I didn't say it wasn't based on a study (or studies). I said that you were premature to talk about me 'selectively quoting' a study when I had yet to make a reference to (much less quote from) any such thing.Togo said:Your conclusion is not based on a scientific study?Well I fail to see how I need different evidence if you accept that the lifecycle mortality rate for coal is vastly higher than for nuclear.What is it based on then?
The last time we discussed this topic people were citing a study that claimed to add up the deaths from coal extraction transport and consumption, compared them to those for nuclear extraction transport and consumption, and concluded that coal killed more people. Do you have different evidence now?
Which I don't, particularly, since I've not seen much in the way of evidence for it.
If your conclusion isn't based on a scientific study, then can we suppose you've not seen much evidence for it either? Or is your mysterious source classified in some way?
I doubt I'm as hostile to your argument as you think I am. I'm just trying to work out where your unlevened certainly comes from, since you don't appear to have any better backing for your opinion than anyone else, and I'm keen to find a good source.
[Regardless, I have used unrelated studies to back my current argument;
Except they don't. You said that not one person died, that's the claim I asked for backing for, the studies you cited don't support that.