Science reporting is hard, and mistakes can be made. But I never expected the BBC could cover a subject this badly. Watch this video on YouTube Back in March, David Shukman (BBC Science Editor) published a short report on synthetic biology. The reports cast a shadow on the hard work of scientists and implies that synthetic biology is not accepted…
Tested for radiation (Reuters)
The BBC produced a documentary called “Is Nuclear Power Safe?” which aired on september 15. In the documentary they examine nuclear safety and consequences of accidents in light of the events at Fukushima.
Jim Al-Khalili, a professor of nuclear physics, handles the presentation and narration of the documentary. And states his case that nuclear energy is a lot safer than most people think. And that radiation from fallout isn’t as bad as generally believed.
And during this documentary he seems to give very reasonable explanations and evidence that support this:
Well thats a leading post title if ever there was one. So what do I mean by what’s at stake? Well if you think about most things that sceptics bang on about it all boils down to evidence, as in an. evidence based approach. We want the stuff that shows that view point X is more accurate than batty belief Y. If te use of evidence was to wain then again, what’s at stake…….well our aquired knowledge really.
Here’s an example of what I mean, it’s an episode of the BBC’s Horizen that has made it’s way to youtube. This particular episode is about the attack on science from some of the more hair brained ideas that are out there. I’ve not yet watched it myself but DutchLiam has wathed most of it and he likes it and I’m going to watch it ASAP. I hope you enjoy it.