[ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green

[Dimiter Popoff]

> My point is that at some point you either you do or do
> not believe experts.

And my point was that there is no expert name to trust or not
under discussion here.

You want me to trust the media who tell us that all experts
agree on global warming, not the "experts". 

BTW, how much expertise does it take to measure the temperture
at several points deep enough in the ocean to have an idea how
the global temperature has been drifting over the last 100-200
years. Oops, no records going that far back, just last decade
or two? But the reason must be something with economical
implications, sure, no chance the Sun has been more active or
whatever, let's just extrapolate the single point we have as
it suits us.
 Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying I know there is no
global warming.
 What I am saying is that it is just a waste of time to listen
to what the propaganda (oops, the media) says about that.
 Just as it is a waste of time to listen to them about nuclear
power/safety; what we will get will likely be agenda.
 The reality the media present today and which most people
believe simply because this is the easiest way to live is 
so distorted that it takes no Hari Seldon to predict this 
is bound to end in a major crisis. I have seen similar symptoms
already two decades or more ago and I must say things happening
globally today remind me those days more than I would like
(but hey, don't take me for an expert, I have no degree
in psychohistory... :-).

Dimiter


------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
  


> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
> From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Nukes are Green
> To: Dimiter Popoff <didi at tgi-sci.com>, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>,
>   radsafe at radlab.nl
> 
> If you relie only on your own senses, what is the use
> of having scientists to do studies?  When you went to
> college and studies science and engineering, did you
> accept everything you were taught?  
> 
> My point is that at some point you either you do or do
> not believe experts.  If you do not believe in global
> warming or the safety of nuclear power, what is your
> criteria?  If environmentalist do or do not believe in
> global warming or nuclear power, what do you think
> their criteria are?  
> 
> If there is a perponderance of evidence that global
> warming a real pheonenom or that nuclear power is
> safe, is that satisfactory?
> 
> --- Dimiter Popoff <didi at tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> > > ... trust their work?  If not, why not?
> > 
> > Because of the weather.... :-) 
> > 
> > Do you have a particular study in mind which I
> > should trust?
> > 
> > Or do you trust the media who tell you there is a
> > number
> > of studies which are to be trusted?
> > 
> > I personally tend to trust my own senses...
> > (and the thermometer I have outside).
> > 
> > > If nuclear engineers and regulatory agencies say
> > > nuclear power is safe, do you believe them?  If
> > not,
> > > why not?
> > 
> > Oh it obviously is safe enough, has done a good job
> > for decades
> > now. If humans misuse it is their fault, not of the
> > technology.
> > Kitchen knives can be a deadly weapon, why not take
> > into
> > preventive custody everyone who posesses one.
> > 
> > Dimiter
> > 
> > 
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------
> > Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic
> > Instruments
> > 
> > http://www.tgi-sci.com
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------
> >   
> >   
> > > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
> > > From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green
> > > To: Dimiter Popoff <didi at tgi-sci.com>, Jerry Cohen
> > <jjcohen at prodigy.net>,
> > >   radsafe at radlab.nl
> > > 
> > > I guess the question is if scientist trained in
> > > climatology and geophysics believe it is
> > occurring, do
> > > you trust their work?  If not, why not?
> > > 
> > > If nuclear engineers and regulatory agencies say
> > > nuclear power is safe, do you believe them?  If
> > not,
> > > why not?
> > > 
> > > --- Dimiter Popoff <didi at tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> > > > We have come to a point where the vast
> > disagreement
> > > > between reality and its
> > > > media presentation is unlikely to be overcome
> > > > without a major crisis.
> > > > "Global warming" has been repeated so many times
> > > > that there is
> > > > barely a soul who would question it, no matter
> > what
> > > > we see when
> > > > we look through the window (looks more like a
> > coming
> > > > ice age to me).
> > > > Nuclear has been a swear word for decades, just
> > > > watch them turn it
> > > > within less than a month or two if they really
> > want
> > > > to (whoever 
> > > > are those /is that in control of the media, and
> > > > please save me 
> > > > the talk of having free speech etc.).
> > > > 
> > > > Of course I am against any sort of lies, too.
> > The
> > > > real question is
> > > > whether there is anything we can do about it, I
> > wish
> > > > I had
> > > > a solution to offer...
> > > > 
> > > > Dimiter
> > > > 
> > > > . . .
> > > 
> > > +++++++++++++++++++
> > > "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are
> > generally, if not always, the result of embarrasse
> > > Hugh Blair, 1783
> > > 
> > > -- John
> > > John Jacobus, MS
> > > Certified Health Physicist
> > > e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought
> Hugh Blair, 1783
> 
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> 
>