[ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green

[John Jacobus]

I prefer the phrase "scientific discourse."

--- Raymond A Hoover <ray2hoover at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> 
=== 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