alan.remick.1 
Member since Dec 4, 2013


Stats

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Fukushima Panic

Additional comments:

No, I do not work for the NRC, though I think there was a Thomas Remick a few years ago that may have been a commissioner.

I identified myself as everyone else in this forum did, first and last name.

I didn't drag mercola into the conversation; the dishonesty of widely recognized scaremonger sites like mercola was central to my argument.

I said absolutely nothing irrational.

Call me names if you must; I would rather be a shill for an industry or organization that actually provides benefits to society that one for scaremongers whose only purpose is to cheat people out of their hard earned money.

The nuclear industry doesn't need to hire underground guerilla marketers to comment on articles; reality and truth will eventually win out over the scaremongering. Most intelligent people already recognize these sources of disinformation for what they are and the lies they spread.

Terms like 300 or 400 tons/day are actually meaningless in this context; the only purpose they serve in this discussion is to inflame emotions.

"80,000 gallons of strontium" is likewise meaningless.

We will all be long dead, and possibly even our civilization, before the earth's natural radioactivity has declined to the point where radiation levels will be non-detectable.

A $500 geiger counter will not protect you from these supposed hazards; the levels are far too low. It may give you peace of mind - once you start using it you will realize that radiation is natural everywhere. But then, that will probably not give any peace of mind to the people that believe the scaremongers; they're probably better off without one.


A $500 geiger counter cannot detect strontium.

5 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by alan.remick.1 on 12/08/2013 at 6:45 AM

Re: “Fukushima Panic

Dr. Wolman,

Very nice response.

I have to say that I do not believe that you're intentionally raising the level of anxiety in order to get more business for yourself. That was not the point of my piece; I used you as an example of someone that APPEARED to have a financial stake in this matter.

As I said, people are so quick to assume that anyone with a certain background or work experience is dishonest, unethical, or lying, and that others outside a particular community are telling the truth for the good of humanity. We usually overlook the financial conflicts of interest of these outsiders.

We need to do a better job of questioning the motives of all the so-called experts.

In general, its much easier for one person to be dishonest or unethical than it is for hundreds to be the same way. At least, that is what I would like to believe.

Alan

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by alan.remick.1 on 12/08/2013 at 6:00 AM

Re: “Fukushima Panic

Response to Carol Wolman:

"Not nearly enough" is an interesting phrase to use when asked how many patients you have treated for anxiety caused by Fukushima:

Not nearly enough to buy that new Mercedes?
Not nearly enough to retire to Tahiti?
Not nearly enough to buy a seat in Congress?

It would appear that you have a financial stake in raising the overall anxiety levels in the community (to get more clients).

It always amazes me that so many people are so ready to dismiss the honesty and ethics of the hundreds or thousands of experts that are a part of "The Industry" but readily accept the opinions of unethical people willing to exploit public fear just to line their pockets.

I see sites like naturalnews and mercola that are willing to publish any unfounded sensational tripe that they think people will re-post in order to raise their web traffic and thus their advertising fees. People seem to want to blindly believe this sort of crap; maybe it lets them continue to function without the need for any critical thinking skills.

No one seems to question the financial interests of the researcher that publishes a sensational journal paper with emotionally prejudicial photos months before publishing a book on the same subject. No one will questions it even if the paper is later retracted by the Journal itself because of the poor quality of the research. (Oh, of course. "The Industry" got to them. The government is covering it up...)

Or question the "researcher" that has made a good living living out of convincing well meaning but simple-minded wealthy celebrities that he needs more money to continue his research; Research that he publishes only in his own journal ("peer reviewed" by his co-conspirators) or other journals with lax peer review policies.

Yes, "the Industry" makes a lot of money and has a financial stake in selling their product as safe. But there are also those individuals outside "the industry" that are more than willing to bilk the public by promoting fear.

2 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by alan.remick.1 on 12/07/2013 at 7:07 AM

Re: “Fukushima Panic

DO you describe all nut cases as "activists"?

2 likes, 19 dislikes
Posted by alan.remick.1 on 12/04/2013 at 3:56 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories


© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation