Jeroen wrote:
> >One of the clues to the reliability of a newspaper report is whether it
> >references an article in a scientific journal.
>
> Most reports were TV documentaries, not newspaper articles. And no, I
don't
> remember if those documentaries made any references to articles in
> scientific papers.
As Dan pointed out, it's relatively easy to do a bit of web research and
find some scientific data on these issues. IMO, if you're not taking the
step of at least a token effort to verify what you're being told, I'd like
to offer you a fantastic, ONCE IN A LIFETIME DEAL on a bridge in Brooklyn.
> >Can you see how terribly frustrating this is to those of us who are
trained
> >in the scientists. Someone makes a claim about the danger of nuclear
power.
> >Numerous people, including you, take this as evidence of the danger of
> >nuclear power. You cite a media article. I do a search, find the study
> >that investigates this, and I document the fact that there is no evidence
> >for a link.
>
> That's because both sides have a different approach. Assume someone
reports
> a significant increase in the number of cancer cases near a nuclear power
> plant. The pro-side will say "there is no evidence that it is caused by
the
> power plant". The con-side however reasons: "radiation (like from a
nuclear
> plant) can cause cancer; if there aren't any other likely suspects that
> might have caused this high number of cases, then logically it must have
> been caused by the power plant".
But then the pro side rebuts with, "Funny you should say that, since we've
done a statistical study that indicates that there is not, in fact, a
statistically significant increase in cancer rates near this plant, and
here's the evidnece we gathered." The con-side then repeat, "But we've got
these reported cases!" and they never offer any evidence beyond anecdotes.
I'm sorry, but I'll go with science and fact over rumor and "because I
said".
> >Yet, this rigorous scientific analysis didn't make the headlines and
didn't
> >register with you. I'm not faulting you, I'm sure that the article
refuting
> >the first one didn't even make your paper. Let me ask, though, would you
> >have considered it refuted or would you have suspected it was really the
> >nuclear lobby that was behind the refutation?
>
> I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that the nuclear lobby had
> something to do with it. If the research was done by an independent
> organization, I'd consider the outcome scientifically sound. If however
the
> research was done by an organization that has close relations with the
> nuclear lobby, or by the nuclear power company itself, I wouldn't be so
> trusting.
Then for God's sake, do some research! Dan has posted links to research.
Do a little digging and find out the status of the groups that did the
research, and come back and tell us. It doesn't matter, really, who did the
research, as long as the methodology is posted. You can then check the
statistical sampling methods, the size of the group studied and the controls
used and determine if the RESEARCH is valid.
> If part of that 90% is nuclear, it will have to be imported electricity.
We
> have two nuclear power plants in The Netherlands: Dodewaard en Borssele.
> The plant at Dodewaard was permanently shut down in March 1997. Once the
> plant in Borssele is shut down, it will be the end of nuclear energy in
The
> Netherlands; there are no plans to build another nuclear power plant here.
Why were the plants shut down?
> >So, what would it take to convince you that nuclear is a better
> >environmental option than coal, oil, and natural gas.
>
> Maybe production of nuclear energy is better for the environment than
using
> coal, oil and natural gas -- or maybe it isn't. However, when it goes
> wrong, it can go wrong bigtime (as Chernobyl showed). For me, the
potential
> risks (or rather, the potential damage when things go wrong) outweigh
> possible environmental benefits.
It's all well and good to weigh relative risks, but I don't think you're
considering the safety factors that are considered in the West when nuclear
plants are built. We're talking multiple redundancy, safety like you don't
have walking down the street! I've stated before: I would gladly live, and
move my children there too, within 1 mile of any nuclear plant in the US.
I've weighed the risks, and I find Western safety standards more than
adequate.
> It's like the risks of travelling by car and travelling by airplane.
> Statistically, your chance of dying in a car accident is much higher than
> the chance of you dying in a plane crash. However, in a car accident the
> number of casualties is limited to at most a few people. When a plane
> crashes, you'll get a 3-digit death toll...
And you're still safer in a plane than a car.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
