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 #121: Well, it seems like you have a horse in this race...promoting nukes and disparaging critics [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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Liberation Angel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #117
121. Well, it seems like you have a horse in this race...promoting nukes and disparaging critics
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 02:13 AM by Liberation Angel
as paranoid.

You raise a few arguable points:

I have sited numerous links/sites and you pull out ONLY one quote on objectivity: the ECRR panel concluded that ONLY using Peer reviewed materials and peer reviewed mathematical models was NOT ENTIRELY RELIABLE and utilized additional materials. Since I do not have a copy of the full report I cannot say that such reports are unreliable, but I think that as a scientific analysis there is a lot to be said for anecdoatle research in general and that peer reviewed journals are not the only source of reliable data. They DO mathematical analysis and modelling but not using SOLELY peer reviewed journals. In other words they have used research and data which comes from additional sources (AND have used peer reviewed data) making the study MORE reliable in many ways imho.
The other links are to peer reviewed studies and other studies in many cases which have not been published - but they key thing is that NONE OF THEM discount or ignore peer reviewed studies but incorporate them into the results. Not all peer reviewed studies are equal by any means and MANY are financed by industry in the same way that pharmaceutical industries finance studies for publication while hiding the fact that they are pushing an agenda. At least the no nukes folks are clear on what they want: no more nuclear pollution..

Now scientists who want peer reviewed 100% certainty will claim that this is not science BUT I will tell you that if someone does an unpublished study you should not nd cannot DISCOUNT it solely because it is not in a peer reviewed publication or journal. The wieght of credibility may be affected but use of such studies and reports is STILL science like it or not and published or not.

You can claim it "ain't science" but that doesn't mean you are correct. After all has your research on this point been subject to peer review and published??? I thought nt. but it is still a valid OPINION worthy of consideration.

The issue of name calling refers to namecalling against DU members/posters not governmental bodies and my critique was broadly for the organizations not indivuduals, A valid critique from you but I still do not think it is worth the fuss. It shows some in depth effort to rebut. Fair enough. I have already provided my response.

Your assertion that it is "possible that ECRR is right and all mainstream radiation health science is wrong" is based on a flawed premise.

All radiation health science does not disagree with ECRR. In fact the only group that has responded in depth is the CERRIE group which I have already shown is biased towards the industry. That hardly makes them ALL RADIATION HEALTH SCIENCE at all. It nakes them industry promoting hack science. Defend them all you want but his argument FAILS for you. Depending on pronuclear government bodies tasked to promote the industry is not reliable nor do they represent all radiation health science or scoientists. i know plenty of scientists who feel the current industry/government models are completely flawed.

On the issue of consent to irradiation you make a pretty interesting point: It should be OKAY for government and industrial entities to kill us with radiation and expose us to dangerous amounts of it because we permit citizens and individuals to heat with wood which also has some radiation in it.

Two things: One, radiation in wood is NOT man made (unless it is wood which is polluted by nuclear plant emissions and effluents).

Two: individuals can be and are regulated in what and how they can burn and pollute the environment, but carbon 14 is hardly as dangerous or carcinogenic when ingested as Strontium 90 and radi-iodine which are absorbed by the thyroid, bones and soft tissues. I know of NO data which suggest that radioactive carbon is absorbed and causes mutations and cancers IN ANY WAY as serious and harmful as nuclear emissions of man made radionuclides.

Your arguments sound like a very strong support for the nuclear horse while ignoring and denigrating the truth of the nuclear nightmares

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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