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

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

Thanks for clarifying.  You are right, I read too much into your words.  

-Gary Isenhower

--------------------------------------------------
On 12 Apr 2010 at 9:24, Stewart Farber wrote:

Date sent:	Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Stewart Farber <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
Subject:	Re: [ RadSafe ] Is Greenhouse Debate Appropriate?? --
-Re: Salsman warning
To:	radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu, garyi at trinityphysics.com

Hi Gary, 

I don'tthink 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 
thereasonable purview of Radsafe. 

My thought was that the now general societal BELIEF that MMGW is happening is 
atopic that warrants discussion hereonly 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 createa societal incentive fornuclear 
technologies. 

Debating the technical basis of MMGW itselfhas as much place on Radsafe as 
debating the existence of God, or evolution, or countless other non-radiation 
relatedtopics which havesome 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 theirside 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 notan appropriateissue for 
radsafebecause the technical issues involved in validating the Greenhouse Effect 
are outside the expertise of almost everyone on radsafe, and itis not a radiation 
sciences issue. 
----snip---- 
So nowsome on Radsafeseem compelledtospit into the wind and criticize 
theGreenhouse Effect, something that the majority of the public, media, 
legislators, and regulators have accepted. 
 
Theseactions only serve tofurther alienate outside interests who oppose nuclear 
sciences, and detract from the credibility and standing of nuclear technology 
professionals. Humorous actually.