Post by thedogsdanglybits on Jul 3, 2005 23:46:43 GMT
Thought it'd be fun to post this email string.
----- Original Message -----
From: <pj@************.com>
To: "NewsOnline" <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Feedback [NewsWatch]
> Jonathan,
> Reading your article left me with a choice of two conclusions.
> 1/. It was an exercise in cut & paste journalism lifted straight from the
> CoRwm website by someone with a very hazy understanding of the issues.
> 2/. The article intentionally set out to mislead and cause concern amongst
> the public who rely on the BBC's chartered obligations to educate & inform.
> The vast majority of people reading the words 4300 m3 of plutonium will
> understand you to mean 4300 m3 of plutonium, especially when you provide no
> link to the CoRWM website from where the qualifications you have set out
> below are available.
> Which interpretation would you prefer?
> As to the tone of my correspondence, I tend to reserve civility for those who
> perform their jobs with professional ability and diligence and don't try to
> mislead the public.
> The staff at Tesco? No praise is sufficient for their endeavours. On the
> other hand they arn't trying to convince me that the weight quoted on the side of a
> packet of fish fingers should include the weight of the store they're sold in.
>
> Pete James
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "NewsOnline" <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>
> To: <thedog@thedogsdanglybits.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]
>
>
> Pete
> The figures are storage volumes as categorised by the Committee on
> Radioactive Waste Management. You can check them on the CoRWM website.
> The misunderstanding on BBCbias is to assume the volumes refer only to
> the elements and not their oxide forms, nor the liquid or ceramic matrix
> in which they are held. Radioactive elements (and you can argue whether
> plutonium is a waste because it has the potential to be used again)
> cannot be stored on their own, and any long-term solution that deals
> with these materials has to take into account the containment materials
> that are the first line of defence against leakage. The picture at the
> top of the page is one illustration of temporary containment: vitrified
> waste inside a steel drum. The actual radioactive material will form
> only a fraction of this total volume.
>
> A personal plea. I am very happy to deal with any queries made about
> the Science/Nature section of the BBC News website. I start from the
> basis that there are always people out there who know more than me; and
> I expect and encourage the scientific community to notify us when we get
> it wrong - as we are bound to do; no one is perfect. All the
> interviewees we approach to write our pages are urged to read our
> finished material and tell us if they spot a factual error; and the same
> is true of our readers, many of whom will have considerably more
> experience and knowledge on particular subjects because of their
> professional work. However, I would be grateful if, when you write to
> me again, you could use language more in tone with civil correspondence.
> Everyone, including the hard-working staff at my local Tescos, should
> reasonably expect that :-)
>
> With thanks for your mail, time and interest.
>
> Jonathan Amos
> Assistant Editor, Science and Nature
> BBC News Interactive
> www.bbcnews.com/science
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thedog@thedogsdanglybits.com [mailto:thedog@thedogsdanglybits.com]
>
> Sent: 13 June 2005 19:54
> To: NewsOnline Errors
> Subject: Feedback [NewsWatch]
>
>
> From: pete james
> Email address: thedog@thedogsdanglybits.com
> Country:
>
> COMMENTS: I don't suppose you want to comment on this post to:
> www.bbcbias.co.uk do you ? It only took me about 5 minutes to do the
> research and math. Criticising you lot is getting to be like shooting
> fish in a barrel these days. Where do you find your journalists? The
> Jobcentre after Tesco has had the cream for shelf-stackers?
>
> "Anyone wanting to enjoy BBC statistics on nuclear waste should visit
> news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...ure/ 4407421.stm for some stunning
> figures. According to the little box on the right the UK currently hosts
> 5600% of the world's plutonium taking the density of plutonium at
> 19800Kg per m3 ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium ) and the total
> world stock at 1500 tonnes ( www.isis-online.org/
> publi...uwatch2000.html ) As for Uranium, we seem to have accumulated
> 1,428,750 tonnes of the stuff, enough to keep the entire world's nuclear
> reactors running for the next tweny years or so.
> Clever Tories ?"
>
> ROTFLMHO
> PJ
> thedogsdanglybits | 13.06.05 - 7:48 pm | pete james,
>
> URL: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...ure/ 4407421.stm
----- Original Message -----
From: <pj@************.com>
To: "NewsOnline" <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Feedback [NewsWatch]
> Jonathan,
> Reading your article left me with a choice of two conclusions.
> 1/. It was an exercise in cut & paste journalism lifted straight from the
> CoRwm website by someone with a very hazy understanding of the issues.
> 2/. The article intentionally set out to mislead and cause concern amongst
> the public who rely on the BBC's chartered obligations to educate & inform.
> The vast majority of people reading the words 4300 m3 of plutonium will
> understand you to mean 4300 m3 of plutonium, especially when you provide no
> link to the CoRWM website from where the qualifications you have set out
> below are available.
> Which interpretation would you prefer?
> As to the tone of my correspondence, I tend to reserve civility for those who
> perform their jobs with professional ability and diligence and don't try to
> mislead the public.
> The staff at Tesco? No praise is sufficient for their endeavours. On the
> other hand they arn't trying to convince me that the weight quoted on the side of a
> packet of fish fingers should include the weight of the store they're sold in.
>
> Pete James
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "NewsOnline" <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>
> To: <thedog@thedogsdanglybits.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]
>
>
> Pete
> The figures are storage volumes as categorised by the Committee on
> Radioactive Waste Management. You can check them on the CoRWM website.
> The misunderstanding on BBCbias is to assume the volumes refer only to
> the elements and not their oxide forms, nor the liquid or ceramic matrix
> in which they are held. Radioactive elements (and you can argue whether
> plutonium is a waste because it has the potential to be used again)
> cannot be stored on their own, and any long-term solution that deals
> with these materials has to take into account the containment materials
> that are the first line of defence against leakage. The picture at the
> top of the page is one illustration of temporary containment: vitrified
> waste inside a steel drum. The actual radioactive material will form
> only a fraction of this total volume.
>
> A personal plea. I am very happy to deal with any queries made about
> the Science/Nature section of the BBC News website. I start from the
> basis that there are always people out there who know more than me; and
> I expect and encourage the scientific community to notify us when we get
> it wrong - as we are bound to do; no one is perfect. All the
> interviewees we approach to write our pages are urged to read our
> finished material and tell us if they spot a factual error; and the same
> is true of our readers, many of whom will have considerably more
> experience and knowledge on particular subjects because of their
> professional work. However, I would be grateful if, when you write to
> me again, you could use language more in tone with civil correspondence.
> Everyone, including the hard-working staff at my local Tescos, should
> reasonably expect that :-)
>
> With thanks for your mail, time and interest.
>
> Jonathan Amos
> Assistant Editor, Science and Nature
> BBC News Interactive
> www.bbcnews.com/science
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thedog@thedogsdanglybits.com [mailto:thedog@thedogsdanglybits.com]
>
> Sent: 13 June 2005 19:54
> To: NewsOnline Errors
> Subject: Feedback [NewsWatch]
>
>
> From: pete james
> Email address: thedog@thedogsdanglybits.com
> Country:
>
> COMMENTS: I don't suppose you want to comment on this post to:
> www.bbcbias.co.uk do you ? It only took me about 5 minutes to do the
> research and math. Criticising you lot is getting to be like shooting
> fish in a barrel these days. Where do you find your journalists? The
> Jobcentre after Tesco has had the cream for shelf-stackers?
>
> "Anyone wanting to enjoy BBC statistics on nuclear waste should visit
> news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...ure/ 4407421.stm for some stunning
> figures. According to the little box on the right the UK currently hosts
> 5600% of the world's plutonium taking the density of plutonium at
> 19800Kg per m3 ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium ) and the total
> world stock at 1500 tonnes ( www.isis-online.org/
> publi...uwatch2000.html ) As for Uranium, we seem to have accumulated
> 1,428,750 tonnes of the stuff, enough to keep the entire world's nuclear
> reactors running for the next tweny years or so.
> Clever Tories ?"
>
> ROTFLMHO
> PJ
> thedogsdanglybits | 13.06.05 - 7:48 pm | pete james,
>
> URL: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...ure/ 4407421.stm