Monday, 24 November 2014

"People Power": The Victorian Micro-Party That Wants To Stop All The Things

There's a faded, peeling sign at the corner of Norton St, Leichardt, and Parramatta Rd. I drive past it all the time - a constant reminder of politics colliding with issues around control, disenfranchisement, and risk perception.

Google Maps

"Common Cause - No Aircraft Noise" was registered July 1995, and deregistered four years later, in August 1999. They wrote on their site that "life will be uncertain for everyone in the Sydney residential area as long as Kingsford Smith Airport remains within that area". Basically, they wanted Sydney airport ripped from the soil, and flung to the edge of the city, to lesser-populated (but, still populated) areas.

Efforts to exercise influence over machines in the sky failed - their registration lapsed because they 'ceased to have at least 500 members'. Sydney airport remains un-torn from the soil, every few minutes a plane slices through the atmosphere 200 metres above my apartment, and the decaying sign continues to peel, underneath the flight path on Parramatta Road. 

Things have changed since 1995. Micro-parties trade preference deals that significantly elevate their chances of wielding influence - ideological foes become partners, and friends develop seething grudges that are sure to last well into the future, all in the hope of seeing a chance at success they could never have gained through the primary vote.

Preference deals are likely to grant disproportionate power to micro-parties in the upcoming Victorian state election:

"The complex web of preference arrangements, which is believed to be unprecedented in Victorian politics, was partly coordinated by Glenn Druery, the so-called "preference whisperer" responsible the election of Motoring Enthusiast Party's Ricky Muir, who won a federal senate spot with a record-low primary vote of 0.51 percent"

One of these micro-parties is called "People Power: No Smart Meters", and their charter rests heavily on the theory that smart meters pose a serious biological risk to Victorian residents:

"Smart meters are a device that cause thousands of people who are sensitive to microwave radiation to suffer health ailments including headaches, insomnia, heart palpitations, ringing in the ears, fatigue and other health issues"

That alone is an extremely irresponsible claim - smart meters pose no risk to health, and to state otherwise goes against a large body of scientific evidence.

EMC Technologies Study Comparison of radiofrequency (RF) power density from smart meters with other household appliances (at 30cm)"

Despite this, the Stop Smart Meters group supplies stock letters, which can be 'given to doctors to sign':

Health issues are, understandably, a sensitive issue for everyone. This ought to warrant caution, and a level-headed consideration of what experts state. This political party seeks to worsen concern, rather than to address it - to the extent that they're willing to put words in the mouths of health professionals.

It gets worse:

"Our goals...... 
A political framework which acknowledges the rights of people to accept or reject adverse technology on their premises and respects the right of individuals to reject any object or technology being installed on or near their premises if they have reasonable concerns about its possible effect on their health, privacy or wellbeing."

Here, 'reasonable' means 'sincere', rather than 'in proportion to the weight of scientific evidence and expert opinion' - if it meant the latter, rather than the former, then smart meters wouldn't qualify.

Thus, the construction of any thing, within proximity to any premise could be vetoed by anyone, if this party met their goal.

Traffic lights, bus stops, roads, mobile phone towers, smart meters, NBN towers, power lines, roundabouts, homes - any expression of concern would enable immediate veto. You could stop all the things, if you wanted to.

The founder of the party, Marc Florio, has personally experienced the outcomes of letting people have things:

"Florio told internet radio show “Fairdinkum” (which recently ran a story claiming that Ebola is a hoax) he started to get headaches after his neighbours installed a smart meter"

The mechanics of this reflexive political push to stop all the things stems, simply, from issues around control, and the compulsory nature of the rollout of the technology in Victoria.

Risk perception theory incorporates perceived control as a factor in whether people are likely to misjudge risk - someone smoking a cigarette feels fine with the incredibly high levels of risk, but a compulsory rollout of smart meters inspires health concerns far removed from scientific evidence.

Sjoberg, 2000

Pause momentarily, look past the bad science, and it's immediately clear that their concerns lie with freedom and autonomy - a brief peruse of their website shows nearly all of their rhetoric is centred around liberty, and personal choice:

In NSW, the rollout of smart meters will be optional, not compulsory. My bet: it'll go smoothly, and we won't end up with any 'stop smart meters' groups in the state.

In the meantime, it's likely the Victorian government will be influenced by a group wanting to adjust their perceived risk by establishing control over all the things. In this case, it's 'people power' gone horribly wrong. If we do it right in the first place, we can avoid this destructive pendulum swing.

An additional irony is the simple fact that technology like smart meters can wrest power from large utilities and put it back in the hands of consumers. A story in the Australian Financial Review today explains this well:

"GreenSync’s technology, which uses cloud-based automation to manage machinery and electricity during high-demand events, is mainly focused on industrial consumers. But Blythe hopes it will eventually have residential applications, allowing more consumers to compete directly with networks to lessen their exposure to tariffs. 
“It really gets down to empowerment – people having options and not just accepting price hikes,” he says"

Basically: involve people in the development of technologies (and, 'objects'). Give them some control, and consider the source of their concerns. If that isn't done, well, there's always people waiting in the wings, ready to feed fear, for their own gain - no one wins, and 'people power' goes from being a tangible movement to a darkly comic, utterly meaningless slogan. 

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

The World's First Renewable Energy Limit: Why Our News Should Be Worse

In recent months, I've found my phone, chirping incessantly to draw me from my slumber, packed early with 140-character-nuggets of really annoying or depressing news, hurling into my brain on the conveyor belt of snippets in the Twitter app.

Usually, things like "a politician finds wind farms yucky" or "person says solar panels are only for rich people, despite all the data everywhere saying they're not" - things not advantageous for the future of renewable energy in Australia, essentially.

Lately, these nuggets of bad news have centered around Australia's Renewable Energy Target.

The legislation has always mandated an absolute renewable energy component of 41,000 gigawatt hours - at the time it was written, that happened to be 20% of demand forecasts in 2020, so that was used as the slogan. 

Demand forecasts have fallen since then, and so the government wants the renewable energy target to follow demand forecasts - a so called 'Real 20%'.

This would have the impact of making investment in renewable energy nearly impossible, and it would also mean cutting the amount of clean energy we're aiming for:

This image, from the government's ad-hoc RET review, shows the magnitude of a "real 20%" cut in the target

This will mean that legislation that exists to create certainty for renewable energy investment will necessarily incorporate the uncertainty you get from demand forecasts. This neuters the very thing the RET is meant to do. You can't attach wheel clamps to a car and claim it's an improvement. 

Commentary on these pronounced intentions has simmered at the edges of media and specialist climate publications, in addition to a spike of coverage on the day it was announced. It's all good stuff, but there are two points I've not yet seen addressed. 

They're important points, I think. 

The World's First 20% Renewable Energy Limit 

That renewable energy penetration will exceed 20% of demand in 2020 isn't a surprise to anyone. Each time the target has been adjusted, expanded, reviewed, analysed and interrogated, it's been clear that we want at least '20%', rather than 'no more than 20%'. As columnist and renewable policy expert Tristan Edis writes for Climate Spectator: 

"An exhaustive review of the scheme in 2012 made it very clear that a decline in electricity demand meant the legislation would now deliver 25% market share for renewables"

The most important component of the recent announcement from the government is the intent from the leaders of a country to create a percentage maximum for clean technology penetration in the grid.

This clean energy ceiling is a world first. No other country has wound back a renewable energy target, and no other country has imposed a mandatory limitation on the percentage of clean energy in their electricity grid. 

It's not just a cut to the renewable energy target. It's the weird imposition of a limit on technology that generates electricity more safely, and more sustainably, than the current technology. That's insane. 

The 80% Fossil Fuels Minimum 

The logical follow-through of a maximum is the inverse: an 80% minimum supply of fossil fuel-powered energy on the electricity market.

That the government actively wants a minimum of 80% fossil fuels in the market fills me with a weird sense of dread.

The risks of burning fossil fuels to produce electricity are no longer controversial. To mandate their presence when they've long passed their use-by date is....terrible. They're deeply unpopular, too. This won't sit well with the electorate.


It hurts me to say this, but I wish my news feed had been a little harder to digest on the morning of the government's announced intent. It's one day those nuggets of news should have filled us with genuine dread. The world's first renewable energy limit. 

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Dowsing For Deduction: Why My Tweet Was Stupid

There's different ways of findings things we can't quite see. Like water, buried deep underneath the soil. We know it's there somewhere, but we don't quite know where.

A slow, deliberative search is likely to yield better results,'s not as romantic as slinging a hession sack over our shoulder, and riding out into the dark. Taking a chance, and pushing out past the pack, underneath the stars.

There's nothing with this inductive approach to exploration. In fact, it's a key component of the scientific spirit.

Proto-sciences like alchemy and phrenology ultimately turned out to be false, but they played a small part in the foundation of contemporary and well-checked fields of science like chemistry and neuroscience. They're pseudoscience now, but they were once valid fields of wonder.

It's this stirring spirit of pushing forward that was cited by the new head of the CSIRO, when citing the ancient art of 'water dowsing' as a potential research area for water identification within the commonwealth science organisation. Kylie Sturgess, podcaster and blogger for the Token Skeptic, transcribed the interview:

"this is a little bit ‘out there’, but something that has always fascinated me, I don’t know if you've ever seen farmers find water, and as a scientist I can’t explain how they do this, but there’s a number of tricks when people dowse for water, and I can tell you, I've seen people do this with close to 80% accuracy"

The story appeared on ABC Rural, and the response on social media was far from sympathetic:

There's a wealth of evidence demonstrating that dowsing/divining, a method through which vibrating bent metal rods are said to 'turn' in the direction of things desired by those who wield the rods, is, frankly, a pseudoscience.

This great video, featuring British psychologist Christopher French, demonstrates that despite repeated failed attempts to prove their claims, their belief continues unabated:

The Australian Skeptics community has been testing the claims of dowsers and water diviners for three decades now, and they've consistently found that the claims of dowsers failed under testing:

"One thing must be made clear — dowsers on the whole are very honest folk. They believe in what they do. Unfortunately their belief is poorly placed. They cannot perform as they think they can"

A particular comprehensive set of experiments in the late 90's (the Munich experiments) demonstrated conclusively that even in conditions sympathetic to the dowers, their success at locating water using the rotating rods is no better than chance:

"It is difficult to imagine a set of experimental results that would represent a more persuasive disproof of the ability of dowsers to do what they claim. The experiments thus can and should be considered a decisive failure by the dowsers."

The most interesting component of the research is at the end, where the authors write:

"Because of the vigour, however, with which Professor Betz and colleagues defended their positive conclusions (Betz et al. 1996), and in view of the discouraging history of other claims about the occult, one may have residual doubts, as do I, about whether reason will prevail in this arena (Enright 1996)"

Kylie Sturgess is similarly pessimistic:

"Maybe I’m too optimistic that the skeptical really can make a difference. Excuse me while I go be depressed for a while…"

My own initial response to the news wasn't exactly optimistic, either:

Even writing this a mere half-day after hastily casting those words into the twitter-sphere, I'm not sure I can stand by them.

I don't think the pronouncements of the head of the CSIRO (so far removed from the enormous and dedicated efforts of Australia's skeptics community) mean we ought to 'cancel science', nor do they mean we should spiral dejectedly into a cynical expectation of the eternal existence of the pseudoscience of dowsing.

The spirit Marshall summons during his interview with the ABC is exploratory. The head of an institution like the CSIRO ought to wield a caution that goes above and beyond even the most cynical scientists, but past this fairly significant transgression, we ought to consider that this declaration stemmed from an inductive spirit, something that's important in scientific inquiry.

The other thing that comes to mind is the fact that most dowsers, and Marshall himself, seem to be genuinely convinced by the power of the technique. Nearly every case of testing performed by skeptics and scientists acknowledges that those doing the dowsing are fervent and honest in their belief.

I suspect Marshall's remarks came from a good place, rather than any sinister plans for pseudoscientific domination. They also serve as an important and unmissable reminder that no one's immune to the vulnerability of the human mind to ignore the misses, remember the hits, and reach past the pack, into the dark and the unexplored.

Look Around You (Or, The Man With The Beret Wants Me To Stare Silently At Strangers)

Tuesdays are not great. They're so close to Monday, and the weekend is so distant, they kind of feel like Monday except without the right to complain.

Making them somewhat better is the fact that the ABC Media Watch video is loaded onto their website, so I can download the show in the morning, and happily dig into the episode on my way to work on Tuesday. This morning, I did so, and once I'd finished, I pulled out my earphones - the train was incredibly crowded, so I wanted to hear in case someone was needing to push past me.

"You're totally obsessed with your phone, aren't you?"

The words came quietly from my left, and I glanced at their source. A squat man in his early 40s, sporting a thin, patterned scarf, an over-sized black leather jacket, dark jeans, and most importantly, a round, high beret, was staring silently at me.

His expression was oddly similar to the expression that those who exercise regularly have when scooting past still-drunk revellers at 6am - a mixture of feigned sympathy and barely-concealed disgust, topped with near-masturbatory righteous pleasure.

I'd been preparing for this moment my whole life. I knew he'd be getting off the train some time soon - he didn't look the sort to venture north of Redfern, so I didn't have a lot of time.

"Yes, I am obsessed with my phone. Is that a problem?"

"Well, why don't you just look around you?"

It's too easy. The snooty drawl. The leather jacket. The beret. Oh, god, the beret. Make it hard for me, man. Don't make it so easy.

"I can access the entire wealth of human knowledge through this device. I can watch a live feed of the space. I can read about psychology, art or poetry. I can access and read the majority of contemporary literature. I can have  real-time conversation with relatives in San Francsisco, Denmark, London and Germany. What do you propose I do?"

Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

"Look up from your phone. Take in the world. Look around you"

I glanced around the train. In the vestibule stood around 15 people, packed in tight peak-hour congestion, each staring down at their phone or straight ahead. Directly to my left sat a young woman reading a book.

"I've just found out about the death of a major Australian figure through Twitter. I can guarantee you're not going to know anything about it unless you turn on or walk past a digital device. I also read the tweets of people in space, or watch comets flying past Mars. There are just people standing on this train. It's astonishing that you're saying I should just weirdly stare at these people instead"

"Yes, astonishing" he muttered, as he sauntered grumpily out of the train carriage and onto the platform at Redfern.

As he stepped off the train, a man standing nearby glanced at me. With a knowing look, I smiled and raised my phone at him. He smiled back, and raised his phone, and I went back to reading an article about how we'd sent a robot to another planet, and that a comet had flown past that planet, which we'd watched using a gigantic telescope orbiting the Earth.

If I'm at a beach, or in view of some magnificent vista, I won't be buried in a handset. But my daily commute is a fairly perfect time for consuming everything fantastic that the internet has to offer. There's no ridiculous bygone era where people would sit on the train, wordlessly gazing lovingly at each other, taking in the varieties of human morphology.

Basically, Beret-Wearing-Redfern-Technophobe, you better think twice before screwing with people on a Tuesday.

Thursday, 16 October 2014

Alan Jones declares (at least) 219,000 Australians Should be Suffering From Wind Turbine Syndrome

Pseudoscience needs drama to survive. Without conflict and heightened emotions, spurious claims based on poor logic stand vulnerable to reasoned assessment. When surrounded by theatrics, you can make any claim you want.

And so, with the drama emerging around the NSW Gullen Range wind farm development, involving several wind turbines built in unapproved locations, comes an unsurprising segue from radio presenter Alan Jones, during an interview with the NSW planning Minister:

"There's any amount of scientific evidence that anyone with ten kilometres of wind turbine (sic) has health problems, and there's international scientific evidence...that will dramatically prove that this a public health disaster"

Well. This is a pretty significant claim. It was curiously echoed by Senator John Madigan in a press release on Thursday:

"Low frequency noise and infrasound from industrial wind power stations are not mentioned in the applicable wind farm noise standard and are not measured. The impacts are not assessed. But ask anyone living near a wind factory and they'll tell you it exists alright. Infrasound is experienced by the body as a sensation, pressure or vibration rather than heard"

Again, it's explicitly stated that 'infrasound' impacts everyone - the mere existence of a low frequency is merciless, no one is spared.

As it happens, infrasound is everywhere, and most environments are significantly 'louder' (in terms of infrasound) than environments near operational wind farms:

For the sake of curiosity, let's assume Jones' warnings are accurate - anyone within ten kilometres of a wind turbine is going to 'have health problems' - the map below shows a ten kilometre radius around the mid-point of each Australian wind farm (the coordinate set is a little old so a few newer farms may have been left out), along with a pin indicating a rough installed capacity. Zoom in to the pins to see the radii:

There are a few towns that are completely engulfed by the Alan Jones' 'Wind Turbine Syndrome' radius, including:

Wonthaggi - population 20,032

Newcastle - population 148,535

Bungendore - population 3,553

Hepburn - population 14,367

If you compile a selection of towns within ten kilometres of wind farms (along with some multipliers for some radii that cover some portion of the town), you get a minimum of about 219,468 individuals who, according to Jones, ought to be suffering the health impacts of wind turbines.

Remember this is a massive underestimate, involving only 9 of Australian's 30-or-so wind farms (and an old list that doesn't include newer wind farms).

A piece of research published last year collated all publicly held complaints about health and noise impacts from wind farms, and found only 129 individuals had issued these complaints - compared with an estimated population of ~32,000 within a five kilometre radius of Australia's wind farms:

A very small proportion of individuals living near wind farms claim their health problems are due to the operation of wind turbines, and of these, a majority are at wind farms that have been visited by anti-wind groups.

The vast gap between the strength of their belief and the absence of any evidence to suggest their problems are caused by wind turbines betrays the vital role of community discontent in the emergence of weirdly unhinged claims like that of Jones.

Alan Jones' 'public health disaster' has failed to materialise

The Waubra Foundation, a 'wind turbine syndrome'-based anti-wind group that's been doing presentations at the Gullen Range Wind Farm development hearings, claims 50% of those within five kilometres are susceptible to wind farm disease - which suggests there should be about 16,000 complaints nationally - about 8,300% larger than the actual published number of individual complainants in Australia. Even if the mythical disease affected 1% of the population, the observed rate of complaints would still fall short of the hyperbole.

Alan Jones, John Madigan and the Waubra Foundation are free to make claims as outlandish and physically ridiculous as they please. A requisite level of theatrics provides an unspoken writ of illogical, irrational allowance.

Perhaps, then, the tactics for fighting misinformation might lie (at least, partly) in ensuring conflict, disagreement and drama don't arise around the development of new technology. Once emotion is removed from the picture, absurd claims are seen by most for what they are.

Tuesday, 7 October 2014

Kinetic Energy and Power: A Timelapse Visualisation of Clean Tech

We've dug up compressed bits of old plant and burned them to make energy for a few hundreds years, and its powered a revolution that's helped us build and sell nice things, like air-conditioners and computers.But, burning these fuels leads to our habitat becoming royally screwed, because a byproduct blocks heat in the oceans and the atmosphere.

The kinetic energy stored in the movement of the atmosphere is a good alternative to fossil fuels. Wind speeds change over time, and we can't control that, so it means we can source some, but not all, of our power from this source.

With this in mind, I left a laptop running (in low-power mode) for two weeks (22nd September to 6th of October), with an excellent visualisation of the Earth's atmosphere (created by Cameron Beccario) running on the left, and a display of the output of South Australian and Victorian wind farms (Australia's two highest-wind states) running on the right. You can see Australia's wind farms dotted along the south coast in the map below:

Elemental Power Industries map of Australian operational wind power - click here for a kmz file for viewing in Google Earth
Included in this time period is the one day period where nearly 100% of South Australian demand was met by clean tech - the 27th of September.

Without further ado, here's the short video (no sound) of the last fortnight's worth of atmospheric power conversion - you can see walls of energy moving across the continent, and the output of wind farms ebbing upwards when these pockets of power move over the installations:

Or, the middle 10 seconds of the video, in djiff form:

If you're interested in a different view of the two-week period, below is the generation data for Australia's wind power fleet (SA, Tas, Vic and NSW), averaged by day:

You can download the enitre set of images (~127 MB) used to create the animation here, the video (in mp4) here, or the djiff, here. GeoScience Australia has an excellent summary of Australia's wind power resources here.

I like nice things, like air conditioners and televisions. If we can source our electricity from a fuel source that doesn't burden us with current and future harm, we can continue to have nice things.

Thursday, 2 October 2014

A Sour Relationship: How The 'Wind Turbine Deafness' Story Got So Wrong, So Quick

The relationship between the tabloid press and science has always been sour.

Not sour like a wedge of lemon. More, like 58 wedges of lemon soaked in vinegar, in a bed of kumquats and Greek yoghurt, sprinkled with sauerkraut and wrapped in pages torn out of Kevin Rudd's memoirs.  Very sour.

So it's unsurprising that the latest cycle of "wind turbines make you [thing they don't make you]" has been instantaneously debunked by the scientist who wrote the research in the first place.


The Daily Mail was first off the mark, with a shouty article headlined "Could living near a wind farm make you DEAF?"

The article's written in a slightly frenetic fashion. Though that's standard operating procedure for the Daily Mail, it still suggested they were trying to compensate for something - my suspicion was that they'd screwed up the science, somehow. The UK's Telegraph picked up the story as well:

"The physical composition of inner ear was “drastically” altered following exposure to low frequency noise, like that emitted by wind turbines, a study has found. 
The research will delight critics of wind farms, who have long complained of their detrimental effects on the health of those who live nearby."

As predicted by the journalist, wind farm critics have been dripping with delight:

In addition to anti-wind groups, a fair few media outlets have credulously repeated the news:

Equally predictably, the story's completely wrong.

Markus Drexl, the lead author of the study, told Carbon Brief that their study didn't look at wind turbines, but at low-frequency noise, and that there was no evidence of 'deafness' or 'hearing loss':

"There's a very loose relationship between our work and wind turbines... If you mention low frequency noise people always seem to relate this to wind turbines. 
"The noise we used was at the same frequency as some of the sounds turbines emit but we by no means mimicked the spectrum of sound they produce." 
"It's [the 'deafening' claim] definitely not what we're saying in the paper. You cannot make this claim. It is not substantiated at the moment because we haven't shown whether low frequency sound is causing any damage to the inner ear. I also don't know of any cases of deafness being reported by people living near wind turbines."
Drexl used an amplitude of 80 dB(A) for the low frequency (around 30 Hz) noise they were looking at. A 2013 South Australian Environmental Protection Agency study, conducted by an acoustics firm, measured low frequency noise at Australian wind farms, and other environments frequented by humans:

"Overall, this study demonstrates that low frequency noise levels near wind farms are no  greater than levels in urban areas or at comparable rural residences away from wind farms"

No surprises there. What about the 80 dB(A) at 30Hz levels that Drexl used in his study? Figure 33 of the EPA's study sheds light on the amplitudes we get from wind farms at this level, though these measurements are 'unweighted' (ie, just 'dB' rather than 'dB(A)'):

Wind farm noise levels (the orange and yellow lines) at 30 Hz are around 40 dB. Taking into account the A-level weighting, this is significantly lower than the noise use in Drexl's study.

Interestingly, the only location in the EPA's study that might apply to Drexl's study is an office environment, as seen in figure 27:

Dr Ralph Holme, Head of Biomedical Research at Action on Hearing Loss explained in more detail to Sense About Science:

“Our ears normally produce very quiet sounds that can be measured by sensitive microphones. These sounds are called spontaneous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs). The research does show that low frequency noise can change the level and frequency of these sounds. However, the researchers only monitored for up to 7 minutes after the low frequency exposure, so we do not know if the changes are permanent or temporary. 
It is important to remember that SOAEs can be influenced by many different things including everyday noise we might experience just walking down the street. And there was no evidence provided in this research that these changes alter a person’s ability to hear.”

There's nothing wrong with the research published by Drexl and his team. So how the media manage to screw up the story so badly? Carbon Brief gives us a hint:

"The research paper doesn't mention wind - at all. However, a press summary written by the authors gives wind turbines as one example of sources of low frequency noise, along with ventilation and air conditioning systems" 

It's clear the journalists behind this gargantuan error weren't interested in the science; nor were they interested in hearing what the scientist had to say. This was an opportunity to create bad news about a politically-charged piece of technology. Fear and neophobia can create hits and shares like nothing else.

That this comes at the expense of the scientists publishing work is no barrier to the publications spreading misinformation. The only decent coverage of the research was published in Science Magazine - all other coverage seizes solely on the mention of wind turbines, and ignores the science.

If the outlets involved were to pull their articles, it would make absolutely no difference to the now self-sustaining meme. The myth will be angrily paraphrased and repeated at community meetings by concerned citizens, ill-equipped to debunk the misinformation themselves. It's already been pasted and re-blogged by an array of anti-wind blogs.

Outlets that openly manifest a seething hatred of technology they perceive as a partisan threat are solely responsible for damaging science, in the hope of creating falsehoods that are used to spread fear and anxiety.

Damaging science, all in the name of damaging people. The misinformers and the revenue counters at the media outlets are the only ones left without a bad taste in their mouths.