Nuclear Power

[dmc]

The 1st thing that one should do when reading a scientific paper, ISN'T look at the results, but look at both the materials and methods of how the study was done and then who was behind the funding of the project. Based on those 2 things, one can very often determine as they're reading the results, if your looking at "good" information and if there's the potential for bias.

You know I'm playing on emotion and just trying to get people to be interested and start investigating themselves..

I'm not about to crack open the scientific studies on PDF - I just want everyone to be aware and make up their minds... I have no interest in going toe2toe with Google Scientists..

Besides - how much of all this scientific mumbo jumbo do people ACTUALLY understand?
I'm going to say - not much...

All that matters is - if your neighbor lets fracking take place it could cause you to get sick and your tap water to catch fire...

 

[dmc]

Post your views then.

i did - my view is that it sucks... Now go look for yourself and make up your own mind...

I'm sure you have Google bookmarked...

 

[Puck it]

The 1st thing that one should do when reading a scientific paper, ISN'T look at the results, but look at both the materials and methods of how the study was done and then who was behind the funding of the project. Based on those 2 things, one can very often determine as they're reading the results, if your looking at "good" information and if there's the potential for bias.

Far too often, people can get drawn into an artcle/topic/etc based on the emotional value in the title, and then loose the ability to think logically for themselves if what they're reading is an accurate portrayal of the entire topic. Since unfortunately these days, much of science has become driven not by the true pursuit of new knowledge, but by the quest to secure new, and bigger grants from groups looking for a quick financial gain from their R&D dollars. And as any "good" researcher will tel you, not all hypotheses prove to be true

You think. Data can be manipulated to look good and bad. It all depends on how the presenter wants to the audience to view the information presented. I see it happen all the time at my work and with customers. The raw data needs to mined to get the whole picture.


Just like I can prove 1=0 if I make a wrong assumption.

 

[wa-loaf]

Do you think the frac-ing itself is the problem or the chemicals used to cause the frac-ing? Let's here your scientific view without post links to some document that does not give all of the facts.

Even if you are using "clean" fluids to do the fracking isn't the fracking itself releasing gas and oil that's been locked up in shale? You can't say for sure that everything that's released gets recovered and that the extra won't work it's way into the water table.Though I'm sure it's better than what's going on now.

 

[dmc]

You think. Data can be manipulated to look good and bad. It all depends on how the presenter wants to the audience to view the information presented. I see it happen all the time at my work and with customers. The raw data needs to mined to get the whole picture.

Mined from Google....

 

[mondeo]

Far too often, people can get drawn into an artcle/topic/etc based on the emotional value in the title, and then loose the ability to think logically for themselves if what they're reading is an accurate portrayal of the entire topic. Since unfortunately these days, much of science has become driven not by the true pursuit of new knowledge, but by the quest to secure new, and bigger grants from groups looking for a quick financial gain from their R&D dollars. And as any "good" researcher will tel you, not all hypotheses prove to be true

This.

 

[Puck it]

i did - my view is that it sucks... Now go look for yourself and make up your own mind...

I'm sure you have Google bookmarked...

Real scientific view there. Point proved again.

 

[Puck it]

Mined from Google....

You really have no concept of what I am conveying. Again, point proven that you are a reactionary type.

 

[dmc]

Real scientific view there. Point proved again.

Like i said - I'm a computer scientist. I'm no Nuclear Google Scientist like you...

I've done my job - more people now know about fracking and can begin to make up their minds about it.

When it becomes an issue in their town - their ears will now pick up.

 

[Puck it]

This.

Agree with you, a good example of this is global warming data.

3

2

1

dmz chimes in, now.

 

[Puck it]

Like i said - I'm a computer scientist. I'm no Nuclear Google Scientist like you...

I've done my job - more people now know about fracking and can begin to make up their minds about it.

When it becomes an issue in their town - their ears will now pick up.

Yes, you have but you have provided links to some skewed information as pointed out above.

 

[dmc]

Agree with you, a good example of this is global warming data.

3

2

1

dmz chimes in, now.

NO FRACKING!!!!

thats all i got to say there Google McEinstein...

 

[dmc]

Yes, you have but you have provided links to some skewed information as pointed out above.

get you own links - you do it so well.... I'm only here to raise awareness of a situation that could impact us negatively..

And i have... So no links...

 

[dmc]

You really have no concept of what I am conveying. Again, point proven that you are a reactionary type.

Tap water is catching fire... Your damn right I'm reactionary.... What do suggest - a "blue ribbon panel" or some BS...

I personally don't give a rats ass about what you and Google convey.. I can use a search tool too...

 

[drjeff]

You know I'm playing on emotion and just trying to get people to be interested and start investigating themselves..

I'm not about to crack open the scientific studies on PDF - I just want everyone to be aware and make up their minds... I have no interest in going toe2toe with Google Scientists..

Besides - how much of all this scientific mumbo jumbo do people ACTUALLY understand?
I'm going to say - not much...

...

Well, if someone doesn't understand it, then how exactly can they make an informed descision about a topic?? Does everyone need to understand everything down the the last little bit of minutia on the moleculcar level, nope. But if you don't understand the big picture of both sides of something, atleast at a rudimentary level, how then can you form a rational opinion about the topic??

Far too often as people are forming their opinions, and in the process weighing the factual side of a topic and the emotional side of a topic. Emotion, being a easier response for most, wins out. And that can very often result in larger problems down the road when the factual side of the topic eventually plays out

 

[mondeo]

Far too often as people are forming their opinions, and in the process weighing the factual side of a topic and the emotional side of a topic. Emotion, being a easier response for most, wins out. And that can very often result in larger problems down the road when the factual side of the topic eventually plays out

The most concerning thing about any poll result on a scientific issue, for me, is the very low percentage of people who respond with "no opinion."

Why does everyone have to take a side on every issue? If you don't know anything about something, just admit it.

 

[dmc]

Well, if someone doesn't understand it, then how exactly can they make an informed descision about a topic?? Does everyone need to understand everything down the the last little bit of minutia on the moleculcar level, nope. But if you don't understand the big picture of both sides of something, atleast at a rudimentary level, how then can you form a rational opinion about the topic??

Far too often as people are forming their opinions, and in the process weighing the factual side of a topic and the emotional side of a topic. Emotion, being a easier response for most, wins out. And that can very often result in larger problems down the road when the factual side of the topic eventually plays out

I'm totally trying to manipulate people into checking this out.

Totally playing on emotion.. I admit it... I don't want to bore non-scientific people with crap I pull down from Google.. I can relate what i heard at a local meeting on this - but i will just get lambasted from Google McEinstein - And i really don't care what he thinks..

If i start showing data proving my point - you guys will just throw data back at me proving otherwise..

 

[dmc]

The most concerning thing about any poll result on a scientific issue, for me, is the very low percentage of people who respond with "no opinion."

Why does everyone have to take a side on every issue? If you don't know anything about something, just admit it.

I agree with the taking sides thing...

But this - imho - is a big deal and could happen where I live and breath...
Scientific data confuses most people... Tap water catching on fire - now that scares the shti out of folks...

 

[Puck it]

I'm totally trying to manipulate people into checking this out.

Totally playing on emotion.. I admit it... I don't want to bore non-scientific people with crap I pull down from Google.. I can relate what i heard at a local meeting on this - but i will just get lambasted from Google McEinstein - And i really don't care what he thinks..

If i start showing data proving my point - you guys will just throw data back at me proving otherwise..

So we should take your side of the story as fact. That is the problem with you. People do not listen to the whole argument and become reactionary when information is presented by the media. People need to become more informed instead reacting to Headline News 30 second spots.

 

[Puck it]

I agree with the taking sides thing...

But this - imho - is a big deal and could happen where I live and breath...
Scientific data confuses most people... Tap water catching on fire - now that scares the shti out of folks...

BTW. That can happen when a water well is dug and the water well is fracture to produce more water. It has to be a deep water well though.