Re: Energy site & education

[Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>]

Title: Re: Energy site & education

Let me see if I understand your arguments.

 

If it looks like a duck it must be a duck because they wanted to get a duck and only a duck would do and no one would have this duck unless what they had wanted from the start was a duck. The fact that these materials "bears a very close resemblance to what our local anti-nuclear groups, . . .  " is meaningless. The fact that they are concomitant does not mean that there is causation.

 

 They are guilty and dishonest because they used materials and have not "checked their stuff with someone with even a little more expertise than they show." Perhaps they did check it out with some that they thought had credibility and knew what they were doing. Perhaps they were wrong. Being wrong or misinformed and being dishonest are not the same.

 

". . . opinion, it is naive to think that this site is just innocently displaying bad information."

That is, if they are not presenting "innocently" they are guilty of something. Well I guess that I am naïve enough to think that they may be misinformed. It seems that rather than ranting about the misinformation, intent, and dishonesty of these miscreants who perpetrated this hoax on the school teachers of the world that a better (as I suggested in my previous email) way to deal with this is to try and inform them and see if they respond. The choice is ours.

"It is better to light one small candle than to curse the dark." I guess that this can be rewritten as "It is better to TRY TO light one small candle than to curse the dark."

Paul Lavely
lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu
UC Berkeley

> The material on the site bears a very
> close resemblance to what our local
> anti-nuclear groups, some of the Citizens' Advisory Boards (to DOE
> sites)
> and groups like NRDC and EPI publish, as well as what I used to hear
> from
> the anti-nuclear lobbyists when I was a Congressional Science Fellow. 
> It
> also closely resembles many public comments on EISs for DOE sites,
> which are
> generally prompted by leaflets from  national anti-nuclear
> organizations.
>
> If the people who made up the site are really genuinely only
> misinformed,
> what prompts them to generate proposed curricula?    If
> they were honest,
> wouldn't they have checked their stuff with someone with even a little
> more
> expertise than they show?   If I don't know much about
> something, I'm
> certainly not going to display my ignorance on a Web site! This is not
> a
> "chat room" or a list like RADSAFE where people ask genuine
> questions and
> seek genuine answers.  The site seeks to broadcast its
> "information" and it
> sure looks like propaganda to me (clever propaganda, I'll admit).
>
> In my opinion, it is naive to think that this site is just
> innocently
> displaying bad information.
> Ruth Weiner
> ruth_weiner@msn.com