General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So it turns out that nadinbrzezinski was correct re Fukushima [View all]mike_c
(36,682 posts)...but I would like to point out that an assumption based on bias is STILL an assumption based on bias if the evidence later proves it 100 percent correct.
This reminds me of all the DUers (myself included) who "knew" that Iraq had no WMDs, and that Bush lied to congress and the world. Yes, it turned out that we were correct, but at the time most statements to that effect were not supported by any real evidence. Some were-- some posters cited UNSCOM reports and such-- but most simply stated their convictions. That those turned out to be right doesn't make them any less based upon preconceived bias at the time.
If Nadine had data to present, that's one thing. But if she simply "knew" that unit one had melted down, and that TEPCO was lying because they're TEPCO, then she was just as guilty of wild supposition as some DUers apparently accused, whether she turned out to be correct or not.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):