Just to be clear, I think we have the same opinion about the study in question (though I just read the posted article). I just think you did yourself a disservi

Just to be clear, I think we have the same opinion about the study in question (though I just read the posted article). I just think you did yourself a disservice by stating "... is an anti-nuclear activist." Just pointing out that the article was "insulting in its lack of statistical rigor" would have been enough. At that point, arguing about the opinions of the writers is superfluous. But regarding "facts": It is entirely possible to only know things that are true but still have an extremely biased view of the world, if those facts are a biased subsample of all possible facts. I work in astrophysics, and it happens all the time. We have such scant information that it's easy to draw all kinds of erroneous conclusions if you don't constantly keep in mind the potential facts we do not have because even if they were true we would have failed to acquire them.