Care blogghine you place a very interesting article I found on the blog kind UAPA and run ... so I consider important for awareness a little.
The original article can be found at the following link:
http://www.greenpeace.it/blog/?p=1784
Here it is:
the equidistance is a spot
The ad launched by the Nuclear Forum, spending announced three million euro, is a fine example of manipulation of information: propina falsehood in an apparent tone "equidistant" positions with the pros and cons represented on a chessboard. We are faced with a communication much more "sophisticated" RAI broadcast operations for all except one. But see how the ad disguised as "rational argument" two obvious hoaxes.
Before buffalo : waste management. In the exchange of pros and cons, a voice tells you concerned about the future, the other replies that the waste products are as "a pawn in his head." The reply is that if you add up the heads is not so little. The voice keeps on hitting the pro concludes by saying that though "you can manage safely." Too bad that anywhere in the world after 60 years of technological development - and having received the largest share of public investment in energy research and development of OECD countries - this miracle has never yet been proved.
Second hoax: the voices against recalls that, to do without fossil fuels, are renewable energies. The voice in favor of nuclear contends that in fifty years may not be enough. Here the lie is twofold. First fifty years also extractable uranium-cost computer will be running out . Second, the technical and economic feasibility of a scenario based entirely on renewable energy is not just a fantasy of environmentalists : there are of industrial and institutional analysis to prove it can at least at European level.
Apart from the question about who will pay the costs at the end of this propaganda, since the rules in force for nuclear power to provide public funds "information campaigns" - a topic raised by a question to the Senate for Ferrante, Della Seta (Pd) - we do not know how to develop this rich public disinformation campaign.
According to the latest European survey on the nuclear issue last March (Eurobarometer) 55 out of 100 Italians think that the risks outweigh the benefits of nuclear power, against 27 who believe the contrary (a ratio of 2 to 1).
If anything this campaign would be reimbursed from public funds would be faced with a paradox: we will use resources of all to try to convince the majority of citizens is wrong.
How will they react the Italians? Of course since the government began to talk about nuclear power, according to surveys dell'Ipsos, the opposition has grown.
Joseph Onufrio Executive Director of Greenpeace Italy
0 comments:
Post a Comment