Chinese nuclear disaster 'highly probable' by 2030

[kristopher]

7. True, there's no surprise that you are defending the indefensible

As the preceding list of 26 nuclear core melts reveals, scientists interested in epistemically legitimate probability claims ought not use highly stipulative definitions of ‘core melt’—that prescribe using data only for ‘major’ core melts or only for civilian-owned reactors. If not, BSC is questionable insofar as it relies on such definitions (Broder et al., 2011; Gonyeau, 2005; Johnston, 2011; Smith, 2006)

Open access article available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21550085.2011.605851

Repeating the data trimming you are being criticized for isn't a demonstration that the nuclear industry claims made to the public are accurate nor does it show a willingness to engage in honest discussion for the benefit of public understanding. In fact, it does exactly the opposite by highlighting the nuclear industry's agenda driven misuse of the authority of 'science'.