Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
neutronbytes.com
Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
1–10 of 76 posts
Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
#2"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing.
The Wikipedia list of common misconceptions are still common and a lot of them are embarrassingly old if you believe that correcting misinformation is something that's possible to achieve on any scale other then waiting for people to die and hoping the next generation learns the right thing this time round.
Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
#3"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…
[flagged]
Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
#4"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…
Even so, you still have to do it. The only alternative is unchecked bullshit, and that is highly corrosive to polite society.
It's basically information guerilla warfare. Lies are cheap and easy to produce, while the facts require investigation and analysis. Lies lead to conspiracy theories which lead to radicalization which lead to destruction of society.
Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
#5"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…
[flagged]
I think you're agreeing with me? I'm not gonna wade into the issue in the link, but assuming its premise for purposes of discussion you have misinformation spread in a channel with a huge amount of reach — official government communications during a crisis, and the people trying to fact check it and correct the record failed miserably even with what they believed to be the truth and scientific evidence on their side.
Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
#6"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…
[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
#7"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…
The incentives are against good fact checking. There are 3 broad kinds of misinformation:
1) Stuff that just isn't true and is kinda stupid. Flat earth territory (you can literally see the sea curve, c like). Barely worth debunking because nobody who cares about the truth is going to hold on to an opinion like that, but something for fact checkers to do.
2) Stuff that is not true but has powerful interests pushing it. Like war propaganda. The fact checkers are useless because they tend to get either drowned out or co-opted by someone since the players involved are so big they can corrupt things.
3) Hazy stuff that is plausible where the fact checker probably doesn't know what happened either.
So if the fact checker focuses on accuracy they tend to focus on trivialities, on money they tend to get corrupted and on important stuff they will tend to be wrong about a lot of things. There is no winning that game.
Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
#8"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…
Even so, you still have to do it. The only alternative is unchecked bullshit, and that is highly corrosive to polite society. It's basically information guerilla warfare. Lies are cheap and easy to produce, while the facts require investigation and analysis. Lies lead to conspiracy theories which lead to radicalization which lead to destruction of society.
I guess what I'm getting at is that checking bullshit is far less effective than choking it out with the truth. Nobody believes the moon landing happened because they read a fact-checker's piece on the hoax, they believe it because there's so much positive evidence just floating out there that the conspiracy theory can't take hold except in teeny tiny little pockets.
Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
#9It really does seem relatively easy to raise money in nuclear power for making a few dubious claims about factory production, reactor performance, and delivery timeline.
In the industry, we call the 10 years it takes to realize that it's a lot harder than newcomers initially think, and that the people who tried in the past didn't fail merely because they were idiots who didn't think about economics: "getting run over by the nuclear bus".
After 15 years professionally in the industry, I'm just amazed that Rickover wrote his paper reactor memo back in 1953! https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html
Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects
#10The only way to win here is to make it expensive to produce lies . Make people take responsibility of the consequences and punish them .