[ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

[Steven Dapra]

July 5, 2007

In reply to Steven Dapra (SD) (see below), Mike Brennan wrote:

"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."

SD's comment:

         You are correct.  The lack of a thought process is not limited to 
any group, it is ubiquitous.  There is also a big problem with tunnel vision.

Mike also wrote:

"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."

SD's comment:

         The originator, or a leading proponent, of the speed of light 
argument is one Barry Setterfield.  A year or two ago I looked at 
Setterfield's website and he readily acknowledges not having even a 
Bachelor's degree in astronomy.  I would say that this disqualifies him 
from making any but the most general and commonplace observations about 
astronomy or anything pertaining thereto.

         In January 1995 I attended a large Creation Science seminar and 
one of the speakers pointed out some flaws or shortcomings in the speed of 
light argument.  This speaker was also not an astronomer, however as I 
recall the flaws he discussed did not require any specialized knowledge of 
astronomy.

         Although some people may still be using it, the speed of light 
argument seems to have fallen into general disfavor with 
creationists.  Over a year ago I looked at the website of Answers in 
Genesis, a large Creation Science organization, and found that AIG was 
asking people to not use this argument.

         I am sending this message to explain what appears to be the 
current state of affairs in speed of light.  I do not want to enter into a 
debate on this subject, not by private e-mail, and certainly not on 
RADSAFE.  Thank you for your consideration.

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com


-----Original Message-----
by: Steven Dapra

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.

------  END  ------