[ RadSafe ] Maine --- cancer and cell phones ONE OF THE BEST MESSAGES OF THE YEAR

[parthasarathy k s]

Mike,

Congratulations. I consider that the following message you sent is one of the best in the list for its content. Unfortunately many may miss it as the subject was "Re: [ RadSafe ] Maine --- cancer and cell phones"!
Though some of the zealots brought "out of the topic" items for discussion, 2009 was a good year; may be only a few members of the list participated actively. I am sure there were were many who were reading the messages.

Let us look forward to an equally productive new year with great anticipation,

Regards
Parthasarathy




________________________________
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Thu, 24 December, 2009 4:54:12
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Maine --- cancer and cell phones

It is not hard to believe that individuals would interpret, fudge, and
even fabricate information to support their belief that man's activities
are contributing to climate change.  It should be equally easy to
believe that individuals would interpret, fudge, and even fabricate
information to support their beliefs that man's activities ARE NOT
contributing to climate change.  Whichever side you personally are on,
it is important, vital if you like to think of yourself as a scientist,
to remember that another person's credibility is not enhanced simply
because they agree with you.  

There are several points on which it should be easy to agree, because
the evidence speaks for itself:

Making electricity by burning coal is sub-optimal.  If you release
enough of the waste products into the air they cause a wide range of
clearly demonstrated problems, such as turning cities black, dissolving
some building materials, killing fish in lakes, and killing up to
thousands of people in single events of temperature inversions.  If you
don't release the waste products into the air you reduce the efficiency
of the process, and collect large amounts of ash, much more than can be
used productively, and that, when it gets out of control can create
non-trivial problems.  The easy, cheap coal has mostly been mined, and
progressively getting coal for the boilers involves greater destruction
of the land, as in West Virginia, or greater risk, as in China.  In the
long run, it is not sustainable.

Burning oil and natural gas to make electricity and to move people and
things from one place to another is sub-optimal.  All the cheap and easy
oil and gas has been tapped and used: each "new" pool is harder to get
at, has a lower energy return on investment, and likely will have
greater environmental costs.  

Deforestation, whether for low efficiency farming, mining, wood and pulp
production, or bio-fuel plantations, is sub-optimal.  The environment of
the region deteriorates, water resources are harmed, and the quality of
life for the people who lived in the area goes down (though the wealth
of some people who do not live in the area, or do so temporarily, often
goes up).  In the long run, it is not sustainable.  

It really doesn't matter if these activities are changing the climate
globally or not.  Without argument they change the local environment,
almost never for the better.  Without argument the trends are that using
the same techniques produce lower return on investment, and newer
techniques have higher up-front costs and shorter timeframes before
they, too will have lower return on investment.  It is time and past
time that the collective "we" start moving in a direction that makes
more economic sense, which when viewed in the long term includes
preventing ecological degradation.  The easiest steps are to improve
efficiencies in how we use the resources we currently are exploiting,
while the long term answers involve developing techniques that exploit
different resources, including the waste from earlier processes.  I
believe that in the intermediate-range timeframe, nuclear fission has
the greatest potential to provide the energy needed to be able to stop
using coal and oil, at least at the level we currently do.      

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of garyi at trinityphysics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 2:12 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Maine --- cancer and cell phones

What rational basis is there for regulating CO2?

The argument that CO2 has a hazardous effect on the environment is
stupid, because even if 
we pretend that climate change is driven by athropogenic CO2, the
environment would 
continue to thrive without regulations.  If the seas should rise or
fall, if the temp should go up 
or down, the result would be a healthy environment no different from
some other periods in 
the earth's history.

The argument that CO2 will produce conditions hazardous or otherwise
unfavorable to 
humans is also stupid, because even if we pretend that climate change is
driven by 
athropogenic CO2, none of the threatened cataclysmic changes are
happening fast enough 
to be really threatening.  If New York City goes 30' underwater during
the course of our 
lifetimes, the worst thing about that is that people would have to move.
So?  Currently the 
government can seize your property, make you move, and use your land for
some other 
purpose.  And it doesn't matter whether you are on the coast or not, so
clearly government is 
a much bigger threat than global warming.  Heck, maybe New York could be
the new Venice.

But we can stop pretending, because the leaked emails and climate model
code shows that 
AGW is a huge hoax.

OTOH, there is a rational argument for CO2 regulation that is strictly
political. A large 
segment of the population is not able to evaluate the evidence for AGW
fraud and cover up, 
and they are going to feel (not think) that it is good to regulate CO2.
That segment is going 
to want to vote for the party that seems more environmentally friendly
because they have 
been fed the same false message for so long that they can't help but act
this way.  

It doesn't matter what the facts are.  It doesn't even matter what the
politicians actually 
believe.  Both parties will be forced to pose as "eco-friendly" until
the general public 
recognizes AGW for the scam that it is.  Its either that or political
suicide.

-Gary Isenhower

On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:01, John R Johnson wrote:

Ed

Did the EPA say that carbon dioxide EXPOSURE was hazardous? I thought
they 
said that its effect on the environment was hazardous.

John

***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
4535 West 9th Ave
604-676-3556
Vancouver, B. C.
V6R 2E2, Canada
idias at interchange.ubc.ca


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/