[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

[StevenFrey at aol.com]

The more you go on, Mr .Salsman, the more you prove my point.
 
 
In a message dated 4/10/2010 12:07:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
jsalsman at gmail.com writes:

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