5 ms·

But the article mentions the facts and scientific judgements: > the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has drawn on 80 scie

But the article mentions the facts and scientific judgements: > the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has drawn on 80 scientists from 18 countries to produce a draft report that concludes: "Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers. What you've done is read (or not) an article discussing the findings of a bunch of independent commissions, decided that there must be something missing, and bemoaned the fact that people are applauding nuclear energy.

Udo 13y ago
> What you've done is read (or not) How about we assume that I've read the article before commenting on it, and while we're at it, how about doing away with the vitriol even when you don't like someone or their opinion? > decided that there must be something missing, and bemoaned the fact that people are applauding nuclear energy. I have indeed, for myself, decided there is something missing and I put my doubts out there for people to judge, and I believe I explained where I see the problems. I did express some reservations about the completeness of the picture as it is being rendered in the article and I do believe some measure of caution is advisable, yes.
- jsmeaton 13y ago
  > and while we're at it, how about doing away with the vitriol even when you don't like someone or their opinion Fair enough. Sorry for the way I wrote what I wrote. What I was trying to convey is that calling the article out for being misleading, because we can't yet know, goes against what the stated research determined. Admonishing commenters for cheering on nuclear power just because you don't think the research is complete seems suspect. I don't think anyone is saying "but there was no damage done, yay for a perfect energy source". What they're saying is "it's the best we've got and scare campaigns against nuclear power are ridiculous - thankfully someone has exposed them". What happened was terrible. But tearing down the nuclear power plants across the globe is not the correct reaction.

Udo 13y ago

> What you've done is read (or not) How about we assume that I've read the article before commenting on it, and while we're at it, how about doing away with the vitriol even when you don't like someone or their opinion? > decided that there must be something missing, and bemoaned the fact that people are applauding nuclear energy. I have indeed, for myself, decided there is something missing and I put my doubts out there for people to judge, and I believe I explained where I see the problems. I did express some reservations about the completeness of the picture as it is being rendered in the article and I do believe some measure of caution is advisable, yes.

jsmeaton 13y ago
> and while we're at it, how about doing away with the vitriol even when you don't like someone or their opinion Fair enough. Sorry for the way I wrote what I wrote. What I was trying to convey is that calling the article out for being misleading, because we can't yet know, goes against what the stated research determined. Admonishing commenters for cheering on nuclear power just because you don't think the research is complete seems suspect. I don't think anyone is saying "but there was no damage done, yay for a perfect energy source". What they're saying is "it's the best we've got and scare campaigns against nuclear power are ridiculous - thankfully someone has exposed them". What happened was terrible. But tearing down the nuclear power plants across the globe is not the correct reaction.