[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

[Syd H. Levine]

On THREE occasions?  Are you serious?  Are you totally insane?  This just
gets more and more bizarre.

This person must be removed from RadSafe.  This is an intolerable breach of
common human decency and has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship.

Syd H. Levine
AnaLog Services, Inc.
Phone:  (270) 276-5671
Telefax:  (270) 276-5588
E-mail:  analog at logwell.com
Web URL:  www.logwell.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Salsman" <jsalsman at gmail.com>
To: <StevenFrey at aol.com>; <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman warning


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>