Kamran and all:
Agreed about the "how active" part. For me Pacifica is a special set of radio stations because they are commercial free, about as left as radio can get in the US, and function by listeners becoming members (they get to vote for board members too). But I think that some producers are sometimes seduced by shows and premiums that are anti establishment in perspective, that may also be bad science, e.g, "Thrive." The point is, is it worth the time to build a reasonable case.
I am wondering of a letter from Science for the People would have expert impact. Michio Kaku, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku
, a CUNY physicist, who does a weekly science show on WBAI (pre taped), might join such a letter.
Another thing that is a bit weird about this premium is that it is available free on the Web.
It depends how "active" we want to be. I think it is quite appropriate to have "letter to the editor" and Op-Ed page campaigns to take positions on things generally agreed upon by member of this list. We can do this by developing sub-committees that focus on particular aspects of science and would be given some latitude to issue public statements about policy issues. Kamran
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]>
I listen to a short section of a video call "Thrive" on WBAI this evening. The video sounds like a hoax. Normally, I would not care, but WBAI (and possibly) other Pacifica stations are promoting it as a fund raiser and as anti establishment, I.e., energy companies, which is generally a good idea by itself. But they claim there is an alternative energy source called the Torus that is so wonderful that energy companies are working to suppress it. The video is about 3 hours long and I have not listened to much of it yet. I really hate it when pacifica pushes bad science, which it does from time to time.
Just type "Thrive" into Google and you will find the YouTube video. It has had over 1 million hits already. Argh!
Any suggestions on what to do about this?