[ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com
Tue Nov 2 14:54:45 CDT 2010
I think the statement about deaths from air pollution are surprising, if
indeed this is your profession.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2545747.stm would seem to indicate your timing is
off by a few hundred years....
And how are you classifying air pollution? Maybe Bhopal is an unfair
example? But I would have thought there is some incidence of respiratory
illnesses associated with industrial air pollution?
Maybe a few less snide remarks and a bit more effort at scientific
justification would befit this list....
PS: I'm done with this discussion.
QHSE Advisor, Schlumberger D&M Operations Support
Cell Phone: 713-562-8585
(alternate e-mail: doug.aitken at slb.com )
Mail: c/o Therese Wigzell,
Drilling & Measurements HQ,
300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Long
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:06 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
Should other countries pay us, since CO2 coming into the USA (usual westerly
winds) is 387 ppm and leaving is LESS at 385 ppm (both increasing)?
Our expanding forests (50% more than 50 years ago) take in more CO2 than our
cars, coal buning etc put out.
Also, the only significant mortality from air pollution was 400 years ago in
wood-burning, fog-retaining London. My eyes burned in summer in Pleasanton
50 years ago but not since despite 10 x the population, downwind from SF.
Even in Calif., some things are better.
Howard Long, epidemiologist
On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:11 AM, garyi at trinityphysics.com wrote:
> If we can do that without a crazy scheme to pay other countries for
> our CO2, and without pretending that CO2 is industrial waste (haha,
> good one EPA!) and without further bankrupting ourselves and our children,
then count me in.
> BTW, that reminds me: where are all those new nuclear power plants?
> Wouldn't that be a good place to start, if one was afraid of CO2?
> Didn't the president promise something about that? Don't hold your
> breath (for all you GW true believers who nobly limit your emissions to
save the rest of us).
> -Gary Isenhower
> On 2 Nov 2010 at 11:42, Doug Aitken wrote:
> So as (hopefully!) sane people, can we not agree that we can do a
> better job of this disposal, as a means to minimize our impact? And
> any talk of human (and animal) body emissions is a bit childish.
> Doug Aitken
> 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:
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
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:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
More information about the RadSafe