How pro-nukes destroy the credibility of websites

[bananas]

There seem to be a lot of people on the net hyping nuclear energy pretending to be experts.
Not only is this causing a credibility problem for these websites,
but it could also cause credibility problems for the nuclear industry.

For example, a recent discussion on theoildrum.com:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3795

Continuing the Nuclear Debate

Posted by Chris Vernon on April 3, 2008 - 10:35pm

We have run several articles recently on nuclear power and without fail they have stimulated enthusiastic debate. This is an opportunity to continue that debate. To start us off we have three guest contributions:

<snip 3 pro-nuke "guest contributions">

<snip lots of comments>

Boldtswagon on April 4, 2008 - 4:44pm

This blog is a blatent "Pump and Dump". I do not believe that I have seen so many untruths, misinformation, or ignorance in a nuclear article.

<snip details>

(Note: I spent 40 years in the nuclear industry dealing with real problems and not paper exercises.)

<snip some more comments>

GreyZone on April 4, 2008 - 5:27pm

I just got an email from my brother-in-law who works for the NRC and was a submarine officer in the US Navy aboard a nuclear sub during his military career. He's been reading TOD off and on since Christmas. This keypost just killed his interest in TOD. He felt very much as you do, that this entire keypost is utter garbage and therefore since this keypost is so bad about a field that he personally knows, he now suspects the quality of the entire rest of the blog because of this.

TOD has damaged its credibility with this keypost far, far more than they will ever understand because of this article.

<snip rest of comments>

[losthills]

1. Don't mention the word, "Cheney,"

or you'll hurt sombody's feelings.....

[bananas]

3. Lon Cheney?

http://bp2.blogger.com/_rEgPZZmjwg4/R3kWff7CI7I/AAAAAAAAA48/id7ddGmiZEc/s320/Lon+Cheney.jpg

[madokie]

2. first things first right off, I'm old and in the way

Now that thats out in the open now may I continue. The pro-nuke folks are no different today than they were yesterday or years ago for that matter. If you can't dazzle 'em with facts then baffle 'em with bullshit. Need I say more...

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Systematic Chaos]

5. The "herd mentality" link isn't working.

Just a heads up. :)

[NNadir]

6. Too late to edit.

Here it is: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

[DCKit]

8. The majority of Americans are scared shitless of Nnew-cue-lur energy.

All other arguments have failed to make an impact on you, so how do you defend against that? Education? Bwahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, the Republics are SOOOOOOO good at that. Propaganda? Well, that's something they can get behind.

[bananas]

9. You have no credibility - and you damage the credibility of websites you post on

Your nonsense about "616 > 860" was debunked back in January: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=130015&mesg_id=130146

You read some numbers on a webpage without understanding what they represent,
and you come to the wrong conclusions.
The explanation of what those numbers include and exclude was just a few clicks away,
but somehow you missed it.
You're not only incompetent at science, you're incompetent at web-browsing.

[jpak]

10. Credibility

Is a person credible if they claim they are a "scientist" - but turn to be just a name-calling "nuclear hobbyist" on the internets?

Are they credible if they claim to have invented a "molten salt breeder reactor" that will bring "fabulous riches"?

Are they credible if they claim to have "heavily contaminated" their thyroid over a "three year period" with 125I - and then claimed they "controlled" their contamination with ordinary iodized table salt?

Are they credible if they claim they have calculated the the neutron flux behavior of cesium iodide "all weekend" on an Excel spreadsheet??

Are they credible if they post (incredible) NEI propaganda?

Are they credible if they spew vile on "yuppies" but then claim live in a fine home in an "upscale" NJ neighborhood?

Are they credible if they "want to ban fossil fuels" but then proclaim they use thousands of dollars of natural gas to heat their homes each year???

nope

[diane in sf]

12. Annnnother mentally ill empty suit for nukes, just like preznit numbnuts.

Doesn't have a clue what exponential growth in nontoxic power and conservation means. Gets proven wrong repeatedly and then reasserts his original incorrect arguments. Shows his great rconcern for poor people by his callous references to "fucking Navajos" because they have the audacity to complain about being massively poisoned by nuclear waste from mining for nukes.

The guy's just in here to spew his anger and bile around.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

7. Here's another example

On a discussion forum for professional nuclear operators,
they are discussing a pro-nuke who writes on dailykos and pretends to be a nuclear engineer:

http://www.nucpros.com/?q=node/399

<snip>

I was surprised that the author of that blog entry did not do his or her homework. Of the (many) errors in the analysis, I think the most pointless was the mocking tone about the potential casualty numbers of an Indian point accident. He repeatedly implied that the Lyman just pulled the numbers out of his behind. If the writer simply took 2 minutes to check, he would see that Lyman used the industry standard Sandia Natl Labs MACCS2 code, http://www-rsicc.ornl.gov/codes/ccc/ccc6/ccc-652.html and specified rainfall over NYC as the weather condition during the run. The 44K immediate deaths and 500K committed long-term deaths is the direct output of the program. This computer output strongly underestimates actual potential damage, because it assumes massive successful instant evacuation.

The lack of careful work is a good reason why I avoid Kos and most other blogs. They turn important, complex issues into the text versions of grandstanding sound-bites. That blog entry was an ignorant and particulary silly re-hash of unsupportable and erroneous nonsense from beginning to end.

<snip>

[Exodus 3-14]

11. No Nukes!!

Anyone who promotes nucleur energy is a fake, has no morals, and hates children(because they will live with this in future generations, etc).

Regretfully, I came late to know that Al Gore is for this as a solution to our problems.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Interesting.

Do you have a link to show that this person "pretends to be a nuclear engineer", or are you just making shit up?

And if you believe DU's credibility has been "destroyed", why are you still posting here?

[bananas]

15. To clarify

It's the guy on kos that pretends to be a nuclear engineer,
damaging the credibility of kos.

edit to add: I was not implying the credibility of nucpros was being damaged,
on the contrary, I was showing how professionals view the poseurs.