There is no references in it; it's just a declared opinion, one I personally find weak.
Here is what a post with references might look like, one I wrote while musing about the stupidity of antinuke carrying on insipidly about a collapsed tunnel at Hanford:
828 Underground Nuclear Tests, Plutonium Migration in Nevada, Dunning, Kruger, Strawmen, and Tunnels.
It has over 25 references, with links, most of them from the primary scientific literature.
Now, of course, I didn't write it for the benefit of the antinuke in question. I know that no amount of information can change the mind of cultists, be they antivaxxers or antinukes, peas in a pod. I wrote it because a stupid comment caused me to think about the geochemistry at Hanford. By accessing and reading the references in that post I expanded my knowledge, understanding that it was all over the head of antiscience types.
For the record, I don't make any distinctions between antinukes other than to note that there is a subset of antinukes here who are "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes, not a particularly honest telling from where I sit, particularly when they drag out the same horseshit, year after year, decade after decade while the fucking planet is literally on fire. They're generic. Each of them is more or less the same is the same as the others. In 20 years at DU, I've seen them come and go, one after another, handing out the same shit. In those 20 years, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere grew by almost 50 ppm. People will die this year from simply being outside in the heat.
Should I congratulate the antinuke community on their "victory?" I don't think so.
I have no reason to be ashamed of anything about my scientific career, particularly when I'm told to do so by appeal to "reality" by people who clearly have no idea what reality is or what it might be.
Have a wonderful weekend.
= new reply since forum marked as read