Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

FBaggins

(28,678 posts)

16. They could be... or it could be the reporting.

Reply to intaglio (Reply #12)

Thu May 24, 2012, 09:46 AM

May 2012

(Though it should be pointed out that this isn't the society putting their stamp on the claim, it's just some members of the society publishing a piece)... not at all the same thing as an official WHO study. You could, for instance, see other society members publishing contrary pieces.

They really didn't put any effort into identifying how often a reactor meltdown could be expected. Their real focus was on simulating the release/plume and the impact it would have on Europe. They were atmospheric chemists after all, that's their field.

I can't say from the summary whether they are the ones pushing the lie that they've somehow calculated how likely reactor accidents actually are... or whether that's just what the reporting picked up.

Either way it's faux science.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents Likely Every 10 to 20 Years - New Max Planck Institute Study [View all] bananas May 2012 OP

What incredbible nonsense FBaggins May 2012 #1

I think the scientists considered what you said. caseymoz May 2012 #4

Think again. FBaggins May 2012 #8

I went through the inherent design flaws caseymoz May 2012 #17

I'm sorry, but you've just admitted to be true that which I claimed. FBaggins May 2012 #18

And your interpretation of what I wrote is false caseymoz May 2012 #27

While other reactor designs fail for other reasons OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #21

You've raised a good point. FBaggins May 2012 #22

The root cause of inadequate training is…hubris OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #24

The people at the Max Planck Institute are incredible idiots? intaglio May 2012 #6

I don't think they're idiots... FBaggins May 2012 #9

Would you mind giving a proper citation for the sections you are referring to? kristopher May 2012 #10

Try reading what you respond to. FBaggins May 2012 #11

I had already read the paper before the OP was posted. kristopher May 2012 #14

The you are without excuse. FBaggins May 2012 #15

Here is what the authors say kristopher May 2012 #19

You've confused unrelated portions of the piece. FBaggins May 2012 #20

So what you are saying is that MPI is being deliberately misleading? intaglio May 2012 #12

They could be... or it could be the reporting. FBaggins May 2012 #16

As I said, conspiracy theory intaglio May 2012 #23

Common factor is One_Life_To_Give May 2012 #25

Well you certainly won't catch me bad-mouthing Rickover FBaggins May 2012 #26

It's not nonsense, it was even used in MIT's 2003 report "The Future of Nuclear Power" bananas May 2012 #28

If that's the case, why aren't they happening? JayhawkSD May 2012 #2

Here is the full list kristopher May 2012 #3

They are happening. In fact, there are three happening right now. bananas May 2012 #5

Exactly. And none of the world's plants are getting younger. The apologetics for the nuclear gang, villager May 2012 #7

I think this is the key to their analysis caraher May 2012 #13