[LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Lincoln mailing list
Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!

Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?
--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Scott Clary
Spot on Edward and Andy - thank you for the careful analysis and insight Andy! 

Kind Regards,

Scott Clary
617-968-5769

Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors   

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 12:42 PM Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:
Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!

Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?
--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

samattes
In reply to this post by Lincoln mailing list
Who posted this?
Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.
Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.
Thanks, in advance.
Sara

> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!
>
> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to [hidden email].
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Dennis Liu

Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Who posted this?

Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.

Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.

Thanks, in advance.

Sara

 

> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:

>

> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!

>

> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?

> --

> The LincolnTalk mailing list.

> To post, send mail to [hidden email].

> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.

> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.

> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

>

 

--

The LincolnTalk mailing list.

To post, send mail to [hidden email].

Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.

Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.

Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

 


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

samattes
Hmmm…what you have highlighted is not what came across my desktop-MacBook Pro, MacMail.
Is it the software for MacMail?

Hi Ed!  Btw-I am in agreement.

Sara (Mattes)

On Jan 12, 2020, at 2:44 PM, Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Who posted this?
Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.
Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.
Thanks, in advance.
Sara
 
> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 
> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!
> 
> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?
> -- 
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to [hidden email].
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
> 
 
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Steven R. Kanner, MD
In reply to this post by Dennis Liu

I am personally awestruck and appreciative that Dennis and Edward spent the substantive time required to research and present solid science on these issues (cell phones and microwaves and noise, in this stream) that has really been well studied.

 

A few years ago, I pitched in when “the question of fluoride” was publicly raised by a Lincoln citizen, who appeared to have missed the last 40-50 years of careful science on fluoride and was spending too much time in corners of the Internet, and was proposing we remove fluoride from our water supply pending “study” of some sort. That diversion was turned down at Town Meeting after lots of effort by many people including me, so we all have a better chance of keeping our teeth for the duration. Good outcome.

 

Thanks, Dennis and Edward.

 

 

Regards,

 

SRK

 

Steven R. Kanner, MD

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Dennis Liu
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:44 PM
To: 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Who posted this?

Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.

Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.

Thanks, in advance.

Sara

 

> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:

>

> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!

>

> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?

> --

> The LincolnTalk mailing list.

> To post, send mail to [hidden email].

> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.

> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.

> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

>

 

--

The LincolnTalk mailing list.

To post, send mail to [hidden email].

Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.

Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.

Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

 


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Dennis Liu

Hey, don’t forget Andy Payne, who did the most work!  😊

 

I’ll just add a thought that I’ve been mulling for the past few years.  If one looks at the curve of human history, for the first 10,000 years (and more) of human existence, 99.99% of humans lived in “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan).  Starting with the industrial revolution and the establishment of stable western democracies and the flourishing of free market capitalism, we now enjoy prosperity that would be literally INCONCEIVABLE to those 99.99% of all humans that have ever existed. 

 

Today, we live in unimaginable comfort.  We have the sum total of human knowledge available in our hand, for virtually free.  Everyone who lives in Lincoln lives a better life than every ruler, emperor or queen, up to, say, a century ago.  Maybe even 75 or 50 years ago.

 

And what do some of us do with comfort?  It’s a trick of the human brain, to always express skepticism.  That’s part of the evolution of humankind, so that’s not surprising; but it’s the unalloyed expression of this skepticism that powers so much perceived threats in our day and age.  And it’s applicable in so many ways. 

 

“Don’t trust the man!  Don’t trust their motives!  Don’t trust the so-called scientific evidence!  It’s a conspiracy, man!”

 

We see it with respect to cell phone radiation, with fluoride, with plastic straws, with homeopathic medicine, with vaccinations, with GMO food, moon landings, evolution, nuclear power, and all too much more that makes me sad.

 

And, yes, I know that I live in a town where there will be a sizeable group who will take some offense to that last line; I’ll stand by my faith in science and medicine.

 

Lastly, I fully acknowledge that progress in science and medicine is often made by people like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who was ostracized for his germ theory of disease, until it gained wide scientific acceptance.  So I will hold an open mind to the possibility of other such pioneers.  But until I see solid proof thereof, I’ll stand with that faith in science and medicine.

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Steven R. Kanner, MD <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:58 PM
To: 'Dennis Liu' <[hidden email]>; 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

I am personally awestruck and appreciative that Dennis and Edward spent the substantive time required to research and present solid science on these issues (cell phones and microwaves and noise, in this stream) that has really been well studied.

 

A few years ago, I pitched in when “the question of fluoride” was publicly raised by a Lincoln citizen, who appeared to have missed the last 40-50 years of careful science on fluoride and was spending too much time in corners of the Internet, and was proposing we remove fluoride from our water supply pending “study” of some sort. That diversion was turned down at Town Meeting after lots of effort by many people including me, so we all have a better chance of keeping our teeth for the duration. Good outcome.

 

Thanks, Dennis and Edward.

 

 

Regards,

 

SRK

 

Steven R. Kanner, MD

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Dennis Liu
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:44 PM
To: 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Who posted this?

Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.

Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.

Thanks, in advance.

Sara

 

> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:

>

> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!

>

> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?

> --

> The LincolnTalk mailing list.

> To post, send mail to [hidden email].

> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.

> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.

> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

>

 

--

The LincolnTalk mailing list.

To post, send mail to [hidden email].

Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.

Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.

Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

 


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

samattes
Dennis,
Much/most to agree with here.

I would take exception as to the safety of nuclear power - it is not the generation, it is the dire consequences when things go wrong.
Chernobyl certainly taught us something of that.
And, there is the issue of what to do with spent rods and waste…nasty stuff.

And, yes we are much better off, living with amazing comforts not share by many of our predecessors.

But, how do we think of the effects of climate change?

The Australians are not having it a great time right now.
And what of the bizarre and extreme weather we are experiencing right here, right now?

Please don’t not write off those of us who are concerned about such things and trying to make changes, large and small (yes, straws) to ameliorate some of that change.
Science does support us on these matters and I hope you might embrace that science as you embrace other.
We can support vaccines and germ theory at the same time we support concerns about climate change, and the concerns about the potential problems with  nuclear power.

I want my grandson to enjoy the quality of life I have, and not experience the negative fallout of a careless approach to our planet.

Namaste,
Sara



On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey, don’t forget Andy Payne, who did the most work!  😊
 
I’ll just add a thought that I’ve been mulling for the past few years.  If one looks at the curve of human history, for the first 10,000 years (and more) of human existence, 99.99% of humans lived in “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan).  Starting with the industrial revolution and the establishment of stable western democracies and the flourishing of free market capitalism, we now enjoy prosperity that would be literally INCONCEIVABLE to those 99.99% of all humans that have ever existed.  
 
Today, we live in unimaginable comfort.  We have the sum total of human knowledge available in our hand, for virtually free.  Everyone who lives in Lincoln lives a better life than every ruler, emperor or queen, up to, say, a century ago.  Maybe even 75 or 50 years ago.
 
And what do some of us do with comfort?  It’s a trick of the human brain, to always express skepticism.  That’s part of the evolution of humankind, so that’s not surprising; but it’s the unalloyed expression of this skepticism that powers so much perceived threats in our day and age.  And it’s applicable in so many ways.  
 
“Don’t trust the man!  Don’t trust their motives!  Don’t trust the so-called scientific evidence!  It’s a conspiracy, man!”
 
We see it with respect to cell phone radiation, with fluoride, with plastic straws, with homeopathic medicine, with vaccinations, with GMO food, moon landings, evolution, nuclear power, and all too much more that makes me sad.
 
And, yes, I know that I live in a town where there will be a sizeable group who will take some offense to that last line; I’ll stand by my faith in science and medicine.
 
Lastly, I fully acknowledge that progress in science and medicine is often made by people like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who was ostracized for his germ theory of disease, until it gained wide scientific acceptance.  So I will hold an open mind to the possibility of other such pioneers.  But until I see solid proof thereof, I’ll stand with that faith in science and medicine.
 
Vty,
 
--Dennis
 
 
From: Steven R. Kanner, MD <[hidden email]> 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:58 PM
To: 'Dennis Liu' <[hidden email]>; 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
I am personally awestruck and appreciative that Dennis and Edward spent the substantive time required to research and present solid science on these issues (cell phones and microwaves and noise, in this stream) that has really been well studied. 
 
A few years ago, I pitched in when “the question of fluoride” was publicly raised by a Lincoln citizen, who appeared to have missed the last 40-50 years of careful science on fluoride and was spending too much time in corners of the Internet, and was proposing we remove fluoride from our water supply pending “study” of some sort. That diversion was turned down at Town Meeting after lots of effort by many people including me, so we all have a better chance of keeping our teeth for the duration. Good outcome. 
 
Thanks, Dennis and Edward.
 
 
Regards,
 
SRK
 
Steven R. Kanner, MD
 
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Dennis Liu
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:44 PM
To: 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Who posted this?
Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.
Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.
Thanks, in advance.
Sara
 
> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 
> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!
> 
> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?
> -- 
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to [hidden email].
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
> 
 
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Listening to experts regarding climate change as well as wireless technology safety

Lincoln mailing list
My single contribution to any discussion about climate change and public policy is to ask why the bipartisan proposal below about carbon dividends - advocated by 3500+ economists, 27 Nobel laureates, all 4 former Fed Chairs, and 15 former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers (including both Democrats and Republicans) - has received less notice and discussion in the press than the 27 fifth graders who appeared at Senator Feinstein’s office. Why the media, especially media pundits, have not been paying more attention to the Volkers, Greenspans, Bernankes, Yellens, and Summerses of the world on this important public policy issue is beyond me.

Their proposal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-dividends-11547682910





ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS

 unite behind carbon dividends as the bipartisan climate solution.

On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:57 PM, Sara Mattes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dennis,
Much/most to agree with here.

I would take exception as to the safety of nuclear power - it is not the generation, it is the dire consequences when things go wrong.
Chernobyl certainly taught us something of that.
And, there is the issue of what to do with spent rods and waste…nasty stuff.

And, yes we are much better off, living with amazing comforts not share by many of our predecessors.

But, how do we think of the effects of climate change?

The Australians are not having it a great time right now.
And what of the bizarre and extreme weather we are experiencing right here, right now?

Please don’t not write off those of us who are concerned about such things and trying to make changes, large and small (yes, straws) to ameliorate some of that change.
Science does support us on these matters and I hope you might embrace that science as you embrace other.
We can support vaccines and germ theory at the same time we support concerns about climate change, and the concerns about the potential problems with  nuclear power.

I want my grandson to enjoy the quality of life I have, and not experience the negative fallout of a careless approach to our planet.

Namaste,
Sara



On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey, don’t forget Andy Payne, who did the most work!  😊
 
I’ll just add a thought that I’ve been mulling for the past few years.  If one looks at the curve of human history, for the first 10,000 years (and more) of human existence, 99.99% of humans lived in “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan).  Starting with the industrial revolution and the establishment of stable western democracies and the flourishing of free market capitalism, we now enjoy prosperity that would be literally INCONCEIVABLE to those 99.99% of all humans that have ever existed.  
 
Today, we live in unimaginable comfort.  We have the sum total of human knowledge available in our hand, for virtually free.  Everyone who lives in Lincoln lives a better life than every ruler, emperor or queen, up to, say, a century ago.  Maybe even 75 or 50 years ago.
 
And what do some of us do with comfort?  It’s a trick of the human brain, to always express skepticism.  That’s part of the evolution of humankind, so that’s not surprising; but it’s the unalloyed expression of this skepticism that powers so much perceived threats in our day and age.  And it’s applicable in so many ways.  
 
“Don’t trust the man!  Don’t trust their motives!  Don’t trust the so-called scientific evidence!  It’s a conspiracy, man!”
 
We see it with respect to cell phone radiation, with fluoride, with plastic straws, with homeopathic medicine, with vaccinations, with GMO food, moon landings, evolution, nuclear power, and all too much more that makes me sad.
 
And, yes, I know that I live in a town where there will be a sizeable group who will take some offense to that last line; I’ll stand by my faith in science and medicine.
 
Lastly, I fully acknowledge that progress in science and medicine is often made by people like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who was ostracized for his germ theory of disease, until it gained wide scientific acceptance.  So I will hold an open mind to the possibility of other such pioneers.  But until I see solid proof thereof, I’ll stand with that faith in science and medicine.
 
Vty,
 
--Dennis
 
 
From: Steven R. Kanner, MD <[hidden email]> 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:58 PM
To: 'Dennis Liu' <[hidden email]>; 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
I am personally awestruck and appreciative that Dennis and Edward spent the substantive time required to research and present solid science on these issues (cell phones and microwaves and noise, in this stream) that has really been well studied. 
 
A few years ago, I pitched in when “the question of fluoride” was publicly raised by a Lincoln citizen, who appeared to have missed the last 40-50 years of careful science on fluoride and was spending too much time in corners of the Internet, and was proposing we remove fluoride from our water supply pending “study” of some sort. That diversion was turned down at Town Meeting after lots of effort by many people including me, so we all have a better chance of keeping our teeth for the duration. Good outcome. 
 
Thanks, Dennis and Edward.
 
 
Regards,
 
SRK
 
Steven R. Kanner, MD
 
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Dennis Liu
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:44 PM
To: 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Who posted this?
Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.
Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.
Thanks, in advance.
Sara
 
> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 
> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!
> 
> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?
> -- 
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to [hidden email].
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
> 
 
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.



--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Listening to experts regarding climate change as well as wireless technology safety

samattes
Hi Ed,
This article look great, but for the of us who do not have subscriptions, we cannot read it, in full.
Could you download it as a PDF and post?
Thanks,
Sara


On Jan 12, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Edward Young <[hidden email]> wrote:

My single contribution to any discussion about climate change and public policy is to ask why the bipartisan proposal below about carbon dividends - advocated by 3500+ economists, 27 Nobel laureates, all 4 former Fed Chairs, and 15 former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers (including both Democrats and Republicans) - has received less notice and discussion in the press than the 27 fifth graders who appeared at Senator Feinstein’s office. Why the media, especially media pundits, have not been paying more attention to the Volkers, Greenspans, Bernankes, Yellens, and Summerses of the world on this important public policy issue is beyond me.

Their proposal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-dividends-11547682910





ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS

 unite behind carbon dividends as the bipartisan climate solution.

On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:57 PM, Sara Mattes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dennis,
Much/most to agree with here.

I would take exception as to the safety of nuclear power - it is not the generation, it is the dire consequences when things go wrong.
Chernobyl certainly taught us something of that.
And, there is the issue of what to do with spent rods and waste…nasty stuff.

And, yes we are much better off, living with amazing comforts not share by many of our predecessors.

But, how do we think of the effects of climate change?

The Australians are not having it a great time right now.
And what of the bizarre and extreme weather we are experiencing right here, right now?

Please don’t not write off those of us who are concerned about such things and trying to make changes, large and small (yes, straws) to ameliorate some of that change.
Science does support us on these matters and I hope you might embrace that science as you embrace other.
We can support vaccines and germ theory at the same time we support concerns about climate change, and the concerns about the potential problems with  nuclear power.

I want my grandson to enjoy the quality of life I have, and not experience the negative fallout of a careless approach to our planet.

Namaste,
Sara



On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey, don’t forget Andy Payne, who did the most work!  😊
 
I’ll just add a thought that I’ve been mulling for the past few years.  If one looks at the curve of human history, for the first 10,000 years (and more) of human existence, 99.99% of humans lived in “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan).  Starting with the industrial revolution and the establishment of stable western democracies and the flourishing of free market capitalism, we now enjoy prosperity that would be literally INCONCEIVABLE to those 99.99% of all humans that have ever existed.  
 
Today, we live in unimaginable comfort.  We have the sum total of human knowledge available in our hand, for virtually free.  Everyone who lives in Lincoln lives a better life than every ruler, emperor or queen, up to, say, a century ago.  Maybe even 75 or 50 years ago.
 
And what do some of us do with comfort?  It’s a trick of the human brain, to always express skepticism.  That’s part of the evolution of humankind, so that’s not surprising; but it’s the unalloyed expression of this skepticism that powers so much perceived threats in our day and age.  And it’s applicable in so many ways.  
 
“Don’t trust the man!  Don’t trust their motives!  Don’t trust the so-called scientific evidence!  It’s a conspiracy, man!”
 
We see it with respect to cell phone radiation, with fluoride, with plastic straws, with homeopathic medicine, with vaccinations, with GMO food, moon landings, evolution, nuclear power, and all too much more that makes me sad.
 
And, yes, I know that I live in a town where there will be a sizeable group who will take some offense to that last line; I’ll stand by my faith in science and medicine.
 
Lastly, I fully acknowledge that progress in science and medicine is often made by people like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who was ostracized for his germ theory of disease, until it gained wide scientific acceptance.  So I will hold an open mind to the possibility of other such pioneers.  But until I see solid proof thereof, I’ll stand with that faith in science and medicine.
 
Vty,
 
--Dennis
 
 
From: Steven R. Kanner, MD <[hidden email]> 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:58 PM
To: 'Dennis Liu' <[hidden email]>; 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
I am personally awestruck and appreciative that Dennis and Edward spent the substantive time required to research and present solid science on these issues (cell phones and microwaves and noise, in this stream) that has really been well studied. 
 
A few years ago, I pitched in when “the question of fluoride” was publicly raised by a Lincoln citizen, who appeared to have missed the last 40-50 years of careful science on fluoride and was spending too much time in corners of the Internet, and was proposing we remove fluoride from our water supply pending “study” of some sort. That diversion was turned down at Town Meeting after lots of effort by many people including me, so we all have a better chance of keeping our teeth for the duration. Good outcome. 
 
Thanks, Dennis and Edward.
 
 
Regards,
 
SRK
 
Steven R. Kanner, MD
 
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Dennis Liu
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:44 PM
To: 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Who posted this?
Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.
Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.
Thanks, in advance.
Sara
 
> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 
> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!
> 
> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?
> -- 
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to [hidden email].
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
> 
 
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.




--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Listening to experts regarding climate change as well as wireless technology safety

Dennis Liu

Here’s the text of the article.  The proposal is basically a Pigovian tax, for which Harvard econ professor Greg Mankiw has pushed for years.  See also NPR’s podcast on same:  https://www.npr.org/transcripts/774494691

 

Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends

Bipartisan agreement on how to combat climate change.

Jan. 16, 2019 6:55 pm ET

 

Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations.

I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.

II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.

III. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long- term investment in clean-energy alternatives.

IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.

V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices.

George Akerlof, Robert Aumann, Angus Deaton, Peter Diamond, Robert Engle, Eugene Fama, Lars Peter Hansen, Oliver Hart, Bengt Holmström, Daniel Kahneman, Finn Kydland, Robert Lucas, Eric Maskin, Daniel McFadden, Robert Merton, Roger Myerson, Edmund Phelps, Alvin Roth, Thomas Sargent, Myron Scholes, Amartya Sen, William Sharpe, Robert Shiller, Christopher Sims, Robert Solow, Michael Spence and Richard Thaler are recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Paul Volcker is a former Federal Reserve chairman.

Martin Baily, Michael Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Jason Furman, Austan Goolsbee, Glenn Hubbard, Alan Krueger, Edward Lazear, N. Gregory Mankiw, Christina Romer, Harvey Rosen and Laura Tyson are former chairmen of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan and Janet Yellen have chaired both the Fed and the Council of Economic Advisers.

George Shultz and Lawrence Summers are former Treasury secretaries.

More information is available at www.clcouncil.org.

 

 

From: Sara Mattes <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 4:49 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Dennis Liu <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Listening to experts regarding climate change as well as wireless technology safety

 

Hi Ed,

This article look great, but for the of us who do not have subscriptions, we cannot read it, in full.

Could you download it as a PDF and post?

Thanks,

Sara

 



On Jan 12, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Edward Young <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

My single contribution to any discussion about climate change and public policy is to ask why the bipartisan proposal below about carbon dividends - advocated by 3500+ economists, 27 Nobel laureates, all 4 former Fed Chairs, and 15 former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers (including both Democrats and Republicans) - has received less notice and discussion in the press than the 27 fifth graders who appeared at Senator Feinstein’s office. Why the media, especially media pundits, have not been paying more attention to the Volkers, Greenspans, Bernankes, Yellens, and Summerses of the world on this important public policy issue is beyond me.

 

Their proposal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-dividends-11547682910

 

 

 

 

 

ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS

 unite behind carbon dividends as the bipartisan climate solution.



On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:57 PM, Sara Mattes <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Dennis,

Much/most to agree with here.

 

I would take exception as to the safety of nuclear power - it is not the generation, it is the dire consequences when things go wrong.

Chernobyl certainly taught us something of that.

And, there is the issue of what to do with spent rods and waste…nasty stuff.

 

And, yes we are much better off, living with amazing comforts not share by many of our predecessors.

 

But, how do we think of the effects of climate change?

 

The Australians are not having it a great time right now.

And what of the bizarre and extreme weather we are experiencing right here, right now?

 

Please don’t not write off those of us who are concerned about such things and trying to make changes, large and small (yes, straws) to ameliorate some of that change.

Science does support us on these matters and I hope you might embrace that science as you embrace other.

We can support vaccines and germ theory at the same time we support concerns about climate change, and the concerns about the potential problems with  nuclear power.

 

I want my grandson to enjoy the quality of life I have, and not experience the negative fallout of a careless approach to our planet.

 

Namaste,

Sara

 

 



On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Hey, don’t forget Andy Payne, who did the most work!  😊

 

I’ll just add a thought that I’ve been mulling for the past few years.  If one looks at the curve of human history, for the first 10,000 years (and more) of human existence, 99.99% of humans lived in “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan).  Starting with the industrial revolution and the establishment of stable western democracies and the flourishing of free market capitalism, we now enjoy prosperity that would be literally INCONCEIVABLE to those 99.99% of all humans that have ever existed.  

 

Today, we live in unimaginable comfort.  We have the sum total of human knowledge available in our hand, for virtually free.  Everyone who lives in Lincoln lives a better life than every ruler, emperor or queen, up to, say, a century ago.  Maybe even 75 or 50 years ago.

 

And what do some of us do with comfort?  It’s a trick of the human brain, to always express skepticism.  That’s part of the evolution of humankind, so that’s not surprising; but it’s the unalloyed expression of this skepticism that powers so much perceived threats in our day and age.  And it’s applicable in so many ways.  

 

“Don’t trust the man!  Don’t trust their motives!  Don’t trust the so-called scientific evidence!  It’s a conspiracy, man!”

 

We see it with respect to cell phone radiation, with fluoride, with plastic straws, with homeopathic medicine, with vaccinations, with GMO food, moon landings, evolution, nuclear power, and all too much more that makes me sad.

 

And, yes, I know that I live in a town where there will be a sizeable group who will take some offense to that last line; I’ll stand by my faith in science and medicine.

 

Lastly, I fully acknowledge that progress in science and medicine is often made by people like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who was ostracized for his germ theory of disease, until it gained wide scientific acceptance.  So I will hold an open mind to the possibility of other such pioneers.  But until I see solid proof thereof, I’ll stand with that faith in science and medicine.

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Steven R. Kanner, MD <[hidden email]> 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:58 PM
To: 'Dennis Liu' <[hidden email]>; 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

I am personally awestruck and appreciative that Dennis and Edward spent the substantive time required to research and present solid science on these issues (cell phones and microwaves and noise, in this stream) that has really been well studied. 

 

A few years ago, I pitched in when “the question of fluoride” was publicly raised by a Lincoln citizen, who appeared to have missed the last 40-50 years of careful science on fluoride and was spending too much time in corners of the Internet, and was proposing we remove fluoride from our water supply pending “study” of some sort. That diversion was turned down at Town Meeting after lots of effort by many people including me, so we all have a better chance of keeping our teeth for the duration. Good outcome. 

 

Thanks, Dennis and Edward.

 

 

Regards,

 

SRK

 

Steven R. Kanner, MD

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Dennis Liu
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:44 PM
To: 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Who posted this?

Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.

Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.

Thanks, in advance.

Sara

 

> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 

> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!

> 

> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?

> -- 

> The LincolnTalk mailing list.

> To post, send mail to [hidden email].

> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.

> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

> 

 

-- 

The LincolnTalk mailing list.

To post, send mail to [hidden email].

Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.

Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

 

 

 


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Dennis Liu
In reply to this post by samattes

Sara, what exactly do you think the “dire consequences” are of a nuclear accident?  This goes exactly to the point I was making earlier.

 

Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in human history, occurred in a power plant that was designed in the 50s and 60s, built in the 70s, and run by the worst form of government we’ve had in a century.  And what happened?  The UN has determined the total number of deaths is fewer than 100 deaths to date, 34 years later.  Is that terrible?  Yes, absolutely.  But we should keep that in context, right?  

 

Modern nuclear power plants are nothing like the Chernobyl design.  Also, it’s been over a HALF CENTURY; do we not believe that systems are better engineered and safer now then fifty years ago?  Surely everything else we’ve built has improved in safety over 50 years, right?  Airplanes are safer.  Cars are safer.  Operations are safer.  Everything is safer.

 

Keep in mind too – what’s the alternative?  Nuclear power has killed orders of magnitude fewer people than coal; than oil; than natural gas; than even hydroelectric.  Until such time as we get an ever safer source of power, we are losing tens of thousands of lives every year to these other methods.  And over SEVEN MILLION people die every year from air pollution (https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1).  Want your electric cars to be non-polluting?  Today, it’s nuclear power if you want it at scale.  Oh, and nuclear plant owners are required to pay for and contain all nuclear waste, while solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers are not so required to deal with the toxic waste from their production.

 

Oh, and Fukushima?  A once-in-a-century earthquake hits that plant, followed by a once-in-a-century tsunami.  End result?  Two young engineers died from blunt trauma, and some elderly patients died during the evacuation (given the results of the earthquake and tsunami, sadly, not that surprising).  And ZERO people have died from radiation poisoning.  And the same folks that are hyping the fears of GMO foods and vaccines are the same ones that were falsely warning us about radioactive fish (nope) and radioactive plumes killing everything on the US west coast (nope).

 

3-Mile island?  As one comedian quipped, more people have died in Ted Kennedy’s car than have died in nuclear plant accidents in America.  And don’t forget that we have dozens and dozens of nuclear power plants running safely in our Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and submarines.  Yup, those same ones that dock at major cities.

 

As for “nuclear waste” – if you took all the nuclear waste from American power plants were put on a football field, it would stack up just 50 feet high.  Imagine that, and compare that to the waste product generated by all other forms of scaled power production.  And we’ve been safely storing nuclear waste for SIX DECADES.  Precisely ZERO people have been killed – nay, injured – from nuclear waste disposal.  For any given nuclear power plant, if you take all of the waste generated during its, say, SIXTY YEAR lifespan, and wanted to contain all the waste on site, you’d need a storage facility about the size of . . . a Walmart.  And not one of those super Walmarts either.  And it should be noted, new designs for reactors are being worked on that would use nuclear WASTE as fuel. 

 

We live in an age of miracles.

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Sara Mattes <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 3:58 PM
To: Dennis Liu <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]; Edward Young <[hidden email]>; Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Dennis,

Much/most to agree with here.

 

I would take exception as to the safety of nuclear power - it is not the generation, it is the dire consequences when things go wrong.

Chernobyl certainly taught us something of that.

And, there is the issue of what to do with spent rods and waste…nasty stuff.

 

And, yes we are much better off, living with amazing comforts not share by many of our predecessors.

 

But, how do we think of the effects of climate change?

 

The Australians are not having it a great time right now.

And what of the bizarre and extreme weather we are experiencing right here, right now?

 

Please don’t not write off those of us who are concerned about such things and trying to make changes, large and small (yes, straws) to ameliorate some of that change.

Science does support us on these matters and I hope you might embrace that science as you embrace other.

We can support vaccines and germ theory at the same time we support concerns about climate change, and the concerns about the potential problems with  nuclear power.

 

I want my grandson to enjoy the quality of life I have, and not experience the negative fallout of a careless approach to our planet.

 

Namaste,

Sara

 

 

 

On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Hey, don’t forget Andy Payne, who did the most work!  😊

 

I’ll just add a thought that I’ve been mulling for the past few years.  If one looks at the curve of human history, for the first 10,000 years (and more) of human existence, 99.99% of humans lived in “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan).  Starting with the industrial revolution and the establishment of stable western democracies and the flourishing of free market capitalism, we now enjoy prosperity that would be literally INCONCEIVABLE to those 99.99% of all humans that have ever existed.  

 

Today, we live in unimaginable comfort.  We have the sum total of human knowledge available in our hand, for virtually free.  Everyone who lives in Lincoln lives a better life than every ruler, emperor or queen, up to, say, a century ago.  Maybe even 75 or 50 years ago.

 

And what do some of us do with comfort?  It’s a trick of the human brain, to always express skepticism.  That’s part of the evolution of humankind, so that’s not surprising; but it’s the unalloyed expression of this skepticism that powers so much perceived threats in our day and age.  And it’s applicable in so many ways.  

 

“Don’t trust the man!  Don’t trust their motives!  Don’t trust the so-called scientific evidence!  It’s a conspiracy, man!”

 

We see it with respect to cell phone radiation, with fluoride, with plastic straws, with homeopathic medicine, with vaccinations, with GMO food, moon landings, evolution, nuclear power, and all too much more that makes me sad.

 

And, yes, I know that I live in a town where there will be a sizeable group who will take some offense to that last line; I’ll stand by my faith in science and medicine.

 

Lastly, I fully acknowledge that progress in science and medicine is often made by people like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who was ostracized for his germ theory of disease, until it gained wide scientific acceptance.  So I will hold an open mind to the possibility of other such pioneers.  But until I see solid proof thereof, I’ll stand with that faith in science and medicine.

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Steven R. Kanner, MD <[hidden email]> 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:58 PM
To: 'Dennis Liu' <[hidden email]>; 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

I am personally awestruck and appreciative that Dennis and Edward spent the substantive time required to research and present solid science on these issues (cell phones and microwaves and noise, in this stream) that has really been well studied. 

 

A few years ago, I pitched in when “the question of fluoride” was publicly raised by a Lincoln citizen, who appeared to have missed the last 40-50 years of careful science on fluoride and was spending too much time in corners of the Internet, and was proposing we remove fluoride from our water supply pending “study” of some sort. That diversion was turned down at Town Meeting after lots of effort by many people including me, so we all have a better chance of keeping our teeth for the duration. Good outcome. 

 

Thanks, Dennis and Edward.

 

 

Regards,

 

SRK

 

Steven R. Kanner, MD

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Dennis Liu
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:44 PM
To: 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Who posted this?

Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.

Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.

Thanks, in advance.

Sara

 

> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 

> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!

> 

> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?

> -- 

> The LincolnTalk mailing list.

> To post, send mail to [hidden email].

> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.

> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

> 

 

-- 

The LincolnTalk mailing list.

To post, send mail to [hidden email].

Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.

Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

 


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

samattes
Wow-we really are traveling in different universes.
You wave from yours and I’ll wave from mine…currently solar powered and almost off the grid (even with our electric car plugged in).
Good luck.
Sara


On Jan 12, 2020, at 5:30 PM, Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sara, what exactly do you think the “dire consequences” are of a nuclear accident?  This goes exactly to the point I was making earlier.
 
Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in human history, occurred in a power plant that was designed in the 50s and 60s, built in the 70s, and run by the worst form of government we’ve had in a century.  And what happened?  The UN has determined the total number of deaths is fewer than 100 deaths to date, 34 years later.  Is that terrible?  Yes, absolutely.  But we should keep that in context, right?  
 
Modern nuclear power plants are nothing like the Chernobyl design.  Also, it’s been over a HALF CENTURY; do we not believe that systems are better engineered and safer now then fifty years ago?  Surely everything else we’ve built has improved in safety over 50 years, right?  Airplanes are safer.  Cars are safer.  Operations are safer.  Everything is safer.
 
Keep in mind too – what’s the alternative?  Nuclear power has killed orders of magnitude fewer people than coal; than oil; than natural gas; than even hydroelectric.  Until such time as we get an ever safer source of power, we are losing tens of thousands of lives every year to these other methods.  And over SEVEN MILLION people die every year from air pollution (https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1).  Want your electric cars to be non-polluting?  Today, it’s nuclear power if you want it at scale.  Oh, and nuclear plant owners are required to pay for and contain all nuclear waste, while solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers are not so required to deal with the toxic waste from their production.
 
Oh, and Fukushima?  A once-in-a-century earthquake hits that plant, followed by a once-in-a-century tsunami.  End result?  Two young engineers died from blunt trauma, and some elderly patients died during the evacuation (given the results of the earthquake and tsunami, sadly, not that surprising).  And ZERO people have died from radiation poisoning.  And the same folks that are hyping the fears of GMO foods and vaccines are the same ones that were falsely warning us about radioactive fish (nope) and radioactive plumes killing everything on the US west coast (nope).
 
3-Mile island?  As one comedian quipped, more people have died in Ted Kennedy’s car than have died in nuclear plant accidents in America.  And don’t forget that we have dozens and dozens of nuclear power plants running safely in our Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and submarines.  Yup, those same ones that dock at major cities.
 
As for “nuclear waste” – if you took all the nuclear waste from American power plants were put on a football field, it would stack up just 50 feet high.  Imagine that, and compare that to the waste product generated by all other forms of scaled power production.  And we’ve been safely storing nuclear waste for SIX DECADES.  Precisely ZERO people have been killed – nay, injured – from nuclear waste disposal.  For any given nuclear power plant, if you take all of the waste generated during its, say, SIXTY YEAR lifespan, and wanted to contain all the waste on site, you’d need a storage facility about the size of . . . a Walmart.  And not one of those super Walmarts either.  And it should be noted, new designs for reactors are being worked on that would use nuclear WASTE as fuel.  
 
We live in an age of miracles.
 
--Dennis
 
 
From: Sara Mattes <[hidden email]> 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 3:58 PM
To: Dennis Liu <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]; Edward Young <[hidden email]>; Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Dennis,
Much/most to agree with here.
 
I would take exception as to the safety of nuclear power - it is not the generation, it is the dire consequences when things go wrong.
Chernobyl certainly taught us something of that.
And, there is the issue of what to do with spent rods and waste…nasty stuff.
 
And, yes we are much better off, living with amazing comforts not share by many of our predecessors.
 
But, how do we think of the effects of climate change?
 
The Australians are not having it a great time right now.
And what of the bizarre and extreme weather we are experiencing right here, right now?
 
Please don’t not write off those of us who are concerned about such things and trying to make changes, large and small (yes, straws) to ameliorate some of that change.
Science does support us on these matters and I hope you might embrace that science as you embrace other.
We can support vaccines and germ theory at the same time we support concerns about climate change, and the concerns about the potential problems with  nuclear power.
 
I want my grandson to enjoy the quality of life I have, and not experience the negative fallout of a careless approach to our planet.
 
Namaste,
Sara
 
 

 

On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
Hey, don’t forget Andy Payne, who did the most work!  😊
 
I’ll just add a thought that I’ve been mulling for the past few years.  If one looks at the curve of human history, for the first 10,000 years (and more) of human existence, 99.99% of humans lived in “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan).  Starting with the industrial revolution and the establishment of stable western democracies and the flourishing of free market capitalism, we now enjoy prosperity that would be literally INCONCEIVABLE to those 99.99% of all humans that have ever existed.  
 
Today, we live in unimaginable comfort.  We have the sum total of human knowledge available in our hand, for virtually free.  Everyone who lives in Lincoln lives a better life than every ruler, emperor or queen, up to, say, a century ago.  Maybe even 75 or 50 years ago.
 
And what do some of us do with comfort?  It’s a trick of the human brain, to always express skepticism.  That’s part of the evolution of humankind, so that’s not surprising; but it’s the unalloyed expression of this skepticism that powers so much perceived threats in our day and age.  And it’s applicable in so many ways.  
 
“Don’t trust the man!  Don’t trust their motives!  Don’t trust the so-called scientific evidence!  It’s a conspiracy, man!”
 
We see it with respect to cell phone radiation, with fluoride, with plastic straws, with homeopathic medicine, with vaccinations, with GMO food, moon landings, evolution, nuclear power, and all too much more that makes me sad.
 
And, yes, I know that I live in a town where there will be a sizeable group who will take some offense to that last line; I’ll stand by my faith in science and medicine.
 
Lastly, I fully acknowledge that progress in science and medicine is often made by people like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who was ostracized for his germ theory of disease, until it gained wide scientific acceptance.  So I will hold an open mind to the possibility of other such pioneers.  But until I see solid proof thereof, I’ll stand with that faith in science and medicine.
 
Vty,
 
--Dennis
 
 
From: Steven R. Kanner, MD <[hidden email]> 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:58 PM
To: 'Dennis Liu' <[hidden email]>; 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
I am personally awestruck and appreciative that Dennis and Edward spent the substantive time required to research and present solid science on these issues (cell phones and microwaves and noise, in this stream) that has really been well studied. 
 
A few years ago, I pitched in when “the question of fluoride” was publicly raised by a Lincoln citizen, who appeared to have missed the last 40-50 years of careful science on fluoride and was spending too much time in corners of the Internet, and was proposing we remove fluoride from our water supply pending “study” of some sort. That diversion was turned down at Town Meeting after lots of effort by many people including me, so we all have a better chance of keeping our teeth for the duration. Good outcome. 
 
Thanks, Dennis and Edward.
 
 
Regards,
 
SRK
 
Steven R. Kanner, MD
 
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Dennis Liu
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:44 PM
To: 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Who posted this?
Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.
Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.
Thanks, in advance.
Sara
 
> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 
> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!
> 
> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?
> -- 
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to [hidden email].
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
> 
 
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

samattes
Yup.
Science and attendant facts and critical thinking  rock my universe…it has been my world/my universe since 1976 when Jerry joined the faculty at the then-Sidney Farber.
We don’t trade in myths and superstitions and tin-hat theories in this house.



On Jan 12, 2020, at 6:52 PM, Steven Kanner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Looking forward and supporting our science and checking facts is a pretty good universe to live in.

Regards,

Steven R. Kanner MD



On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 5:37 PM -0500, "Sara Mattes" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wow-we really are traveling in different universes.
You wave from yours and I’ll wave from mine…currently solar powered and almost off the grid (even with our electric car plugged in).
Good luck.
Sara


On Jan 12, 2020, at 5:30 PM, Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sara, what exactly do you think the “dire consequences” are of a nuclear accident?  This goes exactly to the point I was making earlier.
 
Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident in human history, occurred in a power plant that was designed in the 50s and 60s, built in the 70s, and run by the worst form of government we’ve had in a century.  And what happened?  The UN has determined the total number of deaths is fewer than 100 deaths to date, 34 years later.  Is that terrible?  Yes, absolutely.  But we should keep that in context, right?  
 
Modern nuclear power plants are nothing like the Chernobyl design.  Also, it’s been over a HALF CENTURY; do we not believe that systems are better engineered and safer now then fifty years ago?  Surely everything else we’ve built has improved in safety over 50 years, right?  Airplanes are safer.  Cars are safer.  Operations are safer.  Everything is safer.
 
Keep in mind too – what’s the alternative?  Nuclear power has killed orders of magnitude fewer people than coal; than oil; than natural gas; than even hydroelectric.  Until such time as we get an ever safer source of power, we are losing tens of thousands of lives every year to these other methods.  And over SEVEN MILLION people die every year from air pollution (https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1).  Want your electric cars to be non-polluting?  Today, it’s nuclear power if you want it at scale.  Oh, and nuclear plant owners are required to pay for and contain all nuclear waste, while solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers are not so required to deal with the toxic waste from their production.
 
Oh, and Fukushima?  A once-in-a-century earthquake hits that plant, followed by a once-in-a-century tsunami.  End result?  Two young engineers died from blunt trauma, and some elderly patients died during the evacuation (given the results of the earthquake and tsunami, sadly, not that surprising).  And ZERO people have died from radiation poisoning.  And the same folks that are hyping the fears of GMO foods and vaccines are the same ones that were falsely warning us about radioactive fish (nope) and radioactive plumes killing everything on the US west coast (nope).
 
3-Mile island?  As one comedian quipped, more people have died in Ted Kennedy’s car than have died in nuclear plant accidents in America.  And don’t forget that we have dozens and dozens of nuclear power plants running safely in our Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and submarines.  Yup, those same ones that dock at major cities.
 
As for “nuclear waste” – if you took all the nuclear waste from American power plants were put on a football field, it would stack up just 50 feet high.  Imagine that, and compare that to the waste product generated by all other forms of scaled power production.  And we’ve been safely storing nuclear waste for SIX DECADES.  Precisely ZERO people have been killed – nay, injured – from nuclear waste disposal.  For any given nuclear power plant, if you take all of the waste generated during its, say, SIXTY YEAR lifespan, and wanted to contain all the waste on site, you’d need a storage facility about the size of . . . a Walmart.  And not one of those super Walmarts either.  And it should be noted, new designs for reactors are being worked on that would use nuclear WASTE as fuel.  
 
We live in an age of miracles.
 
--Dennis
 
 
From: Sara Mattes <[hidden email]> 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 3:58 PM
To: Dennis Liu <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]; Edward Young <[hidden email]>; Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Dennis,
Much/most to agree with here.
 
I would take exception as to the safety of nuclear power - it is not the generation, it is the dire consequences when things go wrong.
Chernobyl certainly taught us something of that.
And, there is the issue of what to do with spent rods and waste…nasty stuff.
 
And, yes we are much better off, living with amazing comforts not share by many of our predecessors.
 
But, how do we think of the effects of climate change?
 
The Australians are not having it a great time right now.
And what of the bizarre and extreme weather we are experiencing right here, right now?
 
Please don’t not write off those of us who are concerned about such things and trying to make changes, large and small (yes, straws) to ameliorate some of that change.
Science does support us on these matters and I hope you might embrace that science as you embrace other.
We can support vaccines and germ theory at the same time we support concerns about climate change, and the concerns about the potential problems with  nuclear power.
 
I want my grandson to enjoy the quality of life I have, and not experience the negative fallout of a careless approach to our planet.
 
Namaste,
Sara
 
 

 

On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
Hey, don’t forget Andy Payne, who did the most work!  😊
 
I’ll just add a thought that I’ve been mulling for the past few years.  If one looks at the curve of human history, for the first 10,000 years (and more) of human existence, 99.99% of humans lived in “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan).  Starting with the industrial revolution and the establishment of stable western democracies and the flourishing of free market capitalism, we now enjoy prosperity that would be literally INCONCEIVABLE to those 99.99% of all humans that have ever existed.  
 
Today, we live in unimaginable comfort.  We have the sum total of human knowledge available in our hand, for virtually free.  Everyone who lives in Lincoln lives a better life than every ruler, emperor or queen, up to, say, a century ago.  Maybe even 75 or 50 years ago.
 
And what do some of us do with comfort?  It’s a trick of the human brain, to always express skepticism.  That’s part of the evolution of humankind, so that’s not surprising; but it’s the unalloyed expression of this skepticism that powers so much perceived threats in our day and age.  And it’s applicable in so many ways.  
 
“Don’t trust the man!  Don’t trust their motives!  Don’t trust the so-called scientific evidence!  It’s a conspiracy, man!”
 
We see it with respect to cell phone radiation, with fluoride, with plastic straws, with homeopathic medicine, with vaccinations, with GMO food, moon landings, evolution, nuclear power, and all too much more that makes me sad.
 
And, yes, I know that I live in a town where there will be a sizeable group who will take some offense to that last line; I’ll stand by my faith in science and medicine.
 
Lastly, I fully acknowledge that progress in science and medicine is often made by people like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who was ostracized for his germ theory of disease, until it gained wide scientific acceptance.  So I will hold an open mind to the possibility of other such pioneers.  But until I see solid proof thereof, I’ll stand with that faith in science and medicine.
 
Vty,
 
--Dennis
 
 
From: Steven R. Kanner, MD <[hidden email]> 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:58 PM
To: 'Dennis Liu' <[hidden email]>; 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
I am personally awestruck and appreciative that Dennis and Edward spent the substantive time required to research and present solid science on these issues (cell phones and microwaves and noise, in this stream) that has really been well studied. 
 
A few years ago, I pitched in when “the question of fluoride” was publicly raised by a Lincoln citizen, who appeared to have missed the last 40-50 years of careful science on fluoride and was spending too much time in corners of the Internet, and was proposing we remove fluoride from our water supply pending “study” of some sort. That diversion was turned down at Town Meeting after lots of effort by many people including me, so we all have a better chance of keeping our teeth for the duration. Good outcome. 
 
Thanks, Dennis and Edward.
 
 
Regards,
 
SRK
 
Steven R. Kanner, MD
 
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Dennis Liu
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:44 PM
To: 'Sara Mattes' <[hidden email]>; 'Edward Young' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Um...  see the portion I highlighted below.  😊
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety
 
Who posted this?
Could we please use our names at the bottom of each post to better identify the writer.
Perhaps it is just the way the post came through on my computer/program, but there is no identification of author that I an discern.
Thanks, in advance.
Sara
 
> On Jan 12, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 
> Lincolntalk is such a useful tool for discussing issues!
> 
> Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the critics of the FCC’s conclusions to post whatever their arguments may be on this forum in written form, asking all of us to review their assertions critically and decide individually whether they seem to merit further consideration, rather than ask all of us to show up at the Willard School in Concord this afternoon and spend three hours listening to just one side present their views orally?
> -- 
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to [hidden email].
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
> 
 
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.



--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Andrew Payne
In reply to this post by samattes
Sara wrote:

I would take exception as to the safety of nuclear power - it is not the generation, it is the dire consequences when things go wrong.

I think about it this way:  with nuclear power, things "go wrong" relatively quickly and issues are (mostly) localized.  With fossil fuels, things go wrong very, very slowly and the effect is global.  By the time we notice (GHG emissions), it's too late to take any meaningful corrective action.

Nuclear power *IS* risky, but it's becoming clear that our use of and dependence on fossil fuels is even riskier.  If we hadn't politicized and sensationalized the risks of nuclear power 50+yrs ago, we would likely be in a much, much better position with respect to global warming and climate change.

There's a good lesson in there (I think) about debating the risks and benefits of any new technology.

One fossil's view,

-andy

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Bob Kupperstein


On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 7:46 PM Andrew Payne <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
 
If we hadn't politicized and sensationalized the risks of nuclear power 50+yrs ago, we would likely be in a much, much better position with respect to global warming and climate change.

...

With all due respect Andy, if industry leaders, industry management, investors and politicians hadn't lied and been evasive and deceptive on the risks and state of nuclear power plants, maybe it wouldn't have become so politicized.

I grew up going to schools less than 1/2 mile from the Con Edison Indian Point power plants (we had frequent class trips there, where we learned only positive, "glowing" things about nuclear power).  Maybe the risks of a mishap are only local, but there was no emergency plan that I remember in my high school (other than huddling under our desks in case of a soviet nuclear missile attack!), but in any case, we were local in the most immediate sense.   And NYC was (and still is!) 40 miles away - down river.

I agree with you about the promise of 'mostly' clean energy from nuclear power, but IMO the problem with the nuclear energy industry was/is capitalism - it is too critical to be trusted to the profit motive and industry behavior has proven that point over and over again.

And, nuclear waste may be a small issue in terms of quantity, but if I remember correctly, we still haven't been able to designate a national waste repository for it after ~50 (?) years or so of trying.

-Bob

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Dennis Liu

Bob, with all due respect:

 

  1. Can you point to specific lies and deception on the actual risks of nuclear power plants made by those figures you cite?  Am quite curious to see what they lied about, and the consequences (if any).

 

  1. Of course, I don’t know about your own experience back in high school, but the Indian Point power plant has long had an emergency plan in place, reviewed and approved by the federal and local governments.  This is, for example, the 18th revision to the plan, as filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:  https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15357A005.pdf

 

  1. The reason we haven’t been able to designate a national waste repository is primarily political, especially the efforts of former Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who used his powers to block the use of the Yucca Mountain waste repository out in the desert, even after billions of dollars had been spent on studies and engineering.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository  And as I noted earlier, there’s no need to bury all the waste in Nevada; nuclear waste can be safely contained on the site of the plant – contained in a building the size of a Walmart.

 

  1. “IMO the problem with the nuclear energy industry was/is capitalism - it is too critical to be trusted to the profit motive and industry behavior has proven that point over and over again.”  Well, the US, France, Germany and South Korea are all bastions of capitalism, and account for four out of the five countries generating the most nuclear power (and that’s not counting the many nuclear power plants powering Naval vessels).  The fifth?  Russia.  The only major nuclear accident that killed a few dozen people?  It happened under a brutal socialist/communist government regime.  All of the post-disaster investigation pinned the accident on a series of horrible human decisions, made in the context of the authoritarian, socialist command-and-control system. Thus, for over six decades, capitalism has resulted in the safe operation of hundreds of nuclear power plants, while socialism… 

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Bob Kupperstein
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 10:01 AM
To: Andrew Payne <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>; Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 7:46 PM Andrew Payne <[hidden email]> wrote:

...

 

If we hadn't politicized and sensationalized the risks of nuclear power 50+yrs ago, we would likely be in a much, much better position with respect to global warming and climate change.

 

...

 

With all due respect Andy, if industry leaders, industry management, investors and politicians hadn't lied and been evasive and deceptive on the risks and state of nuclear power plants, maybe it wouldn't have become so politicized.

 

I grew up going to schools less than 1/2 mile from the Con Edison Indian Point power plants (we had frequent class trips there, where we learned only positive, "glowing" things about nuclear power).  Maybe the risks of a mishap are only local, but there was no emergency plan that I remember in my high school (other than huddling under our desks in case of a soviet nuclear missile attack!), but in any case, we were local in the most immediate sense.   And NYC was (and still is!) 40 miles away - down river.

 

I agree with you about the promise of 'mostly' clean energy from nuclear power, but IMO the problem with the nuclear energy industry was/is capitalism - it is too critical to be trusted to the profit motive and industry behavior has proven that point over and over again.

 

And, nuclear waste may be a small issue in terms of quantity, but if I remember correctly, we still haven't been able to designate a national waste repository for it after ~50 (?) years or so of trying.

 

-Bob


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Bob Kupperstein
- Lies and deception?  Seabrook, Pilgrim and Rowe, just here in NE.  About what?  Evacuation plans, following safety regulations, hot water disposal, staff training, testing, staffing levels, ...  The list goes on and on.  If you've never heard any of this, maybe you need to look it up.

- As for Indian Point's reviewed and approved 'emergency plans', that's all well and good, but how come those of us in its shadow didn't have a plan?  And, since you found the plans, I'm curious, what do they have in place for evacuating the Bronx?

I think 2020 Republicans would be quite amused by your description of France and Germany as "bastions of capitalism".

If you think industries with paramount safety issues are best managed by profit-making companies, take a look at what's coming out of Boeing right now, or the double-booking of surgeries at some of the world's-best hospitals, right here in Boston.

-Bob

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:46 AM Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Bob, with all due respect:

 

  1. Can you point to specific lies and deception on the actual risks of nuclear power plants made by those figures you cite?  Am quite curious to see what they lied about, and the consequences (if any).

 

  1. Of course, I don’t know about your own experience back in high school, but the Indian Point power plant has long had an emergency plan in place, reviewed and approved by the federal and local governments.  This is, for example, the 18th revision to the plan, as filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:  https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15357A005.pdf

 

  1. The reason we haven’t been able to designate a national waste repository is primarily political, especially the efforts of former Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who used his powers to block the use of the Yucca Mountain waste repository out in the desert, even after billions of dollars had been spent on studies and engineering.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository  And as I noted earlier, there’s no need to bury all the waste in Nevada; nuclear waste can be safely contained on the site of the plant – contained in a building the size of a Walmart.

 

  1. “IMO the problem with the nuclear energy industry was/is capitalism - it is too critical to be trusted to the profit motive and industry behavior has proven that point over and over again.”  Well, the US, France, Germany and South Korea are all bastions of capitalism, and account for four out of the five countries generating the most nuclear power (and that’s not counting the many nuclear power plants powering Naval vessels).  The fifth?  Russia.  The only major nuclear accident that killed a few dozen people?  It happened under a brutal socialist/communist government regime.  All of the post-disaster investigation pinned the accident on a series of horrible human decisions, made in the context of the authoritarian, socialist command-and-control system. Thus, for over six decades, capitalism has resulted in the safe operation of hundreds of nuclear power plants, while socialism… 

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Bob Kupperstein
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 10:01 AM
To: Andrew Payne <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>; Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 7:46 PM Andrew Payne <[hidden email]> wrote:

...

 

If we hadn't politicized and sensationalized the risks of nuclear power 50+yrs ago, we would likely be in a much, much better position with respect to global warming and climate change.

 

...

 

With all due respect Andy, if industry leaders, industry management, investors and politicians hadn't lied and been evasive and deceptive on the risks and state of nuclear power plants, maybe it wouldn't have become so politicized.

 

I grew up going to schools less than 1/2 mile from the Con Edison Indian Point power plants (we had frequent class trips there, where we learned only positive, "glowing" things about nuclear power).  Maybe the risks of a mishap are only local, but there was no emergency plan that I remember in my high school (other than huddling under our desks in case of a soviet nuclear missile attack!), but in any case, we were local in the most immediate sense.   And NYC was (and still is!) 40 miles away - down river.

 

I agree with you about the promise of 'mostly' clean energy from nuclear power, but IMO the problem with the nuclear energy industry was/is capitalism - it is too critical to be trusted to the profit motive and industry behavior has proven that point over and over again.

 

And, nuclear waste may be a small issue in terms of quantity, but if I remember correctly, we still haven't been able to designate a national waste repository for it after ~50 (?) years or so of trying.

 

-Bob


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Dennis Liu

Lol… because human beings are, well, human, there will inevitably be failures.  People cheat and steal and lie; that’s the human experience.  The broader question is:  what system of governance and economy does BEST with that human nature?  Is it . . . free market capitalism, which has raised billions of people out of poverty and created the best living conditions in the world?  Or  . . . any other form of governance and economy that you’d care to cite, which has inevitably ended in abject human misery and deaths? 

 

There have been lots of examples of fraud and theft and malfeasance and nonfeasance – think Enron, Theranos, Bernie Madoff, etc.  Add in Boeing if you’d care.  But that’s all in the context of the millions and millions of businesses that have contributed to the advancement of the human condition without lies and fraud.  Whereas . . . (awaiting citations of successful socialist or communist regimes and economies).

 

Oh, and you argue the point that the nuclear industry has a vast history of lies; I ask you for examples; you come back with . . . look it up yourself?  Okay, got it.  😊

 

Frankly, anyone who thinks that France or Germany are not capitalist really needs to revisit basic economics and/or political science 101.

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Bob Kupperstein <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 12:10 PM
To: Dennis Liu <[hidden email]>
Cc: Andrew Payne <[hidden email]>; Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>; Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

- Lies and deception?  Seabrook, Pilgrim and Rowe, just here in NE.  About what?  Evacuation plans, following safety regulations, hot water disposal, staff training, testing, staffing levels, ...  The list goes on and on.  If you've never heard any of this, maybe you need to look it up.

 

- As for Indian Point's reviewed and approved 'emergency plans', that's all well and good, but how come those of us in its shadow didn't have a plan?  And, since you found the plans, I'm curious, what do they have in place for evacuating the Bronx?

 

I think 2020 Republicans would be quite amused by your description of France and Germany as "bastions of capitalism".

 

If you think industries with paramount safety issues are best managed by profit-making companies, take a look at what's coming out of Boeing right now, or the double-booking of surgeries at some of the world's-best hospitals, right here in Boston.

 

-Bob

 

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:46 AM Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Bob, with all due respect:

 

  1. Can you point to specific lies and deception on the actual risks of nuclear power plants made by those figures you cite?  Am quite curious to see what they lied about, and the consequences (if any).

 

  1. Of course, I don’t know about your own experience back in high school, but the Indian Point power plant has long had an emergency plan in place, reviewed and approved by the federal and local governments.  This is, for example, the 18th revision to the plan, as filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:  https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15357A005.pdf

 

  1. The reason we haven’t been able to designate a national waste repository is primarily political, especially the efforts of former Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who used his powers to block the use of the Yucca Mountain waste repository out in the desert, even after billions of dollars had been spent on studies and engineering.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository  And as I noted earlier, there’s no need to bury all the waste in Nevada; nuclear waste can be safely contained on the site of the plant – contained in a building the size of a Walmart.

 

  1. “IMO the problem with the nuclear energy industry was/is capitalism - it is too critical to be trusted to the profit motive and industry behavior has proven that point over and over again.”  Well, the US, France, Germany and South Korea are all bastions of capitalism, and account for four out of the five countries generating the most nuclear power (and that’s not counting the many nuclear power plants powering Naval vessels).  The fifth?  Russia.  The only major nuclear accident that killed a few dozen people?  It happened under a brutal socialist/communist government regime.  All of the post-disaster investigation pinned the accident on a series of horrible human decisions, made in the context of the authoritarian, socialist command-and-control system. Thus, for over six decades, capitalism has resulted in the safe operation of hundreds of nuclear power plants, while socialism… 

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Bob Kupperstein
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 10:01 AM
To: Andrew Payne <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>; Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 7:46 PM Andrew Payne <[hidden email]> wrote:

...

 

If we hadn't politicized and sensationalized the risks of nuclear power 50+yrs ago, we would likely be in a much, much better position with respect to global warming and climate change.

 

...

 

With all due respect Andy, if industry leaders, industry management, investors and politicians hadn't lied and been evasive and deceptive on the risks and state of nuclear power plants, maybe it wouldn't have become so politicized.

 

I grew up going to schools less than 1/2 mile from the Con Edison Indian Point power plants (we had frequent class trips there, where we learned only positive, "glowing" things about nuclear power).  Maybe the risks of a mishap are only local, but there was no emergency plan that I remember in my high school (other than huddling under our desks in case of a soviet nuclear missile attack!), but in any case, we were local in the most immediate sense.   And NYC was (and still is!) 40 miles away - down river.

 

I agree with you about the promise of 'mostly' clean energy from nuclear power, but IMO the problem with the nuclear energy industry was/is capitalism - it is too critical to be trusted to the profit motive and industry behavior has proven that point over and over again.

 

And, nuclear waste may be a small issue in terms of quantity, but if I remember correctly, we still haven't been able to designate a national waste repository for it after ~50 (?) years or so of trying.

 

-Bob


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Debra Daugherty
Hi Bob,

Would that imply that you never fly then? If we are judging human activities in terms of the size of their accidents, commercial aviation has to be pretty high on the list of things never to do. Certainly moreso than nuclear power. Moreover, as you note, flying on an American plane or an American airline is going to put you in the hands of profit making (seeking?) companies.

The French have been operating a large, successful, and large-accident-free nuclear power program for over 50 years. If they can do it, why can't we? Our carbon footprint per capita is more than THREE TIMES theirs (2018) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita).

--Debra Daugherty

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:16 PM Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Lol… because human beings are, well, human, there will inevitably be failures.  People cheat and steal and lie; that’s the human experience.  The broader question is:  what system of governance and economy does BEST with that human nature?  Is it . . . free market capitalism, which has raised billions of people out of poverty and created the best living conditions in the world?  Or  . . . any other form of governance and economy that you’d care to cite, which has inevitably ended in abject human misery and deaths? 

 

There have been lots of examples of fraud and theft and malfeasance and nonfeasance – think Enron, Theranos, Bernie Madoff, etc.  Add in Boeing if you’d care.  But that’s all in the context of the millions and millions of businesses that have contributed to the advancement of the human condition without lies and fraud.  Whereas . . . (awaiting citations of successful socialist or communist regimes and economies).

 

Oh, and you argue the point that the nuclear industry has a vast history of lies; I ask you for examples; you come back with . . . look it up yourself?  Okay, got it.  😊

 

Frankly, anyone who thinks that France or Germany are not capitalist really needs to revisit basic economics and/or political science 101.

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Bob Kupperstein <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 12:10 PM
To: Dennis Liu <[hidden email]>
Cc: Andrew Payne <[hidden email]>; Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>; Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

- Lies and deception?  Seabrook, Pilgrim and Rowe, just here in NE.  About what?  Evacuation plans, following safety regulations, hot water disposal, staff training, testing, staffing levels, ...  The list goes on and on.  If you've never heard any of this, maybe you need to look it up.

 

- As for Indian Point's reviewed and approved 'emergency plans', that's all well and good, but how come those of us in its shadow didn't have a plan?  And, since you found the plans, I'm curious, what do they have in place for evacuating the Bronx?

 

I think 2020 Republicans would be quite amused by your description of France and Germany as "bastions of capitalism".

 

If you think industries with paramount safety issues are best managed by profit-making companies, take a look at what's coming out of Boeing right now, or the double-booking of surgeries at some of the world's-best hospitals, right here in Boston.

 

-Bob

 

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:46 AM Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Bob, with all due respect:

 

  1. Can you point to specific lies and deception on the actual risks of nuclear power plants made by those figures you cite?  Am quite curious to see what they lied about, and the consequences (if any).

 

  1. Of course, I don’t know about your own experience back in high school, but the Indian Point power plant has long had an emergency plan in place, reviewed and approved by the federal and local governments.  This is, for example, the 18th revision to the plan, as filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:  https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15357A005.pdf

 

  1. The reason we haven’t been able to designate a national waste repository is primarily political, especially the efforts of former Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who used his powers to block the use of the Yucca Mountain waste repository out in the desert, even after billions of dollars had been spent on studies and engineering.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository  And as I noted earlier, there’s no need to bury all the waste in Nevada; nuclear waste can be safely contained on the site of the plant – contained in a building the size of a Walmart.

 

  1. “IMO the problem with the nuclear energy industry was/is capitalism - it is too critical to be trusted to the profit motive and industry behavior has proven that point over and over again.”  Well, the US, France, Germany and South Korea are all bastions of capitalism, and account for four out of the five countries generating the most nuclear power (and that’s not counting the many nuclear power plants powering Naval vessels).  The fifth?  Russia.  The only major nuclear accident that killed a few dozen people?  It happened under a brutal socialist/communist government regime.  All of the post-disaster investigation pinned the accident on a series of horrible human decisions, made in the context of the authoritarian, socialist command-and-control system. Thus, for over six decades, capitalism has resulted in the safe operation of hundreds of nuclear power plants, while socialism… 

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Bob Kupperstein
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 10:01 AM
To: Andrew Payne <[hidden email]>
Cc: Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <[hidden email]>; Edward Young <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 7:46 PM Andrew Payne <[hidden email]> wrote:

...

 

If we hadn't politicized and sensationalized the risks of nuclear power 50+yrs ago, we would likely be in a much, much better position with respect to global warming and climate change.

 

...

 

With all due respect Andy, if industry leaders, industry management, investors and politicians hadn't lied and been evasive and deceptive on the risks and state of nuclear power plants, maybe it wouldn't have become so politicized.

 

I grew up going to schools less than 1/2 mile from the Con Edison Indian Point power plants (we had frequent class trips there, where we learned only positive, "glowing" things about nuclear power).  Maybe the risks of a mishap are only local, but there was no emergency plan that I remember in my high school (other than huddling under our desks in case of a soviet nuclear missile attack!), but in any case, we were local in the most immediate sense.   And NYC was (and still is!) 40 miles away - down river.

 

I agree with you about the promise of 'mostly' clean energy from nuclear power, but IMO the problem with the nuclear energy industry was/is capitalism - it is too critical to be trusted to the profit motive and industry behavior has proven that point over and over again.

 

And, nuclear waste may be a small issue in terms of quantity, but if I remember correctly, we still haven't been able to designate a national waste repository for it after ~50 (?) years or so of trying.

 

-Bob

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

12