Comment on Nuclear energy enjoyers vindicated again after the rise in oil and gas prices.

knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  pubpeer.com/…/AEA87585FB0365719098E2C0D06B31

  source

  • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Excellent breakdown of flaws, this one is the most damning to me:

    Cancer sites are not considered. Exposure to radionuclide pollution from Uranium fission products is known to be associated with specific tumors (thyroid cancer, lung cancer, leukemia) due to the chemical nature of the products of its decay chain (radioactive isotopes of Iodine, Radon, Cesium). Stratifying by tumor site would have provided evidence to support the assumption that tumors are caused by radiation exposure.

    Who cares if you find more bladder cancer if this radiation isn’t associated with bladder tumors? This makes the study absolutely stink of a conclusion looking for evidence, especially in combination with the failure to use the actual radiation data readily available from nuclear sites.

    source

    • fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      That’s what PubPeer is best for. :) Highly recommend grabbing the browser extensions, it helps contextualise a lot and authors do respond.

      source

      • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Thanks for making me aware of it, I dunno how active the humanities side of it is but I’m definitely going to be checking my sources on it when I’m doing class work 👍

        source

        • -> View More Comments