroke, it is a typically British and moody style of liberalism where the apparent open minded individual doesn't care for another opinion. A ‘muscular liberalism’ policy means that anyone coming to the UK would be forced to learn English, accept our laws and our right to freedom of speech (which we don’t have). To me, this doesn’t sound particularly liberal. ‘By all means come and live among us, but leave your heritage and beliefs at the door’.

Paul Vallely, writing for the Independent, effectively sums up the problem with these new liberal types. He says: “Multiculturalism was never popular with the Little Englanders of the right. But in recent years it has increasingly been attacked by the liberal left...

“(after 9/11) many of those who like to think of themselves as liberals then began exhibiting a new intolerance, demanding that minorities should assimilate more. Multiculturalism must not be allowed, as the Prime Minister now says, to encourage different cultures to live separate lives, sometimes behaving in ways that run counter to ‘our’ values.”

Aside from multiculturalism, what are ‘our’ values? A society that polices the world to our benefit, licks the arse of America and pays gross sums of money to a head of state who does fuck all?

I think the problem does not lie with policies set out previously by new Labour. Many people, including these ‘muscular liberals’ like to think that they are accommodating and prepared to accept and learn about other cultures. However, the idea that these minorities should integrate into our system is verging on monoculturalist, and the notion will breed further secularity within our society.

Mr Cameron refers to ‘state multiculturalism’ as the catalyst for ethnic minorities to live separately from the rest of society. Minority groups have always tried to integrate within our society. However many British nationals have been so unaccommodating towards minority groups that they are forced to live in segregation.

The race riots in St Pauls, Bristol, is one argument supporting this. Bristol has the largest Somalian minority population living in the UK. St Pauls, in Bristol, was one of the most deprived areas of the city, and the neglect of buildings and a lack of community services there meant that it became a residency for black and white working class individuals. On April 2 1980, a riot broke out in St Pauls after growing apathy at the state of the borough and the alienation of its residents, particularly the black youth. 25 people were hospitalised and 130 people were arrested. Understandably, tensions would remain high between the residents and the police for years to come.

The next morning, The Daily Telegraph carried the headline “19 Police Hurt in Black Riot”.

This is exactly the sort of mentality that needs to change if minority groups are to successfully integrate within society. Or, is this the sort of mentality that needs to change if WE are to successfully integrate with other cultures?

In an attempt to gently introduce this issue, Cameron cites extremism as the fundamental issue causing the division. However, Islamic extremism has only come to the forefront of society and minorities have had difficulty integrating long before 9/11. The problem lies with nationalist, narrow minded individuals afraid of anything that is not white, bland and made in China.

It is not multiculturalism we should be defending, it is liberalism.

Stop Press...... No really I mean it, It's stopping.

Picture the scene; it’s the last Saturday of the month and you’ve just been paid. You’re off to Tesco to do your weekly shop, list in hand and trolley in tow. What is the first thing on that list? Coincidentally, it’ll more than likely be the first thing you see as you pass through the automatic doors. Not the fruit and veg or the tobacco counter, but the paper stands; laden with the weekend editions of every major name in the press.

You might argue that Saturday may become the only day in the week you will be able to buy a newspaper, because sales are falling dramatically. The once rock solid, celebrated and reliable institution that is the British newspaper is fading into the mire, to be replaced as a result of the internet and new media smug such as smart phones and i-pads to name a couple.

The recession is part of the reason why newspapers are struggling. Larger newsrooms are becoming smaller, with many jobs that have been previously undertaken by a several skilled journalists being merged together to be undertaken by one or two employees. Many of the local papers are relying heavily on sponsored articles from local businesses to fill space, meaning more advertising revenue for the paper just to stay afloat. However, as long as there is a dedicated readership to local news, I see no reason why these papers cannot continue.

But why take the time to pay for a newspaper when you can simply download or stream news from the web without paying a penny?

A lot can be said for newspapers being a statement of ‘identity’, the two polar examples being the over righteous, free and liberty loving Guardian and the racist, homophobic, narrow minded and misinformed ‘asylum seekers are the same as illegal immigrants’ Daily Mail and it’s little bitch sister The Express. As soon as you hand the money over the counter and take your paper you are making a statement of identity, and being the vain individuals we all are we like to show this off. Can’t really do that in front of a monitor.

So why is the circulation of papers in such decline? You cannot solely attribute this to the recession, because newspaper sales have been dropping for a long time before the credit crunch. You may argue that since the demographic of the country is getting older, newspapers are now really only being bought by the older generation while younger people will be streaming news from online sources and their mobile phones.

Talking to the Independent, the BBC’s head of news, Helen Boaden said:

“...you have got a lot of people who are traditional newspaper readers who will continue the habit they have had over a lifetime. The challenge is how to keep those people happy whilst bringing in a new audience of people who have infinite amounts of choice in terms of where they get their information.”

She is saying that news gathering is habitual and applicable to one’s environment. If an adolescent spends most of their time during the day sat gaming and masturbating in front of a PC, then the chances are they will be satisfying their news appetites from online sources. Yet older people have always taken the time to buy a newspaper every day, so why would that need to change?

However, while she is suggesting we satisfy the needs for a new generation of consumers through more online and digital mediums of publishing news, we need to keep the older generations happy. But surely if we focus on bringing news to a new generation of people via digital means, then once the older generation have gone newspapers will become obsolete anyway since our younger generation have gotten into the habit of acquiring news through online sources?

Because of this, newspapers are considering shifting more of their content online to attract younger readers. Of course, the issue is ‘how do we make money from this?’

Darth Murdoch has already set the wheels in motion to start charging for all of his online content, such as The Times and News of the World. Readers would be expected to subscribe to these sites in order to read so called ‘quality journalism’(News of the World, really?!). He argues that: “The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free.” While this will no doubt get up the noses of many readers, you have to wonder whether this may become the only way to keep a major news organisation afloat.

News Corp, owned by Murdoch, had suffered a massive £2 billion net loss in the financial year up until June two years ago, prior to charging for online news. A significant plummet in commercial revenue was partly to blame, again raising the question as to why fewer people are buying newspapers. Of course, there would need to be significant litigation in place to prevent the copying of news articles and photographs. Why bother paying for these when they have been published on another site, free of charge?

I should mention at this point, however, that there are two exceptions to the recent trend. In figures published a while back by ABC, The Daily Mail and The Star are examples where paper sales have slowly increased.

The Star has now become the cheapest national daily, with a cover price of only 20p. Sales rose year on year and the figures for last December (just after News Corps financial loss announcement) were up 8% to nearly 785,000 copies sold. An increase in advertising and an extraordinarily low price for the paper has proved successful. However The Star would probably be the only paper that could get away with a massive price drop since they are essentially informative comics that also act as low cost convergence of soft porn and toilet paper.

The Daily Mail is the other enigma. The fascist shits who run it managed an incredible circulation figure across the same time period of nearly 2,115,000 units. Regardless of how I personally feel about the newspaper, you have to admire them for how they keep such a high readership despite the financial crisis hitting the industry. You might agree that the newspaper is the most militant of all national dailies; the language and extraordinarily right wing bias this paper has could explain why it has such a loyal readership. Since most of the people reading the Mail have done so most of their lives and treat it as a modern day imperialist bible, why jump ship now?

The success of free newspapers may also have something to do with the decline of the major dailies. Steve Auckland, of the Press Association said: “If you look at the growth of free newspapers and put that on top of the decline of paid-fors I think we are still ahead of the game. There's a hell of a lot more people reading newspapers in London than there were going back even two months.” Commenting on the freebie London paper, The Metro, he says: “That's where Metro has been successful, it's a young, urban, travelling audience and it's fulfilling a need for that audience at that place and time. We don't want older readers and we don't want young kids.”

He also talks about the success of The Daily Mail and attributes its success to its right wing bias as I have mentioned before: “The ones that have got a clear definition as to what their market is are the ones that will survive. Love it or like it the Daily Mail has a very strong market, it has a right-wing bias and it really targets that quite heavily. It's getting that niche and really working it.”

So perhaps the success of newspapers lie in the audiences they are targeting. The magazine industry has not been hit as hard as newspapers, and perhaps this is because every magazine targets a niche in the market; a small and dedicated following that will do anything to get there fix on whatever interests them. Since newspapers have traditionally relied on political bias as their hook for audiences, and will inevitably continue to do so, maybe a subtle shift in how the news and the sort of news these papers deliver is the key to newspapers’ survival?