[ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

Thu Jul 5 11:56:58 CDT 2007

As Einstein is quoted:
"Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm 
not sure about the former."

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health

Farber Technical Services
[203] 441-8433 [office]
email: radproject at sbcglobal.net

==============================
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 12:37 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I would reiterate that
this, for lack of a better description, "thought process", is not
politically limited to the left.  I recently had someone tell me that
the tax cuts President Bush got enacted were a tremendous success, as
demonstrated by increased revenue.  The deficit and spending connected
with the War were not factored in.  I know a person who talks to various
groups, explaining how the observed size of the universe and the 10,000
year existence of said universe (as he believes the Bible states) are
reconciled by the "fact" that the speed of light is getting slower.  To
support this he lists a couple dozen estimates of the speed of light
that have been made over the last couple centuries, and the older ones
on his list are indeed higher than the most recent.  When asked if there
were any measurements that were not included on his list he admits that
there were, but that they were all flawed.  The nature of the flaw?
They didn't fit the curve he had drawn to support his premise.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:54 PM
To: John Jacobus; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

July 3

         I borrowed the rhetorical form from National Public Radio, and
from much of the secular press.

         It is possible that they (anti-nukers) believe their data are
true.  In some cases, it may be true.  In fact, all of it may be true.
The problem isn't so much the truth of the data but the way in which the
data are manipulated to obtain the desired results, or the way in which
confounding data are glossed over or ignored.  I have already thrown
yesterday's RADSAFE traffic into the trash, however I recall someone
explaining how Sternglass searched long and hard to find some type of
cancer that increased near a reactor, and then blew this (true) data out
of proportion, while simultaneously ignoring no changes in some cancers,
and decreases in others.  (This is not a real good summary of
yesterday's posting, however I am hoping I have managed to reproduce the
general
idea.)  Context and the larger perspective are as important as the data,
if not more so.

         If we acknowledge that the data are true, and show the
anti-nuker (or whoever it is) that his interpretation is erroneous or
untenable or that his context has shortcomings, and he refuses to accept
our explanations, then I would maintain that the other party is
operating from the position of ideology.  Maybe it's not "left-wing" and
maybe it's not "extremist" (I'll readily give you that, John)
nevertheless, I would say it's ideology.

         Two or three years ago I attended a lecture on depleted
uranium, and during the discussion I pointed out to an anti-DU partisan
that her anti-DU "science" had no merit.  She responded by accusing me
of refusing to accept her claims because -- she said -- I was guilty of
a racial or ethnic prejudice against Iraqis.  I was prejudiced against
Iraqis and therefore wanted them all to die of DU poisoning, regardless
of lack of evidence to show that DU was poisoning anyone.  My defamer
was employing ideology pure and simple.

         Although I have heard of the book you recommend I have not read
it.  I'll try to read some reviews of it on Amazon.

Steven Dapra

At 06:38 AM 7/3/07 -0700, John Jacobus wrote:
>Why do you think they have a "left-wing extremist ideology?"  Is it
>possible they believe the data is true?  If so, then all the arguements

>and explanations you present will not change their minds.
>
>I would suggest reading "Why People Believe Weird
>Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time,"
>http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805
>070893/ref=sr_1_1/103-7576284-3301444?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183469614&sr
>=8-1
>
>--- Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com> wrote:
>
> > July 2
> >
> > Maybe on the intellectual level they are cavemen.
> > Perhaps they are
> > left-wing extremist ideologues who have an agenda that doesn't
> > include the plain unvarnished (and unpleasant) truth.

[edit]
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/