Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 23:34.
Just let it go. Everyone here wants to 'Cirque De Soleil' filibuster when they get exposed to reality but then claim 'Hey! Your spouting philosophy' when it's obviously not true.
Show them you can filibuster with the truth in a more 'effective manner' and they run.
I used Tipler as an example of imagining probability and possibility- I didn't claim he is 'the end all be all' or that his beliefs are my own. Look at how limited your 'choice structure' is within your 'thought experimentation'.
And don't give me any 'Industry talking points' about Chernobyl. The Nuclear Industry has avoided data on Chernobyl like the plague. Everyone knows it. Everyone who has studied Chernobyl anyway.
The soup you guys swim in is thick. It's not your fault but you owe it to yourselves to learn more than what's required to 'get a job'. Not everything fits nicely in your box. That's not the real world.
I'll tell you this- the reigns should be completely handed over to Preventative Maintenance/Reliability Centered Maintenance. The current leadership in the industry has failed. That's why we are here discussing this. It shouldn't be protected and that's why BRAWM won't withdraw defense. Because the industry NEEDS the 'Airplane Analogy'.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 23:48.
This is the last point I will make. No one at BRAWM or myself are funded by the industry nor have allegiance to the industry. I think you don't realize the breadth of topics covered by nuclear engineering since you think everyone has to be funded by the power industry or work for them. You also seem to think the nuclear industry is all powerful, when it is very weak compared to other industries. Not everything is some conspiracy of the nuclear industry. I am not using any industry talking points about Chernobyl. I don't even agree with their talking points because some of them do bend the truth. You are also linking the nuclear industry in Japan to the nuclear industry in America. They are much different. The nuclear culture in Japan is different than it is in America. The airplane analogy has nothing to do with the nuclear industry. BRAWM can make the analogy to many other common day exposures, such as radon in the air and polonium if you smoke.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 09:54.
"I think you don't realize the breadth of topics covered by nuclear engineering since you think everyone has to be funded by the power industry or work for them. You also seem to think the nuclear industry is all powerful, when it is very weak compared to other industries. "
At some point, a time of my own choosing, I will make clear my understanding of 'breadth of topics' from my own international experience.
Are you aware that all industry shares contractors from Engineering firms like cats and dogs share fleas? One day an engineering contractor may find themselves working for Union Carbide and the next for Formosa? One day for BP and the next for Tepco? Maybe at times working in tandem on contracts for all 4? They're all billable clients, that's all.
I wish I could learn from you. I'm sure somewhere within you there is something you must know which I could learn from, but not within this comment of yours.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 10:25.
It is highly unlikely the BRAWM team, which work on improving radiation detectors, will work for the power industry. Yes the power companies get engineers from many different disciplines and companies. However, a nuclear power company does not need the engineering expertise of advanced detectors. The group more accurately belongs in the physics department than a nuclear department.
Submitted by Frankie (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 19:19.
Some of the leaks from the nuclear power plants are so small that special detectors are needed to find these leaks. I bet all the nuclear plants could use some people with expertise of advanced detectors just based on recent news that 75% of reactors are leaking tritium. I wonder what else they are leaking?
Submitted by Tdm (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 19:23.
"Not one man, woman, child, fetus, zygote or blastocyst, will encounter the ‘radioactive equivalents’ described within your ‘imaginary creation’. All radioactive isotopes encountered in any myriad of ways will be encountered on an individual basis, in their natural form, isotope by isotope, through a broad variety of means such as ingestion, inhalation and other forms of exposure."
Although I don't agree with the "imaginary creation' I see this as a equivalency brawm uses so people can equate and understand there exposure .what people don't understand is what u point out in this paragraph we have to deal with artificial radiation in all forms.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 21:02.
The problem is TEDE doesn't help in the least to help people understand their exposure. It just soothes them into not thinking about it.
What will TEDE tell a newly pregnant mother about effects to a zygote or fetus? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And the same stands true with every other individual case of exposure.
Also the projections extend far beyond any actual testing BRAWM has done. (at best the 'partial exposure analogies' would be confined to the immediate zip code where samples were collected) Such test results mean nothing to people in Boise, Idaho at the base of those mountains. They mean nothing to people at the base of Mt. Shasta. They might not even mean anything to people in Richmond across the bay. They apply only to that zip code (at best).
If you are going to the moon, you go to the moon, you don't go 'bowling' and say you went to the moon because 'spheres' were involved.
Distribution by natural weather is not 'even distribution'...it's 'patchy' and many uncontrolled variables exist. If you don't do the work you don't get the glory of saying you've done the work. That's the end of it.
Even with 'infinite weighting factors' one will never get it right. It's like kids playing in sand telling their parents they created a real 'pyramid'.
It's unbelievably unscientific and anyone who understands rudimentary science understands this. (not chiding you, just stating the obvious)
Submitted by Tdm (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 11:03.
"The problem is TEDE doesn't help in the least to help people understand their exposure. It just soothes them into not thinking about it."
Exactly leo!that was my point. it Is far to hard in my opinion to tell people there exposure is up in the air do to ,exposure pathways variables -precipitation, food ,dust, water, air and location variables it gets very complex and impossible without testing urine from select locations we will never know of theses variables impacts on the population.I am happy to see u debate dr chivers on this subject it definitely is worthy .
As an example I took a cross country flight at the height of plume next to a woman and child evacuating Japan did this expose me more rads than someone who didn't fly in the plume logically yes but without testing I will never know. The only thing I do know for fact is my land and home has artificial radiation on it that wasn't there prior to Fukushima.Will I get cancer from this that's up in the air time will tell we are the experiment .
Although my father and his two best friends have all died of cancer .was this do to above ground nuc weapons testing ,chernobyl fallout natural radiation or some other exposure I can't say I will never know and even if in 30 years groups of friends or nieborhoods have higher cancer rates who will be able to show a correlation to artificial radiation .the fallout is known by our gov agencys ( narac)but it won't be reveled due to accountability issues I guess.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-10 20:02.
It blows me away that uncontrolled variables are not understood here as well- but as I've said- this is nobody's field.
Distribution by natural weather, the method of release, SO much for people to understand...and they are working trying to survive...trying to get the kids to brush their teeth at night.
We need to respect each other's lives- I hope that we can find the way back to that. I really appreciate your persistence in seeking the truth.
Let's not give up on us. We're worth fighting for.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 21:45.
Are you even a scientist? You seem to think that everything in science is black or white, it is not true. TEDE is as scientific as a lot of theories. Well lets see, there is renormalization in quantum field theory to deal with pesky infinities. Not really a scientific approach, but it works out. All epidemiological studies are wrong then since they have enormous amounts of unknown variables. So are all drug tests and statistical studies of any kind. Now of course it would be nice to know more about radiation effects on cells, but those studies take time and are being done right now. Those results will be added to how TEDE is calculated.
Submitted by Angela (not verified) on Thu, 2011-07-07 21:11.
I think his answer was quite clear.
This isn't a forum where you get to dictate how people should respond. If you want to be rude and arrogant, there are a lot of other forums where you'll find more of your kind.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 22:15.
'However, if one would like to dig deeper to qualify the comparison by understanding differences in dose effect to various organs, age effects, etc, then the comparison needs to be more complicated.'
I have to fly with Leo on this one Dr. Chivers. I don't think there is anyone out there who is not more interested in the effect to various organs than your banana equivalent; that is, whatever effect you are trying to relate if not to the very organs upon which we survive. It does appear, sir, that your banana equivalent is trying to mislead the public into thinking there is no danger 'to various organs' in order to protect the industry which feeds you, while you state that your banana does not apply to 'differences in dose effect to various organs'. I'm sure the 'double talk' presented with the banana is rather obvious to most participants.
Occam's razor disagrees with your suggestion that the comparison needs to be more complicated. Rather a simpler analogy which is more correctly applied to the situation is more desirable.
Further, Leo is correct with your attempted character assasination with regard to knowledge of science and attempt to redirect the discussion into philosphy and then dismiss both the subject and the participant. Very unscientific of you sir, and a rather futile debating technique.
If we can talk of science for a moment: In which referred journal will your collection, analysis methodologies and results be published? Many of us are especially interested in the selection of collection sites and your method of subtraction of lab radioactive contaminates from the sample results in order to determine what the sample was before being brought into the lab. This is a method I am not familiar with, and some in your own field may take issue with. Perhaps you could enlighten us with this methodology before publishing, as many of us would like to know more about that method. As an Entomologist I don't think it is acceptable to bring a collection of ants into the lab, count them, then realize there are other ants in the lab, count those ants and subtract the second group from the first in order to determine the original number. But then perhaps there is something different about nuclear radiation that wouldn't apply to 'radiating ants'. Please forgive the tongue in cheek analogy, perhaps we need a more complicated analogy.
As I have stated over and over, the comparison is the risk of cancer done by the standard method of TEDE and resulting in units of Sieverts where the risk of cancer occurrence is 5% per Sievert exposure. If you only care about cancer occurrence in general and not which kind, what age, etc, then this is sufficient to compare risk. If you wish to fully describe the risk in terms of other variables such as age and organ, then one would have to work with a more complicated model.
Occam never did biological research in the 20th century, for if he did, he would have noted the increasing complexity required to understand biological processes.
Radioactive contaminantes: We cannot escape natural radiation, so your ants analogy is too simplistic. Unless we take our instruments into a deep mine shaft and surround it with Roman lead (low background lead ingots lifted from ancient Roman ships), we have to deal with background gammas. In addition, since our lab has been used for many experiments over the years, the lead we shielded with had an amount of background from activation that we had to quantify using a very long counting time to discover. Background corrections are normal in this field.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-09 22:31.
Well a simpler analogy is with radon. One can relate the dose received to radon dose received if for example you lived in a basement apartment. There you have an internal dose that selectively damages the lungs. I believe they used that analogy before.
As for how to remove background. They can collect the water/air outside. The contamination in the room can be tested by counting the room activity before measuring the water/air. This result can be subtracted from the measured spectrum to give you what activity is actually in the water/air. This is a common method used in counting materials.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Tue, 2011-07-12 17:15.
At this moment we need scientific leaders (as well as other technically experienced personnel), to come forward, speak truth and do the right thing for people's health. Some have been doing that, but we need everyone now. It's time to set matters straight about some important issues regarding pubic health. Thank you.
Dr. Chivers:
"If you wish to fully describe the risk in terms of other variables such as age and organ, then one would have to work with a more complicated model."
I'm happy to hear that you understand what 'variables' are Dr. Chivers.
Do you not 'seek' or 'attempt' to 'fully describe the risk' to people's health?
Dr. Chivers:
"- Abuse of weighting factors
Where data is sparse, this could occur."
Yes, I'm aware of that and I agree.
_______________
Pool your resources with Professor Vetter and the entire team.
I'd like to save time by avoiding the 'being bumped up to a supervisor routine'. I want the entire Team to have the best shot you can.
Can anyone on the Team answer this single question?:
The BRAWM Team Lists 1 Liter Of Water Being Consumed As One (1) Specific ‘Controlled Variable’ Of Radiation Exposure.
Question:
How Many ‘Variables’ Of 'Physical Forms Of Potential Radiation Exposure' Exist Within The ‘Reality’ Of Everyday Life? (Please include, swimming and snorkeling activities of beach enthusiasts, contact while skydiving and hang gliding, hiking, wound exposures, as well as all other forms of ingestion, inhalation, skin contact, etc...)
Would you say it's closer to '5' or closer to 'infinity'?
I advise you not to filibuster. Just get to the heart of the matter.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Tue, 2011-07-12 18:03.
Certainly I am not so arrogant as to downplay the threat to public health. The threat to children.
I won't respond to any more refuse such as this but I want you to know that I don't hate any of you. I've been content to remain silent as long as you weren't 'destroying the world', so to speak. That's obviously changed hasn't it?
Most importantly, scientists must know that I am not attacking them. There is much I owe to those scientists in the industry whom I am honored to call 'friends'.
Submitted by Leo (not verified) on Tue, 2011-07-12 22:12.
What's important is that it is over and that it was done through strong Reality Based Science and Peaceful Resistance, motivated by Love.
The conversation needs to turn to 'Independent Testing', 'Remediation' and 'Detoxification'- and 'quality control' is 'key'.
Just throwing it out there.
I don't labor under the idea that BRAWM runs the NRC or the Nuclear Industry at large. This is not their fault. This is a product of the 'culture'. Many within the industry realize that.
This is not BRAWM's field.
This is the field of 'Remediation'.
It's a very broad field which has been 'under-appreciated' and even 'persecuted' within the industry...almost as much as 'Preventative Maintenance/Reliability Centered Maintenance'.
Stop contorting please
Just let it go. Everyone here wants to 'Cirque De Soleil' filibuster when they get exposed to reality but then claim 'Hey! Your spouting philosophy' when it's obviously not true.
Show them you can filibuster with the truth in a more 'effective manner' and they run.
I used Tipler as an example of imagining probability and possibility- I didn't claim he is 'the end all be all' or that his beliefs are my own. Look at how limited your 'choice structure' is within your 'thought experimentation'.
And don't give me any 'Industry talking points' about Chernobyl. The Nuclear Industry has avoided data on Chernobyl like the plague. Everyone knows it. Everyone who has studied Chernobyl anyway.
The soup you guys swim in is thick. It's not your fault but you owe it to yourselves to learn more than what's required to 'get a job'. Not everything fits nicely in your box. That's not the real world.
I'll tell you this- the reigns should be completely handed over to Preventative Maintenance/Reliability Centered Maintenance. The current leadership in the industry has failed. That's why we are here discussing this. It shouldn't be protected and that's why BRAWM won't withdraw defense. Because the industry NEEDS the 'Airplane Analogy'.
This is the last point I
This is the last point I will make. No one at BRAWM or myself are funded by the industry nor have allegiance to the industry. I think you don't realize the breadth of topics covered by nuclear engineering since you think everyone has to be funded by the power industry or work for them. You also seem to think the nuclear industry is all powerful, when it is very weak compared to other industries. Not everything is some conspiracy of the nuclear industry. I am not using any industry talking points about Chernobyl. I don't even agree with their talking points because some of them do bend the truth. You are also linking the nuclear industry in Japan to the nuclear industry in America. They are much different. The nuclear culture in Japan is different than it is in America. The airplane analogy has nothing to do with the nuclear industry. BRAWM can make the analogy to many other common day exposures, such as radon in the air and polonium if you smoke.
At some point I will make clear my understanding
"I think you don't realize the breadth of topics covered by nuclear engineering since you think everyone has to be funded by the power industry or work for them. You also seem to think the nuclear industry is all powerful, when it is very weak compared to other industries. "
At some point, a time of my own choosing, I will make clear my understanding of 'breadth of topics' from my own international experience.
Are you aware that all industry shares contractors from Engineering firms like cats and dogs share fleas? One day an engineering contractor may find themselves working for Union Carbide and the next for Formosa? One day for BP and the next for Tepco? Maybe at times working in tandem on contracts for all 4? They're all billable clients, that's all.
I wish I could learn from you. I'm sure somewhere within you there is something you must know which I could learn from, but not within this comment of yours.
It is highly unlikely the
It is highly unlikely the BRAWM team, which work on improving radiation detectors, will work for the power industry. Yes the power companies get engineers from many different disciplines and companies. However, a nuclear power company does not need the engineering expertise of advanced detectors. The group more accurately belongs in the physics department than a nuclear department.
Some of the leaks from the
Some of the leaks from the nuclear power plants are so small that special detectors are needed to find these leaks. I bet all the nuclear plants could use some people with expertise of advanced detectors just based on recent news that 75% of reactors are leaking tritium. I wonder what else they are leaking?
That's exactly how it works
Perfectly stated. Thank you.
I read post and
"Not one man, woman, child, fetus, zygote or blastocyst, will encounter the ‘radioactive equivalents’ described within your ‘imaginary creation’. All radioactive isotopes encountered in any myriad of ways will be encountered on an individual basis, in their natural form, isotope by isotope, through a broad variety of means such as ingestion, inhalation and other forms of exposure."
Although I don't agree with the "imaginary creation' I see this as a equivalency brawm uses so people can equate and understand there exposure .what people don't understand is what u point out in this paragraph we have to deal with artificial radiation in all forms.
The problem is TEDE doesn't help in the least
The problem is TEDE doesn't help in the least to help people understand their exposure. It just soothes them into not thinking about it.
What will TEDE tell a newly pregnant mother about effects to a zygote or fetus? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And the same stands true with every other individual case of exposure.
Also the projections extend far beyond any actual testing BRAWM has done. (at best the 'partial exposure analogies' would be confined to the immediate zip code where samples were collected) Such test results mean nothing to people in Boise, Idaho at the base of those mountains. They mean nothing to people at the base of Mt. Shasta. They might not even mean anything to people in Richmond across the bay. They apply only to that zip code (at best).
If you are going to the moon, you go to the moon, you don't go 'bowling' and say you went to the moon because 'spheres' were involved.
Distribution by natural weather is not 'even distribution'...it's 'patchy' and many uncontrolled variables exist. If you don't do the work you don't get the glory of saying you've done the work. That's the end of it.
Even with 'infinite weighting factors' one will never get it right. It's like kids playing in sand telling their parents they created a real 'pyramid'.
It's unbelievably unscientific and anyone who understands rudimentary science understands this. (not chiding you, just stating the obvious)
Exactly Leo, it is being
Exactly Leo, it is being used to give a false sense of security. Internal radionuclide exposure is deadly dangerous.
We don't even know of all daughter products that are here
"The problem is TEDE doesn't help in the least to help people understand their exposure. It just soothes them into not thinking about it."
Exactly leo!that was my point. it Is far to hard in my opinion to tell people there exposure is up in the air do to ,exposure pathways variables -precipitation, food ,dust, water, air and location variables it gets very complex and impossible without testing urine from select locations we will never know of theses variables impacts on the population.I am happy to see u debate dr chivers on this subject it definitely is worthy .
As an example I took a cross country flight at the height of plume next to a woman and child evacuating Japan did this expose me more rads than someone who didn't fly in the plume logically yes but without testing I will never know. The only thing I do know for fact is my land and home has artificial radiation on it that wasn't there prior to Fukushima.Will I get cancer from this that's up in the air time will tell we are the experiment .
Although my father and his two best friends have all died of cancer .was this do to above ground nuc weapons testing ,chernobyl fallout natural radiation or some other exposure I can't say I will never know and even if in 30 years groups of friends or nieborhoods have higher cancer rates who will be able to show a correlation to artificial radiation .the fallout is known by our gov agencys ( narac)but it won't be reveled due to accountability issues I guess.
I believe you to be very correct sir
It blows me away that uncontrolled variables are not understood here as well- but as I've said- this is nobody's field.
Distribution by natural weather, the method of release, SO much for people to understand...and they are working trying to survive...trying to get the kids to brush their teeth at night.
We need to respect each other's lives- I hope that we can find the way back to that. I really appreciate your persistence in seeking the truth.
Let's not give up on us. We're worth fighting for.
P*E*A*C*E*
Are you even a scientist?
Are you even a scientist? You seem to think that everything in science is black or white, it is not true. TEDE is as scientific as a lot of theories. Well lets see, there is renormalization in quantum field theory to deal with pesky infinities. Not really a scientific approach, but it works out. All epidemiological studies are wrong then since they have enormous amounts of unknown variables. So are all drug tests and statistical studies of any kind. Now of course it would be nice to know more about radiation effects on cells, but those studies take time and are being done right now. Those results will be added to how TEDE is calculated.
"renormalization in quantum field theory"
Why don't you tell me how 'renormalization in quantum field theory' affects matters concerning public health?
You better 'metaphorically' run.
You call weighting factor
You call weighting factor unscientific, when they are used in a variety of sciences to amazing results.
Not true- I cite 'abuse' of weighting factors
Not true- I cite 'abuse' of weighting factors.
Read.
I think his answer was quite
I think his answer was quite clear.
This isn't a forum where you get to dictate how people should respond. If you want to be rude and arrogant, there are a lot of other forums where you'll find more of your kind.
toodle-loo!
@ Angela: Click Here
@ Angela:
Click Here
No. His answer was not clear, but his clarification was.
Now then, do you wish to aid in defining Dr. Chivers positively?
Or do you wish to aid in defining Dr. Chivers as 'incapable' of defending his own scientific principles?
We've no need for the 'Faberge Egg' police.
If the forum is going to provide a moderator- then it should be someone who can read.
Are you a moderator?
dose effect to organs?...
'However, if one would like to dig deeper to qualify the comparison by understanding differences in dose effect to various organs, age effects, etc, then the comparison needs to be more complicated.'
I have to fly with Leo on this one Dr. Chivers. I don't think there is anyone out there who is not more interested in the effect to various organs than your banana equivalent; that is, whatever effect you are trying to relate if not to the very organs upon which we survive. It does appear, sir, that your banana equivalent is trying to mislead the public into thinking there is no danger 'to various organs' in order to protect the industry which feeds you, while you state that your banana does not apply to 'differences in dose effect to various organs'. I'm sure the 'double talk' presented with the banana is rather obvious to most participants.
Occam's razor disagrees with your suggestion that the comparison needs to be more complicated. Rather a simpler analogy which is more correctly applied to the situation is more desirable.
Further, Leo is correct with your attempted character assasination with regard to knowledge of science and attempt to redirect the discussion into philosphy and then dismiss both the subject and the participant. Very unscientific of you sir, and a rather futile debating technique.
If we can talk of science for a moment: In which referred journal will your collection, analysis methodologies and results be published? Many of us are especially interested in the selection of collection sites and your method of subtraction of lab radioactive contaminates from the sample results in order to determine what the sample was before being brought into the lab. This is a method I am not familiar with, and some in your own field may take issue with. Perhaps you could enlighten us with this methodology before publishing, as many of us would like to know more about that method. As an Entomologist I don't think it is acceptable to bring a collection of ants into the lab, count them, then realize there are other ants in the lab, count those ants and subtract the second group from the first in order to determine the original number. But then perhaps there is something different about nuclear radiation that wouldn't apply to 'radiating ants'. Please forgive the tongue in cheek analogy, perhaps we need a more complicated analogy.
As I have stated over and
As I have stated over and over, the comparison is the risk of cancer done by the standard method of TEDE and resulting in units of Sieverts where the risk of cancer occurrence is 5% per Sievert exposure. If you only care about cancer occurrence in general and not which kind, what age, etc, then this is sufficient to compare risk. If you wish to fully describe the risk in terms of other variables such as age and organ, then one would have to work with a more complicated model.
Occam never did biological research in the 20th century, for if he did, he would have noted the increasing complexity required to understand biological processes.
Science: We are presenting at Global2011
Radioactive contaminantes: We cannot escape natural radiation, so your ants analogy is too simplistic. Unless we take our instruments into a deep mine shaft and surround it with Roman lead (low background lead ingots lifted from ancient Roman ships), we have to deal with background gammas. In addition, since our lab has been used for many experiments over the years, the lead we shielded with had an amount of background from activation that we had to quantify using a very long counting time to discover. Background corrections are normal in this field.
Well a simpler analogy is
Well a simpler analogy is with radon. One can relate the dose received to radon dose received if for example you lived in a basement apartment. There you have an internal dose that selectively damages the lungs. I believe they used that analogy before.
As for how to remove background. They can collect the water/air outside. The contamination in the room can be tested by counting the room activity before measuring the water/air. This result can be subtracted from the measured spectrum to give you what activity is actually in the water/air. This is a common method used in counting materials.
I am grateful for your coming forward, whoever you are.
At this moment we need scientific leaders (as well as other technically experienced personnel), to come forward, speak truth and do the right thing for people's health. Some have been doing that, but we need everyone now. It's time to set matters straight about some important issues regarding pubic health. Thank you.
Dr. Chivers:
"If you wish to fully describe the risk in terms of other variables such as age and organ, then one would have to work with a more complicated model."
I'm happy to hear that you understand what 'variables' are Dr. Chivers.
Do you not 'seek' or 'attempt' to 'fully describe the risk' to people's health?
Dr. Chivers:
"- Abuse of weighting factors
Where data is sparse, this could occur."
Yes, I'm aware of that and I agree.
_______________
Pool your resources with Professor Vetter and the entire team.
I'd like to save time by avoiding the 'being bumped up to a supervisor routine'. I want the entire Team to have the best shot you can.
Can anyone on the Team answer this single question?:
The BRAWM Team Lists 1 Liter Of Water Being Consumed As One (1) Specific ‘Controlled Variable’ Of Radiation Exposure.
Question:
How Many ‘Variables’ Of 'Physical Forms Of Potential Radiation Exposure' Exist Within The ‘Reality’ Of Everyday Life? (Please include, swimming and snorkeling activities of beach enthusiasts, contact while skydiving and hang gliding, hiking, wound exposures, as well as all other forms of ingestion, inhalation, skin contact, etc...)
Would you say it's closer to '5' or closer to 'infinity'?
I advise you not to filibuster. Just get to the heart of the matter.
Arrogant prick.
Arrogant prick.
you don't like the truth I
you don't like the truth I take it
What happens when love becomes a National Security Threat?
Certainly I am not so arrogant as to downplay the threat to public health. The threat to children.
I won't respond to any more refuse such as this but I want you to know that I don't hate any of you. I've been content to remain silent as long as you weren't 'destroying the world', so to speak. That's obviously changed hasn't it?
Most importantly, scientists must know that I am not attacking them. There is much I owe to those scientists in the industry whom I am honored to call 'friends'.
This guy calling you a tool
This guy calling you a tool is a joke.
No. A joke is what you have
No. A joke is what you have turned this forum into. A bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.
Yes I've Talked About The Airplane Analogy. Very Bad Joke.
Would anyone like to answer the question posed?
Right? I don't even get 'Effective Tool'?
What's important is that it is over and that it was done through strong Reality Based Science and Peaceful Resistance, motivated by Love.
The conversation needs to turn to 'Independent Testing', 'Remediation' and 'Detoxification'- and 'quality control' is 'key'.
Just throwing it out there.
I don't labor under the idea that BRAWM runs the NRC or the Nuclear Industry at large. This is not their fault. This is a product of the 'culture'. Many within the industry realize that.
This is not BRAWM's field.
This is the field of 'Remediation'.
It's a very broad field which has been 'under-appreciated' and even 'persecuted' within the industry...almost as much as 'Preventative Maintenance/Reliability Centered Maintenance'.
Keep educating the people,
Keep educating the people, they have much to learn!
You are a tool.
You are a tool.