[ RadSafe ] "overwhelming" number of scientists andclimatechange
JPreisig at aol.com
JPreisig at aol.com
Fri Jul 27 10:34:48 CDT 2012
Google preisig and muller and cochlear
Google preisig and muller
Are these implants battery powered or nuclear (gamma???) powered???
Guess someday soon people at Johns Hopkins, UPenn, etc. will be
making similar devices for
the blind. Lately also, there has been some progress with blind people
and gene therapy.
See the internet????
Glad you can hear again. My family has Preisig's and Muller's
(mostly from Bavaria/Bayern,
Germany and perhaps Switzerland), but I don't know of any
Take Care... Joe Preisig
In a message dated 7/25/2012 7:57:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net writes:
Troll? OK, this is continuing, so with Jeff's indulgence....
Note: I use the term scientist in its most narrow sense, for people with
PhDs who do research that results in peer review publication in the field
I came on this list because I had questions about things nuclear after
Fukushima. I became pro-nuclear in 1995 while writing a paper for a writing
class, after losing a lot of my hearing so I could no longer teach physics.
(I now have cochlear implants.) I thought nuclear and coal probably equally
bad, and was unconcerned about climate change, but am grateful that I never
made public announcements, never said, "it's the sun" until after I began
reading. The sources of web information on nuclear power at that time were
environmental types, and physicists. I never encountered anyone who was
pro-nuclear who was not an academic type until much later. The pro-nuclear
scientists I read said that much more important than air pollution was climate
change. I read much more about both.
I began presenting on and writing about nuclear power as I went
increasingly deaf, and then began to do even more as I began to hear again after
becoming bionic. I learned very quickly that for perhaps 3/4 of the audience,
the facts don't matter. Many have no way to communicate their opposition to
nuclear power, they often aren't articulate (eg, many say, what about
nuclear waste? and I ask, what about nuclear waste? and most can't answer). And
the facts really don't matter.
I do presentations on climate change and nuclear power. I provided this
group a link to a blog post that describes how effective inclusion of what
social scientists say about why we don't listen to the facts is to helping
people listen to the facts, at least in these two presentations. Since
frustration is frequently expressed on this list about people who get the facts
wrong, I thought that this process might be of interest to some on the list.
It immediately degenerated into, "climate change isn't happening and the
causes are natural". I've seen similar posts a number of times in the year
or so I've been on the list. Social scientists say that most people use
reasoning on controversial social issues to show that they are good and
trustworthy members of the group, much more often than to explore the issues. Like
so many lists, the set of acceptable topics expands (beyond radiation
safety in this case)—this list has allowed gratuitous attacks on scientists and
their work in a field that none of you, so far as I know, have studied.
(Yes, knowledge of geology and physics and such gives us the background to
understand some of the more complicated arguments, but that's not a PhD and
peer review work in climatology, and few of us have tested our understanding
with those in the field.) The overwhelming majority of climate scientists
have a number of agreements about what is understood and how well after
many decades of hard work, beginning during the US Civil War, seeing what has
survived serious and multiple challenges
(http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107). The attacks came from people on this list with
experience talking to like-minded people. BTW, the PNAS paper was written
after frequent and vicious attacks on science and scientists.
I am curious what people believe about controversial social issues, in
part because I am genuinely interested in how people think, and I do change my
mind even on issues which I've thought about some and for which I have a
preferred answer. I don't expect to learn anything from anyone who denies/is
skeptical of scientific consensus, as I began with skepticism and so read
extensively and am now convinced, and because I am rarely impressed by
arguments which necessarily include the idea that scientists aren't as
intelligent, thoughtful, moral as ... When people on this list began their attacks
on scientists, I asked some very simple questions to see if they could
explain to me what they believed beyond, "the people in that group are not
moral, intelligent...." I heard from some of you on list, and 3 people
contacted me off list, and I have now one partial answer. I don't know, I can't
recall the numbers, scientists don't/can't possibly understand, the solutions
cost too much, I don't like the kind of people who believe in climate
change, those who disagree with me are unwilling to examine the issues—these
aren't answers to the questions, OK, what is happening then? and, What are the
Franz, I hope that your sore threat improves and that the glass of wine at
ambient temperature helps/doesn't impair the process. I have a sore
throat, and am wondering if I too should open a bottle of wine..... I'm getting
sick of peppermint tea.
> Please forgive me!!!! I have no sour throat, but a sore one....... I
helped myself in the meantime with a glass of Spanish redwine at ambient
temperature. Good night!
> ---- franz.schoenhofer at chello.at schrieb:
>> Jerry, Terry, Karen,
> I wondered the last days, whether I was on the right list - climate
change, global warming and the like instead of radiation protection, nuclear
energy (and the like). Karen seems to be a (polite) troll, because she changes
(again politely) the subject away from radiation protection. She uses a
lot of psychological tricks, like "I am curious what you believe on global
warming" and similar. If you really want to know my "opinion", which does not
count at all: I have no opinion, because I have (except common sense) no
knowledge about climatology nor paleoclimatology. Do you or anybody else on
this list believe that the climate will behave as being determined by an
opinion poll????????This is absurd!!!!!!
> Jerry, as for your belief on having another beer: This is a very clever
decision and I would like to join you, but unfortunatély I have in spite
of the high temperatur in Vienna a sour throat and this means I should not
drink any cold liquid - and a warm beer is the worst drink I can think
> ---- Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> schrieb:
>> Karen,, I am curious--how do we determine what the overwhelming number
> scientists believe or not believe. Of the 100 or so scientisst who I
> personally know, almost all of them believe that concern over global
> nonsense. Of course, the number of scientisists who I might personally
know is a
> small frection of the total number, but I suspect it might be a
> sample. Has anyone done a statistically valid survey on the subject?
> As to what do I believe-----
> I believe I'll have another beer.
> From: Karen Street <Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Tue, July 24, 2012 12:12:54 PM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] since we're talking about climate change
> In the past and just now, people on this list who don't accept climate
> have posted that they don't accept climate change.
> I am curious as to what you do believe.
> Please avoid explaining that the overwhelming number of scientists are
> read this or that this great scientist thinks other scientists are wrong.
> • Is Earth warming, and at what rate (in °C/decade)?
> • What is the cause? Don't use the word natural, but give particular
> such as Earth is moving closer to the sun.
> When I ask climate skeptics/deniers these questions, it feels like
> to get answers other than, "you're wrong, you child of Satan." Or the
> natural or scientists are just wrong or here is my scientist (inject
> novelist or journalist) who disagrees.
> I really am curious.
Friends Energy Project
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:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
More information about the RadSafe