Re: The "right" answer

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

Maury,

    Thank you for your most thoughtful comments. You give an excellent

assessment of the nature of the problem we face. Unfortunately most people

actually believe that these extremely expensive government programs are

necessary for their protection. . I only wish the general public could be

made aware of what is really going on and how to educate them that PP=PPP!

Jerry





----- Original Message -----

From: maury <maury@webtexas.com>

To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>; John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>;

Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>; Ted Rockwell

<tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>; <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>; Otto G. Raabe

<ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>; Radiation Safety <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 2:33 AM

Subject: Re: The "right" answer





>

> Jerry's skepticism is fully warranted. I wish to add, however,

> that our problems in science today go much deeper and are not

> readily susceptible to foreseeable solutions.

>

> Looking back, the late '40s and 1950s were almost a golden age

> in science, politics, and in many fields of human endeavor. Then in

> the '60s, things began a change which was completed by the end

> of that decade. What on earth happened?

>

> The end of WWII was a tremendous relief and occasioned great

> optimism. The GI Bill enabled a fabulous growth in the education of

> huge numbers of people. The nation had seen vivid evidence of the

> problem-solving capabilities of science and engineering. Tolerance

> of differing people and ideas reached high levels that often result

> from greater education and extensive intermixtures or peoples,

> customs, and ideas. DoD was freely funding (stimulating) breathtaking

> scientific research efforts.

>

> Idealism ran high in those years. It overcame the tawdry episode

> of McCarthyism. Idealism responded to the invasion of South Korea and

> severely dulled the spread of communism. The US even attempted to share

> nuclear technology with our political opponents! Alas, much of this

> idealism began to wane in the 1960's and by the '70s, it died.

>

> By the '70s, the nation was mired in Viet Nam and an idealist

> response to requests for help by South Viet Nam was dashed when a

> prominent, trusted news commentator declared that the Tet Offensive

> showed clearly that militant communism could not be stopped by the US.

> The US Army protested that Tet was a US success and that it was a

> desperate clutch for survival by the Viet Cong. Years later. the papers

> of Gen. Giap showed that the Army assessment had been correct.  But by

> then, that war was lost and the US was too busy spitting on Vietnam vets

> and calling them

> baby killers to care anymore.

>

> By the '70s, the money was scarce, our political "giants" were

> diminished, education suffered, tolerance for differing people and

> ideas was reduced. The very integrity of the practice of science

> suffered. And the US was well on its way to: Today.

>

> What on earth has happened?  Self confidence suffers; fear engenders

> tunnel vision; sensitivities are more easily bruised;

> hurt feelings lead to anger. The daily business of society relies

> increasingly on acting "by the book" -- authority is compromised

> and individual responsibility is vanishing. The beauty, adventure, and

> thrills of science have not disappeared, but they are no longer so

> bright as in times past. Scientific evidence can be falsified and,

> failing that, scientific judgements are purchased with massive publicity

> and fear. One of my favorite email taglines is PP=PPP; Precautionary

> Principle equals Piss-Poor Policy.

>

> Politics has often degenerated to the name with a small "p".

> Liberalism died with the VN War when the liberals bifurcated into

> hawks and doves. They were not even able to debate policy because they

> could not agree at all on basic underlying data -- numbers -- and that

> division remains an open sore today.

>

> After WWII, surviving vets plowed into graduate educations, families,

> and careers with dedicated honorable, almost childish eagerness. New

> discoveries were deeply thrilling. In the VN War, many who survived

> undergraduate education plowed into

> graduate school in order to avoid being drafted -- not in order to

> experience the thrill of discovery.  And many stayed until they had PhDs

> in whatever choice they made.  Thus, they doomed themselves to the

> drudgery of teaching (and publish or perish) matters in which they had

> no deep seated interest.

>

> Where are the Geo. Marshall's. the screwy great Geo Patton's, the

> Truman's, the Vandenberg's, the Oppenheimer's, the Teller's, the von

> Neumann's, the Hull's, the Skinner's, and so on -- make your own list

> and note how few names you have from the last 20 or so years.

>

> Jerry has provided the "right" answer. I submit, however, that

> implementation of that answer is nowhere in sight yet. We have

> not been sufficiently challenged, or perhaps threatened, to

> discover the leaders who can find and lead a nation to the "right"

> answers. NASA got the world to the moon; now NASA grovels

> before the Congress for funds using a cyclical expansion of the

> size of the ozone hole or by appealing to doomsday fictions of

> anthropogenic climate changes. EPA was clearly founded on

> frauds which continue to this day with new threats of ruining

> Planet Earth. How utterly presumptuous! I do not know if there

> is a God, but if there is, then He must be splitting a gut laughing

> at us puny beings.

>

> Because of the vast differences  between legal evidence and scientific

> evidence, the courts are a principal tool used by those

> who would  thwart the "right" answers. Jerry, we need a serious

> challenge to surface a crop of leaders who might lead us out of

> the doldrums. In our hearts, the "right" answers are known; I suspect we

> just need the "right" challenges again. Many of you

> on this List have met great past challenges and some continue to try

> today. There are a lot of good people out there -- the right

> circumstances to harvest them have not arisen.  It will take time (and

> some good humor), but it'll work out ok.

>

> Best wishes all,

> Maury Siskel          maury@webtexas.com

> _____________________

> Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the

> leather straps.

> ==================================

>

> Jerry Cohen wrote:

>

> I would agree that in the best of all worlds, studies should be

> judged on their scientific merit. Unfortunately in the real world

> this is often not the case. Those who fund scientific research can

> have a vested interest in preserving their power so that research

> results inimical them would tend to be viewed with disfavor. For

> example, anything indicating that radiation exposure might not

> be as harmful as commonly believed would not be conducive to supporting

> large budgets for radiation safety programs and

> would therefore threaten those involved in these programs. The NSWS

> provides a classic example. Those who believe that the current DOE

> funded studies on low-level radiation effects will produce unbiased

> results are likely deluding themselves.

>

> Perhaps the Taiwanese Co-60 investigation may be flawed, but

> if the indicated results could be verified, it would certainly pose a

> threat to the current radiation safety establishment. Therefore, in the

> current climate, it is hard to be optimistic that confirmatory

> studies will be undertaken.

>

>  ----- Original Message -----

>  From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>

>  To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>; Muckerheide

>  <muckerheide@comcast.net>; Dr. Theodore Rockwell <

> Maybe the authors would make their paper available on their own web

> sites for interested people to download?

> ..........

>

>

>

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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/