[ RadSafe ] Re: Nukes are Green

[John Jacobus]

Maybe because it has some validity in certain, but not
all, situations.  If you at some of the scientific
data, clearly defined linear effects can be shown to
exist at extremely low doses.  However, linearity does
not appear to exist in some epidemiological studies. 

My point is that the LNT can and is misapplied, and
probably is for human populations.  However, to use a
broad brush statement is not good science.  Neither is
saying that hormesis is clearly demonstrated is valid.

As someone recently remarked to me, you need to
separate the science from the policy.  

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

> 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
> 
=== 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/