Chinese nuclear disaster 'highly probable' by 2030

[PamW]

25. Unscientific SIMPLISTIC analysis..

As FBaggins has made clear, the above analysis is rather SIMPLISTIC. It's not scientifically valid to claim that a probability ( even one simplistically calculated ) for past reactor plants is somehow indicative of what probabilities are going to be for future designs that share little in common with past designs.

Especially, when the Chinese nuclear power effort is being overseen by scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

Special Report: The US government lab behind China's nuclear power push

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-rt-us-breakout-thorium-special-report-20131220,0,6829640,full.story

The Chinese nuclear power push is being guided by scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

So much also for kristopher's contentions that since I'm in favor of nuclear power, that means I'm not honest, and if I'm not honest; then I'm not a scientist.

Would anyone call the scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as "not scientists" because they support nuclear power?

The Oak Ridge scientists certainly are scientists, and they do support nuclear power. So much for kristopher's contentions that being in favor of nuclear power is a disqualification from being a scientist.

PamW