Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
13. She didn't write the OP.
Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:23 PM
Dec 2013

"The argument" behind the sensationalistic headline is that China (if it doesn't change course on nuclear) is headed for a nuclear catastrophe in the near future.

Shrader-Frechette's nonsense was offered by you as a possible source for the claimed (and false) denominator for the (faulty) reactor-years/meltdowns calculation.

K&R cprise Dec 2013 #1
That's your notion of a "completely valid" argument? FBaggins Dec 2013 #2
Yes, it is. kristopher Dec 2013 #3
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. FBaggins Dec 2013 #4
Some background for those that don't have time to look them up. FBaggins Dec 2013 #5
Schrader-Frechette is DISHONEST PamW Dec 2013 #6
"claim to be a "Professor of Ethics" and then LIE as much as Shrader-Frechette" kristopher Dec 2013 #14
True, there's no surprise that you are defending the indefensible kristopher Dec 2013 #7
Once again... FBaggins Dec 2013 #8
I don't need to. kristopher Dec 2013 #10
Of course you do. FBaggins Dec 2013 #11
I'm not saying it, an ethicist is saying it. kristopher Dec 2013 #12
She didn't write the OP. FBaggins Dec 2013 #13
Nonsense? kristopher Dec 2013 #15
Yep FBaggins Dec 2013 #16
No I believe that your use of that criteria is fraudulent. kristopher Dec 2013 #17
It's "specifically mentioned" FBaggins Dec 2013 #18
She isn't "immunizing" anything. kristopher Dec 2013 #19
Misuse???? PamW Dec 2013 #9
Yeah... kristopher Dec 2013 #20
NOT IMPRESSED in the SLIGHTEST!!! PamW Dec 2013 #22
The details about how the Nuclear Industry is misleading kristopher Dec 2013 #21
kick for reference kristopher Dec 2013 #23
kick for reference kristopher Dec 2013 #24
Unscientific SIMPLISTIC analysis.. PamW Dec 2013 #25
Classical probability (i), relative-frequency probability (ii), subjective probability (iii) kristopher Dec 2013 #26
Common ERROR in calculating probabilities PamW Dec 2013 #27
"MIT assessors were guilty of a massive ‘overconfidence’ bias toward nuclear safety" kristopher Dec 2013 #28
Repeat: "MIT assessors were guilty of a massive ‘overconfidence’ bias toward nuclear safety" kristopher Feb 2014 #29
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Chinese nuclear disaster ...»Reply #13