Re: No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Whisky-dave, May 24, 2012.

  1. Whisky-dave

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On May 24, 6:24 am, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Dudley Hanks writes:
    > > Golly, Gee!  That's why I suggested those queries!

    >
    > Queries that deliberately produce results that are biased in a particularway
    > are not persuasive.


    What do you mean by that ?
    if you're looking for a particular point they are useful for that
    purpose.



    >
    > > The point I'm trying to prove is not that the Tokyo Electric Power Company
    > > did or did not fraudulently cut costs and build an unsafe reactor, onlythat
    > > there is sufficient evidence for people to be suspicious when corporate
    > > greed is coupled with nuclear devices to warrant caution.

    >
    > Your attempt to prove this point has thus far been unsuccessful.


    That doesn't make the point invalid does it.
    All it means that it hasn;t been proved to you.


    > > Hence, in the case of Kodak, it is not unreasonable for people to want
    > > all the details clarified.

    >
    > The Kodak case has already been sufficiently clarified. Further details are
    > not necessary, as there was clearly no hazard to public safety.


    How would you know that unless you had sufficient information or
    knowledge of the subject.

    >
    > > If I were trying to prove your point for you, I would have suggested queries
    > > more to your liking ...  Doesn't that make sense?

    >
    > No, it does not. Supporting an opinion requires objective evidence selected
    > without bias,


    No it does not.

    > not evidence that has been carefully sorted to exclude anything
    > that doesn't support the opinion.


    That doesn;t make any sense.

    Theer;'s always been a consiracy as to whether or not man landed on
    the moon.
    In order to judge for myself I had to search for the evidence provided
    by those that
    dis-believe and those that believe. I needed to do that in porder to
    form my own opinion.
    For em toying in Did man land on the moon to google or ask jeeves was
    not enough,
    I wanted to go deeper so formj my own opinion and to do that I need to
    have the opinions
    and the evidence of others, searching out those opinions was
    important.


    > > No, once again, you (purposefully?) miss the point.  I haven't tried to
    > > conncet the disasters in any way other than to suggest that the general
    > > public had cause to be suspicious in the case ofFukushima, as demonstrated
    > > by the eventual disaster, hence, the concerns of those living in the
    > > vicinity of the Kodak operation should also be taken seriously.

    >
    > In neither case has your point been made.
    >
    > > Close, but not quite, as detailed above...

    >
    > Ideally it should be lightyears away from your reasoning, if you wish to be
    > persuasive.
    >
    > > It's actually a fairly good source.  You might want to read, "The Last
    > > Lecture" for more details.

    >
    > Wikipedia is a poor source when it comes to anything that generates
    > controversy.


    I don;t think so as you can view the discussion and controversy, no
    such thing in the encyclopepia britanica.
    wiki also has link to referencies and sources if you wish to look
    further into the subject.


    >
    > > OK, try Googling "fukushima unavoidable prventable" and see what comes up.

    >
    > That has the same bias.


    Nothing wrong with that provided you look at more than just the first
    or one result.

    >
    > > It's a neutral search term representing both sides of the issue.

    >
    > No. A neutral search term would be "Fukushima," by itself.


    Hardly neutral as it's only showing things about Fukushima and listed
    by hits or popularity.
    Which is a problem if you're search fro the dangers of keeping
    radioacive elements.
    You may get the impression that the only danger they pose is if
    destroyed by natrual causes.





    > In any case, Fukushima has nothing at all to do with a neutron flux generator
    > at Kodak, despite your attempts to somehow link the two.
    >
    > > As noted above, I'm simply trying to show that, given the history of the
    > > global nuclear industry, persons living in and around the Kodak site had
    > > reason to be concerned.

    >
    > The history of the global nuclear industry is one of unparalleled safety.I
    > don't see why this would provide reason for concern.



    Perhaps because at the time is was secret, unless you completly
    undestand why it was secret.


    > > But, these references in particular explain how, since 199, the
    > > international nuclear energey comunity had reason to expect higher standards
    > > than were adopted at Fukushima, that TEPCO knew of the reason why those
    > > higher standards were expected but did nothing to meet them, that others
    > > recognized the problem in Japan and upgraded at least one other reactorthat
    > > didn't blow during the tsunami because of the upgrades, and that the
    > > Japanese government silenced at least one report that noted all of the
    > > above.

    >
    > How long do you intend to continue talking about Fukushima? The nominal topic
    > of the thread is a neutron flux generator at Kodak, which has nothing to do
    > with Fukushima beyond the occasional occurrence of the word "nuclear" in
    > discussions thereof.
    >
    > > All thise is grounds to suggest that corporate greed and nuclear energyis
    > > not a good mix and warrants caution, as I've stated several times.

    >
    > There is no evidence of corporate greed at Kodak.


    How would you search for such a things, if I was searching for such a
    thing I'd
    try the easy route first and see if anyone else has come up with
    anything I can investsigate.

    Typing " corporate greed Kodak" would be a good starting point, but
    maybe if you didn't want to find such things
    out you'd use the seach "kittens kodak cute" that way you'd be
    unlikely to find any results regarding coperate greed at kodak
    which as you say would be the aim.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 24, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin Brown

    Re: [O/T] No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

    Martin Brown, May 14, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    450
    Joe Kotroczo
    May 18, 2012
  2. Martin Brown

    Re: [O/T] No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

    Martin Brown, May 14, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    380
    Martin Brown
    May 17, 2012
  3. PeterN

    Re: [O/T] No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

    PeterN, May 21, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    424
    PeterN
    May 21, 2012
  4. Martin Brown

    Re: [O/T] No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

    Martin Brown, May 21, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    421
    Martin Brown
    May 21, 2012
  5. Whisky-dave

    Re: No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

    Whisky-dave, May 22, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    295
    Whisky-dave
    May 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page