Strengthening the Prime Time News in Malaysia – Celebrating the News, Our Ideals and Heroes.

Prime time news can be seen as a catalyst to the society. It shapes, transforms and direct the public’s concern toward what matters most at the time the news were covered. Through the use of prime time news, political opinions can be united, more entrepreneurs can be generated and emotions can be triggered. I’m looking at prime time news objectively since it’s merely an effective tool to shape a society.

I don’t have the statistics on how many people who watch prime time news, or the gender, or the age group, but I can assure that my family watch prime time news, which consists of working people, old people, students and housewives. Therefore, I have the reason to care about how such tools are utilized to shape my families and the society’s families from home.

At the time this piece is written, I’m commenting based on the TV1 news and TV3 (Buletin Utama) news. At this moment, these are the key points that mostly covered. Keep in mind that I’m not a professional commenter, but here I shall put in some thoughts on what I can observe in the news nowadays.

Slow down on emphasizing the world news.

  • Sometimes the news coverage was more weighted towards what is happening in the West (read: US). This is contrary to the practise of West’s style of reporting. For example in the prime time news in the US, they would not cover things that happen outside of the US that much (e.g. Kebakaran di Pasar Rantau Panjang, why would they care? Kebakaran di Virginia, US, why would we care?). They will only cover the oversea news if such news has a direct impact towards the US citizens, e.g. US manufacturing companies moving to China, India’s race to the space to beat US’s achievement, vaccinations issues etc.
  • In Malaysia’s broadcasting case, if US’s John Kerry is visiting somewhere to do US government things, why should we care? If John Kerry is visiting Malaysia to discuss something important, then yes, that news would be beneficial to Malaysian citizens.

Political news is OK, but too much.

  • What kind of society that we want to be? Do we want to be a tech savvy society like Japan? If yes, more tech news, innovations done in Malaysia should be covered.
  • Do we want to be a traditional society? Then pops and moms business, agriculture news and the related should be covered more.
  • Or do we want to be a fearful society? Then more gangster and riot news should be covered.
  • Or do we want a healthy society? Then more news should be covered on types of food, public sports event like running, triathlon and so on.
  • The point is if a society wants to be transformed, sometimes ignorance is bliss. We need to be focus. What we are worrying is when the society was not aware of the riots and gangsters, but that is the police’s job.

The local news is great.

  • The local news that covers the hardship of the society is well presented. It triggers emotion, respect and the drive to help each other as the member of the society.
  • Once a week, the prime time news covers the pressing thing that probably not being taken care much by the local authority, for example the slot Aduan Rakyat by TV3. That slot is brilliant. Well, if you have a concern and the local authority would not take care of it, then everybody else must know and take proper actions.
  • When I was a kid, long time ago, sometimes the prime time news covers the artist’s gossips, but now not anymore. As I grow older, the local prime time news gains more respect, because they are focusing on things that matters most. The artists? Let the gossip’s show covers them.

The local news should educate more, not seeking for off-taste comments.

  • The prime time news journalist goes to the university to meet the Professors or Professor Madya’s to seek for comments. This should be practiced more. Include more comments from the engineers, social commenters are more of them. Reduce seeking for comments from the minister. Sometimes I found their comments are quite off to be seen by the society.

Lastly, give the credit where it’s due.

  • The oversea’s news highlight the journalist very well. We should treat the journalist like stars. These reports jump through hoops, endanger their lives and get to the forefront to get the news, why shy to promote them. Don’t just mention their name briefly, show their face and a format should be revised so the news can also highlight the brave reporters with their face and voice. We want to know our heroes! Put more of Saiful Nizam Ismail, Mior Abdul Malek Rayani , Nurulhuda Abd Aziz, Kamaruddin Mape and the likes in the end of the short report. Those are our heroes! Well, a new format should be revised I think, but yeah, celebrate them more than the artists.
Advertisements

Experience-taking phenomenon

When you “lose yourself” inside the world of a fictional character while reading a story, you may actually end up changing your own behavior and thoughts to match that of the character, a new study suggests.

Researchers at Ohio State University examined what happened to people who, while reading a fictional story, found themselves feeling the emotions, thoughts, beliefs and internal responses of one of the characters as if they were their own – a phenomenon the researchers call “experience-taking.”

They found that, in the right situations, experience-taking may lead to real changes, if only temporary, in the lives of readers.

In one experiment, for example, the researchers found that people who strongly identified with a fictional character who overcame obstacles to vote were significantly more likely to vote in a real election several days later.

“Experience-taking can be a powerful way to change our behavior and thoughts in meaningful and beneficial ways,” said Lisa Libby, co-author of the study and assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University.

via [link]

Collapse of the Deep Water Horizon

The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion refers to the April 20, 2010 explosion and subsequent fire on the Deepwater Horizon semi-submersible Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU), which was owned and operated by Transocean and drilling for BP in the Macondo Prospect oil field about 40 miles (60 km) southeast of the Louisiana coast. The explosion killed 11 workers and injured 16 others; another 99 people survived without serious physical injury. It caused the Deepwater Horizon to burn and sink, and started a massive offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; this environmental disaster is now considered the second largest in U.S. history, behind the Dust Bowl.

via [LINK]

The genetic risks of nuclear power are equivalent to men wearing pants an extra 8 hours per year [via physics.isu.edu]

RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER

Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D.
Professor at the University of Pittsburgh

The full original article can be retrieved from physics.isu.edu

Radiation

The principal risks associated with nuclear power arise from health effects of radiation. This radiation consists of subatomic particles traveling at or near the velocity of light—186,000 miles per second. They can penetrate deep inside the human body where they can damage biological cells and thereby initiate a cancer. If they strike sex cells, they can cause genetic diseases in progeny.

Radiation occurs naturally in our environment; a typical person is, and always has been struck by 15,000 particles of radiation every second from natural sources, and an average medical X-ray involves being struck by 100 billion. While this may seem to be very dangerous, it is not, because the probability for a particle of radiation entering a human body to cause a cancer or a genetic disease is only one chance in 30 million billion (30 quintillion).

Nuclear power technology produces materials that are active in emitting radiation and are therefore called “radioactive”. These materials can come into contact with people principally through small releases during routine plant operation, accidents in nuclear power plants, accidents in transporting radioactive materials, and escape of radioactive wastes from confinement systems. We will discuss these separately, but all of them taken together, with accidents treated probabilistically, will eventually expose the average American to about 0.2% of his exposure from natural radiation. Since natural radiation is estimated to cause about 1% of all cancers, radiation due to nuclear technology should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one hour. By comparison, our loss of life expectancy from competitive electricity generation technologies, burning coal, oil, or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days.

There has been much misunderstanding on genetic diseases due to radiation. The risks are somewhat less than the cancer risks; for example, among the Japanese A-bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been about 400 extra cancer deaths among the 100,000 people in the follow-up group, but there have been no extra genetic diseases among their progeny. Since there is no possible way for the cells in our bodies to distinguish between natural radiation and radiation from the nuclear industry, the latter cannot cause new types of genetic diseases or deformities (e.g., bionic man), or threaten the “human race”. Other causes of genetic disease include delayed parenthood (children of older parents have higher incidence) and men wearing pants (this warms the gonads, increasing the frequency of spontaneous mutations). The genetic risks of nuclear power are equivalent to delaying parenthood by 2.5 days, or of men wearing pants an extra 8 hours per year. Much can be done to avert genetic diseases utilizing currently available technology; if 1% of the taxes paid by the nuclear industry were used to further implement this technology, 80 cases of genetic disease would be averted for each case caused by the nuclear industry.

Reactor accidents

The nuclear power plant design strategy for preventing accidents and mitigating their potential effects is “defense in depth”— if something fails, there is a back-up system to limit the harm done, if that system should also fail there is another back-up system for it, etc., etc. Of course it is possible that each system in this series of back-ups might fail one after the other, but the probability for that is exceedingly small. The Media often publicize a failure of some particular system in some plant, implying that it was a close call” on disaster; they completely miss the point of defense in depth which easily takes care of such failures. Even in the Three Mile Island accident where at least two equipment failures were severely compounded by human errors, two lines of defense were still not breached— essentially all of the radioactivity remained sealed in the thick steel reactor vessel, and that vessel was sealed inside the heavily reinforced concrete and steel lined “containment” building which was never even challenged. It was clearly not a close call on disaster to the surrounding population. The Soviet Chernobyl reactor, built on a much less safe design concept, did not have such a containment structure; if it did, that disaster would have been averted.

Risks from reactor accidents are estimated by the rapidly developing science of “probabilistic risk analysis” (PRA). A PRA must be done separately for each power plant (at a cost of $5 million) but we give typical results here: A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.

Of course deaths from coal burning air pollution are not noticeable, but the same is true for the cancer deaths from reactor accidents. In the worst accident considered, expected once in 100,000 melt-downs (once in 2 billion years of reactor operation), the cancer deaths would be among 10 million people, increasing their cancer risk typically from 20% (the current U.S. average) to 20.5%. This is much less than the geographical variation— 22% in New England to 17% in the Rocky Mountain states.

Very high radiation doses can destroy body functions and lead to death within 60 days, but such “noticeable” deaths would be expected in only 2% of reactor melt-down accidents; there would be over 100 in 0.2% of meltdowns, and 3500 in 1 out of 100,000 melt-downs. To date, the largest number of noticeable deaths from coal burning was in an air pollution incident (London, 1952) where there were 3500 extra deaths in one week. Of course the nuclear accidents are hypothetical and there are many much worse hypothetical accidents in other electricity generation technologies; e.g., there are hydroelectric dams in California whose sudden failure could cause 200,000 deaths.

Radioactive Waste

The radioactive waste products from the nuclear industry must be isolated from contact with people for very long time periods. The bulk of the radioactivity is contained in the spent fuel, which is quite small in volume and therefore easily handled with great care. This “high level waste” will be converted to a rock-like form and emplaced in the natural habitat of rocks, deep underground. The average lifetime of a rock in that environment is one billion years. If the waste behaves like other rock, it is easily shown that the waste generated by one nuclear power plant will eventually, over millions of years (if there is no cure found for cancer), cause one death from 50 years of operation. By comparison, the wastes from coal burning plants that end up in the ground will eventually cause several thousand deaths from generating the same amount of electricity.

The much larger volume of much less radioactive (low level) waste from nuclear plants will be buried at shallow depths (typically 20 feet) in soil. If we assume that this material immediately becomes dispersed through the soil between the surface and ground water depth (despite elaborate measures to maintain waste package integrity) and behaves like the same materials that are present naturally in soil (there is extensive evidence confirming such behavior), the death toll from this low level waste would be 5% of that from the high level waste discussed in the previous paragraph.

Other Radiation Problems

The effects of routine releases of radioactivity from nuclear plants depend somewhat on how the spent fuel is handled. A typical estimate is that they may reduce our life expectancy by 15 minutes.

Potential problems from accidents in transport of radioactive materials are largely neutralized by elaborate packaging. A great deal of such transport has taken place over the past 50 years and there have been numerous accidents, including fatal ones. However, from all of these accidents combined, there is less than a 1% chance that even a single death will ever result from radiation exposure. Probabilistic risk analyses indicate that we can expect less than one death per century in U.S. from this source.

Mining uranium to fuel nuclear power plants leaves “mill tailings”, the residues from chemical processing of the ore, which lead to radon exposures to the public. However, these effects are grossly over-compensated by the fact that mining uranium out of the ground reduces future radon exposures. By comparison, coal burning leaves ashes that increase future radon exposures. The all-inclusive estimates of radon effects are that one nuclear power plant operating for one year will eventually avert a few hundred deaths, while an equivalent coal burning plant will eventually cause 30 deaths.

Gunung Berapi Iceland Meletup Lagi

Smoke rises from the Grimsvotn volcano, Saturday, May 21, 2011 in Reykjavik, Iceland. Iceland’s most active volcano has started erupting, scientists said Saturday – just over a year after another eruption on the North Atlantic island shut down European air traffic for days.  (Xinhua/AFP Photo)

Selamatkan Palestin | Sedikit Perspektif

Letakkan diri anda di dalam perspektif seorang rakyat Palestin.

Sebagai orang Palestin, tanah anda dirampas, rumah anda dimusnahkan, anda tak dibenarkan untuk bekerja, bapa anda dipenjarakan, mereka bunuh ibu anda, anda dibiarkan kelaparan, dan dimalukan oleh orang-orang Israel. Dunia politik Barat kata, “ya, itu memang derita, Israel, jangan buat lagi ok?”.

Bila anda, iaitu seorang Palestin membalas dengan sebiji roket, dunia Barat membuka mata sebesar-besarnya, dan menjerit, “Hey kau Pengganas!!”.

Lelaki Palestin Membantah Kekejaman Israel