home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!concert!uvaarpa!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!crb7q
- From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
- Summary: here a flame, there a flame, everywhere a flame flame
- Message-ID: <1992Jul25.211628.6681@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Date: 25 Jul 92 21:16:28 GMT
- References: <1992Jul25.194003.6019@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1992Jul25.195246.6135@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1992Jul25.204400.6466@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
- Organization: University of Virginia
- Lines: 57
-
- In article <1992Jul25.204400.6466@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
- >In article <1992Jul25.195246.6135@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
- >
- >>>Please rebut all the Scientific American articles that people have
- >>>been refering to.
- >>
- >> Sure, if you'll rebut every argument made in AEC-NRC documents over
- >> the last 40 years.
- >
- >Dale, I haven't been taking part in that argument at all. My only
- >participation has been to point out that you've been making many
- >claims, without any facts, that contradict the literature, namely the
- >9-90 Scientific American issue and an additional Scientific American
- >article on the merits and drawbacks of general use of hydrogen as
- >fuel. I have made no claims or arguments other than that. I don't see
- >why I should feel obligated to rebut documents that have nothing to do
- >with what I've been talking about.
-
- You have not been pointing out any such thing. You have been
- alluding to refutation without specifically noting any refutable
- points. And as such, you have been saying nothing germane to the
- issue.
-
- In fact you have specifically avoided any discussion that might
- bear on the issue.
-
- >If you like, I could give you a copy of the Scientific American issue
- >in question. But I'm not holding my breath.
-
- I have been a subscriber since 1976. Some issues are better than
- others. Why don't you take a look at all the AEC and NUREG
- documents I pointed out in the stuff you deleted. A number
- have a direct bearing on what we've discussed here. Of course,
- you'll actually have to do some work to find the relevant
- documents, but I'm sure you care enough to do so.
-
- >> However, feel free to present in this forum what you think valid
- >> arguments against what I have said, or for some position you think
- >> plausible, and I will be sure to consider a response.
- >
- >Valid arguments against many things you have said may be found in the
- >literature, mainly the 9-90 issue of Scientific American. Please read
- >it. This is my last post on the topic, we're now going in circles
- >(repeatedly).
-
- Good. I prefer to discuss this with those who actually have
- something to say.
-
- dale bass
-
-
-
- --
- C. R. Bass crb7q@virginia.edu
- Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
- University of Virginia
- Charlottesville, Virginia (804) 924-7926
-