General Discussion

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

200. For science, you don't go by how it sounds. That would be... propaganda.

Thu Apr 4, 2013, 04:25 PM

Apr 2013

What I'm trying to highlight is the presence in all public discussion venues of active propaganda efforts on behalf of the nuclear industry. They have an organized, well funded and well documented "outreach" that utilizes both industry employees and paid public relations firms to tamp down ANY negative news.

Part of that strategy is to create an atmosphere where the discussion of science cannot be carried out. The only hesitancy I had with your post was that you assigned the blame for this atmosphere to those who are concerned about nuclear power. My view is that part of the effort of the nuclear industry propagandists is to create that impression in order to paint any and all critics of nuclear as irrational.

Have you heard the term "strawman sockpuppet"?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

222 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants [View all] dkf Apr 2013 OP

This is one hell of a big PR mess... Junkdrawer Apr 2013 #1

PR? Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #18

Public Relations. Read the pro-Nuclear takes on the accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl... Junkdrawer Apr 2013 #23

And right here on DU Warpy Apr 2013 #129

Opinions vary. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #179

I'm not talking about a difference of opinion Warpy Apr 2013 #198

Imagine what Chernobyl.did to children. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #2

Lots of peer-reviewed studies say more that a million.. Junkdrawer Apr 2013 #4

I'm surprised the hand waving hasn't already began madokie Apr 2013 #6

Right again Junkdrawer Apr 2013 #38

I engaged the content of the publication caraher Apr 2013 #50

Quoting you to you kristopher Apr 2013 #144

OK, you're right, this sub-thread isn't about the content of the paper caraher Apr 2013 #166

I'll repeat the same point I've made to you many times before kristopher Apr 2013 #173

Outrage? caraher Apr 2013 #197

Anonymous discussion is filled with pitfalls... kristopher Apr 2013 #202

LOL, did you even read the post? You people seem to think.... Logical Apr 2013 #116

The OP *IS* the hand waving. FBaggins Apr 2013 #60

oh look, it's Mr. "nothing to see here, move along please..." CreekDog Apr 2013 #120

Nope FBaggins Apr 2013 #126

Not only that.. RobertEarl Apr 2013 #131

Do you understand what a 28% rise in CH means? caseymoz Apr 2013 #154

You are the only one panicing RobertEarl Apr 2013 #181

She's right. kristopher Apr 2013 #191

Hi kris RobertEarl Apr 2013 #192

Me? After I've seen estimates of 1.8 million deaths . . . caseymoz Apr 2013 #194

Of course the % is correct RobertEarl Apr 2013 #195

I'm not the only one questioning you RobertEarl Apr 2013 #196

Keep doing the math Generic Other Apr 2013 #205

100 out of every million = 1/10,000 Art_from_Ark Apr 2013 #212

Ack you're right my math sucks Generic Other Apr 2013 #215

It's still a lot Art_from_Ark Apr 2013 #216

Now I just worry about the Korean kid Generic Other Apr 2013 #217

North Korea seems to harbor a special animosity towards Japan Art_from_Ark Apr 2013 #218

Nope FBaggins Apr 2013 #56

Increased radiation levels were measured from Chernobyl as far away as Florida davidn3600 Apr 2013 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Apr 2013 #17

Elena bikes thru Chernobyl - a look at Chernobyl today womanofthehills Apr 2013 #140

I remember her. She confessed to faking the pics Generic Other Apr 2013 #201

Kinda like dipsydoodle Apr 2013 #3

There has been so much suffering from depleted uranium, and other chemicals loudsue Apr 2013 #39

probably 99% of sickness is environmental and dietary Voice for Peace Apr 2013 #40

You are most likely correct IMHO. loudsue Apr 2013 #41

+1 gazillion valerief Apr 2013 #151

Shit. Baitball Blogger Apr 2013 #5

I was at a talk given by Dr. Helen Caldicutt PuraVidaDreamin Apr 2013 #7

What does that mean: "inhaled hot particles at a 1 in 5 ratio"? Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #20

Particulate matter PuraVidaDreamin Apr 2013 #90

Interesting. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #92

She's a long-retired pediatrician FBaggins Apr 2013 #85

And you are? PuraVidaDreamin Apr 2013 #88

By comparison, yes. FBaggins Apr 2013 #93

What exactly do you find so ridiculous? PuraVidaDreamin Apr 2013 #96

Goodness... where to start. FBaggins Apr 2013 #99

What are your credentials? PuraVidaDreamin Apr 2013 #109

Ten fingers and ten toes. FBaggins Apr 2013 #111

Stop kidding yourself Generic Other Apr 2013 #204

Well ... she is an expert in pediatrics and has been studying radiation for quite some time. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #95

Not even that. No. FBaggins Apr 2013 #97

An active practice isn't the basis for being an expert. kristopher Apr 2013 #146

She fails by any other standard as well. FBaggins Apr 2013 #157

I notice that she has a handful of anti-nuclear letters in scientific journals. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #167

You are the last person in the world to accept an opinion from kristopher Apr 2013 #172

do you have an example? It would save me an hour of watching the YouTube video. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #165

even most laymen understand that skin cancer comes from to much sun. Sunlei Apr 2013 #101

So? FBaggins Apr 2013 #103

"Don't worry about the radiation"???? roomtomove Apr 2013 #125

Did you quote so far out of context intentionally? FBaggins Apr 2013 #159

Respectfully, her claim is flat out ridiculous. nt Demo_Chris Apr 2013 #134

For the sake of fairness, the other side MAD Dave Apr 2013 #8

Industry Propaganda To Create Illusion Of Credibility cantbeserious Apr 2013 #9

Well, coal really is dirty and deadly. And if our only choice was dirty coal or nuclear.... Junkdrawer Apr 2013 #10

Pragmatist MAD Dave Apr 2013 #11

Nuclear Energy is the solution to the energy crisis just like caviar is the solution to world hunger Junkdrawer Apr 2013 #12

+1000 nt LiberalEsto Apr 2013 #13

Cut out the massive taxpayer subsidies that nuclear has gotten, and is getting, and you'd find byeya Apr 2013 #14

Economic analyses don't support that contention. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #22

Are you kidding me? Even the CEO of GE says nuclear is not economic. Junkdrawer Apr 2013 #27

good article, plus we can generate gas from our waste with Plasma gasification. Sunlei Apr 2013 #47

Yes they do. kristopher Apr 2013 #147

Have you looked at this at all? Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #164

Yes. kristopher Apr 2013 #174

So, you were aware of Junkdrawer's post, but decided to repeat it? Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #175

"An" economic analysis? kristopher Apr 2013 #177

You first. Post your data, and I will follow. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #178

Please don't try to make this into some sort of game. kristopher Apr 2013 #183

No, I said that economic analyses did not support the notion... Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #187

I thought the caviar phrasing was apt. kristopher Apr 2013 #190

I agree. And it is far to risky. nm rhett o rick Apr 2013 #26

Fine. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #148

Mining uranium is dirty womanofthehills Apr 2013 #45

bullshit Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #21

Read The Article - Have Seen Similar In My Engineering Career cantbeserious Apr 2013 #30

I read the article before replying to you. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #35

do some research roomtomove Apr 2013 #123

So, you want me to do research by reading anti-nuke propaganda? Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #130

That's research? roomtomove Apr 2013 #136

Did you read the article in C&E News in the opening comment of this subthread? Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #161

I've worked with young Navajo kids dying from bone cancer womanofthehills Apr 2013 #139

I think you and I are not discussing the same issue. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #163

Yes, you can't be serious or haven't read the article. nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #24

Read The Article And Don't Agree cantbeserious Apr 2013 #29

And your opinion is worth exactly as much time as you put into defending it: nothing, in this case. Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #33

"eom" means "end of messsage." Like "nt" (no text), tblue37 Apr 2013 #124

All those who say bullshit: read the article. The highly respected Jim Hansen participated. Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #28

Excellent response. Thank you for taking the time. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #36

You are quite welcome. I love DU when people get into analysis and reasoned debate. nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #37

You have your facts wrong and you don't grasp the economics at work kristopher Apr 2013 #149

You have your reading comprehension wrong & you don't grasp I said nothing in favour of nuclear. nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #169

Would you explain where I misread your meaning, please? kristopher Apr 2013 #180

Sure Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #182

That part was clear. kristopher Apr 2013 #184

... because we are not Denmark and the Republicans are not Denmarkian, for starters. nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #185

Renewable capacity is growing by leaps and bounds kristopher Apr 2013 #188

+1, except I'd use "cost trendline" instead of "learning curve". nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #189

Yes, Bernardo RobertEarl Apr 2013 #193

But renewable non-carbon is just not going to pick up all the slack in the next 37 years??? roomtomove Apr 2013 #127

Aside from thyroid problems, those with high doses in Japan will be susceptible to Dustlawyer Apr 2013 #16

Nope FBaggins Apr 2013 #57

This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Apr 2013 #19

I think people pretty much know that potential dangers. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #25

From what i read in the E&E group from some of the posters darkangel218 Apr 2013 #32

You can understand the danger and still support nuclear. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #44

Contain the waste only? darkangel218 Apr 2013 #64

Worst case scenario at present nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #68

Well, now... Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #71

Yes, anywhere and anytime. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #75

"contain the waste"????? roomtomove Apr 2013 #133

He'll be long gone RobertEarl Apr 2013 #137

You do realize that one of the biggest problems in Fukushima... Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #162

where were you living?? Voice for Peace Apr 2013 #42

This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Apr 2013 #43

I kept my nephews inside nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #53

Oh My - so Nadin was correct malaise Apr 2013 #31

I will have to read this thread nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #48

No, she wasn't... SidDithers Apr 2013 #55

These researchers are, at best, on the scientific fringe caraher Apr 2013 #34

Researchers with a history of misusing data... SidDithers Apr 2013 #46

Yeah, I guessed it would be those 2; I think they're more dishonest than Andrew Wakefield muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #49

Off-topic aside you might wish to consider. proverbialwisdom Apr 2013 #91

All about genes; nothing about vaccines; that doesn't vindicate Wakefield in the slightest muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #98

Post removed Post removed Apr 2013 #118

Are Sherman and Mangano as dishonest as the MIT Nuclear Dept researchers? kristopher Apr 2013 #145

No... they're many times as dishonest. FBaggins Apr 2013 #155

The MIT researchers did nothing more than pass along industry claims uncritically. kristopher Apr 2013 #176

The journal is peer reviewed. kristopher Apr 2013 #142

And the peer review consists of... SidDithers Apr 2013 #168

Apparently you know nothing of the process you are criticizing. kristopher Apr 2013 #203

Peer review so judicious, the same company accepted a paper generated by a random text generator... SidDithers Apr 2013 #206

A fictional web posting about a fictional academic at a fictional academic institution? kristopher Apr 2013 #209

... SidDithers Apr 2013 #210

You've shown nothing. kristopher Apr 2013 #211

Hilarious... SidDithers Apr 2013 #213

Sid, your criticisms are on a par with a witch hunt kristopher Apr 2013 #214

Yeah, that's what I thought... SidDithers Apr 2013 #219

I don't know precisely why... kristopher Apr 2013 #220

It's a nice big article about correlation with enough science-y terms to make people think it's Brickbat Apr 2013 #54

"At best" indeed FBaggins Apr 2013 #58

thank you for taking the time to explain this Kali Apr 2013 #78

The pediatrics paper is published in an open journal where you pay to get published. Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #94

That is not at all unusual and says nothing about the quality of the publication. kristopher Apr 2013 #143

Plenty of bullets already upthread: data cherry picking is a big one. Bogus paper. nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #170

How many of them are, like the one you made here, false? kristopher Apr 2013 #171

yes, I prefer to get my information from the consensus of the scientific community as a whole. liberal_at_heart Apr 2013 #121

very science-y cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #51

If those kids ate their daily bananas nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #52

And if their moms had just laid in a supply of aseptic milk as directed.... Brother Buzz Apr 2013 #61

The use and proliferation of nuclear energy/weapons will prove to be the stupidest endeavor Zorra Apr 2013 #59

I don't flipping believe it Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #62

The researchers have a history of misusing statistics... SidDithers Apr 2013 #70

I saw it, but in their defense Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #72

"lowered intelligence" = future hot spots for the GOP. n/t L0oniX Apr 2013 #63

Interesting. So my granddaughter was in kindergarten in Germany when Chernobyl happened. Does that jwirr Apr 2013 #65

Yes its possible. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #66

Yup, she was also much closer nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #67

It's certainly possible... but unlikely. FBaggins Apr 2013 #74

My co-worker was studying in the Netherlands during that disaster malaise Apr 2013 #117

Talked with her mother and it seems that three generations have this problem. Grandma was never near jwirr Apr 2013 #122

Anyone who has studied radiobiology felix_numinous Apr 2013 #69

Of course they would be surprised. FBaggins Apr 2013 #73

There definitely is a link felix_numinous Apr 2013 #76

SOME thyroid diseases... and some amounts of exposure. FBaggins Apr 2013 #77

There is a link felix_numinous Apr 2013 #79

Nope. FBaggins Apr 2013 #81

Certainly time will tell felix_numinous Apr 2013 #82

Why are you doing this? darkangel218 Apr 2013 #83

Very simple FBaggins Apr 2013 #84

How am i being irrational? by purchasing a gieger counter, which i shouldve bought a long time ago? darkangel218 Apr 2013 #86

Among other things... yes. FBaggins Apr 2013 #87

Did i say that was the reason i bought it for? lmao! darkangel218 Apr 2013 #89

Yes... you did. FBaggins Apr 2013 #100

You obviously read this thread too, and saw i talked about Chernobyl and how unsafe nuclear plants darkangel218 Apr 2013 #102

You think anyone bought that? FBaggins Apr 2013 #104

There are a hundred or more power plants in the US and many more all over the world. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #106

Was that supposed to be a response? FBaggins Apr 2013 #107

Im not deflecting anything. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #108

Lol! How creative. FBaggins Apr 2013 #110

Bye bye. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #112

And you're entertaining me. FBaggins Apr 2013 #113

I feel sorry for Fb also RobertEarl Apr 2013 #114

Still can't debate without those strawmen, eh? FBaggins Apr 2013 #115

It is here RobertEarl Apr 2013 #119

Lol! I would have hidden the post too.. FBaggins Apr 2013 #160

The highest possible exposure on the West coast is thousands of times lower????????? roomtomove Apr 2013 #128

How entertaining. FBaggins Apr 2013 #158

But surely any effect is dose-dependent caraher Apr 2013 #80

How do you know the levels of exposure with any degree of confidence? kristopher Apr 2013 #150

Are you falling for Arnie's nonsense our spreading your own? FBaggins Apr 2013 #156

Fukushimi proves we are all connected lovuian Apr 2013 #105

Not to downplay Fukushima but how could this even be POSSIBLE? Demo_Chris Apr 2013 #132

Scary isn't it? RobertEarl Apr 2013 #135

The scary thing is that people are buying this. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #207

Whoa, dude RobertEarl Apr 2013 #208

It's a small world after all.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #138

NOAA video tracking Fukushima Radioactive Aerosol Dispersion kristopher Apr 2013 #141

You sir, are one of the DU's best treasures. chknltl Apr 2013 #152

Which means, instead of 4 in 10,000 births caseymoz Apr 2013 #153

The great "middle" kristopher Apr 2013 #186

Are you saying you should go by the tone and not the substance? caseymoz Apr 2013 #199

For science, you don't go by how it sounds. That would be... propaganda. kristopher Apr 2013 #200

Good website for this topic also marions ghost Apr 2013 #221

I had been dreading this...... MzShellG Apr 2013 #222