Fukushima in the News Again!

Fukushima hit the news headlines during the week, this time as a result of a leak of highly toxic and radioactive water stored on site after being used for cooling the reactors, following the melt down in 2011. So, once again we have a demonstration that, when it comes to nuclear, the risks cannot be managed!

Fukushima, in case you did not know, was the first ever, triple reactor core meltdown, which resulted in the contamination of tens of square kilometres of surrounding countryside with Strontium 90. What you probably are not aware of is that, here in the UK, the original incident demonstrated well the cavalier attitude of engineers and scientists. The following is what some senior engineers and scientists in the UK said:

“People have an irrational fear of radiation.”

“No one died (from exposure to radiation).”

“... in terms of a nuclear accident it showed what people can do in very trying circumstances ...”

“All the press focused on ... was a reactor puffing steam.”

“the material that has been emitted from Fukushima is not going to create long-term damage.”

“... there is nothing that happened there which should stop us having a nuclear ambition in Britain.”

"The Chinese are fortunate in having an authoritarian government—they can just build their reactors without having to be concerned about opposition."

“Fukushima changes nothing.”

“Germany's decision (to phase-out nuclear energy) was influenced by public opinion ... (not evidence and facts).”

“(Fukushima) was not another Chernobyl.”

“Our reactors are different …we have designed in features which means we would not be able to have the same event as happened in Japan.”

“Ratings of nuclear disasters that place Fukushima on a par with Chernobyl are misleading.”

Welcome to the lunatic asylum that is the modern world of science, technology and engineering! But why the collective denial of actual events? Why the attempt to downplay what was, without doubt, one of the most important events for the future of society in the 21st century? Why do scientists and engineers want people to believe that the Fukushima disaster was not really a significant event? Why the contempt for democratic process and public opinion? Why this authoritarian, experts know best approach? Why the … it can’t happen here mindset? Does the answer lie in an alignment of science and engineering with powerful economic vested interests? Is this evidence of lack of fitness for purpose? These matters are explored further in my short story, Encounter with a Wise Man and in my forthcoming first major novel called Moments in Time.

Readers should note that Fukushima was only the second civilian nuclear accident to warrant the highest possible rating of 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale. The scale judges the severity of nuclear events by their impact on people and the environment. The only other accident to be given this rating was Chernobyl (so much for reactors puffing stream!). For an explanation of what happened at Fukushima, the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, read the IEEE's blow-by-blow account: 24 Hours at Fukushima.

The question is not whether there will be another accident on the scale of Chernobly or Fukushima, but when and where it will occur. If you can reach an understanding of the reasons underlying this statement then you will have taken the first steps towards gaining insights into the core of what is wrong with modern science and engineering. 

Fukushima well demonstrates that the risks (associated with nuclear power) cannot be managed. Yet scientists and engineers continue with the delusion that the risks can be managed. But, the risk analysis is also incomplete, for with risks go consequences; when these are factored in, then the arguments for nuclear is lost. The risks are often declared to be low, but with nuclear the consequences are, as Fukushima demonstrates, unacceptable. There are only three reasons to support nuclear power – folly, delusion, and vested interest, and often the three can be found together.

The overriding message is that, here in the UK, there is a need to for an ethical transformation among scientists and engineers. Self-evidently at a global level, we also now need to start to develop a different approach to science, engineering and technology, founded on different values to those that currently shape the behaviour of people in these occupations. This is something that I am beginning to explore in my writings, so there will be more about this in future books, on my web site and in this blog. And if you think that a different approach is not possible, that there is only one best way to undertake science, engineering, and technology development – then you may have fallen into the mental trap of social Darwinism.

GM Animals – More about the Prometheus Syndrome!

BBC Countryfile transmitted an interesting and alarming item about GM animals on Sunday August 11th 2013. Centred on work being undertaken at the Roslin Institute in Scotland, pigs are being genetically modified to develop immunity to African Swine Fever. Apparently this is a disease that is spreading quickly, and has already reached Russia. Although not explicitly stated, the implication was that it will reach the shores of the UK in the near future. This is, without doubt, bad news for pigs, for it is a fatal and unpleasant disease, for which there is no vaccine and no cure.

Pigs in Africa, it was stated, have a natural immunity to the disease, hence the research at Roslin. So what’s the problem? Surely this is the right research to be undertaking?

The first problem is that the research is years away from arriving at a GM pig with immunity to African Swine Fever. Once the immunity is demonstrated there is matter of researching the longer term consequences, and, of course, obtaining regulatory approval. So, we are looking at possibly a 10 to 20 year timescale? So one must ask: why bother?

The answer to this latter question is straightforward: patents, money, publications, and the kudos that comes from undertaking groundbreaking research, and, the further research funding that follows. We live in a world where people act and advise in their own interests. So it is advisable that people should not participate in the delusion that scientists involved in this type of research are impartial, unbiased, and value free.

And what of other problems? The one of most concern is that these scientists do not understand what they are meddling with and may well be creating unforeseen problems for future generations. This is why, in my about to be released book, A Tale of Two Deserts, I call scientists, whatever the name their parents gave them at birth: Epimetheus (if you do not know Ancient Greek Mythology, Google “Epimetheus”). Of course, they, the (mad) scientists and their supporters will no doubt eventually say, that the risks can be managed. The meaning of this is something that I will address in a future blog, but you may be interested to know that this phrase is one that the central character in my forthcoming novel Moments in Time, says a lot, until that is, he learns the hard way, that the risks cannot be managed!

The essence of sustainability – sustainable agriculture – is that one does not, in our time, create problems for future generations. This has not been internalised by scientists, engineers and technologists, who bear a significant responsibility for the problems that the world now faces. And the answer to these problems does not lie in doing more of what has created the problems! We need new approaches to science, engineering and technology, and this means breaking those unbreakable chains that tie these people to the past. So we are back once more with the problem of the Prometheus Syndrome!

It is time to start peacefully opposing the madness of people meddling with that which they do not understand. We therefore need to push for research into a different way of dealing with these types of issues, while at the same time applying pressure to have this type of research stopped. If you are not aware, the Roslin Institute is funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). This means that it is spending UK taxpayers money on research that people in the UK should be asking questions about. So recall what I have said in previous blogs about using your vote, your wallet and your lifestyle choices to bring about peaceful change in the world.

The Silly Things UK Engineers Say!

I have just received the August issue of Professional Engineering. For those who do not know, this is the free monthly magazine that members of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers receive, and it is best described as a tabloid publication aimed at those looking for reinforcement of collective delusions and beliefs. Being poor quality it is not worth reading, but is often good for LOL moments. This issue delivers!

The first of these LOL moments is a letter from an engineer (always good for amusement) bemoaning the fact that underwriters do not include engineering as a profession among their lists of recognised professions. This might well be because engineering is not a profession but an occupation.

I am not saying that there are no engineers who adhere to the same high standards of behaviour as solicitors, physicians, and others, just that, most do not. The bulk of engineers are employees and do what their employers tell them to do, and many such people cause a lot of damage (e.g. to the environment), although most are blind to this – this is the problem when hubris takes hold. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to education and learning, standards of behaviour, ethics, intellectual ability, and so forth, the bulk of engineers come no way near to that which one finds in true professions. And let us not forget that, those engineers in the UK who have achieved professional registration (CEng and IEng) have no obligation to undertake a compulsory amount of Continuing Professional Development to maintain that registration.

So, learn to live with the fact that engineering is not a profession, or do something about making engineering a profession, which means, among other things, raising standards. It also means breaking free from the rock of the past, for if anyone is like Prometheus, it is engineers, who constantly reinvent the past and all its problems, and think, quite stupidly, that they are thought leaders – that’s one hell of a delusion!

The other LOL moment can be found in the commentary section of the publication, where an engineer actually writes “I would love to see to see some major engineering firms giving senior engineers sabbatical leave for five years to run for parliament.” Why for heavens sake would one do such a thing? Are these people incapable of running for parliament without special assistance? Perhaps they are handicapped in some way? Yes of course they are! I have just written about that handicap.

The fact that engineers do not on the whole participate in the political and democratic process speaks not of some handicap, but of an outlook, and having met thousands of engineers over the years, I am glad that there are not many such people to be found in politics, for most, sad to say, are social Darwinists at heart, and fundamentally bound up in a command and control mindset. I can easily imagine the hell on earth that such people would create. I recall one engineer who told me that broadcasters should be forced to transmit programmes extolling the virtues of engineers and what they do. There is a word for this – propaganda.

People usually go into politics to make the world a better place, because they are concerned about social justice, or ensuring that vested interests are prevented form getting their own way, or they want to help the disadvantaged, and so forth. Being a Member of Parliament (MP) is something to be done as a service to society, not to promote the standing of a particular occupation or professional. And certainly we do not want MPs beholden to major engineering firms and feeling obliged to speak for vested interests.

My point is that engineers are important to society, but let us not loose a sense of perspective – so are police officers, paramedics, local authority employees, etc. If engineers want to advance their standing in society they should start to improve themselves, and take a more independent and critical line when it comes to matters such as HS2, nuclear power, etc. And they can begin by stopping saying stupid things, which makes engineers look foolish. It would help also if bodies like the IMechE and the IET offered some leadership on all these matters instead of engaging in hubris and also making engineers look silly.

Bees and Neonicotinoids – The Prometheus Syndrome One More Time!

As I am researching and writing two books on agriculture, I was very interested in the BBC Horizon Special Programme that was transmitted on Friday August 2^nd 2013. Its title was “What’s Killing Our Bees?” The answer to this question, in brief, is that there are three possible candidates: Varroa mites; insecticides (in particular neonicotinoids); and agricultural practices. Self-evidently what is happening is complex and we need scientific research to help us to understand better what is actually happening. And this programme was full of various scientists explaining their research projects. So, well done the BBC, for presenting a balanced and informative programme, and for providing some of the scientists with opportunities to say things that point towards the hidden forces at play.

One of the valuable features of the internet and the web is that it is now very easy to do background checks on the people and the organisations that appear in TV programmes. Thus, one can add to the information that has been transmitted in a programme, and this sometimes puts matters in a completely different light.

Being quite interested in bees (my grandfather was a bee keeper) and quite enthralled with these beautiful and amazing insects, I wanted to know more about the research that is being undertaken. So I visited the web site of Rothamsted Research to read more about their research to understand the affects of the Varroa mites on bee behaviour. Here I learned that the research is supported by Syngenta, which, if you are not aware, is one of those large agrichemical/biotech multinationals that I have previously mentioned in my blogs.

Of course such companies are free to support research into bees, but let us be clear about this: they are not doing so because of a love of bees. What they want is information that can be used to support their vested interest, which is basically to sell as much insecticide as possible, and to ensure that they have a marketplace where this is possible. And the fact that they are supporting Rothamsted Research, will affect what people from this organisation will say, not just about Varroa mites, but also about neonicotinoids and other pesticides.

“What are you saying Paul? Surely you are not suggesting that the fact that Syngenta support research at Rothamsted, will influence what Rothamsted employees write and say, not just about the research that Syngenta supports, but also about other matters?” To which I would reply, if you want to believe that this is not the case, feel free to do so, but I suggest that you read the story of the emperor’s new clothes. We live in a world where, as I stated in my short story Encounter with a Wise Man, people advise in their own interest. Scientists are no different – they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. This is why it is important that we have freedom of speech and a free press, so that the vested interests of scientists, their employers and the scientific establishment are exposed, and a dose of reality is allowed to be added to that which scientists would have you believe.

And what of the Prometheus Syndrome? What can be seen in this programme, are several people tied to the past, who see the future as a more technologically advanced version of the past, even though that past is littered with case after case of damage resulting from the actions of people who are caught up in a collective delusion that they know what they are doing and that nature can be overpowered and controlled. And such people have a vested interest in keeping things that way, which is why I am advocating that ordinary people need to take control of their world, and ensure that these Promethians are isolated and marginalised, which also involves ordinary people becoming involved in creating the foundations for a new system of agriculture. And we are back also to my earlier messages: you have a vote, a wallet and the ability to make lifestyle choices, so use them.

GM Crops – Another case of the Prometheus Syndrome!

In June 2013 the British Government announced that it intends to convince the British public to accept Genetically Modified (GM) crops. They, the British Government that is, have already decided on the matter, and now, we, the public, have to accept these crops. I note immediately here that there is not to be a public debate about the possible damage GM crops may cause, in the longer term, to the natural world. No consideration is to be given to presenting the public with alternative technologies. No, this approach to public engagement in Science and Technology is strictly about getting the public to accept what the experts want you to accept. Very sophisticated indeed! And also, very much a characteristic of those suffering from what I have already written about in earlier blogs – the Prometheus Syndrome.

Many years ago I had a very insightful encounter with an agrichemical/biotech multinational. Here I learned firsthand the thinking that predominates in such companies and why we as ordinary members of the public, should peacefully resist these organisations. Words like hubris, arrogance, contempt, ignorance, greed, disingenuous, and so forth, come to mind when I recall the people that I had to deal with. Before this encounter, I had no strong views about GM crops, the use of pesticides, and organic farming. This is no longer the case, and whenever possible I now purchase organic produce, and always question and look for information about the source of food, and who is the producer.

So why is the British Government so biased? The answer is straightforward. Large multinationals have been working behind the scenes, using their vast wealth, to lobby the British Government to adopt policies that support the introduction of GM crops in the UK. And the reasons for this is clear – greed in the form of profits. What the Government is interested in however is the economy, in other words, economic growth and jobs, and ultimately this is what will predominate in all decisions that affect the natural world, which will always come second to the matter of economy. This mindset has to be changed.

I would also add here that it is not just the usual villains at work here – the multinationals. There are also others quietly influencing policy. Who are these people? It is scientists and the scientific establishment (research institutions, universities, scientific bodies), who are attracted by large research grants, patents, scientific publications, and the opportunities to make a reputations. Let us be clear about this matter – this body of people are not at all unbiased about the matter of GM crops, for they too have vested interests.

Thus it could be said, that for the sake of vested interests, greed, economic growth, and people’s egos, the British Government is willing to put the future of the natural world at risk.

There is no doubt that we, as ordinary citizens, should peacefully resist this onslaught against the natural word, and we have the power to do this without much effort. We have a vote, so at the next general election we should use it to vote the present parties of government out-of-office. We have also a wallet (or a purse) so we should use our money wisely and start buying organic produce. And we also have a choice about our lifestyle. We do not have to be constantly buying things and building up our material possessions, or always seeking to have the latest product and technological consumer device. We could just say no and spend our money on improving the natural world, helping to protect it and to ensure its survival. Many of us have gardens, or there are patches of unused waste ground that could be transformed into havens for wildlife. Use your time and money to develop these – it will be far more rewarding than the momentary buzz that comes from buying a new mobile phone!

Never believe, and never let anyone tell you, that you cannot make a difference, that you cannot change the world. This is a lie, and now is the time for ordinary people to start their peaceful resistance.

And up pops Prometheus!

Life can be strange at times; within hours of writing my previous blog about the Prometheus Syndrome, up popped Prometheus demonstrating how modern thinking is tied to the past by the unbreakable chains of ideology.

It happened when I was watching television on the evening of the Sunday that I posted the blog in question. The programme was Countryfile on the BBC One channel. For those not familiar with Coutryfile, this is a rural affairs magazine programme. I watch Countryfile because it is often a useful source of information and insight concerning agriculture; I am at the moment writing two books about this topic, one being a novel and the other non-fiction about the issues addressed by the novel. Several Prometheans manifest themselves in both books in the form of: a scientist, a technologist, an engineer, an economist, employees of multi-national corporations, and a government representative.

The ideology that was given an airing on this BBC programme, was macro economics, of the type found from 1776 (the year Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was published) onwards, and most notably in the 19^th century, which basically manifested itself in this programme as an ideological attack on the new agreements for the EU Common Agricultural Policy. The mantra is a well known one; subsidies are bad, no other industry gets them (not true), and the markets should determine the prices farmers receive for their products. These are the three delusions that this particular manifestation of Prometheus was mostly concerned with.

Some facts might be useful here. Subsidies are provided to farmers by most governments across the globe. The markets for agricultural produce are often global, so any government unilaterally abandoning subsidies will place its farmers at a serious disadvantage. Removal of subsidies will result in many small farmers going out of business, which the ideologue in question felt was a good thing (no compassion here – the emotional suffering of the farmers concerned was of no interest (see how far we have come since the 19^th century!)). That most farming in Europe is undertaken in small holdings was not considered. And the result of all these small scale, inefficient farms going out of business would be the creation of large farms driven by profit, which means maximising output, and where the environment becomes a cost, and one to be minimised (this is the reality of big businesses in all sectors).

Imagine a world where washing machines, toasters, and other consumer goods where not so readily available because some of the companies that make them had gone out of business. The unavailability of a consumer good, would be inconvenient for sure, but one that most people would be able to live with. Now imagine a world where food is scarce as a result of farmers going out of business, or crop losses resulting from extreme weather conditions. Actually you do not have to image food scarcity, for it has already happened a few years back, as have the consequences (food riots).

Food is not a commercial commodity, it is a basic human right, and it cannot be treated in the same way as other products. If people do not have food, cannot afford food, then they have to be supported. Or perhaps not, surely these people should be allowed to die, and as Scrooge says in A Christmas Carol, “… and in doing so decrease the surplus population.” This, is the where Darwinian type of macro economics leads. That we do not allow this is a tribute to the extent that we have made some progress, yet we still tolerate the ideology that starts us down the track that leads to …

One could go on listing these counter-arguments, and pointing out the stupidity inherent to this outdated macro economic dogma. I will not though continue; the matters linked to it, and the alternative macro economics perspectives, will be explored in the two books that I am writing, which alas will not appear until 2015 at the earliest.

I conclude by observing that, here in this macro economic dogma, one begins to see why the world is in such a mess. Take this ideology and combine it with all the others that have been let loose on the modern world, and one has a recipe for the disaster that is unfolding before our eyes, but which most seem to think cannot be prevented. This is not true of course, and if people in the developed nations started using their votes, their wallets, and their life styles, we could ensure that all these Prometheans (ideological lunatics and their followers) are isolated and marginalised, and that humanity begins to walk a different path.

What is the Prometheus Syndrome?

In a previous blog I mentioned something that I call the Prometheus Syndrome. What exactly is this? For those not so familiar with the mythology of the Ancient Greeks, I will briefly recount here the story of Prometheus, the Titan, who, in this mythology, created human beings.

Prometheus favoured his creation and feeling sorry for them, advised them badly, by showing them a trick which transformed humans into what I call self-deluded tricksters. What was this trick? It was but a simple deception. Not wanting Zeus to take the best parts of a sacrificed bull, Prometheus told humans to take the bones and to dress and hide them with a few bits of good meat so that they appeared to be the best, and to hide most of what was best, with entrails and the like. And Zeus fell for this trick, picking what looked to be the best, only to discover that it was not, which angered him much, and by way of punishment he denied men the fire that they could have used to cook the meat and to make for themselves a better life.

Yet again Prometheus foolishly acted in humankind’s favour, by stealing fire from the gods, and thus with the ability to make fire, the road to the development of human civilisation had been started. But this was too much for Zeus, and as punishment, Prometheus was bound to a rock with unbreakable chains, and an eagle was commanded to rip out his liver. Prometheus though, being an immortal, could not die, and at night his liver regenerated, thus the agony was repeated the next day, and the next, and so on for a countless age. And there he would have remained, caught in an eternal loop, if Zeus had not allowed Hercules to rescue Prometheus.

Here is the essence of the Prometheus Syndrome, a condition which involves people eternally reinventing themselves, their societies, their civilisations, in exactly the same form as in the past. This is exactly what is happening in Europe at the moment, and one can see it ever where, and it is at the core of Europe’s slow decline.

Here I can imagine many people thinking that this is not true. What about all this wonderful new technology? “So Paul, you are wrong!”  To which I could make many responses, but the one that I would stress at the moment, is “Do you mean all this wonderful technology that is destroying the world by causing a serious and worrying decline in finite resources, that is contributing to the destruction of the biodiversity upon which human life depends for its existence, that is being used by governments to monitor what you are doing, that is making warfare even more destructive, that is creating powerful multinational companies that only act in their own selfish interests, that in its manufacture is polluting the world, that is turning our oceans into a sea of floating discarded plastic bottles and containers, that is allowing humankind to fish the world’s fish stocks to the point of extinction, etc. etc. etc.”  Wake-up, you dreamers, and see the mess that your precious technology is creating, and most often, in the name of profit. This is exactly what I mean by the Prometheus Syndrome, this is how technology has always been, and will continue to be, until those unbreakable chains that tie the minds of scientists, engineers and technologists to the rock of the past, are smashed. This is a theme that I explore in my forthcoming novel entitled Moments in Time.

What I have briefly touched upon above are matters which, more than ever, need to be discussed, because sustainability fundamentally means developing a different type of technology, which in itself is a problem, for most of those who are engaged in technology development are, at core, Social Darwinists, who believe that there is only one best technology. But, the truth is that this one best technology is in fact mostly just bones dressed up with a little good meat. And now is the time to change this circumstance.

So who will break the chains, for it seems that there is no Hercules here to rescue these people from the eternal loop in which their fragmented minds are caught. And so the destruction continues, as does the delusion that we are making progress.

How to stop this is actually conceptually very easy: it involves changes in beliefs, values and behaviour, which is why also it is difficult to achieve, as people are not inclined towards making such changes, for this involves self-questioning, self-development, and the like, something which increasingly has no place in the modern world.

Putting aside the people who think that the only alternative to what we have is to go backwards, the implication of seeking out a different technology has profound implications, which will, in due course, receive attention in my writings; in the blog, on my web site, and in my books.

See also my later entry: The Prometheus Syndrome Explained.