[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TFP update article, E Magazine
on 9/17/02 7:45 AM, William V Lipton at liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM wrote:
> Whether based on faith, science, or the great media conspiracy, we have to
> realize that the fears many people have of nuclear technology are real.
>
> One more time: "Perception is reality."
>
> Thus, the
This is the most
> arrogant and patronizing attitudes I've seen, here,
Right up there with
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
To be gained by lying about dose.
> Curies forever.
Can't disagree with everything! :-)
> Bill Lipton
> liptonw@dteenergy.com
Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> Jerry Cohen wrote:
>
>> People with a science/technology background don't seem to get it!
>> Like other religions, anti-nuclear-ism is based on faith. If their
>> "prophets" say there is a 75% increase in cancer rate near nuclear plants,
>> who are we to question it? In our culture, most of us have learned to at
>> least tolerate religions other than our own. Why not extend this attitude
>> to Norm and others of his faith? Forget about mathematics, statistics, and
>> scientific logic. Such tools are irrelevant to the true believer. In their
>> world, facts are whatever you sincerely believe them to be.
>> Perhaps to many, the idea of faith-based science might seem
>> oxymoronic. Just keep in mind that Mary Baker Eddy did pretty well with
>> the concept.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Vincent A King <slavak@gj.net>
>> To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 3:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: TFP update article, E Magazine
>>
>>> Richard:
>>>
>>> If you're expecting a substantive answer from Norm on this one, you'll be
>> waiting for a long time. I've posed similar questions to him, such as:
>>>
>>> -how are these individuals exposed to harmful doses when there is no
>> measured radiation/radioactive material increase anywhere?
>>>
>>> -why aren't these harmful effects found to a much greater degree in areas
>> of higher natural background, since higher radiation doses are not just
>> suspected, but are actually measurable - no guesswork involved?
>>>
>>> Of course, Norm has no way to answer these questions unless he ignores the
>> facts and science behind radiation measurements and health effects. He
>> would rather push his philosophical opposition to nuclear power, citing some
>> speculative, mysterious, "undiscovered" mechanism for causation (and hoping
>> in the mean time to convince us poor, misled, unenlightened barbarians to
>> reject the ominous conspiracy that has duped us).
>>>
>>> It seems kind of silly, to me anyway, for him to keep pushing this
>> nonsense in a forum for people whose profession is radiation health and
>> protection and who are experts at the actual mechanisms involved. The
>> "revelations" he continually sends to Radsafe remind me of the suggestion
>> for NASA to send astronauts to explore the sun, but do it at night so they
>> wouldn't burn up.
>>>
>>> In short, I'm sure Norm is a nice guy, and I have nothing against him
>> personally (except maybe his intellectual dishonesty in not dealing in
>> facts) but don't expect much in the way of a technical response on this
>> question. His main function on Radsafe is to keep us "informed" of the
>> latest anti-nuclear propaganda.
>>>
>>> Regards to all,
>>>
>>> Vincent King
>>> Grand Junction, CO
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>>> From: "Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>
>>> Reply-To: "Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>
>>> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:33:58 -0700
>>>
>>>> At 11:20 AM 9/13/2002 -0400, Norman Cohen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Childhood cancer rates jumped 75 percent in the San Louis Obispo,
>>>>>> Calif., area after a reactor opened there.
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Norman,
>>>>
>>>> Could you please explain the relationship between the reactor and the
>>>> childhood cancers?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************************
>>> 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.
>>> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>>
>> ************************************************************************
>> 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.
>> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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.
> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
************************************************************************
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.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/