[ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green

Syd H. Levine syd.levine at mindspring.com
Wed Apr 13 21:28:34 CEST 2005 

Sorry if I assumed incorrectly, but you mentioned consensus in your post I 
believe.  In general, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, the 
basic philosophy of the skeptic.  Hence, LNT or global warming or thick 
water or alien abductions require extraordinary proof before they can be 
accepted as fact.  Simple, no?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com>; "Dimiter Popoff" 
<didi at tgi-sci.com>; "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green


> Sorry if I touched a raw nerve.  I never implied that
> there was consensus about global warming.  My comment
> was concerned with who we think are experts.  If some
> scientist think this is true and others do not, who do
> you believe, if you believe anything?  If you do not
> believe that global warming is a fact, why not?  I
> don't you to reply, but to think about the idea of
> what makes one an expert.
>
> I would also say that I doubt if you know what my
> position is on global warming.  Maybe you are should
> ask directly, off server what I think rather making
> assumptions.  The only thing that scares me is people
> who do not think and read for themselves, but have
> blind faith in what feels good.
>
> Personally I think that DU as armor piercing
> projectiles is the second best thing since sliced
> bread.  The first is "white out."
>
> --- "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> First, there is NOT a consensus among geophysicists
>> that global warming is
>> anything to worry about.  The only consensus is
>> among certain geophysicists
>> receiving grant money for global warming research.
>> Second, science is not a
>> matter of consensus.  There used to be a consensus
>> that the world was flat,
>> decidedly bad science it turns out.  But then, I am
>> not surprised at your
>> position on global warming, John.  There is
>> something scary under every
>> rock...LNT, global warming, DU, etc., etc.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
>> To: "Dimiter Popoff" <didi at tgi-sci.com>; "Jerry
>> Cohen"
>> <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:33 PM
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green
>>
>>
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________
>> > Do you Yahoo!?
>> > Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
>> > http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > You are currently subscribed to the radsafe
>> mailing list
>> > radsafe at radlab.nl
>> >
>> > For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe
>> and other settings visit:
>> > http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "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