[ RadSafe ] Nnuclear energy and climate change(?)

John Jacobus crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 3 16:30:28 CDT 2005

My purpose in posting this is not to state my
position.  Rather, it is to note several points which
I think that we should all keep in mind, whether is it
climate change, the LNT, hormesis, nuclear power plant
construction, etc.  

First, I believe that many, if not all, issues are not
black and white, but rather shades of gray.  While we
like to think the science provides the answers to our
questions, in many cases they do not.  Experiments or
studies can be designed to measure what you are
looking for, but what are the underlying causes. I
frequently say the biology is not like Newtonian
physics.  Maybe climatology is also not like Newtonian
physics.  Maybe it is like quantum mechanics.  

Second, there are many "experts" out there.  You
should be careful in picking only those who agree with
your view or agenda.  Michael Crichton was trained as
a physician, not in physics or climatology.  His
opinions are based on what he reads; so are mine. 
Neither of our opinions should be driving legislation
that would result in new laws and expenditures of
public funds.

Third, while we would like government policies to be
based on sound input and science, it seldom is.  It is
based on . . . politics.

Like you, I fear those who are "certain" of the truth
as they see it.  So, I guess my purpose in posting
this was to jog people into thinking more deeply than
we usually do, and please pardon my philosophical
ruminations. (Aren't you sorry you asked me to

--- GELSG at aol.com wrote:

> John:
> In summary, then, we have two "groups".
> In the unambiguous group, we have Crichton (a very
> good novelist), Gray (a  
> very mediocre climatic scientist), and Inhofe (a
> political hack with a  
> pro-industry agenda and a long history of
> anti-environment efforts such as the  "Data 
> Quality Act").
> In the more ambiguous group, we have Professors
> Benedick, Sandalow and  
> Roberts, each with pretty impressive credentials.
> Both groups were discussing our future climate and
> how we should make  policy 
> to best respond to any changes.  I don't even have
> to look any  deeper to 
> know that I am very distrustful of people in the
> "unambiguous"  group.  People 
> who don't know that they are not knowledgeable are
> the type  who scare me the 
> most.  And when they have an agenda (look at
> Inhofe's  record), they can be 
> downright dangerous.  I don't know whether the
> recent  hurricanes represent the 
> beginning of a climate change, but I am very fearful
> of  people who are 
> "certain" of their views in either direction.
> My question to you, John, is which group do you
> trust?  Or, are you  just 
> trying to "stir the pot?"  (Also, I like your last
> sentence: "If you  do not feel 
> this is inappropriate, I apologize.")
> Jerry Gels
> In a message dated 10/3/2005 2:13:05 P.M. Eastern
> Standard Time,  
> crispy_bird at yahoo.com writes:
> Chairman  James M. Inhofe's (R-OK) position on this
> topic is unambiguous, as he has  previously
> described
> the threat of catastrophic global warming as  the
> "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American
> people."  The  hearing did not reveal any change in
> the
> chairman's thinking.
> . . .

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tired anything new."
-- Albert Einstein

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list