[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

James Salsman jsalsman at gmail.com
Fri Apr 9 23:07:49 CDT 2010


On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:56 PM,  <StevenFrey at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Mr. Salsman ... [has an] implied belief in man-made global warning,
> despite the credibility fiasco its own principal proponents have brought
> upon themselves (University of East Anglia, IPCC, Penn State, etc.).

Implied? I've explicitly stated my belief in man-made global warming
on multiple occasions, which -- according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change --
is shared by 32 national science academies and at least 41 other
scientific societies, with none others -- zero! -- dissenting since
the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current
position in 2007.  The literature reviews consistently report a
consensus on anthropogenic climate change.  This is a lot less
controversial than uranium chemical carcinogenicity, and I'm proud
that I'm on the correct side of that issue.

And I'm proud that I'm on the same side of the uranium carcinogenicity
issue as secondary peer reviewed medical literature, and still waiting
for anyone who bases their opposition on the discredited Health
Physics Society party line that nephrotoxicity is the greatest danger
of uranium exposure to provide any peer reviewed empirical studies or
literature reviews in support of their position -- I've looked, and
there are none.

> We need not accept the presence of anyone who delusionally strives for
> self-aggrandizement and ideological glory to the detriment of others, let
> alone tries to get any of us fired.

Again, I've never asked for anyone to be fired or reprimanded, just
that they retract their statements.  On three occasions, when they
have refused after several requests and a lengthy discussion, I've
contacted their management to ask again.  Who wouldn't do the same
thing if someone was promoting a toxic snake oil medicine?  If there
was someone from a large or apparently respectable organization
purporting to be an expert on a vaccine mailing list urging people to
refrain from having their children vaccinated, and they wouldn't agree
to retract such a statement, who wouldn't inform their management of
the statements being made in their company's name?  Isn't there an
ethical obligation involved here?

Are people so ashamed of their opinions on uranium carcinogenicity
that they are afraid that someone might tell their boss what they have
been saying about it?  If you believe something is true, and it's in
your area of expertise, shouldn't you be proud of it enough that the
idea of your management learning that you say it doesn't cause you to
demand censorship?

What we have here are a bunch of nuclear power and uranium mining
proponents who are rightly upset that they've been mislead, don't want
to admit it because of the magnitude of their emotional investment in
the issue, and want to take it out on anyone who is willing to stand
up and call them on it.  Future historians are unlikely to be
astonished at the extent that the nuclear power industry's attempt at
self-preservation through inaccurate propaganda led to a systemic and
widespread lack of trust in the proponents of nuclear power.

That's a shame, because the nuclear power boondoggle causes valuable
research reactors to suffer:
http://depletedcranium.com/the-critical-shortage-of-non-power-reactors/

Sincerely,
James Salsman



More information about the RadSafe mailing list