Thanks for the insightful comment. I don’t know much about this exact question, so I appreciate that you’re fact checking my claims.
A few general comments:
I don’t actually think the evidence you cited contradicts what I wrote. To be fair, you kind of acknowledged this already, by mentioning that I hedged with “partly”. It seems that you mostly object to my source.
But you didn’t say much about why the source was unreliable except that the writer had potential conflicts of interest by being in the nuclear industry, and didn’t expose his work to peer review. In general I consider these types of conflicts of interest to be quite weak signals of reliability (are we really going to dismiss someone because they work in an industry that they write about?). The peer review comment is reasonable, but ironically, I actually linked to a critical review of the book. While not equivalent to academic peer review, I’m also not merely taking the claims at face value.
I’m also just not very convinced by the evidence you presented (although I didn’t look at the article you cited). Among other reasons, it wasn’t very quantitative relative to the evidence in the linked review, but I admit that I’m ignorant about this topic.
Thanks for the insightful comment. I don’t know much about this exact question, so I appreciate that you’re fact checking my claims.
A few general comments:
I don’t actually think the evidence you cited contradicts what I wrote. To be fair, you kind of acknowledged this already, by mentioning that I hedged with “partly”. It seems that you mostly object to my source.
But you didn’t say much about why the source was unreliable except that the writer had potential conflicts of interest by being in the nuclear industry, and didn’t expose his work to peer review. In general I consider these types of conflicts of interest to be quite weak signals of reliability (are we really going to dismiss someone because they work in an industry that they write about?). The peer review comment is reasonable, but ironically, I actually linked to a critical review of the book. While not equivalent to academic peer review, I’m also not merely taking the claims at face value.
I’m also just not very convinced by the evidence you presented (although I didn’t look at the article you cited). Among other reasons, it wasn’t very quantitative relative to the evidence in the linked review, but I admit that I’m ignorant about this topic.