|
What you call "nit-picking semantics" can be viewed by us
anal-retentives as spin and manipulation. It gives the false impression that
somehow radioactivity is uniquely hazardous. Such manipulation has, for example,
provided the basis for the multi-billion dollar nuclear waste
government/industry complex which will squander vast amounts of our limited
wealth to solve a relatively minor problem. Semantics can be a powerful
tool for either good or evil!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:49
PM
Subject: 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
|