Nuclear waste spins in its grave

Scientists love to beat the media round the head with accusations of spinning science stories. But who needs hacks to do it when the scientists' own PR folks have their own ultra-fast centrifuges?

Here are two headlines:

Cambridge scientists lay groundwork for safer nuclear waste storage

Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materials faster than expected

Which press release do you think will get the biggest coverage?

I agree. Number 2.

But hang on. Read below the headline and you will find that they are based on the same scientific paper.

Interestingly, the journal carrying the paper, Nature, takes a middle way in the headline on its own report of the paper. This reads "Materials Science: Displaced by radiation".

Of course, the scientists who wrote the "Letter," Nature's way of describing shorter papers, opt for the impenetrable but scientifically accurate "Quantification of actinide alpha-radiation damage in minerals and ceramics".

As Nature's own write up says "The mineral zircon suffers more structural damage from the -decay of plutonium present in its crystal than was thought. That could have a knock-on effect on strategies for managing nuclear waste."

So, as you would expect, the paper supports both headlines. It is just that the folks who wrote the more "sensational" of the two have a better appreciation of which buttons to press to make a journalist jump.



tag: journalism, science writing, energy, nuclear, PR, spin

Universities as R&D partners

Over on The Manufacturer.com, they have an interesting article on Universities as R&D partners. This describes the efforts that some universities in the USA have put into developing links with industry. The particular interest here is that the article focuses on manufacturing, not one of the areas where you would traditionally think of universities as R&D powerhouses.

The article makes the point that a number of universities have set up centres just to help business. For example, they describe The Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies (CIMS) at Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, NY. Established in 1992, its mission is to "increase the competitiveness of US manufacturers through applied technology and training".


The UK is not devoid of similar operations. The Institute for Manufacturing in the Engineering Department at Cambridge and the Warwick Manufacturing Group spring instantly to mind. They are one small sign that the country has not quite given up on manufacturing, despite many reports of its death.

Where is Lord Sainsbury when they need him?

It may be just a coincidence, but within weeks of losing its Minister for Science, Tony Blair's government suddenly manages to provoke panic among the nation's scientists. It would not have happened in Lord Sainsbury's day.

First there were hints that the Department of Trade and Industry would raid the science budget to fill a hole in its own accounts. Now there is a threat to put a brake on stem-cell research. Reuters has the story, Stem cell experts slam UK stance on hybrid embryos.

It may just be scientists crying wolf. If so, they have come along way. Perhaps they have been talking to the same spinmeisters who have done such good work for the image of Number 10.

Madonna was right

A campaign is under way to debunk some of the sillier personality endorsements of wacky science. First we read the item on the BBC web site Stars must 'check science facts', and then there is the article in The Guardian Neutralise radiation and stay off milk: the truth about celebrity health claims.

Unfortunately, the BBC story is thin on juicy bits. The anonymous item offers not one example of a celebrity suffering from scientific foot-in-mouth syndrome. We just get some quotes from some of the usual rent-a-gob mob of scientists and an exhortation from Tracey Brown, director of Sense About Science, urging celebs to call this shadowy outfit before they go public.

It would be much better if they urged the people who passed on this tosh to check it before putting it into their magazines and newspapers. But that would not garner quite as much publicity as going for the celebs.

If you want to read to examples of celebrity tosh, you will have to download the brochure promoting the venture. We like the one from Jo Wood "wife of famous musician" who is quoted as saying "what you put on your skin goes into your bloodstream". She is mouthing off about why she uses organic beauty products.

Sadly, the response is a bit unscientific for us. It quotes Dr Gary Moss, a pharmacologist from the University of Hertfordshire, as saying "Ingredients in cosmetics are normally quite large and cannot get across your skin and into your bloodstream." We think this is a reference to the size of the molecules in all that gunk. He is right, though, when he continues "Your skin feels different when you apply cosmetics because their effect is on the outer surface of the skin."

The Guardian picks up the same story. Unlike the BBC, James Randerson has some of the quotes from the brochure. For example, he includes Madonna's comments on nuclear waste. "I mean, one of the biggest problems that exists right now in the world is nuclear waste ... that's something I've been involved with for a while with a group of scientists - finding a way to neutralise radiation."

The response here is even more suspect. Nick Evans, an environmental radiochemist at Loughborough University tells us that "Radioactivity cannot be 'neutralised', it can only be moved from one place to another until it decays away at its own rate. It comes in many different types: some last for billions of years, others decay away in a few minutes. There are no magical solutions."

Up to a point Lord Copper. By coincidence, we recently read an item on the EU's excellent Cordis web site, German researchers find solution to radioactive waste disposal. This reports that "German physicists ... have come up with a way of speeding up the decay of nuclear waste. The technique involves embedding the waste in metal and cooling it to ultra-low temperatures."

He even puts numbers on the possible reduction in half life. Dr Rolfe says "We are currently investigating radium-226, a hazardous component of spent nuclear fuel with a half-life of 1,600 years. I calculate that using this technique could reduce the half-life to 100 years."

There have been other reports over the years of using accelerators and the like to transmute radioactive isotopes into something safer. Madonna may be talking tosh, but it is unwise to blind her with science that she can easily counter.

tag: PEST, science writing, journalism, media

Stories that clicked on NewScientist.com

Any editor worth the title wants to know what the punters like to read before going on and ignoring their input. So it is worth catching up on NewScientist.com's most popular stories of 2006.

Top of the list of "the ones you clicked on the most" was "Imagine Earth without people," and rounding off the list was "Revealed: What mosquitoes hate about humans".

As an aside, it was nice to see that New Scientist chose to list the top 13, thus poking fun at two cherished notions, that numbers can be unlucky, and that you have to draw up silly lists to grab the reader's attention.


tag: science writing, New Scientist,