On: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT ...

[hackerblues]

What is your point?

Presumably the correct response to bullshit is to call it out as such rather than producing your own.

[anigbrowl → hackerblues]

I don't think the grandparent poster was aware of the fallacies in his argument; more importantly, it throws the reliability of the original information supplied into question.

For example, the 'not worried' writer explains that 'the nuclear fuel is uranium oxide.' But that is not true of the whole plant: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/challenge/csr/nuclear/cycle-e.html

Plutonium complicates things rather significantly. Accuracy should not be sacrificed to fearmongering, but nor should it be sacrificed for mere reassurance.

Edit: downvoted for supplying more accurate information with a citation? Classy.