Tuesday, March 13, 2007

What Makes a Specialist?

Kevin Kamps, taking a tour of Australia to talk about the dangers of nuclear energy, is billing himself as a "nuclear waste specialist".

J.F. Beck is less than impressed:

Kamps is nothing more than an anti-nuclear activist with no real authority to speak to the weighty matter of nuclear energy. Despite this, the ABC gives him national coverage as a "nuclear waste specialist". Even worse, the Mackay Daily Mercury bills him as a "nuclear waste expert". With the MSN propagandizing for environmentalists it's no wonder people cringe at the mere mention of "nuclear".
Then again, for many of us, it's just another day at the office.

UPDATE: Time to add a new blog to your bookmarks: Nuclear Australia.


Anonymous said...

I have seen so many of these types of "specialists" in my lifetime, I want to throw up.

Did anyone email ABC news?

A fair share of the problem is how the media reports these things.

For years the New York Times, without any fact checking, printed the Nader canard about Plutonium being "the most dangerous substance known to man."


Joffan said...

Between self-proclaimed experts like Caldicott and deceptively named anti-nuclear orgs like the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, this MSM response is par for the course. No critical judgement applied.

MSN - the Main Stream Needier?

gunter said...


What a mean spirited commentary...

You simply need to read Webster's definition of "specialist" as;

"one who devotes himself to a special occupation or brand of learning"

Tracking this dinosaur by its unmanaged droppings is a particular talent that Mr. Kamp's has indeed specialized in and obviously not so easily dismissed, especially by someone who wishes to remain "anonymous."

Gunter, NIRS

Anonymous said...

If you're not pro-nuclear, you can't be a specialist or develop expertise? This type of fallacious argument is known in logic theory as 'poisoning the well.'


Anonymous said...

Actually if you're not pro-nuclear, it is almost certain that you are lacking in expertise.

The subject is about as "debatable" as evolution is debatable.

Unlike many people on this website, I started out in the anti-nuclear camp. In the process of "educating" myself about the supposed "drawbacks" of nuclear energy, I decided that the anti-nuclear position is purely absurd.

It really takes only a minimal science education to figure this out.

For instance, one can count. Suppose that in all his walking around talking to himself, Mr. Kemp was using his "expert" status to count dead bodies from people who have been killed by the storage of so called "nuclear waste." Let's count with him: Zero. Zero. Zero...

Now I will concede that Mr. Kemp has done zero work trying to notice anyone who may have been killed by dangerous fossil fuel waste - which is also known as "air pollution." Clearly he is inexpert as the issue of energy wastes, apparently from an arbitrary decision on his part to be indifferent to the subject.

There is a difference between education and re-inforcing one's dogma by the uncritical repetition of self-referential garbage. Mr. Kemp has not demonstrated any "expertise" whatsoever on the subject of so called "nuclear waste." An expert would be able to discuss the subject.


Anonymous said...

Wouldn't a blogger be nothing more than an authoritative "expert"?

Why should I believe the polar opposite of Mr. Kamps? You seem to be nothing more than an industry shill who sells materials that take millions of years to degrade to the public. Luckily there will be a small number of like-minded people to tell you how honorable you are and you won't have to worry about being in a fractional minority.