On 4 Jul 2001, at 1:07, J. van Baardwijk wrote:

> At 15:09 3-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> >Before I take the time to go over the results of scientific analysis
> >of claims such as these, I'd like to ask one question.  Do you accept
> >the validity of scientific analysis?  Would you agree that claims of
> >death or damage need to be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny?
> 
> Of course I do.
> 
> You'll have to come up with some very convincing evidence, though.
> Let's say a report claims that in a town with a nuclear power plant
> nearby, the cancer rate is three times as high as the national
> average, and the power plant is blamed for it. You'll have a hard time
> convincing me that the higher rate is just a coincidence, and not
> related to the presence of that nuclear power plant.

Now look at the cancer rates arround a COAL fired power station.. 
over EIGHT times, in some cases, the national average. And that's 
before we consider the CO� and other pollutants it spews...

Andy
Dawn Falcon

Reply via email to