Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [CDV700CLUB] Re: Washington Post Article/Unintended Consequences

Expand Messages
  • Phil Bigelow
    Looks like it s time to dispel one myth about this mailing list. The myth: CDV700CLUB is of one mind regarding nuclear/political issues. The truth: We are a
    Message 1 of 23 , Jan 1, 2004
      Looks like it's time to dispel one myth about this mailing list.

      The myth: "CDV700CLUB is of one mind regarding nuclear/political issues."

      The truth: We are a mailing list devoted to the hobby of
      collecting/using radiation detectors. We are not an advocacy arm of the
      Nuclear Industry (Tom, I hope I'm not wrong). It is therefore unwise to
      extrapolate the demographics of this group too far without knowing the
      makeup of *all* of the membership.

      As I noted about 6 months ago (and I got a lot of flames for saying so),
      this is one reason why talking about the politics of nuclear issues here
      is not a very good idea.

      Just some food for thought.

      cheers,

      Phil Bigelow
      MS, Geology
      Paleontologist
      Sedimentary Geologist
      Environmental geologist (slope stability and hydrology of toxic waste)
      Sierra Club (past member, but I still donate)
      --



      > >>>It's make it or break it here gentlemen,
      > >>>the impression people get of us now may determine once and for
      > all
      > >>>their opinion on nuclear related issues.



      > This has been my attitude since I became a member of this group.
      > What we say and do does reflect on how the public sees radiation and
      > hobbyists who are interested in the topic.
      > Yes, there are some real nut cases out there that abuse common logic
      > by cooking U3O8 in their kitchen but they are few (If they keep
      > doing some of their stupid stunts there will be even fewer of
      > them).
      > True, there will be some who will be upset by the article (and
      > future ones)because their understanding of radiation danger is being
      > challenged. Hopefully with the truth being published the public will
      > at least question what they have been told.
      > I'm sure this article will make the rounds in the anti-nuke groups.
      > This may be good. Perhaps some will ask questions.
      > As for Ebay, I hope they will take a stand where they are. It would
      > be shameful for them to listen to a couple of crackpots and change
      > the way we do business. I hope they learned by an incident a few
      > years back.


      ________________________________________________________________
      The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
      Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
      Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
    • civildefenseinfo2002
      Mr. Bigelow, you do have a point. However, I believe there is a general consensus here believing in real science, not myths. While Mr. Herman seems to have
      Message 2 of 23 , Jan 1, 2004
        Mr. Bigelow, you do have a point.

        However, I believe there is a general consensus here believing in
        real science, not myths. While Mr. Herman seems to have made clear
        that it is unacceptable to discuss politics, I do not see why not
        that dispelling the myth, of say, giant mutant radioactive
        cockroaches being created by radiation, here is a bad thing. This
        group does dip into the science of radiation quite a lot, and I doubt
        there is belief otherwise. All groups advocate something no matter
        how non-political they wish to be, but I think real science, not
        something a TV writer made up, isn't a bad thing to advocate.

        I'd like to hear Mr. Herman's position on this though.

        CivilDefense2002
      • Boomologist
        For those who don t look at Radsafe, here is an example of what the public is usually reading. It is this type of press that influences people and people are
        Message 3 of 23 , Jan 1, 2004
          For those who don't look at Radsafe, here is an example of what the public is usually reading. It is this type of press that influences people and people are the ones who pressure their politicians to pass laws.
           
          Enough said. I'll shut up now.

                                  Thanks,
                                   Ron Dicus
                      Boomologist@...
           

           
        • DH
          ... Science is how you convince skeptics of repeatable truths. Everything else is opinion or voodoo. While Mr. Herman seems to have made clear ... I fail to
          Message 4 of 23 , Jan 1, 2004
            --- In CDV700CLUB@yahoogroups.com, "civildefenseinfo2002"
            <Civildefense2002@a...> wrote:

            > However, I believe there is a general consensus here believing in
            > real science, not myths.

            Science is how you convince skeptics of repeatable truths.
            Everything else is opinion or voodoo.


            While Mr. Herman seems to have made clear
            > that it is unacceptable to discuss politics, I do not see why not
            > that dispelling the myth, of say, giant mutant radioactive
            > cockroaches [GMRC] being created by radiation, here is a bad thing.

            I fail to see how GMRC's are political. (Unless they're trying
            to get driver's licenses or, like Godzilla et al., invade someone's
            country.)

            Even such endocrine-tinged topics as civ defense can be
            discussed historically, anthropologically (in addition to
            the bio/physics of CD) as long as no one starts using "should"
            or "ought" too much. (Even then, those words are OK if you merely
            state the goals sought ---the "shoulds" then become objectively,
            empirically debateable, "if you want X you should do Y" rather than
            pontification.)


            >All groups advocate something no matter
            > how non-political they wish to be,

            I think this group's "advocacy" is that detectors and what they
            detect are cool. Many would add related history, geology, chem, bio,
            electronics, physics. Maybe a little risk assessment, sociology (eg
            eBay, History Channel, science education, cold war, 50's prospecting
            threads, risk perception) too.
          • cdvtripleseven
            Wow! Far-out man! That s hilarious. I really like the line... With the high incidence of cancer in this country, one might well wonder whether this
            Message 5 of 23 , Jan 1, 2004
              Wow! Far-out man!
              That's hilarious. I really like the line...
              "With the high incidence of cancer in this country, one might well
              wonder whether this radioactive exposure could be playing a role.
              Those people who own Fiestaware dating back to the '30s, '40s
              and '60s should have the products checked with a Geiger counter."
              I'm 40 years old and I've NEVER even SEEN a piece of Fiestaware in
              person but this guy is blaming "this radioactive exposure could be
              playing a role" for "high incidences of cancer."
              Oh brother....






              --- In CDV700CLUB@yahoogroups.com, "Boomologist" <Boomologist@G...>
              wrote:
              > For those who don't look at Radsafe, here is an example of what the
              public is usually reading. It is this type of press that influences
              people and people are the ones who pressure their politicians to pass
              laws.
              > http://www.dominionpost.com/a/news/2004/01/01/br/
              >
              > Enough said. I'll shut up now.
              >
              > Thanks,
              > Ron Dicus
              > Boomologist@G...
            • Tom Herman
              Ron, Excellent idea! Still reading.. I m up to 1/1/04 at this point. Hats off to Mr. Levingston! It is indeed rare nowadays that a report will write an
              Message 6 of 23 , Jan 3, 2004
                Ron,
                 
                  Excellent idea!  Still reading.. I'm up to 1/1/04 at this point.
                  Hats off to Mr. Levingston! It is indeed rare nowadays that a report will write an article without bias.
                  What passes for "journalism" is mostly thinly veneered editorialism... I wish him well in his career.
                  Good comments all around, and from what I've seen, no one has veered into the murky realms of politics.
                  Of course, it is good to dispel myths with Truth, nothing political in that.
                  More comments later..
                 
                -Tom  
                 
                  Tom, I believe that the group should send Mr. Levingston a thank you letter and encourage him to do future articles such as the one he wrote. Just my thoughts,

                                        Thanks,
                                         Ron Dicus
                            Boomologist@...
                 
                 
              • Phil Bigelow
                ... To immediately associate a new list member (probably now an EX-list member) with the thinking of the Antis, based on sparse evidence, is engaging in
                Message 7 of 23 , Jan 3, 2004
                  "Tom Herman" <n1bec@...> writes:

                  > Good comments all around, and from what I've seen, no one has
                  > veered into the murky realms of politics.

                  To immediately associate a new list member (probably now an EX-list
                  member) with the thinking of the Antis, based on sparse evidence, is
                  engaging in politics.

                  My earlier comment was a reaction to a question asked by a newbie list
                  member (book author Mr. Paci) and a Dec. 30-31 response by one of our
                  regular list members.

                  Mr. Paci had just joined the list, and he was researching a book idea.
                  He asked about the environmental after-effects on the surface water and
                  ground water after the detonation of a "dirty bomb". One of our list
                  members responded, and told Mr. Paci that his book idea was "boring", and
                  then proceeded to lecture Paci by stating: "you're writing will cause
                  little more than an addition to the already bad case of irrational
                  nuclear fear." (exact words, I still have the post).
                  This pre-judgement was made even before Paci had begun to write his book!
                  Needless to say, a pre-judgement does not convey "Truth"; rather, it
                  is a reflection of a political viewpoint.

                  Paci has not posted since, and I suspect that he has been run-off from
                  our mailing list. He will probably write his book, but he will probably
                  be using material from *other* sources. Additionally, he may have since
                  developed a different attitude about hobbiests like ourselves who dabble
                  in radiation. And it may not have been the effect that our
                  self-appointed List spokesman had intended when he lectured Mr. Paci.

                  Later (Dec. 31), this same long-term list member mused in the thread
                  about the Washington Post Article that he was concerned about the
                  "impression" that we list members project to the rest of the world and
                  the "unintended consequences". "It's make it or break it here
                  gentlemen", he said (to use his exact words).

                  Uhhh...yeah.
                  Well, if we wish to avoid "unintended consequences" and "impression"
                  problems, then we also might want to consider not prejudging folks who
                  come here to ask questions.

                  Additionally, it would be wise for certain list members to stop and
                  realise that they don't necessarily have the backing of the entire list
                  membership when they lecture others, presumably on "our" behalf. We are
                  not necessarily of one mind on such issues.

                  Phil B.
                  --
















                  ________________________________________________________________
                  The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
                  Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
                  Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
                • civildefenseinfo2002
                  ... is ... I do not associate Mr. Paci with anything. However, I do see from his posting that he mostly has the thinking of most people. I in no place
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jan 3, 2004
                    --- In CDV700CLUB@yahoogroups.com, Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@j...> wrote:
                    > "Tom Herman" <n1bec@m...> writes:
                    >
                    > > Good comments all around, and from what I've seen, no one has
                    > > veered into the murky realms of politics.
                    >
                    > To immediately associate a new list member (probably now an EX-list
                    > member) with the thinking of the Antis, based on sparse evidence,
                    is
                    > engaging in politics.

                    I do not associate Mr. Paci with anything. However, I do see from his
                    posting that he mostly has the thinking of most people. I in no place
                    mentioned politics or my political viewpoint, only the scientific
                    one. I have tried to stay out of that since Mr. Herman expressed his
                    desire to not have it.

                    >
                    > My earlier comment was a reaction to a question asked by a newbie
                    list
                    > member (book author Mr. Paci) and a Dec. 30-31 response by one of
                    our
                    > regular list members.

                    Why don't you just go out and say that person is me? I have nothing
                    to hide and am willing to confront any problem anyone has with me.
                    But I am impressed I'm now considered a "long-time member."

                    >
                    > Mr. Paci had just joined the list, and he was researching a book
                    idea.
                    > He asked about the environmental after-effects on the surface water
                    and
                    > ground water after the detonation of a "dirty bomb". One of our
                    list
                    > members responded, and told Mr. Paci that his book idea
                    was "boring", and
                    > then proceeded to lecture Paci by stating: "you're writing will
                    cause
                    > little more than an addition to the already bad case of irrational
                    > nuclear fear." (exact words, I still have the post).
                    > This pre-judgement was made even before Paci had begun to write his
                    book!

                    I said that a dirty bomb event itself would probably be boring if
                    just the effects themselves were kept. Please keep my statements in
                    context here. There isn't too much to say about an explosion that
                    does little else, if you keep out the plot, law enforcement action,
                    etc. as I made clear. As to the other statement, if he wrote what he
                    seemed to be presenting (That some strange effects would happen to
                    plants underwater, etc.), it would do nothing than what I stated. It
                    would be another one of the scare books like "On The Beach."

                    > Needless to say, a pre-judgement does not convey "Truth";
                    rather, it
                    > is a reflection of a political viewpoint.

                    What else could you see out of a book saying that a dirty bomb would
                    cause effects on plants underwater and cause permanent effects to a
                    stream? That's a scientific issue, not political.

                    However, you could say such a thing if he had not said he had already
                    been writing his book before looking into these questions. If he had
                    asked those questions and said he had not started writing yet, I
                    would be in complete agreement with you.

                    >
                    > Paci has not posted since, and I suspect that he has been run-off
                    from
                    > our mailing list. He will probably write his book, but he will
                    probably
                    > be using material from *other* sources. Additionally, he may have
                    since
                    > developed a different attitude about hobbiests like ourselves who
                    dabble
                    > in radiation. And it may not have been the effect that our
                    > self-appointed List spokesman had intended when he lectured Mr.
                    Paci.

                    First of all, I speak for myself whenever I post, no one else.
                    Secondly, I cannot see how I could have run him off. I cannot see any
                    way to sugarcoat my post or make it more appropriate. I tried to make
                    my post come off as kind as I can get. I have no intention of making
                    Mr. Paci feel bad, whatever, just informing him of the "truth" as I
                    understand it. My only intention is helping him with writing the book
                    and answering his questions. I do not see how you have an issue with
                    me also mentioning that
                    >
                    > Later (Dec. 31), this same long-term list member mused in the thread
                    > about the Washington Post Article that he was concerned about the
                    > "impression" that we list members project to the rest of the world
                    and
                    > the "unintended consequences". "It's make it or break it here
                    > gentlemen", he said (to use his exact words).

                    I intended to let others know about what problems may result.
                    Definately, issues with eBay, etc. may result. As to impressions, I
                    expressed that we should not look like the "psychopaths" some would
                    like to portray us as. Nothing more.
                    >
                    > Uhhh...yeah.
                    > Well, if we wish to avoid "unintended consequences" and "impression"
                    > problems, then we also might want to consider not prejudging folks
                    who
                    > come here to ask questions.

                    I did not "prejudge" anyone. I merely pointed out that a story like
                    he was writing (My perception of it based upon what he said he had
                    written of course.) was as I stated.

                    > Additionally, it would be wise for certain list members to stop and
                    > realise that they don't necessarily have the backing of the entire
                    list
                    > membership when they lecture others, presumably on "our" behalf.
                    We are
                    > not necessarily of one mind on such issues.
                    >
                    > Phil B.

                    Again, I represent myself, no one else. Mr. Herman is the only one
                    here who can represent the group. However, I notice you seem to be
                    doing the same thing you are accusing me of?

                    Mr. Bigelow, I not only asked Mr. Paci not to take offense in case he
                    thought I was lecturing, being mean, whatever, but I also publically
                    apologized if it came off that way when you brought it to my
                    attention. What more do you wish?

                    CivilDefense2002
                  • civildefenseinfo2002
                    Mea culpa. In my reply, I didn t complete one of my paragraphs it seems. It can be found completed below. irst of all, I speak for myself whenever I post, no
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jan 3, 2004
                      Mea culpa. In my reply, I didn't complete one of my paragraphs it
                      seems. It can be found completed below.

                      "irst of all, I speak for myself whenever I post, no one else.
                      Secondly, I cannot see how I could have run him off. I cannot see any
                      way to sugarcoat my post or make it more appropriate. I tried to make
                      my post come off as kind as I can get. I have no intention of making
                      Mr. Paci feel bad, whatever, just informing him of the "truth" as I
                      understand it. My only intention is helping him with writing the book
                      and answering his questions. I do not see how you have an issue with
                      me also mentioning that it appeared that some of his facts were in
                      error."

                      Apologies again.

                      CivilDefense2002
                    • civildefenseinfo2002
                      Hey Mr. Green, hope you are doing well. I was just wondering, what s going on with your web site? Going to it gives me this weird coming soon page...
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jan 3, 2004
                        Hey Mr. Green, hope you are doing well. I was just wondering, what's
                        going on with your web site? Going to it gives me this weird "coming
                        soon" page...

                        CivilDefense2002
                      • Peter R. Zidek
                        Poppycock! The only political ramblings are those you make. Hear no evil see no evil. But crucify those that do! I suppose that if a newbie states that he
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jan 3, 2004
                          Poppycock!

                          The only political ramblings are those you make.
                          "Hear no evil see no evil." But crucify those that do!

                          I suppose that if a newbie states that he believes that standing
                          under a fire detector is gonna fry his gonads with alpha particles we
                          ought not take the responsibility to alley his fears, lest heaven
                          forbid it maybe hysterically construed as being political.

                          With that kind of sqeamish attitude why not let porn spammers post
                          here. After all, we shouldn't pre-judge lest it be construed as
                          political.

                          The old antiqated adage "judge not, lest ye be judged" ought
                          to be changed to: "JUDGE and be prepared to be judged!"

                          Bravo for your guts CivilDefense2002!

                          My judgement!

                          Peter Zidek


                          --- In CDV700CLUB@yahoogroups.com, Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@j...> wrote:
                          > "Tom Herman" <n1bec@m...> writes:
                          >
                          > > Good comments all around, and from what I've seen, no one has
                          > > veered into the murky realms of politics.
                          >
                          > To immediately associate a new list member (probably now an EX-list
                          > member) with the thinking of the Antis, based on sparse evidence,
                          is
                          > engaging in politics.
                          >
                          > My earlier comment was a reaction to a question asked by a newbie
                          list
                          > member (book author Mr. Paci) and a Dec. 30-31 response by one of
                          our
                          > regular list members.
                          >
                          > Mr. Paci had just joined the list, and he was researching a book
                          idea.
                          > He asked about the environmental after-effects on the surface water
                          and
                          > ground water after the detonation of a "dirty bomb". One of our
                          list
                          > members responded, and told Mr. Paci that his book idea
                          was "boring", and
                          > then proceeded to lecture Paci by stating: "you're writing will
                          cause
                          > little more than an addition to the already bad case of irrational
                          > nuclear fear." (exact words, I still have the post).
                          > This pre-judgement was made even before Paci had begun to write his
                          book!
                          > Needless to say, a pre-judgement does not convey "Truth";
                          rather, it
                          > is a reflection of a political viewpoint.
                          >
                          > Paci has not posted since, and I suspect that he has been run-off
                          from
                          > our mailing list. He will probably write his book, but he will
                          probably
                          > be using material from *other* sources. Additionally, he may have
                          since
                          > developed a different attitude about hobbiests like ourselves who
                          dabble
                          > in radiation. And it may not have been the effect that our
                          > self-appointed List spokesman had intended when he lectured Mr.
                          Paci.
                          >
                          > Later (Dec. 31), this same long-term list member mused in the thread
                          > about the Washington Post Article that he was concerned about the
                          > "impression" that we list members project to the rest of the world
                          and
                          > the "unintended consequences". "It's make it or break it here
                          > gentlemen", he said (to use his exact words).
                          >
                          > Uhhh...yeah.
                          > Well, if we wish to avoid "unintended consequences" and "impression"
                          > problems, then we also might want to consider not prejudging folks
                          who
                          > come here to ask questions.
                          >
                          > Additionally, it would be wise for certain list members to stop and
                          > realise that they don't necessarily have the backing of the entire
                          list
                          > membership when they lecture others, presumably on "our" behalf.
                          We are
                          > not necessarily of one mind on such issues.
                          >
                          > Phil B.
                          > --
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ________________________________________________________________
                          > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
                          > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
                          > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
                        • cdvtripleseven
                          Thanks for noticing that it s down. I got tired of messing with my web host. The company got really flaky over the last several months so I cancelled my
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jan 5, 2004
                            Thanks for noticing that it's down.
                            I got tired of messing with my web host. The
                            company got really flaky over the last several
                            months so I cancelled my service with them.
                            I'll probably have it back up in a month or so.
                            I've been working on it and giving it a new look
                            and I have a few things to add to it too so I
                            want to get all that done before it goes back up.
                            Eric


                            --- In CDV700CLUB@yahoogroups.com, "civildefenseinfo2002"
                            <Civildefense2002@a...> wrote:
                            > Hey Mr. Green, hope you are doing well. I was just wondering,
                            what's
                            > going on with your web site? Going to it gives me this
                            weird "coming
                            > soon" page...
                            >
                            > CivilDefense2002
                          • arclight762
                            Those people who own Fiestaware dating back to the 30s, 40s and 60s should have the products checked with a Geiger counter Yes, they should have them
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jan 5, 2004
                              "Those people who own Fiestaware dating back to the '30s, '40s
                              and '60s should have the products checked with a Geiger counter"

                              Yes, they should have them checked with a geiger counter, and
                              disposed of...by giving them to me. :)

                              John N.


                              > http://www.dominionpost.com/a/news/2004/01/01/br/
                              >
                              > Enough said. I'll shut up now.
                              >
                              > Thanks,
                              > Ron Dicus
                              > Boomologist@G...
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.