Fukushima Anti-nuclear Fukushima Pseudoscience Debunked

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpunkyMonkey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pseudoscience
AI Thread Summary
Joseph Mangano's studies, criticized as pseudoscience, exemplify the troubling trend of junk science infiltrating legitimate research discussions. Activists are increasingly using flawed studies to sway public opinion and policy, often through publications that mimic credible scientific journals. The dissemination of such skewed research is exacerbated by social media and celebrity endorsements, leading to widespread misinformation. A recent incident highlighted how even reputable media outlets can fall victim to these bogus studies. The lack of a reliable vetting process for scientific claims poses a significant challenge in distinguishing credible research from junk science.
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.
 

Thread 'Energy Spectrum Attenuation'

Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top