Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

15. You are comparing a rate to a raw number?

Thu Aug 22, 2013, 06:10 PM

Aug 2013

And then scoffing at "wrong-headed discussion"?

That says almost everything there is to say about the approach of nuclear proponents to discussions of the effects of nuclear.

We complete that "almost everything" with the fact that the rate you quoted was a fictional construct by Baggins. The OP says (and I quote) "The incidence rate of thyroid cancer in children is said to be one in hundreds of thousands".

Perhaps you can see why the credibility of those who mindlessly cheer nuclear energy is so low.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NHK: Thyroid cancer found in 18 Fukushima children [View all] cprise Aug 2013 OP

Fuck. nt ZombieHorde Aug 2013 #1

The panel says it cannot determine? FUCK it, of course these are related. CaliforniaPeggy Aug 2013 #2

Well, no, it's not obvious Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #9

Not too long ago some nuclear loving DUer upaloopa Aug 2013 #3

That was probably me. wtmusic Aug 2013 #26

. Do you have peer-reviewed evidence of deaths from coal? dixiegrrrrl Aug 2013 #34

Fair enough. wtmusic Aug 2013 #35

you're saying it's not so bad then CreekDog Aug 2013 #36

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #4

There's a reason that it "can't be determined" FBaggins Aug 2013 #8

The fact that this result, which demonstrates that there's been no impact... phantom power Aug 2013 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #12

You are comparing a rate to a raw number? kristopher Aug 2013 #15

The 15-20 figure is just an example FBaggins Aug 2013 #17

Which begs the question of *why* you fabricated such a number... kristopher Aug 2013 #18

Because, unlike you, I actually understand the facts. FBaggins Aug 2013 #20

You fabricated numbers that grossly skewed the available data. kristopher Aug 2013 #21

No rational person could read that post as anything but a hypothetical. FBaggins Aug 2013 #29

Seems like many rational people did read your numbers as data-based estimates caraher Aug 2013 #62

You're saying most thyroid cancer goes into remission? cprise Aug 2013 #22

Not as I understand "remission", no. FBaggins Aug 2013 #30

They would have to be *either* remissive or not cancer at all (benign) cprise Aug 2013 #31

Not as the NIH/NCI define it. FBaggins Aug 2013 #32

you're linking to Natural News? CreekDog Aug 2013 #37

For treatment advice? Of course not. FBaggins Aug 2013 #39

Everyone does not interpret the world numerically Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #19

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #14

Who the hell is Steven Starr wtmusic Aug 2013 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #41

He's a lab technician. wtmusic Aug 2013 #42

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #45

No, they didn't win a 1985 Nobel Prize for their work. wtmusic Aug 2013 #46

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #47

It is not the same organization, and it's not an "arm". wtmusic Aug 2013 #48

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #49

There is no such thing as an "argument from science without prejudice". wtmusic Aug 2013 #50

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #51

Funny you mention, nuclear waste can be reused. wtmusic Aug 2013 #53

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #55

The risk exists only because we're short on money and short on time. wtmusic Aug 2013 #56

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #57

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #58

No prob, thanks. wtmusic Aug 2013 #59

Top UK Climate Scientist says Coal with CCS is the ONLY solution to global warming kristopher Aug 2013 #52

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #54

Actually... it doesn't. FBaggins Aug 2013 #43

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #44

18 so far ... more will develop it later ... nt bananas Aug 2013 #5

Incoming n/t Hydra Aug 2013 #6

I'm sure the local nuclear apologists will be along in 3...2...1 nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #7

errr... phantom power Aug 2013 #11

errrr.... Post #15 might give you food for thought. nt kristopher Aug 2013 #16

Only if he's entirely ignorant re: what "incidence rate" means. nt FBaggins Aug 2013 #33

I said nothing about nasty or mean. There is more to come, tell me that in five, ten years. nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #28

I see one of our resident nuke worshippers is already here mocking the very idea that kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #13

It doesn't. wtmusic Aug 2013 #24

in children it does? CreekDog Aug 2013 #38

It always has before FBaggins Aug 2013 #40

The page has been taken down. wtmusic Aug 2013 #23

More likely NHK is censoring it. kristopher Aug 2013 #27

The TV news video is still on youtube bananas Aug 2013 #61

There certainly seems to have been an awful lot of self-deleting on this subject ... Nihil Aug 2013 #60