Re: Balanced?

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

I really do hope we are generally presenting a balanced view; balanced is
not science balanced against junk science, but rather absence of hyperbole.
I don't mean one can't get excited about science or irate about junk
science, but that the scientific discussions are themselves not exaggerated.

And for those of you interested in my getting appointed to a DOE position:
today I learned the next steps to take (if one doesn't give lots of money,
one apparently has to make lots of effort).  I have apparently survived some
kind of preliminary cut.  So I was advised to do the following:

1.  Pick a position.  I picked EM-1 (Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management) because I feel qualified for it (although that's never a
consideration) and because there is not going to be a lot of competition for
it, nor are there other obvious candidates.  My other possible pick was RW .
2.  Call my Senators (Domenici and Bingaman) and ask them to call contact
Andy Lundgren: the energy person on the transition team.  Andy only takes
calls from members of Congress now apparently.
3.  Get supporters to call their senators and suggest my name to Andy
Lundgren.  This is especially important for New Mexico Senators (because of
my location) and  Michigan Senators (!) , because the Secretary of Energy
designee is apparently former Senator Spence Abraham who lost his bid for
re-election in Michigan .

So thanks again for all the support and anyone who wants to keep on trying,
I'd be more than grateful for the calls.

Thanks again

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Balanced?


>Where is it said that  we are trying to present a balanced view ?
>What's the point of being balanced, when one alternative is clearly
>superior?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Dupray <michael.dupray@gat.com>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 2:36 PM
>Subject: Re: Some comments on the APASE/Charlotte web site
>
>
>>At 11:24 PM 12/28/00 -0600, you wrote:
>>
>>>Dear APASE:
>>>
>>>Your web site, which purports to offer educational information about
>energy
>>>sources and use, has been the subject of considerable comment recently on
>>>RADSAFE, an Internet mailing list for radiation safety professionals.
>>>
>>>There are some indications in the material on your site that you aspire
to
>>>present a balanced view of various energy options, but I feel you fall
>short,
>>>tending to emphasize the disadvantages of some sources of energy and
>>>ignore the
>>>disadvantages of others.  In addition, there are some simple errors of
>fact on
>>>the site.
>>>
>>>Some specifics:
>>>
>>>You write, "Natural gas has no sulphur or nitrogen, so burning it does
not
>>>cause
>>>acid rain.  It produces less carbon dioxide than coal or oil, but it
>produces
>>>methane, which is a worse 'greenhouse gas' than carbon dioxide."
>>
>>So.....if we feed our livestock (as well as ourselves) Beano we can reduce
>>the greenhouse effect?? LOL
>>
>>************************************************************************
>>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



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html