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

[Doug Aitken <daitken@sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>]

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