As the World Turns: Who Shall We Believe? The Greedy? The Media?

Let us see the Light

It never ceases to amaze  how stories and events  evolve  in unexpected ways, even 'nonchalantly'  with all  the conflicting, inaccurate, and missing  information that eventually comes to light.    At times,  it seems that lies,  partial truths, overcautious withholding of information, failure to  release important information entirely, or zealous control of information -- skews  and spins valuable information out of context and control,  both when given to the media,  and then again when passed on to the public by  media  that at times,  itself is even intentionally misled by venerable leaders, officials  and perhaps others with questionable motive.

After any huge disaster when desperate rescue efforts must be conducted to rescue the general population there is  understandably worry, confusion, fear, and hurried misunderstanding --caused by intent or not.  

By the very nature of such events,  the disruption or destruction of infrastructure and communications,  reports from different authorities and agencies  may not always coincide.  Decades ago, that used to be the case only  because it was problematic or impossible to communicate when transportation,   services and "land lines" were destroyed,  but modern society now has cell phones and portable satellite communications systems for news services. 
Why is more accurate information not available?
Is that glaring contradiction one of the main causes of  the  public  distrust of "officialdom" and the media? 

Within the media there  always remains  a responsibility to report responsibly and  avoid the creation  more fear and  panic, but it seems logical that with  a major nuclear story seemingly headed in the direction  of and even exceeding Three Mile Island  (even Chernobyl ? ) ,  a current  major event such as  Japan's ongoing  nuclear dilemma  should require information be directed  accurately to the public at all times.  
With ever more serious consequences developing,  the horrific catastrophe unfolding in Japan  quickly captured the attention of the whole world, and understandably so. The Japanese catastrophe has unfolded to be clearly an exceptional and dangerous historical event with very long-term implications. 
   Unbelievable damage caused by the quake and ensuing tsunami now has implications that remain virtually incalculable .
  Six operating nuclear power generating plants, one of them containing plutonium-enriched fuel,  suffered major damage,  including damage to critical  power systems that provided necessary cooling not only for the active reactors themselves, but for a huge water-pond storage system that stores thousands of  "spent" fuel rods  (or  did ?)--at least until recently.  For the uninformed, spent (used) fuel rods remain highly radioactive for years and must be stored carefully to avoid overheating and exposure to air, which can cause radioactive materials to be released into the air.
  At the nuclear plants, there have already been 3 major hydrogen explosions,  storage pond fires,  and failure to cool the melting reactor cores  in spite of last-ditch emergency flooding with sea water, water bombing using helicopters, fire trucks and water cannons.  Dangerously overheated reactor cores have been exposed,  dry,  partially melted.  A partial meltdown  or meltdown(s) have already occurred.
We already know there has been major releases of radioactive materials, but reports of the official "danger" and levels of radiation being  measured differ substantially.  With world Atomic Energy associations, why should there be any question?
Although already having evacuated more than 500,000 people and are advising staying more than 20km from the  nuclear hot-spot,  Japanese officials  have finally admitted it is far more serious than previously thought. 
 U.S. and  other nuclear experts were advising a range of more than 80 km and countries are advising their nationals to leave Japan. 
Why the big discrepancy? Why is it so difficult for officials everywhere to come clean, correlate data with one another, and admit the true nature of the problem immediately?  
Do owners and officials  of operating nuclear power plants not want to accept responsibility for bad design and failure?  Now that the disaster is unfolding, and they are    in charge of a dragon that escaping  their control, will  they now deny culpability, and  admit lack of capability to control the potential disaster in it's entirety?   
Who shall we believe?  The greedy, the frightened, or the media?  Perhaps we should take careful note that it is the greedy and powerful that build and operate these  potential disasters.
To be clear, we at Incoming Bytes shall  not point fingers at the Japanese as a nation.  Japan is far from alone in this phenomenon;  around the world,  nuclear plants have had leaks, accidents, and failures and will continue to do so because that is what they do.   They are mechanical systems;  it is not IF they will fail, but WHEN.  
The world must now face that reality and change course. 
When clean solar energy and wind energy is freely available, what has  compelled  humanity to ignore common sense and use  problematic, dangerous and dirty nuclear plants that produce dangerous, dirty waste products that must be stored forever?  The answer is simple. Greed.
 I offered a comment following the previous post: 

"Where big money is concerned, it seems there is little genuine concern for the results of their money-making schemes, no matter how much pollution or how many potential problems they may cause." 
 An immediate response from a very astute reader  summed it up perfectly:  

  "Selfish motives impact whole civilizations. And its time we wake up to defending our lives that are at the mercy of a handful". 

   As the world turns,  it is becoming more apparent that civilization in it's entirety may now be forced to  forever pay the  gargantuan and endless  economic and human costs of these disasters,  --and  only now at the very last moment in civilization,   try to discourage and disengage  a  foolish  energy policy that was followed only to satiate the endless greed of "a handful".   

So be it. We CAN do it.  We HAVE to do it.

US Subsidizes Leaf: The Green Dinosaur with Old battery technology

Nissan Leaf

See the picture?  I think this is a nice looking  car,  don't you ? 
Great design, but sadly, the battery technology it uses  is already a dinosaur.  It only goes 100 miles (160km)  between time-consuming battery charges in slow city driving. 
As compensation for new owners with huge expectations,  it does, however, have Satellite radio as standard equipment. 
Wow.  That’s just what every car owner needs,  fluff and techy-toys  on a  fancy vehicle  that lacks  basic  substance and performance ability!
It is nice and shiny, though, it's made by Nissan.  It even  has a “green” name. The Nissan Leaf.  The first one has just been sold in California.  It is inevitable the “Leaf”  will be touted as being  “zero emissions”-- being an “electric car” having a battery and an electric motor instead of a gasoline engine.  It’s green, but make no mistake about it,  it is a pretty green dinosaur.  Why?
In case you were headed out the door to buy one, slam on the brakes for a minute.  At Incoming BYTES not long ago,  ( see  Dec.16/10  North America, rent this idea !)   you will have already discovered there is FAR better electric vehicle  battery technology available.


Since we at Incoming BYTES seem to  be apprised of this new technology,  millions of other people must be similarly aware.  Does  “Corporate-Automotive” North America access the internet?   Of course they do, and they are fully aware of DBM battery technology,  but it looks like they  hope nobody has noticed. 
 If that is the case,  what are the dinosaurs in the boardrooms really doing?  Does  the North American Automotive power structure believe North American consumers are totally gullible?
It is, once again, time to ask pointed questions.
Is the “existing dinosaur battery  technology” -however inefficient it IS,  to be “used up and paid for” by the unsuspecting public  before any “new and better technology"  is allowed into automotive production?
As an aside, there is precedent for that possibility.  Consider the case of  high-tech “LED” lighting which is available, but has conveniently been outrageously overpriced and put aside for less efficient CFLs,  compact florescent light bulbs-- that contain poisonous  mercury.  Why?   CFLs    replaced “inefficient, wasteful  incandescent lighting.”   Maybe it just was the fact that  CFL’s are made in China, made where environmental controls are lax and labour is cheap.  Profitable.  
Regardless, LED technology uses no polluting mercury as compact florescent bulbs do, do not wear out, and are far more efficient lighting than CFLs.   Sadly, once again, we wait for the “conversion of the industry” to a new high-tech LED  standard, the COST being, that now North America is forced to deal with millions upon millions  of polluting CFL bulbs in landfills, or recycle them. 
Is  the unsuspecting public, actually being forced to “use up” and   pay for the “ dirty technology”  of CFL’s before we shall be “allowed” to buy clean, highly efficient  LED lighting?  
Okay, I digress, but you get the point.  Is a similar scenario taking place with the Leaf and  electric car technology?  Logic suggests it, too, is being manipulated.   Far better battery  technology already exists.   The fact that DBM battery technology in Europe  has already proven an electric vehicle can go 375 miles (600km) at highway speed on a six-minute charge without being tweaked  seems to have been conveniently overlooked  in the auto sector of North America.    What are they smoking in automotive board rooms?   Shall we laugh insanely now, or later?
What are the other possibilities with electric vehicles?
Has the long arm of the petroleum industry decided to make the “Leaf” look as  inefficient as possible to prolong the life of the dirty, gasoline-guzzling internal combustion motor?
  Are  lobbyists involved, and bribery?    Is the  industry  holding out to use fuel cells and  natural gas instead of gasoline, nothing less than a similarly  foolish, interim waste of technology  and  time?   How about hydrogen technology -which has been stifled?
 Going straight to electric vehicles, at what cost to the environment will the automotive  industry manufacture and install  millions of inefficient, old-technology automotive batteries when high-performance, high-efficiency lithium metal polymer batteries can be used, offering an astoundingly huge  clear-cut advantage both to the consumer and the environment?
Is the government really  part of the problem here?  The Leaf  “only” costs $33,000 USD retail,   but the happy “Go Green” US government will reportedly subsidize Leaf  buyers a flashy $7500.00   when they purchase the green dinosaur.  
That $7500.00 is about 21% of the cost of the new car !  Quite an “incentive” isn’t it?
Let us interpret what is really happening .  The net result of this subsidy could be merely  another automotive bailout.
That US subsidy will  translate to an estimated 7 or 8 Billion dollar taxpayer subsidy ,  -- and you, the lucky  taxpayers of the United States of America, will pay for it.
 You are, logically, seemingly,  subsidizing the Auto industry yet again  –to pay for  old technology,  old design and old infrastructure. “Let’s use it up, regardless of cost, shall we?” 
It makes no difference if the government gives YOU the big cheque for $7500.00 or if they hand it directly to the automotive giants.    By direct subsidy to the buyer or not, the money clearly ends up in automotive coffers, and you end up with a dinosaur parked in your driveway.  
With planned obsolescence, when “new technology batteries” become available, you can rest assured they will not “fit” the Leaf....for the same  prescribed reason.  We do not have to guess why.   
Will  the Canadian government  be far behind to give Canadian  taxpayer dollars  away in similar subsidies to bribe consumers into buying equally inefficient, low-tech-battery  electric vehicles ? I hope Canadians are smarter than that.
The fact is, regardless of location or country, electricity costs, whether it be from hydro electric, coal-burning generation, nuclear or solar energy- so let us use it wisely in the most efficient automotive electric vehicles possible.  

 A nice-looking  car with “free” Satellite radio or not, this strategy  is unacceptable use of limited resources in our already-strained world.  North America  needs to get off of petroleum, develop a solar strategy for production of electricity, and use mineral resources with restraint.   
Let us cut to the chase and use the best possible electrical battery technology at the lowest environmental cost possible. We encourage the reader to be informed, decide which path is better, and spend your automotive dollars  accordingly–and wisely.