jonathan.rawle.org

This week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has come out in favour of a new generation of nuclear power stations. While it is unfortunate if he has pre-empted the findings of the government’s energy review, on this occasion I believe Mr Blair has made the right choice.

In an ideal world, we would be able to use renewable energy sources to meet all of our needs. Unfortunately, the technology does not yet exist for renewables to account for the bulk of our electricity supply. The current nuclear power stations are reaching the end of their lives and we need something to replace them. A decision on nuclear needs to be taken now so that the new plants can come online to take over from the old ones.

By the time the next generation of nuclear power stations are being decommissioned, we will hopefully have developed renewables sufficiently to replace them. We may well also have new alternative sources such as fusion power. None of this is ready yet, so we need just one more cycle of nuclear power in the meantime. But going for nuclear now must not mean research into renewables is cut back. Preferably, much more money should be made available as a matter of urgency.

One alternative to plug the gap would be to use gas-fired power stations, which are cleaner than traditional coal-fired ones. Unfortunately, Britain’s own gas supplies are running out so that we are increasingly reliant on imports from abroad, most notably from Russia. Domestic gas prices are already rocketing, but of even more concern in the future would be security of supply.

Part of me is always surprised when “environmentalists” oppose nuclear power. The largest threat to the environment is global warming, and in this respect nuclear is particularly “clean”. Some of them have condemned it as 50-year-old technology – if they’re going to look at it that way, how old is the technology of burning gas? And for how long have there been windmills? Among the general public, the biggest problem is fear. The only time they hear about nuclear power is when there is an accident. They’ve all heard of Windscale/Sellafield, but they probably don’t realise just how many nuclear plants there are in the country – most of them they will never have heard of because they have all ended their working lives without incident.

That leaves the issue of nuclear waste. The fact is, we already have some of this to deal with, it isn’t going to go away. Maybe if we hadn’t had any nuclear power before it would be a different situation. As it is, a new generation of stations would only double the amount of waste at the very most (and newer stations are supposed to produce less) – it isn’t as if we are going to see a ten-fold increase. They say it will be a legacy that lasts for millennia; but within a century, I’m sure the technology will exist to render nuclear waste safe one way or another.

In the last few years, terrorism has been a big issue, and some people are worried that nuclear power stations could be targets. Many years ago, I can remember seeing a film of an aircraft being flown into a mock-up of a reactor’s concrete shielding. The aircraft was literally vaporised. While of course security should be tight around power stations, the most dangerous form of nuclear terrorism would be a “dirty bomb” exploded in the centre of one of our cities. And there are many countries in the world where it would be much easier for terrorists to obtain radioactive material than in the UK. Ultimately, I don’t believe we should ever be influenced by the prospect of terrorism, otherwise the terrorists have already won.

Opponents of nuclear power complain that Blair is listening to the “nuclear lobby” (and equally, those in the nuclear industry moan that he listens to the “wind power lobby” and suchlike). I have no affiliation with any industry, but in common with most physicists, I believe that we need to continue to utilise nuclear energy for the time being until the alternatives become more viable. I hope that as the lights of Tony Blair’s term as prime minister are about to be extinguished, his legacy will ensure the country’s remain lit for decades to come.

The release of the film version of The Da Vinci code has seen widespread condemnation by religious groups, in particular the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church has set up The Da Vinci Code Response Group, which has condemned The Da Vinci Code as “fiction trading as fact”. There is also the news that one Christian group is distributing scratchcards at cinemas in the UK, with questions such as, “the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a matter of historical record: fact or fiction?” (with the correct answer being fiction). Surely I can’t be the only person who sees a certain irony in this? Isn’t this rhetoric coming from a religion that is based upon a book that is not exactly an accurate historical record itself, and at least in part presents fiction as fact? That’s not to say some people shouldn’t find it a good read; but so too The Da Vinci Code.

Dan Brown’s book is the story of a conspiracy theory – a work of fiction that describes people trying to uncover clues. It’s not supposed to be a non-fiction volume presenting academic research. But even if it was, why worry about a conspiracy theory? Even that paranoid control freak George W Bush doesn’t see the need to ban films depicting conspiracies by the US Government (for example, involving UFOs or international terrorism) irrespective of whether they claim to be fact or fiction.

One cardinal, Francis Arinze, has called on Christians to take legal action against the book. He said, “Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget.” which, strangely enough, is contrary to what I always thought was one of the teachings of Christianity. He didn’t specify what “legal action” should be taken, and it’s hard to see who would have a valid claim as libel can only be committed against a named individual, not a group of people (and not someone who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago). He goes on to say:

This is one of the fundamental human rights – that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected.

Actually, Cardinal Arinze, it’s your right to to manifest your religion or belief, that’s what is enshrined in, for example, Article 9 of the European Convention. However, nowhere does it say others may never criticise your religion. What’s more, Article 10 says that people have the right to freedom of expression.

With all the genuine human rights abuses around the world: people imprisoned without a fair trial, people who are unable even to practise their religion openly, etc., don’t you think Christians could be making a more useful contribution to the world by speaking out against some of those things, instead of thinking of themselves and their own religion – a religion in which they seem to have so little faith, they are worried that a simple film and novel might undermine it?

Last weekend, one of the first cases of fraud involving “chip and pin” payment cards was reported to have forced Shell to suspend the system at its petrol stations.

A brief background to chip and pin: originally, all credit and debit cards carried information on a magnetic strip, and to make a payment, the cardholder had to sign the till receipt, which the cashier was then meant to check against the signature on the back of the card. Chip and pin is supposed to increase security two fold: information is stored in a microchip on the front of the card, which is harder to duplicate; and the cardholder must enter his or her four-digit personal identification number (PIN) to authorise the transaction, instead of signing.

When the system was introduced, I realised that the new system was only as secure as the PIN. If someone discovers the PIN, for example by watching the cardholder at the supermarket checkout, they can then use the card if they manage to steal it, and don’t even need to be good at forging signatures.

This latest fraud seemingly involves keypads in the petrol stations that have been tampered with so that they record the details of the magnetic strip – a form of fraud that has been around for a long time. The difference is that now the fraudsters are also able to record the PIN as it is entered. The information from the magnetic strip is used to make a clone card, which is then used to withdraw money from cash machines. Apparently, cash machines still read the strip instead of the chip as they haven’t been upgraded yet – presumably to reduce the banks’ costs. As the PIN used at the cash machine is the same as the one used for chip and pin, there is no barrier to withdrawing cash up to the cardholder’s limit.

Hopefully, the cash machines will eventually be replaced. But by then, maybe the criminals will have figured out how to read and reproduce the microchips. In the meantime, all the hapless cardholder can do is to be sure to shield the keypad when entering the PIN, and to check account balances and statements regularly. Alternatively, we could all go back to cash.

From 1 April 2006, internet streams of British independent radio stations ceased to be available for listeners outside the UK.

Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), who collect royalties on behalf of record companies, informed broadcasters that they are only in a position to sell broadcasting rights for the UK. Therefore, when the old licences expired on 31 March, all of the independent radio stations had to restrict their internet streams to British listeners only.

Radio has never stopped at national boundaries, such is the nature of radio waves. The internet should be a technology that brings people from different countries closer by breaking down communication barriers. It should now be easier than ever to reach a global audience, without having to construct a network of shortwave radio transmitters. But instead, the music industry is using this technology to place restrictions on who can listen to radio stations, based on geographical location. It’s turning technology against people instead of using if for the common good. In much the same way, it should now be easier to distribute recordings and sell them online, but the music industry has insisted on crippling such products with so called “digital rights management” (DRM) which makes the online purchase far inferior to buying a physical CD.

I am a regular Classic FM listener, and there would often be e-mails read out from people listening on the other side of the world (for example, a lunchtime request sent in by an American listener over breakfast). That has now ended. So for all those people who don’t know anyone from outside their own country, that one time of the day where they might have felt part of a global community has been taken away, a step backwards to the insularity of the pre-information age.

There is, however, some light relief, and an indication that the broadcasters aren’t exactly happy with the new arrangements. Coupled with the 1 April date, I even thought the whole story might be a joke, but sadly not. GCap Media plc, who own many independent radio stations including Classic FM and Capital Radio, have restricted their internet streams to listeners in the UK. This is done primarily by IP address, but in case they wrongly identify a UK-based listener as being abroad, they also offer the option of entering a valid British postcode to prove that the user is in the UK. This is the message that overseas listeners receive when they attempt to listen online to Classic FM:

Due to licensing changes, we’re only allowed to offer our radio stream to those in the UK. You seem to be outside the UK, so you need to enter a valid UK postcode below:
[…]
If you don’t have cookies enabled, you’ll have to enter your postcode each time you listen. This service is managed by GCap Media plc, 30 Leicester Square, LONDON, WC2H 7LA

That wouldn’t be a valid UK postcode that’s part of their address, by any chance? Just in case listeners are uncertain about this, Capital Radio give the following advice on their How to Listen page:

If you don’t live in the UK, and are unable to provide a valid postcode (eg WC2H 7LA) you will be unable to connect to the player.

Given that GCap didn’t ask for this restriction in the first place, there are no prizes for guessing whether entering their own postcode in the box allows the listener to hear the internet stream. But even if it didn’t work, it’s simple enough to find a valid UK postcode anyway.

We often hear about the “Great Firewall of China”, the filter put in place by Chinese censors to prevent access to material that is disapproved of by the Chinese government. For example, there is no access to BBC News. However, for those in the West, it’s usually only possible to read media reports, or hear second- or third-hand about such restrictions.

Last week, the Chinese search engine Baidu launched its own wiki-based encyclopedia called Baike. Unlike Wikipedia – the free, collaborative encyclopedia available in many languages including Chinese – articles submitted to Baike do not appear immediately, but first have to be approved by anonymous editors. In addition, if a user attempts to search for a topic about which discussion is forbidden, the connection to the server is refused, and access to Baike is blocked for 10–15 minutes!

For example, try visiting Baike and searching for “democracy” (民主) or “Falun gong” (法轮功) – you can copy and paste the Chinese words from here if you don’t have the means to input them yourself. Not only will you receive no response, but you won’t be able to access the site again for a while. First-hand evidence of censorship.

Perhaps it’s understandable that a Chinese company has to follow the Communist Party line. It’s a bit more unfortunate that the likes of Google and Microsoft have chosen to do the same.

• Wikipedia article on Baidu Baike