Presentation Academy cancer sufferer puts human face on study of nuclear plant safety

[jpak]

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100503/NEWS02/5030376/‘One+of+the+statistics+

As research scientists and federal regulators gathered in Washington, D.C., last month to discuss a new study of cancer rates near nuclear power plants, Sarah Sauer of Corydon, Ind., asked them for a favor.

Don't forget the people behind the numbers, said Sarah, 16, a sophomore at Presentation Academy in Louisville.

Moments earlier, as she spoke to the National Academy of Sciences panel, the teen brought some in the room to tears, standing on a step-stool to reach the microphone as her high-pitched and strained voice told as much about her cancer battle as her words.

Linda Modica, a Sierra Club member from Tennessee who attended the panel meeting, said Sarah was a brave girl.

<more>

[NNadir]

1. Really? Ever hear of Terry Schiavo?

Diagnosis as an exercise to advance political rhetoric of dogmatic fundementalists was appalling for Schiavo, and diagnosis by anti-science fundementalists for the anti-nuke industry is no less appalling.

Just because a sixteen year old has cancer, doesn't give her a degree in epidemiology. If this girl lived next to a coal plant or a wood-fired plant would stupid people be asserting that she had cancer because of the coal plant or would fired plant?

No, not even if the cancer known, via biopsy to have been related to wood/coal toxins.

Our little anti-science anti-nukes rely completely on making stuff up and are unashamed to promote fear to help their coal pals really kill people.

The nuclear industry fully supports epidemiological studies around nuclear plants and it should do so. The best way to fight ignorance is with the truth.

We've had very stupid people here giggling about scientific reports about real consequences from the wood/coal industry.

The same cretins come here to make stuff up and assert, based on the blather out of an uninformed and uneducated pop reporter and expect people to break into tears.

The fact is that hundreds of thousands of people are unambiguosly known to die from air pollution and all the fucking anti-nukes can do is giggle.

Have a nice killing with ignorance evening.

[jpak]

2. LOL!!!!

:rofl:

[NNadir]

4. I see your sense of tragedy is overwhelmed. Like I said, the concern is an affectation.

I note that your "tears" and "sobriety" over this case aren't at all serious.

I also note your claim that every cancer on earth is derived from a nuclear plant is garbage, sort of like the garbage you agitate to spew out of the smokestacks you're so fond of.

I think I'll continue to post a few more threads on the science of wood smoke that kills more than one and half million people per year.

That should be good for a giggle from the Allen's Coffee Brandy crowd, no?

Have a nice epidemiologically ignorant day.

[jpak]

9. "I also note your claim that every cancer on earth is derived from a nuclear plant is garbage"

that is something you made up

pants on fire

yup!

[newthinking]

5. Read your own posts, you made a "case" out of a single anomaly not 30 minutes ago

think wood stoves ;)

[Confusious]

3. See, here's how it will go down

If there is a link, the anti-nukes will have a point, not in any scientific fashion, just pure luck. But if there is NO link, they'll say: "The report was bullshit."

There's only one road with a big "ONE WAY" sign on it.

[Go2Peace]

6. NNadir calls people in every nasty way possible. It is not unfair to point out his severe

inconstancies in his arguments and information.

You guys set yourselves up, talking up like Rush Limbaugh (you can think with all your cells but a few behind your backs), putting others down and calling them names such as "Anti-Nuke" (which is a talking point slur), and "Cretins" (which NNadir uses along with all kinds of other unkind designations constantly), and claiming intellectual superiority.

And you expect that people won't call these posts out when they are incorrect or heavily misrepresented, as they often are?

:rofl:

[Confusious]

7. Did you post in the wrong place?

My post had nothing to do with what you're talking about.

But considering, I shouldn't be surprised:

putting others down and calling them names such as "Anti-Nuke" (which is a talking point slur), and "Cretins" (which NNadir uses along with all kinds of other unkind designations constantly), and claiming intellectual superiority.

Your beginning paragraph:

You guys set yourselves up, talking up like Rush Limbaugh (you can think with all your cells but a few behind your backs)

You can't even be consistent within one post. Claiming you're upset about being called names, and starting by calling names. I should listen to you?

I'd like for you to point out his inconsistencies in his arguments and information. As someone who has 2 degrees in science, and who worked for a leading (at the time) company that made scientific instruments, I haven't seen them. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

I will say this though, he's pretty consistently nasty to people who don't know the first thing about science, but want nuclear power, and other science for that matter, stopped based on their "expert" opinion.

If you want some credibility, point to peer reviewed scientific studies by a third party, not people that take money from oil companies, lawyers with no science background, or environmental web sites.

Don't take the nuclear industry's word for the safety of nuclear power, and don't take Greenpeace's word about the dangers.

[jpak]

8. LOL!!!!

too funny

:rofl:

[Go2Peace]

11. No, calling out nasty behavior and tactics is quite different than what NNadir has been doing

As for debating his claims, he doesn't give much room for "debate" because he has no interest in discussion. Regardless, go back and look over his post about wood burning stoves and cancer. It was full of innacurate claims and was based on pseudo-science and I countered the "facts" presented.

I can't believe you would even defend behavior as nasty as his can be, regardless if you agree with him.

[Confusious]

12. Sorry, as a neutral party,

( Neutral as in I don't care for everything he posts ) He just has more finesse when hurling an insult, when yours are just outright crude. As are mine, on occasion.

What you did is the same thing as him. You say you're calling out nasty behavior, he's calling out ignorance. I applaud him for that. The only reason you'd be insulted, is if you were ignorant, or support people being ignorant.

I can't believe you would even defend behavior as nasty as his can be, regardless if you agree with him.

He's not breaking the rules, his posts rarely get deleted. So no, I don't see a problem. I like his "creativeness." As someone once told me "Time to grow a thicker skin."

As for debating his claims, he doesn't give much room for "debate" because he has no interest in discussion. Regardless, go back and look over his post about wood burning stoves and cancer. It was full of innacurate claims and was based on pseudo-science and I countered the "facts" presented.

Did he post peer reviewed articles? If he did, and they say that, then I'll probably agree with him. Otherwise, no I won't.

Also, one data point does not a theory make. You're pissed because of one post? "grow a thicker skin"

[Go2Peace]

13. Your a "neutral party"?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Confusious]

14. Yes I am

If I thought one of the people here for nuclear power was pulling bullshit out of his ass, I'd call him on it.

The reason you can't see it, well, comes down to perspective. We all have our own ideas about how people think, based on how we think. Now owing to some problems I had when I was younger, I learned that my perspective was incorrect. Not everyone is like me.

You're laughing, because in your mind, people can't be neutral. If it comes from an anti-nuke, whether it's a lie or not, whether it's good science or not, you agree. It's impossible for you to be "neutral." You expect the same from us, whether it's true, or not.

The only real thing that separates is science. If it looks bad, if it looks good, as long as the study was done in the correct fashion, peer reviewed, I'll accept it. You, I don't think you would.

Besides that the issue is whether he's an arse or not. I would tend to agree he can be, but others here are either much more annoying and not very creative, or just plain A-holes.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Correlation/causation

"Her father, obstetrician Joseph Sauer, moved the family from Illinois to Southern Indiana in 2004, hoping to escape exposure from the Braidwood generating station in Braceville, Ill., about five miles from their last home. Doctors told Sarah's parents they suspect her rare form of brain cancer was caused by environmental contamination from Braidwood, although her parents concede they can't say for certain."

Escape exposure to what? The nice thing about radioactive materials is, they emit radiation, which makes them somewhat easy to detect. If they can't say for certain, what they mean is, they found no evidence supporting their emotional claim.

They are not putting a face on contamination from nuclear power, they are making a wild stab in the dark, with people's lives on the line, with no evidence. Just like the vaxxers that made stuff up about Thimerisol (a mercury based preservative) in certain vaccines, being the cause of autism. Funny thing, we don't use Thimerisol anymore, yet the Autism rates remain unchanged. I would not take my child to Dr. Sauer. I expect a doctor to understand correlation/causation, and the scientific method.

The study better control for other factors that might lead to higher cancer rates around nuclear power plants, such as abundant cheap electricity, and the fields and whatnot that go along with the transmission lines, and the appliances at the consumer end. It should be compared to places like Electric City or other hydro installations, for starters.

[Nihil]

15. It's sad that anyone suffers from cancer, never mind a child.

At the same time, I note that it's nearly 20 years since another teenage girl
was used to "bring some in the room to tears" in order to promote one side of
an argument in the public eye ... Nayirah al-Sabah ...

:shrug: