Further to Robin’s post earlier today, I received this very interesting follow up from a Biased BBC contributor which exposes further deadly bias.
As you state the usual bias is there and quite clear, I do however feel the need to point out the grotesque inaccuracy of the graphic which is embedded in the story (titled “chemical breakdown of sludge”). As someone who carries out chemical research and has a degree in chemistry I was outraged by the misinformation in this graphic.
“Red Mud” is very nasty, it is caustic and like drain cleaner, you don’t want to be in contact with it. However this graphic clearly tries to link it with cancer using misleading statements. It states aluminium oxide (alumina) “caused cancer when tested on animals”. This is news to me as I use it all the time so I did a search of scholarly articles which brought up one that states clearly they found no link! It’s also the stuff you get on wet and dry paper, so I think that might have been banned by now if there was a risk.
It then states that silicon dioxide “silica” can cause cancer and lung disease if inhaled. Yes it can, if it is very finely milled in a factory for a particular use, not in it’s natural form where it is harmless, it is what sand is made of. It is the particle size that is important and silica (as silicate) in red mud is not going to have the same danger. Lastly it states “Titanium dioxide caused cancer when tested on animals”. Again, it may be a risk if inhaled over a long period as a fine dust, otherwise it is not a problem, that is why it is also found in skin cream and toothpaste!
The graphic makes inaccurate and scaremongering statements which would give to the lay public the impression that there is a direct risk of cancer from the red mud. So the question is where has the information come from, the journalist’s eco friends at all? I am going to contact the BBC to try and find the source of this information, especially about alumina which appears to be complete nonsense. I imagine I will be stonewalled as usual. However I was so appalled by the misinformation I felt I had to point it out to a wider audience if possible.
Way to go Chemistry dude!
Yes, great stuff!
Nice post but we get this crap from the BBC all the time, be it the famous pop bottle CO2 experiment on Newsnight, the endless claptrap about climate change or claims about wind farms.
The problem at the BBC is that to them science and its underpinning believe of theory being backed up by physical proof through experimentation or observation is an inconvenience at the BBC.
Like the rest of the BBC message, they decide on the narrative (say wind farms good) and simply make pu any old bollocks to fit their story.
Twats like Shukman, Black and Harrabin being three of the classic tossers who dabble in this art.
The moment the British Government allowed apiece of crap like ‘An inconvenient Truth’ into our schools the stake was driven into the heart of science. Al Bore is a creature just one cell above an Amoeba.
Now we know why the BBC don’t bother to ask real scientists about “risks”. They have been caught red handed – if they cannot get this right what is the odds on all the other “science” articles being lies and exaggerations?
It’s now reached the stage where you can believe nothing the BBC tells you. There’s always an agenda.
I hope those more versed in the chemistry take this much further with the BBC and are not stonewalled. However note the wording used, such as “caused cancer when tested on animals”: not actually incorrect, but deliberately designed to give a misleading impression. So the defence will be that what was stated was factually correct.
The same sort of scares arose about the use of Corexit as the dispersant for the oil leakage/spill in the Gulf during the early summer. (Deepwater). The usual suspects went ape about toxicity and unknowns.These anxieties, not helped by the Obama grandstanding and EPA (of CO2 defined as a pollutant infamy) allowed the full gamut of misinformation about the chemistry of the compounds concerned. It was striking how ignorant the reports showed themselves in the Media (BBC in there with the pack) as to the true carbon nature of crude oil. Crude oil is fossil organic food. A million tons of treacle on the beaches would cause as much havoc. After refination (cracking), the destillate and breakdown products get nasty eg a tanker with bunker oil (ship diesel, if you like) is not at all nice. Open ocean crude just spreads and spreads and spreads and gets eaten up by organisms very quickly, indeed.(Oil is constantly leaking both under the sea and on land…where it even ignites). The organisms have been eating the stuff for millions of years and are very good at it.
Still the greeny overreaction was never really faced down by the BBC, made good eco-porn for the masses.
These scares go on and on, be it about DDT, the MMR jab, Swine Flu and of course CJD.
The really dumb part of that graphic is that it claims Aluminium Oxide causes cancer in animals but conveniently ignores the fact that millions of people use Aluminium Foil to cover food every day – the foil forms a thin layer of Aluminium Oxide on any side exposed to the air.
It then states that silicon dioxide “silica” can cause cancer and lung disease if inhaled. Yes it can, if it is very finely milled in a factory for a particular use, not in it’s natural form where it is harmless, it is what sand is made of.
I assume this bit is what prompted the repeated warnings of, “We must get this cleaned up before it dries out and becomes a powder.”
I was wondering what that was supposed to be about. Even the Hungarian official the BBC kept referring to was making dire predictions about what would happen. Perhaps when nothing happens as a result, the Hungrian government (and inevitable EU saviors) will be able to claim they got it in the nick of time and saved millions of children from certain death.
Obviously, all the problems from the failures which led up to the Deepwater incident to the Hugarian ‘red sludge’ should be avoided as a matter of course.
There is no excuse for aviodable events which cause death or damage. But the media must not maximise the misinformation and feed the already loud luddite greenist agenda. People can be very easily manipulated given the complexities of chemistry and physics which are, understandably, not part of the public’s knowledge base.
That’s where the greenist, liberal mind set does the public a disservice.
PS Congratulations to those engineers who plugged that leak. Ace job. Respect.
The BBC has its own anti-industrial agenda, but the authorities in Hungary have their own reasons for wanting to play up the horror stories.
By claiming that it could take up to 12 months to deal with the problem, they’ll be able to harvest grant aid from a wide range of well-meaning providers. Of course, past experience tells us that most of these funds will find their way into the pockets of well placed individuals close to the Hungarian authorities, and sod all will go the people whose homes have been swept away in the “toxic” flood.