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

[Stewart Farber]

Hi Gary,
 
I don't think I contractradicted myself in what you show as snippet 2 of my prior comment. I am not saying that MMGW [Man made global warming]  is true, only that a debate about the theory or detailed technical basis of MMGW  is outside the reasonable purview of Radsafe.
 
My thought was that the now general societal BELIEF that MMGW is happening is a topic that warrants discussion here only in regard to how this now general BELIEF affects the attitude of the public, legislators, regulators,  environmental groups, or other constituancies toward the acceptibility and development of nuclear power [and other radiation related technologies]. And there is no doubt that belief in MMGW has worked to create a societal incentive for nuclear technologies. 
 
Debating the technical basis of MMGW itself has as much place on Radsafe as  debating the existence of God, or evolution, or countless other non-radiation related topics which have some technical details on either side of an issue. There are forums all over the internet dealing with dozens of other issues like the preceding where people work themselves up arguing  their side of the "facts". And one of these other forums is where a debate about the technical underpinnings of MMGW belongs. 

Stewart Farber, MSPH
Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
Bridgeport, CT 06604

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

--- On Mon, 4/12/10, garyi at trinityphysics.com <garyi at trinityphysics.com> wrote:


From: garyi at trinityphysics.com <garyi at trinityphysics.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is Greenhouse Debate Appropriate?? ---Re: Salsman warning
To: "Stewart Farber" <radproject at sbcglobal.net>, radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 10:42 AM



Hi Stewart, 


I generally agree with your thought that Radsafe is about radiation safety, not climate.  So I will keep it short and sweet.  :) 


If your first point below is correct, then why contradict yourself by essentially endorsing MMGW on Radsafe? 


Also, the credibility and standing of any profession, including nuclear technology, is best served by complete honesty, even when the truth is counter to the immediate interests of the profession.  I often say that radiation is over regulated.  The obvious corollary is that some of us ought not to be employed in this field.  Would that be a bad thing?  Short term, yes.  Long term, way better for us and for the world. 


-Gary Isenhower 




On 11 Apr 2010 at 21:32, Stewart Farber wrote: 


----snip---- 
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. 
----snip----  
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.