Jim Al-Khalili on nuclear power

Pompey Skeptics' Honorary President Jim Al-Khalili is our next speaker — at the Rose in June PH on Thursday 10 September. Details and tickets (£3.50) from here:

http://www.wegottickets.com/event/329076

Can't wait that long for your Jim-fix? Tomorrow on BBC4 he's presenting a documentary about Sellafield nuclear power station:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065x080

Lying on the remote northwest coast of England is one of the most secret places in the country - Sellafield, the most controversial nuclear facility in Britain. Now, for the first time, Sellafield are letting nuclear physicist Professor Jim Al-Khalili and the television cameras in, to discover the real story. Inside, Jim encounters some of the most dangerous substances on Earth, reveals the nature of radiation and even attempts to split the atom. He sees inside a nuclear reactor, glimpses one of the rarest elements in the world - radioactive plutonium - and even subjects living tissue to deadly radiation. Ultimately, the film reveals Britain's attempts - past, present and future - to harness the almost limitless power of the atom.

...and there's a bit in the Radio Times about it (click image to bignify):

Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die — BBC2, Monday 13 June, 9 pm

Click to enlarge

The cover of next week's Radio Times is in no doubt as to the most significant broadcasting event during the seven days of the listing magazine's coverage. Sir Terry Pratchett peers out from the bottom of this inelegantly designed cover, his stern visage dwarfed by ominous red-on-black typography: "5 minutes of television that will change our lives..."

On Monday 13 June at 9 pm BBC2 will broadcast a specially commissioned documentary about assisted death, and it will feature the actual final moments of someone who has chosen to travel to Dignitas in Switzerland to be assisted in dying. Inside the magazine is an extensive interview with Sir Terry, whose investigations into assisted dying are documented in the programme. It's this interview (and the BBC press release) that forms the basis of several news reports:

Terry Pratchett's BBC documentary reopens debate on assisted dying | Books | The Guardian

Millionaire hotelier Peter Smedley named as man whose assisted suicide was filmed by BBC - Telegraph

'He drinks a liquid, falls into a deep sleep and dies'... the moment a man commits suicide in front of BBC cameras | Mail Online

The Mail article has comments. As of this writing there are a few saying that an actual death is not a fit subject for TV, but none claiming that assisted dying is wrong. Most say the documentary should be shown, and that assisted dying should be legal.

After his impassioned and closely argued plea for the legalisation of assisted dying, delivered as the Richard Dimbleby Lecture last year, Sir Terry was the obvious choice to front this documentary. I look forward to watching it.

---

UPDATE 2011-06-14:

Choosing to Die is now available on the iPlayer for a week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0120dxp/Terry_Pratchett_Choosing_to_Die/
The Newsnight Debate following the documentary should soon be available here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012119k/Newsnight_Choosing_to_Die_Newsnight_Debate/

A detached view of scripture? BBC2's "Bible's Buried Secrets"

Next week's Radio Times has an article about a new BBC Two three-part TV series beginning on Tuesday 15th March at 9 pm entitled Bible's Buried Secrets, presented by Dr Francesca Stavrakopolou. The article is titled "The woman who says God was married", and quotes her as follows:

I'm an atheist with a huge respect for religion, not just ancient religions, but modern religions too. As a biblical scholar, I see what I do as an academic discipline, a branch of history, like any other. And as an academic, I think you leave faith at the door. I'm aware that there are some who find it hard to understand why an atheist could possibly be interested in the Bible, and I think that does a massive disservice to a fantastic collection of ancient texts. The Bible is a work of religious and social literature that has a huge impact on Western culture, and for that reason it's important that programmes like these are made.

My own reaction to the prospect of this series is that it might be a refreshingly detached view of the available facts, in contrast to — for instance — Anne Widdecombe's Channel 4 documentary on Mosaic Law (to which I added my own comment — follow that link and scroll down). The Mail Online takes a different view, judging by their first paragraph:

Looking for a presenter for a TV show about the Bible? The ideal candidate is an atheist who believes traditional interpretations of the book are sexist – according to BBC bosses, at least.

Or as Michael Marshall put it in the tweet that alerted me to the Mail article:

"It seems to me that another foreigner working for the BBC is spouting their anti christian dogma again."

— which is a valid characterisation of the slant used by Hannah Roberts and Paul Revoir in the Mail.

It's a bold move by the BBC, but I note it's not being broadcast on Sunday. (At least it's not suffering merely tentative exposure on BBC4.) 

"Consensus" about complex science, global warming and God

This BBC Horizon programme was listed in Burnee links on Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V89AeCLCtJQ

I embed it above because the problem of climate change skepticism (indeed skepticism of any generally accepted science) raises important issues about how non-experts can be expected to approach the consensus.

In next week's Radio Times (published today) the correspondence pages contain the two letters I've scanned and shown at left (click to bignify and legibilificate). We have two opposite opinions on the Horizon programme, just as we have opposing views on climate change itself. But as Paul Nurse put to James Delingpole, if one is not competent to assess the science itself, it makes sense to go with the consensus — and that's what I do. Climate science is extremely complex, such that even the computer models are only approximations of what is — and will be — going on.

It occurs to me, however, that though I'm willing to accept the scientific consensus on global warming, I'm not willing to accept the consensus on some other matters — the existence of God, for instance. The majority of the world's population believes in some kind of deity. I don't. But unlike with climate science, I consider the arguments for and against the existence of God to be accessible to anyone with some general education and a willingness to think. Some of the arguments for God are philosophical arguments, and I understand that the majority of professional philosophers are atheists. I realise that in this sense I'm agreeing with a consensus, but I'm not doing so blindly. In another sense one can consider theology as part of philosophy and the consensus weakens. But who bases their beliefs on what theologians say?

This week there was another BBC Storyville documentary specifically about climate skepticism, by Rupert Murray. From the BBC website:

Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them

Do they have the evidence that we are heating up the atmosphere or are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don't fully understand? Where does the truth lie and how are we, the people, supposed to decide?

The film features Britain's pre-eminent sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton as he tours the world broadcasting his message to the public and politicians alike. Can he convince them and Murray that there is nothing to worry about?

What is genuinely worrying about this film is that Lord Monckton seemed to be getting plenty of traction while talking a lot about the science, when as far as I know he's not a scientist. Murray filmed him in Australia doing some field "experiments" with a bottle of acid. While I'm not a scientist myself, I did chemistry, physics and biology at school, and even I know that there's more to understanding how to do science than being able to recite the periodic table.

Professor Brian Cox on the Large Hadron Collider, Moon Hoaxers and Intelligent Design

Next week's Radio Times has an interview with Professor Brian Cox, who has no patience with conspiracy theorists:

Radio Times:

"Cern is being sued in the US over the possible dangers of turning on the LHC, such as creating a mini black hole that might swallow the planet. Could it be the end of everything?"

Brian Cox:

"The nonsense you find on the web about 'doomsday scenarios' is conspiracy theory rubbish generated by a small group of nutters, primarily on the other side of the Atlantic. These people also think that the Theory of Relativity is a Jewish conspiracy and that America didn't land on the Moon. Both are more likely, by the way, than the LHC destroying the world. I'm slightly irritated, because this non-story is symptomatic of a larger mistrust in science, particularly in the US, which includes things like intelligent design."

Radio Times:

"One final question: how can you be certain? We've heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - does it mean you can't be sure of anything?"

Brian Cox:

"The Uncertainty Principle is part of quantum mechanics, and the whole subject is based on that. So it affects every result at LHC, but it doesn't affect the conclusion that anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a t**t."