[ RadSafe ] Reasoning the Unreasonables (frm:Chernobyl's Reduced Impact)

[howard long]

Green extremists like Couseau view humans as parasites of mother earth
 who damage "nature". I, and hopefully most HPs, disagree. 
We seek to preserve human life.
 
HPs, prepare for radiation attack. 
Guide the public to places where radiation levels are not damaging. 
Reassure people with confident knowledge, as from a Nukalert.
 The greatest fear is of the unknown, and it can devastate, 
- as last week on a Baghdad bridge. 

Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
Howard,
What Jacque Cousteau philosopy are you talking about?

--- howard long wrote:

> If HPs choose to protect, rather than follow the
> Jacques Cousteau philosophy 
> that mother earth should have c 300,000 people done
> away with daily
> (like Emil's spider lady?), then HPs should
> publicize to neighbors their preparedness 
> to monitor radiation levels in any emergency (as at
> www.Nukalert.com or www.Berkeleynucleonics.com ).
> 
> Howard Long
> 
> Emil wrote:
> howard long wrote: 
> 
> > Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: howard long 
> > Subject: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Chernobyl's
> Reduced Impact
> 
> > John and all,
> > Will LNT fears (cancer risk with <10rem) increase
> panic? 
> > With a dirty bomb in DC, could it cause stampede,
> as fear did in
> > Baghdad?
> > Can education and Nukalerts prevent disaster 
> > by reassurance of no harm unless exposed to that
> level for >X hours
> > or days?
> > 
> > "Fear itself, is our greatest fear" (or something
> like that from FD
> > Roosevelt)
> > 
> > Howard Long
> > 
> > 
> Howard,
> 
> I don't think some of them want to be "educated".
> It would be even in some people, other than
> terrorists, best interest
> to have bigger impact from the panic.
> 
> I will explain what I do mean.
> 
> The same logic would apply to prevent spent fuel
> save storage
> resolution. 
> 
> Let me tell share a recent personal encounter with
> someone who would
> value a hypothetical statistical environmental
> concern over the
> immediate risk to the persons/public health.
> 
> I was renting house, this Summer was very good for
> the spiders, a lot
> of them, a lot...
> I expressed my concerns to the house owner, lovely,
> lovely lady who
> would never kill a spider and she started educating
> me about
> harmlessness of the MOST spiders....
> 
> To make story short.
> 
> She refused to spray anything in and around the
> house with anything
> INORGANIC.... I moved out and during the process I
> was bitten by
> "hobo"-"the northwestern" spider, I was lucky, it
> was not the "brown
> recluse".
> 
> Cost me a lot of money, antibiotics and
> inconveniences to pull thru
> that accident :-) 
> Just do not want to deal with that person anymore. 
> I probably could have sued her butt for the damages,
> pain and
> sufferings, but I just got up and move on........on
> the other side of
> the Bay :-)
> 
> So what is the point?
> 
> The point is, some people have some kind of glasses
> on their eyes,
> they way they look on this world, thru those
> glasses, they do not see
> the real and immediate threat from things like
> spiders or spent fuel.
> They are more concern with, sort of saving this
> world as a WHOLE and
> at ONCE. 
> I, on the other hand, see my mission not that big, I
> do not think, I
> have that bigger responsibility, I am just trying to
> get along and
> not get bitten by a spider or get burned by a chunk
> of spent fuel..
> Okay?
> 
> 
> So long, Emil.
>


__________________________________________________