[ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green

[John Jacobus]

To me, the LNT is misapplied.  I think that there is
evidence that the LNT is appropriate in some
situations, like cellular irradiations.  However, it
does not scale up to large organisms.   As noted by
the HPS, there are no demonstrated effects below 0.1
Sv
http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf An analogy
is the difference between the study of quantum
mechanics and Newtonian physics.  

My problem with a lot of the claims of hormesis is
that data is selectively chosen to build a case.  The
tabacco lobby used to do the same thing.  

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

> I am skeptical about all those things and more, but
> especially about LNT! 
> However the stubborn adherence of many to LNT, an
> obviously bankrupt 
> hypothesis, may make a strong argument for perpetual
> motion.  Like global 
> warming, it seems to be a perpetual motion engine.
> 
> ----- 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 4:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green
> 
> 
> >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.
> >> >> >>
> 
=== 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!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/