5 ms·

I don't claim to know better. But restarting a $1.5B plant after 2 years of inactivity and having a worker fall into a vat of radioactive water and still being

I don't claim to know better. But restarting a $1.5B plant after 2 years of inactivity and having a worker fall into a vat of radioactive water and still being at 300 CPM after a decontamination procedure is not normal.

not_kurt_godel 1y ago
That'd be a very interesting statement if you were qualified to make it
- arthurcolle 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - not_kurt_godel 1y ago
    I care enough that I would trust assessment of their health and condition only to qualified professionals with access to the relevant information, just like anyone else that I care about
    - dataangel 1y ago
      Do the people who have control of the information have an incentive to lie?
      - not_kurt_godel 1y ago
        Do people on the Internet have an incentive to baselessly speculate in order to indulge their own Dunning-Krugerized delusions of grandeur?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- lijok 1y ago
  What makes one qualified to make a statement? Are you qualified to make the statement I'm replying to?
  - not_kurt_godel 1y ago
    In technical fields: Accredited formal education, professional certification(s), and/or recognition from other experts in the field who have the same.
    - lijok 1y ago
      How do I know you're qualified to make that statement?
      - not_kurt_godel 1y ago
        If I'm not, then we're not grounded in the same consensus-driven objective reality, making this conversation meaningless, and therefore not worth your time to reply further.
pseudalopex 1y ago
Phrases such as massive red flag and bureaucratic nonsense were claims you knew better. Who claimed the event was normal? A worker falling in non contaminated water would not be normal. Many things are bot normal and not emergencies. False dichotomy and straw man are logical fallacies. Were the plant cost and status meant to support your claim 300 counts per minute was a red flag? They appeared irrelevant.
danaris 1y ago
> I don't claim to know better. You very much do, if you're calling into question the statements in the article that it's fine.

not_kurt_godel 1y ago

That'd be a very interesting statement if you were qualified to make it

arthurcolle 1y ago
[flagged]
- not_kurt_godel 1y ago
  I care enough that I would trust assessment of their health and condition only to qualified professionals with access to the relevant information, just like anyone else that I care about
  - dataangel 1y ago
    Do the people who have control of the information have an incentive to lie?
    - not_kurt_godel 1y ago
      Do people on the Internet have an incentive to baselessly speculate in order to indulge their own Dunning-Krugerized delusions of grandeur?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lijok 1y ago
What makes one qualified to make a statement? Are you qualified to make the statement I'm replying to?
- not_kurt_godel 1y ago
  In technical fields: Accredited formal education, professional certification(s), and/or recognition from other experts in the field who have the same.
  - lijok 1y ago
    How do I know you're qualified to make that statement?
    - not_kurt_godel 1y ago
      If I'm not, then we're not grounded in the same consensus-driven objective reality, making this conversation meaningless, and therefore not worth your time to reply further.

pseudalopex 1y ago

Phrases such as massive red flag and bureaucratic nonsense were claims you knew better. Who claimed the event was normal? A worker falling in non contaminated water would not be normal. Many things are bot normal and not emergencies. False dichotomy and straw man are logical fallacies. Were the plant cost and status meant to support your claim 300 counts per minute was a red flag? They appeared irrelevant.

danaris 1y ago

> I don't claim to know better. You very much do, if you're calling into question the statements in the article that it's fine.