[ RadSafe ] Is Greenhouse Debate Appropriate?? ---Re: Salsman warning

[Stewart Farber]

I suggest that debating the technical basis of whether global mean temperatures are rising, and mankind's role in affecting climate due to carbon dioxide is completely inappropriate to Radsafe. The basic science and validity of global warming is not an appropriate issue for radsafe because the technical issues involved in validating the Greenhouse Effect are outside the expertise of almost everyone on radsafe, and it  is not a radiation sciences issue.
 
Nuclear technology interests have shown they are essentially inept  in getting the public, media, legislators, and regulators to understand nuclear issues in a balanced and realistic way. So now some on Radsafe seem compelled to spit into the wind and criticize the Greenhouse Effect, something that the majority of the public, media, legislators, and regulators have accepted. 
 
These  actions only serve to further alienate outside interests who oppose nuclear sciences, and detract from the credibility and standing of nuclear technology professionals.  Humorous actually.  
 
Popular belief in the seriousness of the Greenhouse effect is essentially the ONLY reason governments and private interests [including environmental groups, formerly completely opposed to nuclear technologies] around the world are now considering expanding nuclear power electric generation. There is currently open discussion of a possible "nuclear power renaissance" and the need for carbon-free electric generation with nuclear power playing a serious role.
 
There are only a few issues related to the greenhouse effect that quickly come to mind which may warrant discussion on Radsafe:
 
1) The fine points of radiation detection counting techniques that can help in studying details of carbon dioxide levels over time, such as atmospheric C-14 levels from cosmic ray atmospheric interactions
2) How public, media, legislative, and regulatory belief in the greenhouse effect, affects development of nuclear technologies
 
Lastly,  criticizing someone's occassional typos in a post is rather petty. Replies are often quickly prepared and sent. It is easy to make a typo or to misuse a word, and such grammatical errors should not be a factor in considering a thought or argument. A prior post by Jean Bush of Mr. Salsman mocked a spelling error, but itself included a grammatical error  where Jean Bush wrote:
 
"The problem is not mining, but that the current owner failed to comply with recently sited [sic: cited]  ventilation and safely issues."  
 
Typos and grammar are not issues which warrant criticism.
 
 
Stewart Farber, MSPH [ Air Pollution Control]
Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
Bridgeport, CT 06604

[203] 441-8433 [office]
http://www.farber-medical.com
farber at farber.info
==============

--- On Sun, 4/11/10, Jean Bush <jbush1 at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: Jean Bush <jbush1 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman warning
To: "James Salsman" <jsalsman at gmail.com>
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Date: Sunday, April 11, 2010, 9:03 PM



Mr. Salsman,

I appreciate your rapid reply, but it's very rapidity indicates you have neither read carefully nor understood this email, nor have you bothered to acknowledge and understand the previous 3 reports I just sent you.  You have glanced at my intro but have failed to comment on any of Prof. Robert Carter's fine work.

There is nothing wrong with coal and oil. We have the highest safety record in the world.  The recent deaths of the miners in West Virginia not withstanding.  The problem is not mining, but that the current owner failed to comply with recently sited [sic: cited]  ventilation and safely issues.  The problem is our reliance on foreign imports of such.  Nuclear energy and wind and solar power can only supplement our consumption.  

I have no idea what you mean by the mathematics of carbon dioxide, but if you bothered, which you have not, to read my own article, Global Warming: The Fraud, The Fools And The Science, you could not fail to understand that this gas is as vital to life as oxygen.  Carbon monoxide is the killer..........................



If you reply, I wish you would with scientific facts to compare with the ones I presented to you in all four of the emails I sent you only an hour ago.  You could not possibly have read and pondered these reports in so short a time.

And for your information, I can tint a gallon of water with the best of them!

Most sincerely,



Jean Bush

PS: Does not Gmail have a spell checker?  I'd hate to think that your facts are as sloppy as your spelling.
=======================

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:13:47 -0700
Subject: Re: RE: [ RadSafe ] Salsman warning
From: jsalsman at gmail.com
To: jbush1 at hotmail.com


I don't like cap and trade, either. I'd be happy with a permenant renewable tax credit and and end to all the fossil fuel subsidies.

Even if you think global warming is a hoax, why wouldn't you want to end the reliance on coal and oil?
They both cost us far to many lives and far to much money.

But those of us who understand the mathematics of carbon dioxide's opacity in the infrared have no problem understanding global warming. How much food coloring does it take to tint a gallon of water?

Sincerely,
James Salsman