MSNBC Reporting on GA Security Threat

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:11:45 -0500, Lynn Melrose
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

\I canceled my subscription to Time magazine when they ran their
full-page promotional advertisement showing small aircraft juxtaposed
against nuclear generating plant condensation towers with the caption,
"Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this
photograph?" And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this
article.

That's a bit of an overreaction.

To which 'that' are you referring, dumping Time? The implications in
that ad were criminal!

What crime under whose law?



First of all, unless you were familiar with
the particular airport/plant, you would have no idea if it was a nuclear plant
or not. Hyperbolic cooling towers that cool nuclear plants can look just like
hyperbolic cooling towers that cool coal plants, for example. Some nuclear
plants have cooling towers if they were built when/where environmental
regulations required them to protect thermal water quality, some do not. Same
with other types of thermal generating plants.

First of all, it's not about the towers. It's about the obscene
implication and inciting unwarranted fear of GA in the hearts of the
American public. It's about the irresponsible theft and squandering
of GA currency to swell Time magazine's subscription roster. My
indignation at the breach of public trust demonstrated by Time is more
than justified.

You give Time way to much credit.



Now it turns out this particular photo WAS of a nuclear plant, although it did
not say that.

The ad CLEARLY implied that it was a nuclear facility, visually.

Visually with what? Ignore the smokestacks in this picture of a coal plant for a
moment. Does the picture imply a nuclear facility?
http://www.macgen.com.au/about_us/images/bayswater.jpg


There was no need to be more explicit than that. In fact, if the Time
art director had been any more specific, she may have faced criminal
charges for suggesting/inciting terrorist sabotage. The ad was an
outrage, and I choose not to read a rag that would stoop to create and
publish such vicious, libelous and ill conceived excrement.

Nor did it say that this particular plant was constructed to
withstand the impact of a jet, let alone the light singles in the foreground.

You may have an idea of the potential magnitude of hazard that might
be unleashed in the event a C-172 collided with one of those towers,
but the lay public only sees the nuclear icon and cringes with visions
of Nagasaki.

But towers aren't a "nuclear icon", they are just cooling towers that happen to
be connected to a nuclear plant in this case. Cooling towers that are connected to
coal plants look suspiciously similar.

They could have showed the reactor building instead, but chose not to. I'm not
sure how the towers is relevant to nuclear safety. The only thing in those towers
is water vapor. Even if somebody hit the towers and miraculously knocked one down
instead of bouncing off it, the only thing that would happen would be a big mess of
cement blocks and a cloud of dust, steam, and liquid water. The reactor would shut
down, although the particular reactors at that plant may be run for 30 days without
the benefit of a cooling tower or even raising the river temperature. Oh yeah, TV
reception would probably improve in the area, with no more multipathing off the
tower.




It also did not say that the plant's owner, Exelon Corporation, and its
predecessors have owned this particular airport in the foreground, KPTW, for
decades.


That's interesting data, but how is it relevant?

Well for one thing, the power company isn't exactly about to notice the Time
article and then shut down the airport! They purchased the airport expressly for
the purpose of ensuring it continues in perpetuity.

Well then, since you don't think Time was trying to incite anti GA hysteria
by implying that small airplanes could credibly be used to attack nuclear
power plants, perhaps you could tell us what the message of that ad was.

Lynn Melrose wrote:

Now it turns out this particular photo WAS of a nuclear plant, although it did
not say that.

And absolutely nobody with an IQ above 40 would have thought for one second
that it was anything else. Nobody over-reacted to that ad.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
be learned no other way.

C J Campbell wrote:

You have a very tough sell to try to convince anyone on this news group
that anything the news media report is accurate.

The NYTimes usually has the correct date.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
C J Campbell wrote:

You have a very tough sell to try to convince anyone on this news group
that anything the news media report is accurate.

The NYTimes usually has the correct date.


But not always.

C J Campbell wrote:

Well then, since you don't think Time was trying to incite anti GA hysteria
by implying that small airplanes could credibly be used to attack nuclear
power plants,

That's a super sensitive outlook. It was just a picture of a friendly GA
field. It's an accurate picture, there was no doctoring. Do you know of
anyone being incited by the picture? Perhaps we should censor pictures of
general aviation airports in the media? Time also wrote a highly
complimentary article about general aviation, which you conveniently forgot to
mention here.

perhaps you could tell us what the message of that ad was.

To get people to "Join the conversation." Looks like it did what it was
supposed to, right here on this newsgroup. If anything, it gives pilots the
opportunity to explain why such fears would be silly. When a mere photo is
attacked as some sort of inciting hysteria, that opportunity is lost.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Lynn Melrose wrote:

Now it turns out this particular photo WAS of a nuclear plant, although it did
not say that.

And absolutely nobody with an IQ above 40 would have thought for one second
that it was anything else.

And unless you knew the particular plant in question, who would you know that from
the photo, whether your IQ is 40 or 140?

Take a look he http://www.ucsusa.org/CoalvsWind/c02d1.html
Is that a nuclear plant? No, it's not.

Take a look he
http://www.smartown.com/sp2000/energ...ingtowers.html
Is that a nuclear plant? No, it a coal plant.

Take a look he
http://www.edfenergy.com/server/uplo...tionatdawn.jpg
Is that a nuclear plant? No, it's not.


Nobody over-reacted to that ad.

Except the people who charged that it was inciting hysteria.

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
To get people to "Join the conversation."

To join what conversation? Time doesn't care about conversations here.
They only care about magazine sales. And what exactly was it that
non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the photograph?

Your head is in the sand. Everything you say about the reality of the
photograph is true, but none of that matters. Only the perception and the
implication in Time's statement are what are relevant, and they are very
different from the reality.

Pete

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
|
| C J Campbell wrote:
|
| Well then, since you don't think Time was trying to incite anti GA
hysteria
| by implying that small airplanes could credibly be used to attack
nuclear
| power plants,
|
| That's a super sensitive outlook. It was just a picture of a friendly
GA
| field. It's an accurate picture, there was no doctoring.

I suppose the caption was meaningless as well.

C J Campbell wrote:

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
|
| C J Campbell wrote:
|
| Well then, since you don't think Time was trying to incite anti GA
hysteria
| by implying that small airplanes could credibly be used to attack
nuclear
| power plants,
|
| That's a super sensitive outlook. It was just a picture of a friendly
GA
| field. It's an accurate picture, there was no doctoring.

I suppose the caption was meaningless as well.

It appears to have successfully encouraged you to converse....