[ RadSafe ] Congress, accuracy and James' DU ramblings...
Richard D. Urban Jr.
radmax at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 3 23:03:30 CDT 2008
Lets see... 2 days of Congress grilling Big 3 OIL execs got exactly how much done? Well, we know approximately how much the execs made last year, for ACTUALLY producing something.... what has this lame US congress done for the last 4 YEARS, other than take vacations, hold trials and push unviable oil alternatives (corn ethanol, cap and trade, etc...) which have made energy, Oil AND food prices soar???? (Consequently getting rich themselves... Follow the money... AlGore selling HIMself CO2 credits, Pelosi's husband getting richER off OIL commodities...)(I know, AL isn't in gov't anymore, I just couldn't help myself ;-)
Where's Howard Hughes (dredging up Jaun Tripp payoffs to Sen. Brewster) when we need him?
James, get off it already... your incescent arguments have convinced NO ONE here on RADSAFE. Lets see there's YOU and your friends... Rokke, Caldicot, Moret, Garger, et al... none of whom are TRAINED Health Physicist's (again, follow the $$$ books-lectures). Then there is ALL OF US on radsafe, most of whom have trained and worked in the field of Radiation PROTECTION and Health Physics FOR DECADES. So far, I haven't seen ONE post supporting you or your friends.
Do you REALLY believe WE are ALL wrong, That WE ALL LIE, and WE are ALL on some big payoff (as your friends usually suggest)? Get a grip!
As for coffee, it has as much to do with Radsafe as Salsman's never ending self aggrandizment.
Yes James, it appears you have done extremely well in educating yourself on many subjects (far more than I have even thought of doing), OBVIOUSLY and unfortunately you just continually stop short of the follow thru whenever anything goes against your firmly held beliefs that DU/radiation is BBBAAAADDDDD!!!! Merely reading abstracts that seem to support your conclusions is NOT proving anything... Quit 'affirming the consequent'...
How about you go back to the books and do some more study, ESPECIALLY if it DISPROVES your beliefs, try the 'Scientific Method' eg.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In (health) physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.... (something most of US have done, or ARE doing daily regarding Health Physics)
Come back James when you have a leg to stand on...
(still waiting for my payoff...)
>From: James Salsman <BenjB4 at gmail.com>
>Sent: Jun 3, 2008 9:48 AM
>To: radsafelist <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] uranium and breast cancer
>This is line 050 of Gary's pseudocode, but on topic:
>"... at the end of the first Gulf War, the United Kingdom Atomic
>Energy Authority estimated that 50 tons remained in Iraq, and that
>amount could be responsible for 500,000 cancer deaths by the year
>Did the UKAEA actually say that?
>It is neither naïve nor ridiculous to demand accountability in
>government safety standards. What is ridiculous is to imply that
>Congressional hearings would be detrimental to accuracy. If Mike
>Brennan has any evidence that government investigation is not strongly
>correlated with an increase in accuracy, he will need to present it to
>keep from seeming to advance that ridiculous position.
>Steven Dapra wants to know whether I have read Domingo's 2001 review.
>I have, and I will gladly read it again if he or I find it necessary.
More information about the RadSafe