[ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green

John Jacobus crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 13 18:43:19 CEST 2005


I guess we were misinterpreting each other's comments.
 You seem to focusing on reporting of the media and I
am commenting on experts being reporting in the media.
 Not unusual with e-mails.

I am not saying you should trust the media per se, but
that is the primary way many people, including me, get
our information.  I understand your critism of he
media, but whether it is about nuclear power or global
warming, the public is somewhat stuck with the media. 
When you read an article on nuclear power, do you
believe the expert cited?  From experience, it the
claims seem to be outrageous, e.g., terrorist can
destroy a nuclear power plant, I tend to discount them
unless others can show the same results.  It the same
"study" is cited over and over again, that is not a
good sign.

As for the issue of global warming, I don't think
either of us is an expert.  To me, climatology is not
a "mature" science.  However, science marches.  Things
like ice cores, computer models and historical data
will help.  I believe that Ben Franklin started
keeping records of the weather, and while he had no
expertese beyond taking the temperature, there is data
out there to me mined.  


--- Dimiter Popoff <didi at tgi-sci.com> wrote:

> > 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
> 
=== message truncated ===


+++++++++++++++++++
"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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


More information about the radsafe mailing list