Union of Concerned Scientists Charges Bush With Politicizing Science

The Florida Specifier | April 2004 | Prakash Gandhi

[NotQuiteCricket]

The American public should be concerned because it places its trust in the government as an honest broker of scientific information.

ROTFLMAO. There is no impartial science anymore...if there ever was. Sounds like the leftits are pissed because thier leftit buddies are getting kicked off the panel(s) and being replaced with neutral or rightist. whatever.

[kevkrom]

The title should read: "Left-Wing Science PAC Charges Bush With Disagreeing With Them"

[ApplegateRanch]

a disturbing and unprecedented pattern of misuse and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration

...but we are undisturbed by misuse of science by Democrats, Envirowhacks, Science In The Public Interest....

[JLS]

Exactly, the sole purpose of this Union is to politicize science. There concern is that science is not being used in the way they think it should be politically.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[You Dirty Rats]

My favorite laugh line (besides the headline, which is a scream) is the contention that the American public trusts the government to be an honest broker of scientific information.

The Government can't even get honest information in a public hearing concerning basic facts; how can anyone seriesly believe that the gummint could act as an arbiter of science?

By the way, what time is it on their whack clock?

[kitkat]

***Union of Concerned Scientists Charges Bush With Politicizing Science***

Translation: We aren't getting all those enormous government grants that Clintoon used to make sure got handed out to us whenever we supported his money-raising schemes.

[Elsie]

I could NOT find any clock on their website, but did find this:

---

Here's a flashback to show how accurate these guys are.......

 

 

The Magazine of the Union of Concerned Scientists Vol. 21 No. 4 Winter 2000

Countdown

Are nuclear power plants ready for the next century?

by David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer

		in clean energy   Nuclear safety

The new year's countdown will hold more suspense this year than in previous years. Some computers will "crash" as a result of the millenium bug, causing inconvenience as ATMs and traffic lights shut down. But if computers quit at nuclear power plants, the result could be more than inconvenience. The nuclear industry and nuclear regulators have had time to take precautions against a not-so-Happy New Year, but they're not as prepared as the threat warrants.


The Millenium Bug

Many computers and products with computer chips keep track of dates as two-digit values -- October 15, 1980, codes as 10/15/80; June 7, 1999, as 06/07/99. At midnight on December 31, 1999, these computers will interpret the new year as a step back to 01/01/00, or the year 1900, instead of a step into a new millenium. Confused computers may malfunction or stop working altogether.

The Effect on Nuclear Plants

Operations and emergency systems at nuclear power plants use 1960s technology that is not controlled by computers. Thus the millenium bug cannot affect them. But the bug may disable supporting systems, such as plant monitoring or security, making it more difficult for workers to recognize or respond to any emergency that might arise from other causes.


What Can Be Done

Throughout 1999, UCS has been warning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Congress, and the public about the potential dangers and the simple measures that would decrease risks. Because malfunctioning security computers could lock doors normally accessed by card readers, we've suggested that plant workers carry the ordinary keys that can also open the doors. Since operators are unaccustomed to using the backup systems that record data from sensors throughout the plant, we've recommended additional training to bring staff up to speed in using the backups to evaluate plant conditions.

We've also warned against a false sense of security. In July, the NRC announced that emergency systems at all of the 103 nuclear power plants currently in operation in the United States were Y2K ready. We pointed out that the NRC was basing that claim on responses to an audit plan that does not define what constitutes Y2K readiness. It's like asking, "Does the Titanic carry lifeboats?" instead of "Does the Titanic have enough lifeboats to carry all its passengers and crew?"

We are not alone in our criticism. In October, the US Government Accounting Office testified before Congress that the NRC has done a poor job of independently verifying plants' Y2K readiness.

In October, the GAO and the Department of Energy asked UCS what could be done at this late date. We suggested running tests at plants that are shut down for refueling before January 1: simply roll the computers' clocks forward into the new year and see what happens. Since 26 plants are slated for refueling during this period, the results would provide some indication about which plants might have problems. Workers at plants with computer systems similar to those that fail could take precautions and make tests of their own. Whether this advice will be followed we don't know.

If you live near a nuclear power plant, you might want to ask plant personnel about the plant's Y2K readiness. The UCS website (www.ucsusa.org) provides a list of questions.

 

 

...roll the computers' clocks forward into the new year and see what happens...

 

 

This sounds mighty similar to a ******* minefield clearing operation.........  ***** = insert favorite, not too bright, ethic group here

[Aracelis]

science is at a important crossroad. On the one hand, there are many scientists who eschew all attempts to bring ideology and politics to the table. On the other hand, there are many scientists who do just that.

I agree with you, A-G...but it has always been so. Sadly, not all of us are morally highminded, and scientists are just as prone as any other human to various agendas and the most basic of human failings: Greed.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply! It's good to hear from you, my sister in the Lord!

I agree with your analysis of the underlying cause and that it has always been this way.

IMHO science is at a crossroad because certain subjects it is now tackling will tilt one way or the other depending on which side has the "upper hand" in influence and money.

The subjects include artificial intelligence (consciousness, qualia, epiphenomenons of the physical brain) - information theory (functional complexity, self organizing complexity, abiogenesis) - strong determinism (geometric physics, dualities, string theory, supersymmetry, cosmologies).

IMHO, it could go either way because of political ideology and correctness.

[bondserv]

We can only pray for intellectual honesty on all sides. When I see decisions by President Bush I feel he relies on principles to guide him. (Kyoto, Stem Cell Research, Cloning, AIDS help to Africa...)

Unexpectedly for many conservatives, he chose to aid those suffering souls in Africa, which in principle is the right thing to do. I hope his leadership continues to influence other leaders in science and politics to dictate the courses of future research.

[scottinoc]

In other news, the Rev. Jesse Jackson accuses Bush of policizing religion.

[PushinTin]

Do as I say...NOT as I do? (suck thumb)