You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #8: Urquhart appears to publish in standard journals such as Lancet and BMJ [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Urquhart appears to publish in standard journals such as Lancet and BMJ
so perhaps your charge of "fear-mongering" is not really adequate as response ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Chernobyl blast may have killed 1000 British babies struggle4progress  Mar-26-06 02:57 PM   #0 
  - I wonder why this got dug up?  Dead_Parrot   Mar-26-06 04:31 PM   #1 
  - The sources here indicate he has a new paper to present on the subject.  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 04:53 PM   #3 
  - You could start here  Dead_Parrot   Mar-26-06 05:04 PM   #5 
     - None of this appears to support your claims that Urquhart's work ..  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 06:06 PM   #9 
        - "Debunked" isn't a word I'd use...  Dead_Parrot   Mar-26-06 06:42 PM   #13 
           - Can you support your claim, that there is nothing new here, or not?  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 11:51 PM   #28 
              - Christ almighty...  Dead_Parrot   Mar-27-06 12:05 AM   #31 
                 - But elsewhere you're complaining about a change you say he made.  struggle4progress   Mar-27-06 09:14 PM   #36 
                    - he's drawn the same conclusions  Dead_Parrot   Mar-27-06 09:24 PM   #37 
                       - And again no supporting link or other evidence to bolster your claim. eom  struggle4progress   Mar-27-06 11:59 PM   #49 
                          - WTF are you talking about?  Dead_Parrot   Mar-28-06 03:25 AM   #55 
                             - What? No link to the press releases you are "practically identical"?  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 07:45 AM   #63 
                                - Let me tell you a story  Dead_Parrot   Mar-28-06 01:00 PM   #70 
                                   - *Ting*  Nihil   Mar-29-06 05:40 PM   #73 
                                      - Tell that to the Whitehouse...  Dead_Parrot   Mar-29-06 07:37 PM   #74 
  - Urquhart appears to publish in standard journals such as Lancet and BMJ  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 05:56 PM   #8 
     - Jan Hendrik Schn  Dead_Parrot   Mar-26-06 06:12 PM   #10 
        - The relevance of the fraud Schon is unclear. Are you suggesting  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 06:20 PM   #11 
        - Certainly not...  Dead_Parrot   Mar-26-06 06:45 PM   #14 
        - You have evidence Urquhart "data trimmed to match the conclusions"?  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 06:21 PM   #12 
           - Merely noting SW Thames' disappearance  Dead_Parrot   Mar-26-06 06:49 PM   #15 
           - So is your objection that you believe he eliminated from his study ..  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 07:25 PM   #19 
           - Basically, yes.  Dead_Parrot   Mar-26-06 07:35 PM   #21 
              - Question required choice, could not be coherently answered "Yes."  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 11:30 PM   #24 
                 - Yes to both  Dead_Parrot   Mar-27-06 12:04 AM   #30 
           - Apparently you have no evidence he trimmed data to match his conclusion.  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 11:50 PM   #27 
              - So where is SW thames?  Dead_Parrot   Mar-27-06 12:06 AM   #32 
           - This is interesting...  Dead_Parrot   Mar-26-06 07:28 PM   #20 
              - As an aside...  Dead_Parrot   Mar-26-06 09:20 PM   #22 
                 - Provide a link if you want to fuss about details. As far as I can tell,  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 11:27 PM   #23 
                    - "Fuss about details"?!  Dead_Parrot   Mar-26-06 11:43 PM   #25 
                       - Again, provide a link if you want to fuss at this level. Your claim ..  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 11:48 PM   #26 
                          - FFS, read post #20 and follow the link  Dead_Parrot   Mar-27-06 12:00 AM   #29 
                             - Your statistical reasoning is erroneous: your claim that  struggle4progress   Mar-27-06 09:52 PM   #38 
                             - I'm sorry...  Dead_Parrot   Mar-27-06 10:09 PM   #41 
                                - Really? "Go back to 3rd grade" is "keeping it simple" to help me ..  struggle4progress   Mar-27-06 10:47 PM   #44 
                                   - Very nice  Dead_Parrot   Mar-27-06 10:51 PM   #45 
                             - Your claim seems unsupported by any link. Again, care to post one ..  struggle4progress   Mar-27-06 10:02 PM   #39 
                                - Which claim? nt  Dead_Parrot   Mar-27-06 10:10 PM   #42 
                                   - Urquhart attributes "a regional difference .. to radiation if it's in one  struggle4progress   Mar-27-06 10:36 PM   #43 
                                   - ROFL  Dead_Parrot   Mar-27-06 10:54 PM   #46 
                                      - I ask for a link for your claim in #25 that Urquhart attributes ..  struggle4progress   Mar-27-06 11:57 PM   #47 
                                      - That is what HE is saying  Dead_Parrot   Mar-28-06 03:26 AM   #56 
                                         - Link?  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 07:45 AM   #64 
                                      - You're again making the statistical error I addressed in #38.  struggle4progress   Mar-27-06 11:58 PM   #48 
                                      - FORGET URQUHART - EVALUATE THIS!  JohnWxy   Mar-28-06 03:58 PM   #71 
                                   - Or how about your "sample-based statistics" claim in #22?  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 12:00 AM   #50 
                                   - May I sugest you study statistics? nt  Dead_Parrot   Mar-28-06 03:27 AM   #57 
                                      - Still no link.  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 07:46 AM   #65 
                                   - Or maybe your claim in #28 that there's nothing new here?  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 12:02 AM   #51 
                                   - see #55. nt  Dead_Parrot   Mar-28-06 03:27 AM   #58 
                                      - You can't provide a link?  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 07:46 AM   #66 
                                   - Or your claim in #10 that Urquhart "data trimmed to match the conclusions"  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 12:03 AM   #52 
                                   - So again I ask, where is SW Thames? nt  Dead_Parrot   Mar-28-06 03:28 AM   #59 
                                      - Can't find a link yet?  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 07:47 AM   #67 
                                   - Or claim in #38 of a "fall in mortality rates for the non-sampled areas."  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 12:07 AM   #53 
                                   - Again, that's pretty basic math. nt  Dead_Parrot   Mar-28-06 03:30 AM   #60 
                                      - What a cop-out! No link in sight yet.  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 07:48 AM   #68 
                                   - I'm startin to wonder if ya kin back up ANY of yer claims ... eom  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 12:08 AM   #54 
                                      - I'm not making any claims...  Dead_Parrot   Mar-28-06 03:32 AM   #61 
                                         - Yawn.  struggle4progress   Mar-28-06 07:49 AM   #69 
  - That's nothing.  NNadir   Mar-26-06 04:32 PM   #2 
  - Do you have a link to the statistics you allege from Sternglass?  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 04:56 PM   #4 
  - Actually I am mocking Sternglass.  NNadir   Mar-26-06 05:05 PM   #6 
     - Where did I claim 9,000,000,000,000 people .. died from Chernobyl"?  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 05:47 PM   #7 
        - Did I say 9,000,000,000,000?  NNadir   Mar-26-06 07:08 PM   #16 
           - #6: "the 9,000,000,000,000 people you claim died"  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 07:12 PM   #17 
           - Where did I make up numbers?  struggle4progress   Mar-26-06 07:19 PM   #18 
              - And so let's hear it: Are the "standard news sources"...  NNadir   Mar-27-06 06:03 AM   #33 
                 - I think you should stop claiming I said things that I didn't say. eom  struggle4progress   Mar-27-06 10:05 PM   #40 
                    - And I think you, besides repeating every dubious claim about Chernobyl  NNadir   Mar-28-06 04:59 AM   #62 
  - FORGET URQUHART, EVALUATE 500,000 DEATHS - OBVIOUS FANTASY RIGHT?  JohnWxy   Mar-28-06 04:02 PM   #72 
  - Has anyone tracked down the report?  Pigwidgeon   Mar-27-06 06:59 AM   #34 
     - The original is linked from post 5  Dead_Parrot   Mar-27-06 12:41 PM   #35 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC