[ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green

[Raymond A Hoover]

No, not perpetual motion.  Perpetual argument maybe, but not motion.

"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" 
To: "Syd H. Levine" ; "Dimiter Popoff" 
; "Jerry Cohen" ; 
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" 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" 
>> To: "Syd H. Levine" ;
>> "Dimiter Popoff"
>> ; "Jerry Cohen"
>> ; 
>> 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" 
>> 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" 
>> >> To: "Dimiter Popoff" ; "Jerry
>> >> Cohen"
>> >> ; 
>> >> 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 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 
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green
>> >> >> > To: Dimiter Popoff , Jerry
>> >> Cohen
>> >> >> ,
>> >> >> > 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 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
> 


_______________________________________________
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


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!