PDA

View Full Version : Lorraine Mann



captain chaos
28-Mar-05, 14:14
Is it just me or is Lorraine trying to chase the tourists away with statements as follows from the Sunday Herald?

“Everywhere they have looked, they have found these particles,” said Lorraine Mann of Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping.

“They are really dangerous,” she said. “Some of them are radioactive enough to kill outright.”


I may be wrong!!!! but as far as I remember no one has died from finding these particles (perhaps they were wearing lead pants) and I don't think they have found one on Thurso beach either :evil

Yes, it's bad these particles have spread, but stupid comments like that help no one. She may be entitled to her comments against nuclear energy, but she has no idea what she is talking about. :lol: :lol:

doreenhedgehog
28-Mar-05, 15:09
She is an attention seeker. She lives over 100 miles away, but just likes to be in the news as much as possible.

Fifi
28-Mar-05, 15:20
Does the press have a list of 'nuclear opponents' that they ring up for comments whenever a Dounreay negative slant is required? If so, it's either a very short list of people or LM is the only one that responds. Why do they think that she has anything of value to say? She only trots out the same hysteria every time she is interviewed anyway. Maybe she just says "print my usual comment"!! :lol:

To anyone that has a clue she just sounds tired and bonkers but to the great public who panic at the word nuclear she is spreading unnessary alarm and distrust.

mareng
28-Mar-05, 17:52
Yes, but what would the nuclear industry in Caithness be doing if no-one was keeping the public attention on them?
If people still listen to Lorraine - she must still be credible ---- more than can be said for a lot of people who have passed through Dounreay.

captain chaos
28-Mar-05, 18:35
People listened to Hitler but not a lot of what he said was credible. ;) ;)

I have a lot more faith in Greenpeace who do their homework before babbling the first thing that comes into their head.They are good for the nuclear industry as a watchdog.

Caledonia
28-Mar-05, 18:53
Lorraine's remarks are generally no more hyperbolic than those made by some in the nuclear industry that it is 100% safe, very clean or that their safety records are exemplary.

Funny how little flack goes their way from the obedient workers.

Personally I think she is right on the ball most of the time. She also knows a lot more than you might think.

Greenpeace are extremely supportive of organisations like CAND.

Incidentally, no-one remotely associated with Greenpeace is allowed real access to Dounreay or any other sensitive installation in the UK, so their abilty to act as a watchdog is next to zero.

If you want to check out Greenpeace's thoughts on the nuclear industry check the link...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/campaigns/intro?campaign_id=3940

And before I get flamed with the usual and predictable rubbish about my being anti-nuclear, I would say I am totally in favour of continued development and research into safer nuclear power as a potential future energy source, and I would be delighted if Dounreay was to continue in that role.

Bringing Hitler analogies into it is rather extreme. She is entitled to say what she wants, rubbish or no.

Winning the PR war is very important for the Nuclear industry, regardless of how untouchable it used to be. If you want a future, you have to get people onboard.

;)

jjc
28-Mar-05, 21:26
Lorraine's remarks are generally no more hyperbolic than those made by some in the nuclear industry that it is 100% safe, very clean or that their safety records are exemplary.
A strange claim to make Caledonia. I’ve been around nuclear industry workers all of my life and I have never heard any of them say that it is 100% safe or that safety records are exemplary.


Incidentally, no-one remotely associated with Greenpeace is allowed real access to Dounreay or any other sensitive installation in the UK, so their abilty to act as a watchdog is next to zero.
‘act as watchdog’? They are a lobby group who clearly state on their website that their aim is to bring an end to nuclear power. They are neither an independent nor a qualified nuclear inspectorate… of course they are restricted in their ability to act as a ‘watchdog’.

And maybe it’s just me, but isn’t it pretty obvious why people who belong to an organisation which promotes this kind of activity…

http://gruppen.greenpeace.de/aachen/wald-fotos-greenpeace-aktion1.jpg

…aren’t allowed within touching (or rather manacling) distance of a nuclear reactor?

Don’t get me wrong; I’ve nothing against a little direct action every once in a while… but perhaps inviting activists into their facility could be seen as a health & safety failing on the part of Dounreay’s management?

brandy
28-Mar-05, 22:18
personally i dont think she should be allowed to say some of the things she is saying because she has NO facts to back them up.. when it is just theory and speculation.. it is one thing to state facts in papers.. but another thing to slander which is a lot of what she is doing.. if you notice everything that happens she readily points her finger to dounreay .. when in fact there is no evidence to point that it has had anything to do with dounreay..
but the most important thing i think is that dounreay is trying really really hard to fix what has happened in the past.. where those in authority today had nothing to do with what happend years ago.. in a time i might add when no one really had any idea of the long term damage!
we have to realise there is no magic wand that can be waved to make it all better and it is just going to take a concentrated effort and lots of hard work.. and a lot of time.. it would also be a lot easier if certain people... would let them do their work without forcing them to go to court to gain access to certain beaches.. and without slander showing up everywhere about how slack they are!!
just wondering .. as an after thought.. how many of us is emplyed or has someone close to us employed by UKAEA? think about all they have done for us?
and all they are trying to do to help fix the enviroment..
shakes head.. funny when someone is trying to help that thre is always someone out there to try to make them look bad!

mareng
28-Mar-05, 22:56
personally i dont think she should be allowed to say some of the things she is saying because she has NO facts to back them up.. !

Mmmm - Let's ask good old Clifford Blumfield for the truth, then.

Quote:

Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject: Dounreay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember Clifford Blumfield stating to the media that the explosion in the waste shaft was not dangerous and anyone standing in the vicinity would not have been harmed?

Then..... a decade or more later (after he had been knighted or similar for services to the nuclear industry) photos of the damage showed that the concrete cover had been lifted clean off and the area was devastated?

Should have stripped him of his award and his pension too.

Caledonia
29-Mar-05, 00:20
People listened to Hitler but not a lot of what he said was credible. ;) ;)

I have a lot more faith in Greenpeace who do their homework before babbling the first thing that comes into their head.They are good for the nuclear industry as a watchdog.


JJC>

You should perhaps read back a couple of posts before you answer mine.

I was responding to the above post, not suggesting Greenpeace should be a watchdog of any kind.

Your other point, I shall deal with when I have the time which I certainly do not right now. You could refer back to my recent post about Dounreay in another thread for some background to my knowledge of Dounreay 'workers'. If you think no-one has been as rash in their blinkered support for all things nuclear as you are all suggesting Lorranine is in her views against then I do not believe you have spent much time around Dounreay workers at all.

Incidentally, just as Dounreay has idiots who take unecessary risks and put themselves out on a limb for the company, Greenpeace has world reknowned scientists and experts in many fields working for them as well as the frontline activists.

They are not working for the money though.

You don't have to ask which I trust.

;)

Rheghead
29-Mar-05, 00:36
Incidentally, no-one remotely associated with Greenpeace is allowed real access to Dounreay or any other sensitive installation in the UK, so their abilty to act as a watchdog is next to zero.

Rubbish!!

I was married to an active Greenpeace member while working in a sensitive installation. I was fully vetted by the MOD and have nothing to hide. The biggest change comes from within, not from without...

If you go onto Greanpeace's website, I certainly get the impression that their fight against fossil fuels has taken precedence against their fight against nuclear power.

I wonder why? :roll:

Whitewater
29-Mar-05, 00:46
Lorraine Mann is against anything associated with Dounreay and has been for as long as I can remember her ranting on. She had an inside source in the FCA at one stage (perhaps she still has) She is against the storage of nuclear material at Dounreay, but I bet if they begin moving it to storage facilities in the south she will be lying accross the road stopping the vehicles from moving through the highlands :eek:

champagnebaby
29-Mar-05, 00:51
Who exactly is Lorraine Mann? Is she from caithness or what?

Whitewater
29-Mar-05, 01:33
No problem with Greenpeace. They generally have a balanced opinion and as has been said by Rheghead they have their own experts. Nuclear sites have not had too many demonstrations by them over the years and the ones that did take place were all well organised and peaceful.
Lorraine Mann :evil generally opens her mouth and lets her belly rumble, she knows the media will grab any thing anti nuclear so she generally gets the first kick in by going for sensationalism, the more frightening the better [evil]. She has had her publicity and done her damage before an informed reply can be posted.

Highland Laddie
29-Mar-05, 01:38
Lorraine Mann and her comments are more harmful, and more dangerous to the Highlands than any particle found on a beach.

jjc
29-Mar-05, 01:43
I was responding to the above post, not suggesting Greenpeace should be a watchdog of any kind.
You were indeed… however, it made more sense to respond to your post a) because it was the most recent and b) because you raised the fact that limited access to facilities limited their ability to act as a watchdog. That’s all. Sorry if it upset you. :roll:


If you think no-one has been as rash in their blinkered support for all things nuclear as you are all suggesting Lorranine is in her views against then I do not believe you have spent much time around Dounreay workers at all.
Firstly, as you seem to want to be a little pedantic about exactly who said what when, could you please point out any post in which I have even mentioned Lorraine Mann’s name, let alone discussed her views?

Secondly, I have never heard anybody claim that nuclear power is 100% safe or that any facility, Dounreay included, has an exemplary safety record. In fact, it is my experience that the workers (and I think I’ll leave out the somewhat churlish apostrophes you seem to like putting around that word) appreciate more than most that absolutely nothing in this world is 100% safe and that there is no such thing as an exemplary safety record.


Greenpeace has world reknowned scientists and experts in many fields working for them as well as the frontline activists.

They are not working for the money though.

You don't have to ask which I trust.
No, they probably aren’t working for the money (although I suspect that they do receive financial compensation for their efforts). I’m quite sure that they are actually working for Greenpeace because they believe that the objectives of the organisation are worth working towards… which leads me back to the fact that the stated aim of Greenpeace with regards to nuclear power is to see it ended. I wonder just how impartial these world renowned scientists and experts are in their work? :confused

scotsboy
29-Mar-05, 11:01
Caledonia wrote
just as Dounreay has idiots who take unecessary risks and put themselves out on a limb for the company, Greenpeace has world reknowned scientists and experts in many fields working for them as well as the frontline activists.


Actually the idiots who take the unecessary risks seldom do so for the compnay, but rather to finish the job so they can get their heads down.

scotsboy
29-Mar-05, 18:12
Why did I think of this article when reading of the martyrs of Greenpeace?

Taken from

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/pseudoscience.html


Under pressure from industry and special interests, biased research has resulted in pseudoscience that threatens the integrity of science in America. Until recently, U.S. Government scientists have always been free to conduct unbiased research for the betterment of society and the environment.
Science verses pseudoscience

"Pseudoscience"... It's the catchword of the times in the scientific community. Originally coined by Sir Karl Popper in the 1950's, the term "pseudoscience" has become a political weapon being hurled around the scientific and pseudoscientific communities to disclaim research that disagrees with a group's political or personal convictions(12). It is difficult for the average individual to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

James Randi, a stage magician, author, lecturer, investigator of unusual claims, and opponent of pseudoscience has defined science as "a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence(31)." Science is dynamic, and scientific knowledge is always building upon previous discoveries. True scientific knowledge must be unbiased and start with a falsifiable hypothesis that the investigator assumes could be true or false (2). Investigation that begins with a predetermined outcome and searches for evidence to prove a foregone conclusion does not fit the criteria for scientific investigation and is not science, but at the very best, pseudoscience.
When Science goes astray

The vast majority of research scientists are dedicated researchers who understand the principles of the scientific method and conduct research according to these principles. Scientists know that their published work will be scrutinized by colleagues who will try to replicate published findings. Reputation is at stake should published data not be replicable.

There are pitfalls that can undermine scientific research. Some of these pitfalls are noble intentions gone astray. Occasionally a scientist will become so zealot about a cause or ideology that they will make claims before there is adequate evidence to back a claim (21). Environmental scientists who predict worldwide devastation due to pollution without sufficient documentation (21), and those who recommend the abandonment of wearing bras because they supposedly cause cancer (1,6) are two such examples.

On the other side of the spectrum are the scientists who work for companies that expect research results to be in their favor. Experiments can be set up in a manner that would be more likely to produce results favorable to their product(21). Results that do not conform to desired outcome are sometimes discounted. A prime example of this type of pseudoscience is found in the tobacco industry. Scientists who refused to discard research that was detrimental to the tobacco industry were fired. The pharmaceutical industry has sometimes become wrapped up in this type of pseudoscience (3).
When government steps in

While the term "pseudoscience" was not coined until sometime in the mid-1900s, it is easy to see that pseudoscientific theories predated science. The Greek philosopher Aristotle claimed that males and females (presumably humans) had a different number of teeth (31). It is possible that he had noted that usually only male horses have fully developed canine teeth. Canines are usually either missing or under developed in mares. At any rate, he never tested his hypothesis by counting the adult teeth in humans, a step that is an absolute necessity in the scientific method. Science requires a proof, not just arguments as to why the hypothesis must be true.

Galileo used the scientific method in determining that the earth revolves about the sun, but the Church armed with arguments, but no proofs was powerful enough to reject Galileo's theory in favor of the religiously held belief that the earth is the center of the universe (33).

In the early 20th century, a non-scientific peasant plant breeder named Lysenko became a proponent of Michurin, who believed Lamarck's theory that organisms could inherit traits that had been acquired by their ancestors. An example of this would be if the environment changed so that giraffes had to stretch higher to reach food, their necks would grow longer from stretching. These giraffes would then pass the long neck on to their offspring (19). In reality what would happen is that giraffes that had longer necks to begin with would be better suited for the new environment and thus would have a greater chance of survival and reproduction.

By the beginning of the 20th century, most scientists had accepted natural selection as the means by which species evolve. For some reason, which is yet unclear, Stalin was particularly fond of the evolutionary model that Lysenko had borrowed from Limarck. Stalin, however, chose to do major editing of Lysenko's writings to better fit his own ideology, and at one point stated that the Michurin trend was neither neo-Lamarckian nor neo-Darwinism, but rather "creative Soviet Darwinism". Soviet scientists that chose Darwinism over the Michurin model were either sent to the gulags or simply disappeared. "Creative Soviet Darwinism" crippled agriculture in the USSR for decades (20).

Pseudoscience has been used not only by government and religious groups, but also by industry and special interest groups who are trying to prove some deeply held belief. Occasionally government and religion or government and industry will join hands to push some pseudoscientific idea onto the general population.

In 1990, then President, George H. W. Bush (Senior) stated that, "Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate changes to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance (17)." If a government is to make correct decisions in issues related to science, it must depend upon impartial and objective scientific research and analysis. While government officials in the past have occasionally violated this policy when scientific evidence was in conflict with strongly held political or ideological views, most leaders have trusted the scientific community to guide decision-making in scientific issues (17). Government and Industry

Recently the most highly respected members of the scientific community have been cast aside, and science has been politicized. Before George W. Bush (Jr.) was elected in 2000, he announced that the Internet was placing such a burden on the nation's electrical grid that the country would have to build more coal-fired generators and nuclear reactors. He stated that the Internet was consuming 8% of all the electricity produced in the United States (15). At the same time analysts from the Lawrence Berkley National Labs and Center for Energy and Climate Solutions had calculated that the Internet was drawing about 1% of the nation's electricity (15).

In the past, energy consumption has increased at about the same rate as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Between 1993–1996 the US GDP grew at a rate of 3.2% annually and the electricity demand grew at a rate of 2.9% annually (a 1.1-1 ratio). The Internet era of 1997-2000 saw an average annual GDP of 4.2% and an annual growth in electricity demand of 2.2% (a 1.9 to 1 ratio). This information simply doesn't support the claim that the Internet is increasing our need for electricity. In fact the opposite is true, electricity consumption is actually growing slower in the "Internet age" than it was just a few years earlier. Where then did the information that George W. Bush cited come from? These figures can be traced to a 1999 study entitled, "The Internet Begins With Coal" and written by Mark Mills who is associated with "The Greening Earth Society," an innocent sounding organization that actually was established by the Western Fuels Association, a cooperative owned by seven coal-burning utilities. The Greening Earth Society is a think tank dedicated to the idea that increasing amounts of CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels is good for the environment. Note that the research is based upon a predetermined result, a violation of the scientific method (15).
Scientific community outraged

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), with a world wide membership of more than 100,000, has become alarmed at the degree to which government has begun to edit, delete and rewrite scientific reports to committees. In response, as of October 10, 2004 12,478 scientists including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences, conservatives, liberals and moderates alike had signed a UCS petition directed to the US Senate to restore scientific integrity in policy making. A report published in Scientific American, April 26, 2004, it was revealed that 62 leading scientists including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science and the advisors to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations gave the White House a failing grade in a signed statement in February 2004 in regards to the scientific integrity of the administration's policy making(23, 29). The statement begins with the quote from George H. W. Bush quoted previously in this article.

According to the UCS the president's political appointees have placed people with questionable credentials on federal scientific advisory committees, choosing candidates recommended by industry over those recommended by professional agency staff. The unprecedented misrepresentation, manipulation and suppression of scientific information has alarmed appointees of past Republican administrations as well as senior scientists who advised administrations of both parties (17,29).

In 2002 Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson dismissed several highly qualified researchers from a committee of the Center For Disease Control Prevention (CDC) just when they seemed ready to recommend a more stringent federal lead standard. Two of dismissed scientists were replaced with individuals that were hand picked from the lead industry (17).
Fisheries policies undermined

In May 2004 Michael Kelly, Fishery Biologist, Arcata, CA NOAA Fisheries Field Office resigned his position. In 2002 he had filed a disclosure under the whistleblower Protection Act disclosing that he believed the agency had violated the law during the Klamath River ESA section 7 consultation. The judge ruled that the Klamath consultation was illegal, but dismissed specific allegations. According to Kelly the coho salmon in the Klamath still do not have adequate flow conditions to assure survival. In early 2004 Kelly found himself in a similar situation. He felt certain that he would again be asked to change conclusions, or "that the biological opinion would be re-written by someone else based on less rigorous examination of evidence and without an appropriate level of caution." Kelly and other biologists were appalled when they heard from high-ranking agency officials that, "Just as natural habitats provide a place for fish to spawn and to rear, also hatcheries can do that." Scientific evidence has shown that hatcheries have contributed to the demise of natural populations of salmon (13,29).
Scientific data related to coal mining ignored

Senior government officials at the Department of the Interior disregarded extensive research conducted by five separate state and federal agencies over a four-year period reported in an environmental impact statement (EIS) on mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. According to Jim Hecker of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ), the Army Corps of Engineers continues to authorize coal mining activities in several states, ignoring prior litigation and the devastating scientific data presented by the federal agencies in the draft environmental impact statement on mountaintop removal mining. Despite the fact that agencies agreed that the EIS should recommend policies and procedures to minimize adverse environmental effects, J. Stephen Griles Secretary of the Department of the Interior (and former lobbyist for the National Mining Association) instructed the agency scientists and staff to alter the focus of the EIS and focus on centralizing and streamlining coal-mining permitting and drop any options for more environmentally benign alternatives to current practices (24,27).
Coal fired power plants and mercury pollution

There appears to be overwhelming evidence that the level of mercury pollution in the environment presents a health risk to infants, children and the unborn (4, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 22, 25, 30). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that more than half of all freshwater fish from American lakes had mercury levels that may be unhealthy for children under the age of 3. The EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that pregnant and nursing mothers and children under three should limit servings of white albacore tuna to one serving a week. Forty-four states have warned residents to limit how much fresh water fish they consume (11). According to Carol Browner, the head of the EPA during the Clinton administration, "the greatest source of mercury emissions is power plants, and they have never been required to control these emissions before (11,30).

In December of 2000 the Clinton Administration announced that it would require coal-fired power plants to cut their toxic emissions of mercury. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations were to be written by George W. Bush (11). Bush officials suppressed and sought to manipulate information contained in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on children's health as it was related to the environment. In May 2003 the White House Office of Management and Budget and The Office of Science and Technology Policy began the review of the document. In February an EPA official leaked the draft to the Wall Street Journal. Shortly after the leak, the EPA Report was finally released. Had the EPA official not leaked the report, it likely would not have been released until desired revisions had been made. The new rules proposed by the EPA actually had twelve or more paragraphs, sometimes in their entirety inserted in their entirety from a document prepared by coal industry lawyers. According to a report from the Los Angeles Times, political appointees at the EPA completely bypassed the EPA scientists, staff and a federal advisory panel in writing the proposed rules. Director of EPA Air Enforcement Division, Bruce C. Buckheit, who retired in 2003 said that his division was not even permitted to read the proposed rules until after they were released (26).

There are countless reports on scientific studies indicating that the lowering the emission from coal-fired power plants would reduce the mercury in the atmosphere and subsequently the mercury in fish (8, 30). However, reports from industry backed organizations such as coal industry's The Greening Earth Society suggest that environmental mercury accounts for the lion's share of the airborne mercury, and as a result it is not possible to lower the amount of mercury substantially by reducing power plant emissions (5, 10, 11). Interestingly enough, Thomas D. Atkeson, Mercury Coordinator for Florida's Department of Environmental Protection, reported that mercury pollution dropped by 90% in South Florida since medical waste incinerators were fitted with new controls (there are no coal fired power plants there). Mercury levels in large mouth bass and wading birds declined 80% during the same time(8). This contradicts the predictions made by the Greening Earth Society (10).21st Century Lysenkoism?

Some of the most qualified scientists in the world have spoken on issues that affect America and the entire world, but nobody in Bush's administration seems to be listening, or if they are listening, they have chosen to ignore their recommendations in favor of recommendations of industry and special interest groups (13, 15, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30). It is a sad reminder of the Stalin years in the Soviet Union. The suppression and distortion of science could have serious consequences for the future of American Research (20) just as it did on scientific research in the Soviet Union. The longer scientific censure is allowed to control public policy and governmental research, the greater the potential of scientists leaving the federal agencies for positions elsewhere that permit them to conduct research in an unbiased atmosphere. They would likely be replaced by less qualified scientists, or those who would be willing to compromise the principles of the scientific method in order to comply with the desired results of the administration. Doctor Margaret Scarlett, who worked with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) for 15 years stated, "The current administration has instituted an unheard of level of micromanagement into the programmatic and scientific activities of CDC. We are seeing a clear substitution of ideology for science, and it is causing many committed scientists to leave the agency (33)."

Virtually every scientific agency in the U.S. government has been shaken at its foundation by the substitution of pseudoscience for scientific investigation. If our government is to make sound public policy, true scientific investigation must be allowed and encouraged to flourish untainted by political agendas, industry pressure and the pseudoscience these pressures breed. The U.S. Congress and President must stop sacrificing sound science for shortsighted political agendas and must stop substituting true scientific research with pseudoscience.
Bibliography

1. American Cancer Society, Inc. Cancer Research Information: What Causes Cancer? 2004
2. Baaquie, Belal E. Laws of Physics : A Primer. Core Curriculum. National University of Singapore. 2000.
3. Bhattacharya, Shaoni. "Research funded by drug companies is biased." NewScientist.com news service. 30 May 03.
4. Billups, Sally and David Wright. The Trouble With Coal: Michigan Needs Cleaner Power Choices. Michigan Environmental Council. www.mienv.org. September 1999.
5. Brunell, Don. "President's Perspective: Mother Nature the Big Polluter." Association of Washington Business. March 26, 2004.
6. Cancer Research UK . Is There a Link Between Cancer and the Type of Bra You Wear?" 2002.
7. Crosby, Charles. "Policy Review in Science Calls for Bush Administration to Protect Wild Salmon." Dalhousie News. Dalhousie University. March 25, 2004.
8. Eilperin, Juliet. Most Fish From Lakes is Too High in Mercury. Washington Post. Page A06. August 4, 2004.
9. Environmental News Network. "We're Poisoning our Kids, Toxins Report Says. September 11, 2000.
10. Greening Earth Society. "Coal: Shoot First, Ask Questions Later." World Climate Report. Volume 8, Number 13. 2003.
11. Hellprin, John, Associated Press. "Polluted Fish Warnings Cover one-third of Lakes, One-fourth of Rivers." Environmental News Network. August 24, 2004.
12. Ivowiki. "Pseudoscience."Evolution Education Wiki. http://wiki.cotch.net. August. 2004.
13. Kelly, Michael. "Letter of Resignation to NOAA and NOAA Fisheries Leadership." Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. May 18, 2004
14. Krug, E. C. and D. Winstanley. "Comparison of Mercury in Atmosphereic Deposition and in Illinois and USA Soils." Hydrology and Earth Systems 8(1) 98102. 2004.
15. Lomond, Ben. "FTR 292 Power Corrupts." Spitfire Infotech. April 15, 2001.
16. McCann, Herbert. "Mercury Found in Midwest Rain." Healthandenergy.com. Sept. 15, 99.
17. Meyer, Alden. "Bringing Science Back to the People." Catalyst. Volume 3, Number 1. 2004.
18. Reuters. "U.S. to Cut Mercury Emissions From Coal-fired Plants. CNN.com. Dec 15, 2000.
19. Rossiyanov, Krill. Stalin as Lysenko's Editor: Reshaping Political Discourse in the Soviet Union. http:/eserver.org/cyber/stalin.txt.
20. Editors, Scientific American. "Bush-League Lysenkoism." Scientific American. April 26, 2004.
21. Seitz, Frederick. "The Present Danger to Science and Society." COSMOS: Science and Society. 1995.
22. Sierra Club, Central Ohio Group Issues. "Coal, Mercury and the EAP. July, 2004
23. Shaw, Suzanne. "New Cases of Scientific Abuse Emerge Thousands More Scientist Join Protest." Michigan Environmental Council. July 8, 2004.
24. TLPJ Reporter. "Groups Sue Army Corps of Engineers Over Mountaintop." Removal Permits. Trial Lawyers For Public Justice: National Headquarters. www.tlpj.org. 2001
25. US Geological Service, South Florida Information Access. "Mercury Studies in Florida Everglades." Er.usgs.gov/publications/fs/166-96/print.html. 1996
26. UCS. "Information on Power Plant Mercury Censored." Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004.
27. UCS. "Leveling a Mountain of Research on Mountaintop Removal Strip Mining." Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004.
28. UCS. "Deleting Scientific Advice on Endangered Salmon." Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004.
29. UCS. "Scientific Integrity in Policy Making." Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004.
30. USEPA. Mercury Study Report to Congress. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997.
31. Wudka, Jose. "The Scientific Method." University of California –Riverside. 1998.
32. The Regents of the University of Michigan. Windows to the Universe, at http://www.windows.ucar.edu/ University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). ©1995-1999, 2000;
33. Reporter. "Disseminating Research From Federal Agencies." Scientific Integrity In Policy Making: Bush Misuse of Science. http://webexhibits.org/bush/20.html

exiledtoedinburgh
31-Mar-05, 10:26
Who exactly is Lorraine Mann? Is she from caithness or what?

No, she's not from Caithness. As far as I know she lives in the Tain / Portmahomack area.