Re: radiation is radiation? lochbaum

[Ted de Castro <tdc@xrayted.com>]

Norman & Karen Cohen wrote:
>
> > Norm in turn needs to understand the difference between demonstrable
> > FACT and opinion.  He treats all as opinions without regards for
> > backing.  This may work in a court of law where what passes for "proof"
> > is merely persuasion.  BUT does NOT pass for proof in the scientific
> > arena.  He needs to understand that when we say FACT we mean it is
> > repeatably demonstrable by experiment - NOT the findings of a lone
> > researcher that no one else has been able to confirm.
> > ------ I think that's a bit strong. I hope that I am being careful in how I
> > qualify the TF Project as an investigation, not fact.-------------

No Norm - that is NOT too strong.  You have repeatedly shown here that
you believe,
trust and are highly persuaded by - the non factual investigation which
is ALREADY putting
its proverbial neck on the line with advance claims of fact that it can
hardly back
away from later.

You reply with more such beliefs with no reproducible backing and invent
scenarios like
your synergy that you believe "should be looked into" while you continue
to demand shutting down
anything nuclear.

Yet any FACTS presented to you here seem to flow like the proverbial
water off a ducks' back!

In fact in one message you clearly declare a personal believe regarding
nukes akin to a religious
conviction to the effect that you would require some special kind of
proof on matters nuclear and that
such still may not convince you.

You are free to believe what you want.  I'm not out to convince you of
anything - I just dropped in here
to try to point out some of the "orthongonality" of these discussions. 
BUT - I do think your
badge of open mindedness has been highly tarnished!

If your convictions for life and safety are truly as you suggest - you
should be outraged by the recent finding posted here about cell phone
effects on children.  You certainly have to admit that societies need
for energy is certainly less frivolous than the need to endanger others
on the freeways with cell phones.

However if your convictions of anti nuclear are that and ONLY that and
NOT based on any concern for life or safety - then your reactions are
quite consistent!

 
> >
> > Norm also needs to understand statistics a bit better.  I think he has a
> > basic grasp - but NOT a thorough understanding.
> > - Never took statistics in college. sorry!   :)  ------------

As much as we may try to explain things as simply as possible - low
level radiation effects can ONLY be
expressed in statistical terms and can only be understood on that basis.
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html