▲ 276 ▼ Nuclear energy enjoyers vindicated again after the rise in oil and gas prices. (mander.xyz) submitted 8 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] fossilesque@mander.xyz [S] 13 points 8 months ago* (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 16 points 8 months ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] fossilesque@mander.xyz [S] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago (1 child) 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 👍 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 16 points 8 months ago (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] fossilesque@mander.xyz [S] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago (1 child) 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 👍 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] fossilesque@mander.xyz [S] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago (1 child) 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 👍 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago (1 child) 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 👍 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)