"

I would hope that you read both the source and my points fully before making your edit and writing your response.

As I initially said the source is biased - it is true. They state themselves that their very organisation was set up initially purely to oppose Nuclear Power.

Let's leave that to one side however, we could always come back to it later.

The crux of my point, leaving aside the bias issue, is three-fold. 

Firstly, irrespective of your argument that this is presented as a claim, the fact remains that the way the claim is presented is illogical - there is no fair comparator for the claim that ""Nuclear Power is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions"". A fair comparator should be found or some idea of efficiency viz. inefficiency should be presented, if even from the biased source itself, before re-inserting this part. Without it, it is on the same level as saying something as intellectually vacant as ""some people claim that Ferraris are not fast machines"". Not exactly the sort of style an Encyclopaedia should be aiming for, especially on a scientific article, would you not agree?

Secondly, with respect to your argument, the very empirical information the underlying source uses is being mistreated in what amounts to, if I may say, a misuse of data on a level which is so obvious it it would actually be quite comical if it were where it belonged along with many thousands of other equally lazy special interest group papers. It is  a self-contradicting source. Here's why:

It makes its supposition that Nuclear Power is inefficient at cutting CO2 emissions by producing a table of data. The data shows ""Yearly Costs to Avoid 1000kg of CO2 Emissions"". These are divided between Energy Conservation Measures and Energy Production Methods. Nuclear Power is shown to be more efficient than solar power and as efficient as wind power at cutting emissions. However, the only conclusion the article draws is that Nuclear Power is inefficient at cutting CO2 emissions. By your logic, I could equally claim in this article using the same source that ""some environmental groups claim Wind and Solar Power are inefficient at cutting CO2 emissions"". You can see how this would get a little crazy, no?

Thirdly, there is only one quoted source yet the text reads ""but environmental organizations indicate the problems with nuclear waste and claim that this energy is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions, excluding it from clean energy"". Why is it pluralised? Surely the text should read something along the lines of ""the WISE group, a Dutch anti-nuclear lobby group indicate the problems..."".

In conclusion, I can see the point you are trying to raise here is based on one guideline - as a claim, it is not presented as fact. That would be fine for articles dealing with philosophical issues, or political issues or any other number of normative debates. But we are not discussing ethics here. We are discussing the efficiency of Nuclear Power in cutting CO2 Emissions. We have to hold Scientific articles to a higher level of proof when it comes to ""making claims"" or worse, ""stating beliefs"". Science, prima facie, is about the pursuit of absolute truth, not the espousal of circumscribed belief. That way leads to the abuse of Science.

Awaiting your reply with interest.

86.143.98.152  "