tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post6515025374939783994..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: Harvey Wasserman, Three Mile Island, and LogicCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-65030236841406820382011-04-24T22:57:10.015-05:002011-04-24T22:57:10.015-05:00First off, I'm a huge conservative, but someti...First off, I'm a huge conservative, but sometimes the insolence we show on issues involving enterprise is disheartening. This is The judge made a terrible error in this case. The Slusser/Hatch study, which is the basis of the "circular argument" defense, was glaringly flawed. If the judge had understood the studies and Dr.Wing hadn't testified so poorly, then there's no way that she could have come to this verdict.<br /><br />The here's a quick summary:<br /><br />Slusser/Hatch (1990)<br />-Used the NRC's estimation of AVERAGE radiation exposure as the worst-case exposure. <br />-Assumed the official NRC data was 100% correct<br />-Found unexplainable increased cancer rates<br />-Concluded that the rates could not be attributed to 1 mSv (NRC avg.) could not have caused such a spike in cancer rates, so Three Mile Island couldn't have caused the spike in cancer rates<br />-Immediately had their ethics questioned by the scientific community<br />-Fellow scientists out the organization that funded the study as a group of lawyers that representing the interests of the nuclear industry<br />-Published a follow-up (1991) that hypothesized that "psychological stress" was the probable cause for the spike in cancer rates because 1 mSv release couldn't account for such a rise in the cancer rateAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-19312007384108343322009-12-24T15:28:20.625-06:002009-12-24T15:28:20.625-06:00Soylent, don't be so cynical. You may disagree...Soylent, don't be so cynical. You may disagree with his political views but there is little doubt about his allegiance to America, its uniqueness, exceptionalism, overall source of good in the world, generosity to those less fortunate both at home and abroad.<br /><br />He railed against Bush when appropriate (which was often) as he voices his concerns about any infringement of personal freedom and liberty - constrained by laws equally and fairly adjudged. <br /><br />Time will tell if he is correct or incorrect regarding his take on AGW. Since Copenhagen failed to enact or encumber anything any more than Kyoto, we get to observe what nature does and revisit the theory/contention/science of those sounding the alarm of AGW.DocForesightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-89830681658901807702009-12-23T19:13:43.827-06:002009-12-23T19:13:43.827-06:00Doc. Rush plays a persona every bit as much as Ste...Doc. Rush plays a persona every bit as much as Stephen Colbert. if mainstream democrats dislike nuclear he has to advocate it; if mainstream democrats believe global warming is a serious concern he has to pretend it's not.<br /><br />Who knows what he actually believes and how he arrived at that conclusion?Soylenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08125903130939473555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-91909879579036957732009-12-23T15:34:49.934-06:002009-12-23T15:34:49.934-06:00My understanding is that Rush is in favor of nucle...My understanding is that Rush is in favor of nuclear power plants. Just for the record. And he is very dubious about wind and solar as being capable of generating base-load power.<br /><br />So, it looks like he and you are in agreement on at least one thing!DocForesightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-59401127113837332522009-12-23T10:05:15.962-06:002009-12-23T10:05:15.962-06:00Don, the radiation came in the form of radioactive...Don, the radiation came in the form of radioactive gases, that were quickly diluted to such an extent that the typical exposure exposure was probably no more than a medical xray. The evidence of health consequences for such exposures is at best weak.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-36431048582856930442009-12-23T09:13:20.821-06:002009-12-23T09:13:20.821-06:00Let's say the Three Mile Accident had released...Let's say the Three Mile Accident had released enough radiation to have statistically killed several people (though I don't believe that the linear, no-threshold model is correct). To really be fair about it, one would have to compare that to the number of people <b>not</b> killed due to TMI's operation, when it <b>prevented</b> radioactive and carcinogenic releases from a coal-burning plant. And don't forget to toss in the deaths due to asthma as well.<br /><br />It would be very interesting to see that part of a "system analysis".donbnoreply@blogger.com