And appropriate use of critical analysis and critical thinking processes of "studies" verifies that finding one study that supports what you have already decided you want to believe "PROVES" it... NOT.

I read medical literature and studies every week of the year. It's part of what I do. Pseudoscience abounds and is easily cloaked in language such as:

Study proves breathing air causes cancer! A study COMMISSIONED by the Air Causes Cancer Society (ACCS) and published by the Pseudoscience Foundation has confirmed that breathing air causes cancer. In a recent study, with a N of 3, the ACCS has found that among individuals breathing air that do not have cancer, if they stop beathing air right now they absolutely will not get cancer. However, if breathing air continues, the possibility still exists that they may, in fact, get cancer. Therefore a connection between breathing air and getting cancer has been definitely established. Breathing air should be avoided if at all possible, ACCS advises.

Yes that's hyperbole. Mixed with a smattering of sarcasm. But this kind of event brings out all the pseudoscience that many people thrive on. I'm not sure it helps much.

Now that the murderous scum at TVA have been appropriately AND scientifically exposed for the villains they are, the world can feel safer. Oh wait - we haven't turned off the steam plant yet. As soon as we decide to switch that off, we'll be safe.

RB

You make light of something serious and quite accurate, RB. Didn't read it did you?

Let's get something straight...Every person who has ever flipped a light switch shares some of the blame for this. We have to fix the short term and the long term problems and look down the road to phasing out coal, which acn neither be mined nor burned safely. There's a cost and we just paid a large one and we're going to keep paying.

It is important to seperate the people at TVA, who have hearts, minds, and consciences, from TVA the corporation, which has a blance sheet.

I feel good about the people. TVA the corporation is on probation big time.

and while I've never pretended to be a scientist I do have a couple of college degrees and I can't see how they reached their conclusions other than telling us they reached their conclusions. To me the study didn't exhibit enough evidence or make clear their methods to definitively conclude the findings based on the information provided. Maybe there was much more data that they didn't include to save space or to simplify the report for the less-scientific minded but if that's the case it was at the expense of the credibility of the report. The fact that Greenpeace is citing the report certainly doesn't help their credibility either.