[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Semantics and nit-picking [was:Re: Apparent anti-correlations betweengeographic radiation .......]



At 11:12 AM 1/13/2003 -0800, Jerry Cohen wrote:
Doug,
    I am curious. How do you "definitively prove there is no risk involved" in any activity or enterprise? Could you please give us a few examples of no-risk activities?            Jerry

OK, Jerry:
I give up:
Can't you get past nit-picking semantics?

I joined this forum recently to improve my (admittedly superficial) knowledge of radiation physics.

I seem to have fallen into a nest of anal-retentive people trying to give me a lesson in risk .....

I understand the need for careful validation of any statistical data in a scientific study. But if you guys keep beating on me for my obviously "critically flawed" statements of a general nature, how do you handle things when dealing with the general public?

Is this attitude meant to push out people who don't meet your lofty standards from the group??? Don't bother to reply; I am going back into lurk mode so I don't offend your sensibilities any more

PS: To Radsafers: I apologize for this outburst, which I should have sent directly to Jerry, but as these mails keep coming, I am hoping to kill this off once and for all......

Doug Aitken             Schlumberger Drilling and Measurements QHSE Advisor                      
Phone (Sugarland):      281 285-8009
Phone (Home office):    713 797-0919    
Phone (Cell):           713 562-8585
        Principal E-mail: jdaitken@earthlink.net
        Schlumberger: daitken@sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com