[ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green

[Syd H. Levine]

Perpetual in the sense that the argument or discourse never seems to end, 
certainly.  But I meant the wise crack in the sense that LNT was like an 
engine that did not know it was subject to the laws of science and refused 
to die.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: "Raymond A Hoover" <ray2hoover at yahoo.com>; "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: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green


>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
>