Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> [...] the primary reason that this page is being discredited is that it
> appears to claim fact when they are blatantly guesses, estimates or just
> plain made up. It's very easy to say that fireworks "may" have put 90
> tons of polution into the air, but where are the facts?  

Yes, where are they? Ask the critics, they seem to think they have them in
their belly. (At least that's what it sounds like; if not, what's the
point?)

It may be a bad page, scientifically speaking, it may present some of the
details wrongly, but that doesn't really say anything about the issue
itself. The critics parted from a bad page to discrediting the page to
discrediting the issue without themselves presenting any relevant facts.
Doesn't really sound like sound science to me, and doesn't seem to be much
different from what the author of the page did: taking one's gut for fact. 

For a factoid: I could smell 4th of July fireworks across the San Diego
Bay, from quite a bit away. This is not a scientific fact, but it indicates
that there is a lot that goes into the air. How much exactly, and what it
does after it went into the air, could be researched. Whoever thinks this
should be done can do so; if someone didn't do it, why complain that
someone else didn't do it? 

This page doesn't claim to be scientific, other than some of its critics.
And it isn't, like some of its critics... Who is less consistent? All this
nitpicking... this is not science. Nor engineering. And not really a good
joke either.


> There are no research references to say where this number was derived
> from, so we have to conclude it's a guess. 

Now come on... read the piclist and try to find research references given
with numbers. You'll find /very/ few. And they are often only links, and of
course what's stated in the linked pages can be doubted, too.

> [...] but the author fails to mention any numbers, guessed or otherwise. 

I know that. But my point was that none of the critics did otherwise. Which
in my book pretty much discredits the criticism with the same arguments.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist