Slashdot Mirror

Just a small correction: we don't really know how many victims Chernobyl made. The '50 fatalities' figure was at some point an official Soviet figure, which included only about 47 workers who died of acute radiation poisoning, and is hopelessly optimistic.

The WHO and the AEIA estimates the number of direct victims of Chernobyl to 4,000, but this figure is suspected to be low, as the AEIA has vested interests in the nuclear industry.

The TORCH report (The Other Report of CHernobyl), commissioned by the European Green Party, estimate about 60,000 extra cancers deaths due to Chernobyl. This figure does not include non-fatal cancers, which still have notable effect on victims.

A recent book, written by reputed scientists and based over 5,000 survey, puts the number of victims at about one million. Of course, some people disagree with this figure, however, there is no doubt that the scope of the accident was massive, and continues to make victims today.

The Ukrainian government has claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million people, including 500,000 children, have suffered adverse health effects from the Chernobyl disaster. This does not include the effect on people displaced due to the disaster. Of course the Ukrainian people are the ones left with the very hot potato and they would dearly like some help.

Also you may want to take a look a this photo essay and reflect on your "50 victims" figure. The bottom line is that there were definitely way more victims than the 50 you claim, and quite possibly way way more.

I'm right now totally in favor of nuclear energy, but we need to all understand the very significant risks, and try to mitigate them as much as possible.

Or like Chernobyl. Perhaps 60,000 excess deaths. http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118559.torch_executive_summary@en.pdf

I said per kilowatt-hour produced. Geesh... did you even pay attention to what I had to say?

Er, yes I did, and I was more than happy to believe you given sufficient evidence. Let's examine your claim - coal power stations produce more radioactive waste per kWh than Chernobyl:

FYI, coal plants release far more radioactive waste per kWh generated than the worst and most inefficient nuclear power plants... with perhaps the singlar exception of Chernobyl. Even that I'm not 100% certain of.

It's hard to assess the radioactive waste quantitatively but this quote about Chernobyl may help us make a qualatitive analysis at least, via Wikipedia, http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118559.torch_executive_summary@en.pdf:

"In certain regions of Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania and Poland, wild game (including boar and deer), wild mushrooms, berries and carnivorous fish from lakes reach levels of several thousand Bq per kg of caesium-137", while "in Germany, caesium-137 levels in wild boar muscle reached 40,000 Bq/kg. The average level is 6,800 Bq/kg, more than ten times the EU limit of 600 Bq/kg", according to the TORCH 2006 report. The European Commission has stated that "The restrictions on certain foodstuffs from certain Member States must therefore continue to be maintained for many years to come"

Now let's look at the effects of radioactive waste from a coal power plants; http://www.coalonline.org/site/coalonline/content/viewer?LogDocId=81357&PhyDocId=5945&filename=5945_34.html at Section 3.2.3:

Radioactive trace elements in fly ash include the elements 238U, 232Th and 40K. Using the fission track registration technique, Jojo and others (1994) found the average uranium concentration to be 29.1 ppm in fly ash, 25.7 ppm in slag and 17.1 ppm in coal. Uranium exists in coal as the silicate mineral, coffinite, and as uraninite (UO2). During combustion, the refractory coffinite is distributed in equal concentrations in fly ash and bottom ash, while uraninite is vaporised and later condensed on fly ash when the flue gases cool. Uranium has only a slightly higher concentration in fly ash than in bottom ash.

Font and others (1993) quantified heavy metals in ash by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICPAES). The amount of radionuclides that are captured depends on their concentration in the original coal used, that of the ash it produces, the efficiency of the filtering system employed and the combustion efficiency of the power plant itself. The concentrations of some primary radionuclides in fly ash are estimated to be 265 Bq/kg for 40K, 200 Bq/kg for 238U and 240 Bq/kg for 226Ra.

Now the Greens-EFA and CoalOnline are both likely to be quoting research in their favour ... but at least qualitatively looking at the Becquerels/kg of the radioactive by-products of coal power vs. the fallout a couple of countries away from Chernobyl 20+ years later I can safely say I'd rather live near a coal power station capturing it's fly ash in building materials than near Chernobyl issuing forth it's radioactive matter upon the lands of Europe.

For comparison old houses with 400 Bq/m^3 of radon are considered to within safe limits in the EU. But who fills their basement with fly ash?

In other news, gas ovens make more flame than flame-throwers.

Here you are: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/default/dok/148/1484 90.eu_patent_law@en.htm

Remember also there's probably going to be a general election in May - now's the time to ask prospective candidates questions!

Here's some links to stuff from the SNP one, two and three

The European Patent Office has been granting stupid software patents for years, even though they'll remain impossible to enforce pending the new legislation. For example, see some of Ericsson's patents here.

As you would expect, the average European is just as clueless about software patents as the average American. I wish this was not true but it is. It's possible that there's a higher awareness within the political parties, but not necessarily in favour of the free software position. At least the European greens in the parliament seem to have some clue.

Regards,

/ A EUropean who will take this opportunity to help vote in representatives this weekend with a favourable view on this matter.

On June 13th we within the European Union will have the election of the European Parliament, and its result might well influence whether the result of the European Council will be accepted or needs to be discussed further.

If you live in Europe and prefer the latter I suggest you to go to this election and vote for a party which is against this result. Currently the only pan-European party network clearly against software patents is the "European Federation of Green Parties", all other party networks have vastly differing opinions depending on the country.

Keep in mind that in the election of the European Parliament you vote for specific local people about whom you often can find more information on the internet. At e.g. following page you can read exactly who voted for or against software patents last time in the European Parliament, you may be able to find your local candidates among them.

Wish luck and success to us (sorry to have to start at 0 here, please mod me up).

dear jaruz, michael,

we didn't make a public announcement, so we didn't put it up on the MERIT website so that it could be confirmed. as questions have been raised regarding the authenticity of the announcement and MERIT's commitment to free software, please note that the following letter will be posted to the FLOSS home page as soon as possible - by monday, at any rate - so that it can be "verified". i have added the last paragraph to respond to /. (incorrect) comments regarding the support of MERIT for free software.

given some comments that MERIT "supports the patent lobby" i would also like to clarify that several of the economists listed in the EPIP conference programme were signatories and/or authors of the Economists' Letter against Software Patents sent to the European Parliament.

Moreover, Luc Soete, Director of MERIT, and I both spoke at the Sep 17th conference in the European Parliament against software patents.

best wishes,
Rishab Ghosh
Project leader FLOSS/FLOSSPOLS
MERIT

----
As director of MERIT at the University of Maastricht, I would like to inform you
that we are no longer organising the conference on the topic of Open Standards
and Libre Software in Government at UNESCO Paris, November 24-26, 2003. Until
now, MERIT was responsible for the logistics and through the FLOSSPOLS project,
EC funding for the conference. This is now wholly withdrawn.

We have taken this decision in consultation with the European Commission, whose
support for this conference was earlier being provided through the proposed
FLOSSPOLS project at MERIT.

We sincerely regret the inconvenience this may cause you. For more information
please contact us by e-mail at nov2003@infonomics.nl

For MERIT Prof. Dr. Luc Soete
Director, MERIT
Universiteit Maastricht
PO Box 616, 6200MD
Maastricht, the Netherlands
Tel: +31 43 388 3875
----
MERIT remains fully committed to its research activities in the area of Free/Libre/Open Source
Software through the EC-funded FLOSS project, and the area of FLOSS and government through
the follow-up project FLOSSPOLS. The 2-year
FLOSSPOLS project, which includes research, studies, surveys and public events related to
government and free/libre/open source software will commence later this year.
More information on the project(s) can be found on the FLOSS home page, flossproject.org

It is very common that patent protagonists lied to the general public and their collegues. Patent lawyers are like crackers. Cracker circumvent security, patent lawyers circumvent restrictions of patent law. A patent lawyer that cannot file a patent on software patents with the current "JURI amended"-directive proposal would not be worth his money.

Here you find the amendments that will be voted on and FFII's recommendation. FFII and the Eurolinux Alliance are very strong in Brussels and they grow stronger every day. Many parliamentarians listen to us and then the directive protagonists sell the directive as an fulfillment of our concerns, switching rhethorics, but not substance. About 200 people now focus on this issue as activists on our mailing lists. You can subscribe to patent@aful.org or take part in theOnline demonstration or become a member/supporter of FFII or sign the Eurolinux Petition. You can support FFII by donations or even better by contributions. The European Parliament underestimated us. The patent lawyer slaves in Europarl came under strong pressure. We will be a mayor stakeholder in any future debate. The Green Party/EFA Groups impressed by our work even called for Open Source in the EU institutions

The Green/EFA group in the European Parliament has called on the EU, and in particular on the European Parliament, to support free/open-source software by introducing it into their IT systems. In a letter to the Secretary General of the Parliament, Julian Priestley, dated 9 September, the two Green/EFA Co-Presidents Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, argue that - as well as supporting Europe's software industry - switching to free and open source software would benefit the Parliament in terms of data continuity, technological independence and budgetary considerations. It would additionally take note of the Parliament's Echelon resolution, which recommended using non-proprietary software to increase technological security.

The Green/EFA group in the European Parliament has called on the EU, and in particular on the European Parliament, to support free/open-source software by introducing it into their IT systems. In a letter to the Secretary General of the Parliament, Julian Priestley, dated 9 September, the two Green/EFA Co-Presidents Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, argue that - as well as supporting Europe's software industry - switching to free and open source software would benefit the Parliament in terms of data continuity, technological independence and budgetary considerations. It would additionally take note of the Parliament's Echelon resolution, which recommended using non-proprietary software to increase technological security.

Bruxelles/Brussel, 17 June 2003,

Patent vote fails Europe's software programmers

Unlimited patents will be disastrous for the European software industry and SMEs

The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament today adopted a report that allows for the unlimited patenting of software which will, in one swoop, entrench the market dominance of multinational companies, force small software firms out of business and bring to an end the European free software movement.

With precise briefing from the Commission - where the bureaucrat responsible is a former employee of the UK patents office, and by the European Patent Office (EPO) - which pockets money on every patent it grants, the rapporteur, British socialist Arlene McCarthy, has defended a confused report that is full of contradictions. In doing this she has a strong backing from Conservatives but fierce criticism from her own political group.

UK and German MEPs, in rejecting amendments to the report, have ignored the opinions of the Economic and Social Council, the Industry committee, the Culture committee, 140,000 people and 30 leading software scientists who signed two petitions to the Parliament, as well as the 95% of the European citizens who took part in a European Commission public consultation.

The EPO has been illegally granting patents for computer programs for two decades. This practise completely contradicts the Munich convention, which in 1973 established the EPO and decided that computer programs and other rules of organisation and calculation were not patentable inventions under European law.

Dany Cohn-Bendit MEP (Greens - Fr) Co-president of the Greens/EFA group and chairman of a conference earlier this year on software patents and SMEs, said: "This patent report is an insult even to the principle of free trade. Pretending to protect inventors and their inventions, it instead allows multinationals to lock up the market."

Mercedes Echerer MEP (Greens - A), member of the Culture Committee, said: "It is truly regrettable that some of my colleagues are so confused about the nature of information technology. Ideas and algorithms are already protected under copyright. A computer program, on the other hand, is like a kitchen recipe - all that is needed is a pencil and paper to write it down. Patents already protect technical inventions - there is no reason to extended them to cover software."

"This legalisation, as it stands, represents the death of the European software industry, and the death of the free and open-source software industry which, by more than a coincidence, is primarily a European sector. If implemented, it would conclude the transfer of our data-processing control to the US. You can be sure that the report will have a very bumpy ride when it goes to plenary in September with one third of committee members in opposition."

Neil McCormick MEP (EFA - Scotland), member of the Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee, said: "This is a matter of great public concern. It is important to give incentives to inventions, but this does not and should not cover the essentially logical and mathematical work of software development. There is a real danger that legal development of the kind favoured by the majority in the Legal Affairs Committee will hinder innovative development by small firms, not protect it."

For further press information:
Helmut Weixler
Head of Press Office
The Greens in the European Parliament
Tel: (Bxl) +32 2 2844683
phone: 0032 475 671 340
fax: 0032 2 2844944
mobile phone: 0032-475-67 13 40
hweixler@europarl.eu.int