[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Norm - background - reactos
I recommend Norm "keep it up," and some more effort/people try to give
good answers.
While Sandy has some basis for this comment, it's a little 'harsh'
since the time period has been quite brief to undertake a "reasoned
discussion." Two specific points:
1. Just because Norm doesn't say, "oh, I get it! you were right all
along!" (which few people say about convictions - outside of blatant
errors that are little more than 'typos' :-) doesn't mean the
explanations here are without value. They contribute to a larger
picture that eventually takes hold, by people with honest intentions.
Your responses here many be going to other in seeking answers that
also have effect you don't see.
2. Norm's reasonable q's got some good, but mostly only 'partial'
answers - mostly because they were too brief with too many
"assertions," too much jargon and "code words," (like a more careful
treatment of "rad" being "ionizing rad" and only alpha, beta, and
gammas are seen by the cell (without good links to better-prepared
specific web pages [not sites] by HPS, universities, RSOs, etc.
sources, with "basic rad science," "background radiation," etc. info
sources). Plus there were many "poor" refs to proofs using lit sources
not "qualified" to be credible to a general audience, even a
non-science specialist audience - consider the general HP dismissal of
the credible biology and medicine lit!? Relates in part also to the
many propositions for "the society" to do more "educating the public"
- scary!? (Where are the good/credible materials? - including kings
like Don Kosloff's proposal!) :-(
Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================
Sandy Perle wrote:
>
> It is obvious from these discussions that we are "singing to the
> choir". While it is also obvious that those who disagree with us,
> aren't even inclined to listen to, evaluate the mass of data provided
> during the past few days, and decide for themselves that maybe,
> just maybe, we aren't all as dumb as they think we are, and
> perhaps, we actually do know what we are talking about. Instead,
> we're given sound bites without any data or other evidence to
> support the claims being made against what I consider to be a very
> viable technology.
>
> It's kind of funny when "we" are asked to keep an open mind, yet
> the "other side" rejects any data that might change one of their
> prime paradigms. Isn't that hypocrisy?
>
> I do however appreciate all of the information out forth by the likes
> of Don, Robert, Steve, Kjell, Franz, Jaro and others (sorry if I didn't
> mention you) ... because I have learned a lot during this discourse,
> and, have collected a lot of data for my database.
>
> So, all was not lost. However, since we are never going to change
> anyone's mind, I am bowing out of this discussion, and will address
> other issues as they arise. It comes to a point when the choir
> needs to sit-down, and save their voice, for those who really are
> interested in listening, and appreciating.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
> Director, Technical Extension 2306
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
> ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
> Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html