Anti-nuclear Fukushima Pseudoscience Debunked

  • Context: Fukushima 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SpunkyMonkey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pseudoscience
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the debunking of anti-nuclear activist Joseph Mangano's studies, which are identified as pseudoscience. It highlights a concerning trend where junk science, such as Mangano's work, is increasingly indistinguishable from legitimate research, often disseminated through mainstream media and social platforms. The conversation references a Popular Mechanics article that critiques Mangano's claims and emphasizes the role of vanity publishers in propagating misleading studies. The issue of inadequate vetting processes for scientific claims is also underscored, indicating a widespread vulnerability to misinformation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of scientific research methodologies
  • Familiarity with the concept of pseudoscience
  • Knowledge of media literacy and critical thinking
  • Awareness of the influence of social media on public perception
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of junk science on public policy
  • Explore the role of vanity publishers in academic publishing
  • Learn about media literacy strategies to identify credible sources
  • Investigate case studies of pseudoscience in health and environmental debates
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for scientists, journalists, policymakers, and anyone interested in understanding the implications of misinformation in scientific discourse and public health debates.

SpunkyMonkey
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
An investigation of "studies" by the lifelong anti-nuclear activist Joseph Mangano proves they're bunk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOreFp9983I


See also a recent Popular Mechanics smack down of Magano' pseudoscience.

What Can We Do About Junk Science?
As skewed or phony studies about vaccines, GMOs, radiation, and other hot-button topics show up in journals that masquerade as legitimate science publications, junk science becomes harder to distinguish from real research.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Thanks for that link.

The Mangano and Sherman paper is a prime example of a troubling new trend in which junk science is becoming harder to distinguish from rigorous research. It is an example of activists using the trappings of science to influence public opinion and policy. Today there are cottage industries that produce and disseminate skewed research in publications that masquerade as legitimate science journals. Celebrities and mainstream media outlets then tout the results, so that even retracted or clearly biased research can reach larger audiences than ever before.

people of the lie - the woods are full of them.
 
jim hardy said:
Thanks for that link.

people of the lie - the woods are full of them.

Agreed! The issue of junk science gaining traction via social media and celebs is extremely troubling.
 
Greg Bernhardt said:
Agreed! The issue of junk science gaining traction via social media and celebs is extremely troubling.

As well, the video cited shows how a local California ABC TV station was duped by a bogus "study" Mangano had published by a vanity publisher. So even folks who should be higher up in the BS-vetting process get duped into spreading junk-science memes.
 
SpunkyMonkey said:
As well, the video cited shows how a local California ABC TV station was duped by a bogus "study" Mangano had published by a vanity publisher. So even folks who should be higher up in the BS-vetting process get duped into spreading junk-science memes.
Unfortunately, when it comes to science, there is no "BS-vetting process" for most people, news organizations, political organizations, etc.