Posted on 08/14/2007 11:26:41 PM PDT by gpapa
Oh, one more thing. The fact that I get crap like this at FR is disturbing. Isn’t this supposed to be an enlightened conservative site?
By the way, a few of the articles that you claim had nor references were newspaper editorials. When was the last time you saw a newspaper editorial with a list of references, genius? Good Lord!
No, I commented on that aspect too. Junk science is junk science, no matter how it applies.
If you don't like it, don't start giving crap out in the first place.
You claimed that these articles were chock full of data and references:
The other books cited on my webpage, http://RussP.us/nucpower.htm , also contain many references. Bernard Cohen, was one of the top experts in the world on the health hazards of energy sources, and I have reprinted several of his articles there. Please read them and educate yourself. #33
Yep, it takes a real genius to equate a "scientific article" to a newspaper editorial. They have completely different standards of documentation, even the "scientific article".
The longer article on the Hazards of Nuclear Power is actually a chapter that Cohen conributed to a book. I see several major references at the end, although they are not all the kind of references you would see in a journal paper.
If you want loads of references, check out the books I have listed on my site at http://RussP.us/nucpower.htm . Or don’t you have time to read books on the subject?
Cohen has published over 300 peer-reviewed scientific papers and has received major awards. If you think he doesn’t know about references, you are sadly mistaken.
They as well as other extreme kook groups have infiltrated the DNC and will have a profound effect on America and American policies if we allow the Presidency to go thier way!
You still don’t get it, do you. Cohen has no more respect for the UCS than you or I do, and I doubt he cited them often, if ever, in his scienfitic papers.
What he did was to show that EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THEIR FIGURES, nuclear power is safer than coal-fired power. I think that’s worth pointing out, particularly to people who might have respect for UCS.
Look, I’ll admit that I probably shouldn’t have referred to the Cohen articles at my site as “scientific papers.” They are not scienfitic journal articles, which would be too technical and boring for 99% of the public. They are distillations of his scientific knowledge for the general public. But the books have many references, which is what I had originally claimed.
He is making his argument based upon flawed science, granting legitimacy to it. His writings would be far more respected had he based his arguments upon good science comparisons, not junk. Then when you interpret his findings citing the 'thousands' killed, sourced from UCS, it goes into the toilet rather quickly.
Reliable fatality estimates for coal-fired power do not originate with the UCS. Yes, UCS may have their own bogus estimates, but the original studies on the matter predated the very existence of UCS, perhaps by decades.
If you think coal fatality estimates that Cohen cites in his scientific papers originate from UCS, I think you are once again sadly mistaken. They are well established and largely uncontroversial within the relevant scientific communities (albeit unreported by the mainstream media).
As I wrote earlier, several thousand people died in one week in one city (London) due to coal-fired power back in the 1950s. I agree that the conditions were far different then what we have today, but it happened nonetheless, and it shows that coal pollution is a serious matter. I am personally very glad that I don’t happen to live near a coal-fired power plant.
I referred you to four books by four different authors listed on my website at http://RussP.us/nucpower.htm, Each of those books has several references on the well-established health effects of coal-fired pollution.
Do I have to type the references for you? Sorry, but I don’t have time to spoon feed you. If you refuse to spend any time educating yourself, go waste someone else’s time.
“Until you do enlarge your reading, then we are at the end.”
By the way, I can honestly say that I have read three of those four books, though it was a while ago. You refuse to even look up references — yet you have the nerve to tell me that I need to “enlarge my reading.”
I went to your little website to read your referenced you said were posted there. Quite frankly ONE author who uses JUNK science data is not worth reading. Since he is the only drum you have to beat. You have no other sources to back up this claim? Oh, I looked for other sources to confirm you claim independent of your vaunted sole source. Didn't find anything from a non-wacko source. Why YES I have the nerve. Get used to it.
The fact that you are calling Bernard Cohen a wacko says it all. And four books by four different authors is somehow constitutes a “sole source”?
I had mistakenly thought I was dealing with a rational person here. Thanks for clarifying that, so I can quit wasting my time.
No where in my responses did I state the above. I clearly stated he used wacko sources.
I had mistakenly thought I was dealing with a rational person here.
Enjoy your little world.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.