[ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green

[John Jacobus]

I don't think I used the word consensus.  I don't that
is appropriate in scientific studies, but facts are
not based on a majority opinion.  You and I do agree
on being skeptical, but on different subjects.  I am
skeptical of hormesis, cold fusion and perpetual
motion, among other things.

--- "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
=== 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