Re: [biofuel] More cowflops
Come on Ed. First of all, the screens you choose to sit in front of or place between yourself and your monitor are a matter of personal choice, not inflicted upon you and your community by industry and government. Second of all, the dissemination of dis-, mis- and just plain erroneous information pertaining to energy issues - no matter nuclear or other - when the proliferation of these industries will detract from the furthering of biofuels in both volume and time frame, inevitably detracting from human health and environmental quality, is precisely on topic. My earlier apology at the onset of my initial response to Mr. Piolenc was more a matter of courtesy to those who might be offended by such overt expression of disbelief and the occasional soul who might not see the relevance between biofuels and the rest of the energy industry web. If one wishes to attain critical mass in the biofuels sector, one must also address how critical mass is obtained in other energy sectors and debunk the information on which their critical mass is obtained and maintained. Todd Swearingen Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I don't worry about this radiation stuff at all. In fact, I sit in front of > a radiation device for hours a day reading bandwidth-wasting discussions and > arguments about off topic posts. > > Ed B. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Would you like syrup on your cow pie sir? was Re: [biofuel] More cowflops
Young Master Piolenc, I am rather concerned with what you represent as "fact(s)" to the rest of the readers in this forum relative to low dose radiation. Would you be so kind as to point a person to the studies that refute what has become a universally accepted understanding of how cellular damage occurs as a result of ionized radiation exposure? It is a bit disappointing that you attempt to entirely dismiss the actual mechanics of cellular disrepair and mutation as a result of radiation exposure (all sorts and all levels) by leap-frogging past the mechanics to what you profess to be study results pertaining to an anomalous group that warrants complete dismissal of all concern relative to low-dose exposure. It is also a bit disappointing - and extremely misleading - that those who site the occupational hazard of airline pilots - an environment that provides less of an atmospheric "shield" than most other occupational environments only if you take away the airplane - not only fail to take into account the inordinate amount of "armor" that surrounds them when drawing comparison (aluminum, stainless, nickel, silver, copper, gold, almost ad infinitum), but also have conveniently failed to include in their extrapolations the balance of flight crews who are not as equally shielded as the cockpit crew. So called scientific studies comparing airline pilots to residents in proximity to nuclear facilities are not only incomplete, inaccurate and misleading at first glance, but throughout. Air, water, soil and direct contamination from "incidental" and accidental releases, their accumulation and cumulative impact, exact considerably different results upon living tissue than the armor clad environment subjected to natural radiation which you choose to use as substantiation of your claim. Thus, I must ask again that you considerately make these aberrational studies which you "reference" available to the list so that they may be reviewed by all. Anything less could be construed as evasive and malicious conduct - duplicit to what you have accused environmental proponents of in the past. As for your dodging the following inquiry. >> "Further, perhaps you would care to explain what gives you or any others >> the >> right to subject human populations to the more devastating events posed >> by >> higher levels of radiation released via inevitable mechanical failures >> and >> human error?" > I'm not subjecting them to anything - aviators and mountaineers get > dosed at higher rates than the NRC allows in the normal course of > events. ... I suppose I should better qualify the question, as you apparently "missed" the implication of nuclear technolgy and its inevitable human error, supplanting it with an occupational choice to expose oneself to natural phenomena. Rather, the implication was and the rephrased question is "What gives anyone the right to make decisions that subject ground based human populations to higher levels of radiation - a result of implementing failure prone nuclear processing and production technologies - than they would normally be exposed to in their natural life?" As for the implication that you are "personally" responsible for the implementation of nuclear technology, while perhaps an accidentally broad and unintentional assertion, you remain on the hook for your dissemination of inaccurate and incomplete information, which may tend to sway others into making decisions based upon errant inputs. Also, relative to the following, would you please be so kind as to refrain from future attempts to obfuscate, side track or derail a point of discourse? The thesis and theme was - as you well know - not whether humanity should forego airline transport in favor of reduced radiation exposure to pedestrian or pedal traffic. Rather, the theme was the inherrant increase in radiation exposure as a result of the proliferation of nuclear industries. >> "Increased exposure levels or opportunity for receiving increased >> exposure is >> not "acceptable."" > You are of course welcome to decide what dose rates YOU are willing to > accept, and to travel by surface conveyance and avoid visits to high > places. As long as I remain free to choose otherwise, it ain't my > business - only your loss. Funny that - not only the attempted derailing, but the fact that my choice of dose rate and the choice of hundreds of millions of others has been ignored by government and industry for more than half a century. .. Finally, would you please be so kind as to refrain from "cut and paste" methods in your replies? Several have noted that it is almost impossible for anyone stepping into the discussion to discern where the text from the initial composer stops and the respondent's words begin. >From what I gather, you may be loathe to have anyone mistakenly exchange my understanding of fact for yours. Todd Swearingen Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Post Script: Lest you be too terribly concerned that I avail my
Re: [biofuel] More cowflops
I don't worry about this radiation stuff at all. In fact, I sit in front of a radiation device for hours a day reading bandwidth-wasting discussions and arguments about off topic posts. Ed B. > From: Harmon Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: Maddog Press > Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 10:00:27 -0500 > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [biofuel] More cowflops > > "F. Marc de Piolenc" wrote: > >> - commercial aviators experience exposure levels in excess of NRC >> standards; if they were under NRC jurisdiction they would all have to >> retire early, having exceeded allowable "life doses" that are based on >> precisely the arguments that you adduce. > > And your explanation of why pregnant stewardesses,passengers, and > pilots are warned against flying by the FAA and other authorities. and even > banned by major airlines is what? They specifically site the radiation > danger. Try doing a google search on pregnant & radiation & airline. > > > > -- > Harmon Seaver, MLIS > CyberShamanix > Work 920-203-9633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] More cowflops
"F. Marc de Piolenc" wrote: > - commercial aviators experience exposure levels in excess of NRC > standards; if they were under NRC jurisdiction they would all have to > retire early, having exceeded allowable "life doses" that are based on > precisely the arguments that you adduce. And your explanation of why pregnant stewardesses,passengers, and pilots are warned against flying by the FAA and other authorities. and even banned by major airlines is what? They specifically site the radiation danger. Try doing a google search on pregnant & radiation & airline. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] More cowflops
"Message: 4 Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:36:27 -0400 From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Can't Make Pancakes out of Cowflop was Re: Cowflops "Following your train of thought, that "Junk science is junk science if it ignores contrary - and readily available - facts," it would be appreciated if you would submit your sources of scientific study that substantiate your claim that low dose radiation is a myth and refute the extensive studies of the best minds in the field." "All studies extant, to the knowledge of everyone in this office, have acknowledged that virtually every track of ionized radiation that passes through a cell nucleus (where mutation occurs) carries the potential to damage the nucleus and often does in a manner that is irreparable or repaired wrong (read "mutation")." "The exacting of damage to any nucleus does not depend upon the strength of radiation, whether it be from a low or high dose exposure, but simply that an electron path or track passes through the nucleus." Yes, yes, yes - I am familiar with the CLAIM and the ARGUMENT on which it is based - INTIMATELY familiar. Fortunately for Mankind, the argument fails utterly to satisfy known FACTS, to wit: - commercial aviators experience exposure levels in excess of NRC standards; if they were under NRC jurisdiction they would all have to retire early, having exceeded allowable "life doses" that are based on precisely the arguments that you adduce. - in actuality, however, many have careers spanning decades and including tens of thousands of hours spent at altitudes where ionizing radiation is many times surface background. - but they don't have greater incidence of radiation-related illnesses than any other group in the general population. Therefore the "no safe dose" argument fails. My favorite parallel is to the argument by qualified scientists that meteorite falls were impossible: "stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky." Of course, there were. And there are safe doses of radiation. "Further, perhaps you would care to explain what gives you or any others the right to subject human populations to the more devastating events posed by higher levels of radiation released via inevitable mechanical failures and human error?" I'm not subjecting them to anything - aviators and mountaineers get dosed at higher rates than the NRC allows in the normal course of events. "Increased exposure levels or opportunity for receiving increased exposure is not "acceptable."" You are of course welcome to decide what dose rates YOU are willing to accept, and to travel by surface conveyance and avoid visits to high places. As long as I remain free to choose otherwise, it ain't my business - only your loss. Marc de Piolenc Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
