[ RadSafe ] Is Greenhouse Debate Appropriate?? ---Re: Salsman warning
garyi at trinityphysics.com
garyi at trinityphysics.com
Mon Apr 12 12:18:40 CDT 2010
Thanks for clarifying. You are right, I read too much into your words.
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
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
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
Stewart Farber, MSPH
Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
Bridgeport, CT 06604
farber at farber.info
--- On Mon, 4/12/10, garyi at trinityphysics.com <garyi at trinityphysics.com>
From: garyi at trinityphysics.com <garyi at trinityphysics.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is Greenhouse Debate Appropriate?? ---Re: Salsman
To: "Stewart Farber" <radproject at sbcglobal.net>, radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Date: Monday, April 12, 2010, 10:42 AM
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
On 11 Apr 2010 at 21:32, Stewart Farber wrote:
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
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.
More information about the RadSafe