Re: Ed's questions

[Norman Cohen <ncohen12@HOME.COM>]

Hi Eduardo,

My responses below:



Eduardo Mendez III wrote:



> dear mr. norman cohen,

> i, as well as others on this list i'm sure, would very much appreciate

> improved dialog on your part in response to the discussions you initiate.

> by this i do not imply more quotes from whomever you received your

> information from in the first place (e.g. lochbaum, ucs, etc.), but your

> 'personal' reply to the many in-depth counterpoints that so many people on

> this list go out of their way to supply you (us) with.



--- I understand what you are asking for, but a number of things make this

difficult. first, I am very hesitant to post that many emails to the radsafe

list by replying individually to all who write. On my first go-round on radsafe,

I did do that for awhile, but many people complained about the amount of emails.

2nd, I only have so much time. It would be different if there were other 'anti's

crazy enough to want to comunicate with you all, but being custer surrounded by

the native americans most of the time, it is tough to reply in as much depth as

you would like me to. 3rd, as radsafers are aware and point out all the time,

I'm no scientist. All I can tell you is I'll do the best I can within limited

time, resources, and brainpower. ;-) ===



> i attempt to not be hasty in my initial judgement of others, so let me just

> leave it at the fact

> that, though i feel you may have a good heart,



--- My wife thinks so at least. ----



> i have as of yet no positive opinion of you with respect to your ability to

> contribute to the discussions

> on the list.  at this point you appear to be merely a middle-man uncapable,

> or unwilling, to reply in such a personal nature to these intellectual

> challenges.



--- Well, I post items of interest because I feel that there are people on the

list (and many write me off list) who would be interested. I post items that

'pro' nukers might not read otherwise. My replies tend to be less scientific and

more political because that's where I'm at. ----



>  without your improved contribution, the efforts of those on

> this list would be much more effective directed to the originators of your

> 'quotes', than to be directed at you and lost in cyberspace.



--- I do on occasional, forward radsafe comments to lochbaum, or the tooth

fairy, or whoever. They are under no obligation to answer. After all, they've

chosen to not participate on this list. I will, though, whenever asked, forward

any of your comments to the correct people on my 'side'. ---



>  my own counterpoint, though; regardless of all the hubbub that surrounds your

>

> association with radsafe,  i am intellectually benefiting from the

> corresponding information/knowledge that is provided by the many

> professionals on this list.



--- and whether you believe it or not, so do I. I know that some radsafers feel

than all of the info and insights you give me fall on deaf ears and empty head,

but I do listen and learn. My understanding of nukes is much greater than it was

when I started with UNPLUG Salem back in 1997. Does this mean I'll 'convert'

tomorrow?

Nope. I've written that some of my opposition is dues to perception of risk,

which is more emotional than strictly scientific. I'mnot sure that will

change.----



>  i understand that this is a facet of your job (i.e unplug), but i do

> challenge you to 'lay it on the line' and answer such simple questions as

> those below.  here's where i become somewhat arrogant.



--- Join the radsafe crowd! ----



>

> imho, you cannot honestly answer this challenge.  science and logic

> inherently undermines and refuts the arguements of those whom you represent.

> help me understand a little more and come to an opinion on you.  i do

> apologize in advance for the crassness of what i'm about to say.  following

> are a couple hypothetical descriptions of you.  you are opposed to the human

> propensity to over-rely on/excessively use energy sources,



--- certain energy sources, nukes and coal ---



> and feel as though you're doing your part by being anti-nuclear power.



--- and the other hat I wear, anti-nuke weapons and as a peace activist ---



>  you at one time honestly believed the nuclear-power industry was a major

> threat to the

> safety of the people, such that the risks greatly outweighed the benefits.

> you have been exposed to great amounts of information which, one would think

> in the search for truth, would lead you to competently research both sides

> of the argument.  with this in mind,  you have either realized your previous

> beliefs have been dispelled and are aware of the misleading and dishonest

> nature of those you follow,  or you are ignorant of science and controlled

> by the emotion of those around you and used to their benefit.



---- Yes, robot Norm. I can say, and have said, that I've moved closer to say a

Lochbaum position than a Greenpeae position, in that I'd favor a phase-out of

nukes not an immediate shutdown of all of them. But, all that I have learned

does not change my basic position: that since we have alternatives to nukes

available (wind, solar, conservation, effieciency, new technologies like wave

energy, etc), I'm not willing to continue to take what I see as a risk to South

Jersey (and extended to the US) by continuing to run our nuke plants. Sorry.

----



>  please, please give me some insight as to your nature;



--- I'm sweet, lovable, a good husband and father (ask my wife, I just bribed

her with new earrings ;-) ), and have a sense of humor much of radsafe doesn't

seem to appreciate. I come out of an activist tradition and history, I used to

run our family business. I was a McGovern coordinator back in 72, Nuclear

weapons Freeze in 81, peace activist since 68 and Vietnam. I tend to, as the old

button says "Question Authority". I also remember from the Freeze days how

"experts" told us lies like that a Nuclear test Ban couldn't be verified, and

told us that only 'experts' could understand the complexities of nuclear

weapons. ---



> i believe the list does have the right to get more personal with you in light

> of the dynamic between

> radsafe and yourself.

>



----- Personal sure, obnoxious no. BTW I use Crest toothpaste and have a really

good "chicken surprise" recipe. Personal enough?  ----



>

> ps/more two cents - you seem very passionate in your work, and i would wager

> that you heart is in the right place.



--- yep its still there! ----



> i feel you would be more beneficial to society placing all you efforts in a

> more respectable arena

>



---- I don't know what it is with radsafers, you are all telling me to get a

different job! Ok make an offer.

I'd have to work out of the house, and need to make a heck of alot more than I

do now.  Bids can start in the low six figures... ;-).  And I'll be glad to tell

my fellow 'anti's that we are not respectable!---



peace

norm



I'll try to answer the backlog of this weeks messages Sunday.



>

> i hope for peace too,

> ed

> -



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.