John,

You are only further demonstrating your pseudoscientific bent. Prime example of pseudoscientific thinking:

"Why are you still focusing on that KiKK study? Let’s both agree that it’s been thoroughly discredited. So what? It makes no difference to what I said."

Exactly. For the pseudoscientist the evidence is irrelevant to the belief held. So while the pseudoscientist might present evidence as a basis for their belief, that belief will remain intact if the evidence is discredited, as is yours apparently.

"By the way, I still listed 16 other hazards of nuclear power that you haven’t addressed. Providing dodgy figures and clinging on for dear life to the 17th doesn’t negate them."

All of those examples of harm you gave are based on the idea I criticised, so yes they are negated if the premise is false. That's how science works. For the pseudoscientist however, every bit of rubbish presented stands in its own right. And seriously, would disproving all of them alter your opinion? You're a pseudoscientist John. Your opinion is not evidence based. A further example:

"-Nuclear energy's long-term risks are harder to quantify and aren’t counted in the immediate death statistics."

Yeah, harder to quantify because nothing gets found to form an evidence based opinion that there is any harm. Yet for pseudoscientist John that's not a problem.

And this gem from you:

"-Renewable energy sources like solar and wind generate less electricity per unit compared to nuclear."

The comparison is on a per unit of generation basis, so that comment makes no sense. Never mind John. Anything that does not support your silly beliefs must be false.

Fester,

How did you get to “further” in “You are only further demonstrating your pseudoscientific bent” when every one of your attempts to show this have failed so far? This next one fails, too, I’m afraid. Let’s look at why that is:

I didn’t present the KiKK study as evidence for my claim. Scroll up and read what I said again. You’ve also ignored the fact that my point still holds without it.

Strike.

//All of those examples of harm you gave are based on the idea I criticised, so yes they are negated if the premise is false.//

No, they bore no relation at all. Radiation was the only overlap, and not in all cases either:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028#395906

Strike.

//Yeah, harder to quantify because nothing gets found to form an evidence based opinion that there is any harm.//

No, nuclear energy's long-term risks are harder to quantify due to factors such as long latency periods (making it hard to directly link health issues to nuclear exposure) and underreporting (especially in less developed regions).

That’s three strikes.

//The comparison is on a per unit of generation basis ...//

Yes, but it still doesn’t account for the many factors I listed earlier.

John,

You are just splopping out ACF dogma. Very unoriginal. Try forming your own opinions. Right or wrong they are yours and you are free to alter or discard them as you wish, so argument can only be of benefit to you.

Make your own arguments: It's character building.

Fester,

My claims are derived from peer-reviewed data. I don’t care what the ACF says (although, it doesn’t surprise me that they’re saying the same things.)

I HAVE formed my own opinions. You, on the other hand, have staked your position out in advance out in advance, and now sort through the data employing confirmation bias as you go by looking for evidence that supports your pre-existing beliefs while dismissing or ignoring data that contradicts them.

Which is textbook denialism.

Had none of the above been the case, then you would just tell me why each of my points are wrong instead of dressing up denialism as ‘forming one’s own opinion’.

Try following the evidence rather than sorting through it and cherry-picking the bits you like: It’s character-building.

https://youtu.be/RadP67779II?si=q8cl7qHx9T3F9UT9

For everyone who thinks they're not indoctrinated !

John,

I am a real person presenting real opinions. You are a pretend person here spouting the Australian Conservation Foundation's view pretty much verbatim. As for cherry picking, that is yet another dishonest accusation from you as my challenge to you has been to give the positive example of wind and solar, something you have as yet failed to do.

Here's a cold hard fact (as opposed to a cherry) for you to mull over: Biomass generates four times as much CO2 per unit of power generation as coal. So for all the hundreds of billions of Euros that Germany has spent on its transition to renewables, it is currently producing as much CO2 from its biomass generation alone as it would have generated had it gone 100% coal. And thanks to the Greens all their nuclear reactors have been shut down.

Utter lunacy!