[ RadSafe ] science vs. economic interest

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Sun May 4 12:00:17 CDT 2008

At 08:05 AM 5/4/08 -0700, Ben Fore wrote:
>Real scientists know that there's a difference between proving a negative 
>and determing determining how many adverse reproductive health effects are 
>attributable to DU aerosol inhalation.  We know that the number is 
>positive, but the lower end of the confidence interval is negative because 
>of the lack of aerosol inhalation health effect measurements. But those 
>who advocate for (and whose jobs depend on) nuclear power have a negative 
>economic interest in that quantity being known.  The true test of 
>scientific objectivity is whether they act in the interests of their own 
>economic situation or the accuracy and knowledge. Here on Radsafe we have 
>former U.S. military who are too cowardly to debate the number, but whose 
>frequent advocacy goes by with silence and approval.  And we have plenty 
>who would call for censorship of those who wants to know who is and is not 
>in favor of determining the quantity. The question needs to be asked, 
>because the number needs to be known James Salsman

         I have already asked you to present some evidence for harm 
stemming from inhalation of DU aerosols (or is it smoke you bemoan?).  So 
far you have not done so.  Whoever "We" may be, he does *not* know that the 
number is positive.  The balance of your message is slander, pure and 
simple.  Get a job, James, if you can remember your real name long enough 
to fill out an application.

Steven Dapra

>On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Syd H. Levine <syd.levine at mindspring.com> 
>  > The absolute moral authority of the marginally insane never ceases to 
> amaze. Mr. Salsman is so convinced what he has to say is important and 
> correct, that rules simply cannot apply.  And the prove a negative crap 
> is just downright funny; perhaps Mr. Salsman does not realize how foolish 
> that makes him look to real scientists (best to save that kind of 
> nonsense for folks not steeped in the scientific method).
> > Syd H. Levine


More information about the RadSafe mailing list