Talk:Ernest J. Sternglass

message: The basic facts of the article seem fine to me but it is missing a huge alternative POV about Sternglass, namely that he is viewed as a semi-crackpot anti-nuclear agitator who uses shoddy methodology and constantly shifted from one unsupported claim to another in an effort to keep up his criticisms in the face of being disproven. At least, this is the impression of him that I got from Spencer Weart's Nuclear Fear, which is a pretty balanced account on the whole. Anyway, I'll try to add in (with references) these criticisms as well (not because I necessarily agree with them, but because they seem present in almost any balanced discussion of Sternglass), which are far beyond having just "upset Herman Kahn" (I'm fairly sure there are anti-nuclear people who don't want to associate with Sternglass for the same reasons). --Fastfission 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nigel, I didn't intend to make it sound like I thought he was a semi-crackpot. As I said, I don't hold a strong position on him personally—the point is that it is unbalanced and there has been a lot of serious criticism of Sternglass over time, including that he was basically a crackpot who constantly changed his focus whenever his claims of the moment got debunked (and I tried to indicate where I had gotten this impression as well—namely Weart's book). The article makes it sound like he's been considered a source of great information over the course of his career, which as I understand it is not exactly true. So ease up a bit, don't misread me, and don't assume I simply label people with alternative ideas crackpots, because that's not the case. --Fastfission (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added Alice Stewart's comments on Sternglass, and quote from a review in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.  Neither is particularly laudatory, and accusation of a lack of balance or WP:UNDUE weight won't hold much water, considering that Stewart's work on risks was groundbreaking and not very welcome by the nuclear industry, and that the Bulletin has long been a forum for criticism of the nuclear industry as well. "Semi-crackpot" is too harsh, but it's pretty apparent that Sternglass is not the great scientist his followers think he is. Yakushima (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues

message: I'm all for inclusion of facts and references demonstrating that Sternglass is viewed as a semi-crackpot. I'd *much* rather see hard evidence that proves that his concerns about fallout were unfounded.
I think he represents a POV that deserves airing, and certainly was an important figure in an era which played down the costs of nuclear fallout ... at least until Kennedy signed the Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty, demonstrating that concern about the testing was shared by a number of responsible parties. Twang 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: I have made some changes and have nominated the article to be checked for its neutrality. Johnfos (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check

message: Unfortunately, in the case of a person who holds controversial views such as Sternglass does, it will not be possible to (a) ignore the fact of the controversies, and (b) put forth an article that addresses all of the controversial issues in a way that pleases everyone, no matter how factual or well-sourced statements may be included.
Sternglass claims that over 400 babies died as a result of TMI, yet I have read that the infant-mortality rates in the Three Mile Island area were well within the normal variances—and, in fact, that they decreased slightly in the wake of the incident. So who knows what is factual and what is political propaganda? 64.85.229.248 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I like to see a controversial topic presented with the expert opinion on the matter, but apart from the Baby Tooth Survey, which sadly is not taken to task here, whomever balanced most of Sternglass' other tabloid grabbing FUD, deserves a sincere thank you, as it may not be much but it might just stop another generation from being led by these, perhaps well intentioned, but ultimately science-fiction promoting, charlatans.
This is one article that definitely doesn't need to go on the giant "needs massive work" list.
With gratitude,
Boundarylayer (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work editors

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ernest J. Sternglass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212050101/http://www.radiation.org/index.html to http://radiation.org/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified