[ RadSafe ] Climate Change, physics and intelligent design

Tue Nov 2 18:47:19 CDT 2010

Demetrios,
7 "days" could describe an indefinite period of time, I am told by scholars of Hebrew. 
I do not presume to understand the time of whatever force or being is great enough to have attributes we attribute to "God".

Our understanding of physics - the nature of light as mass or wave, for example - 
and concepts critical  to reactor operation, are evolving also.

I go by what seems to integrate. 

Howard Long 

On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:01 PM, "Demetrios Okkalides" <od at tlmq.com> wrote:

> Dear Dr. Long,
> 
> I do not see even a correlation (far from an intgration) of the so-called "scriptures" with evolving knowledge of physics, apart from trivial ones. Any specific points would be welcome.
> 
> D.Okkalides
> THEAGENEION Anticancer Hospital
> Thessaloniki
> Greece
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Long" <howard.long at comcast.net>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Cc: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:40 PM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change, physics and intelligent design
> 
> 
>> 
>> Mike, is the "Big Bang" more comprehendable than "Intelligent Design"?
>> I believe God's "day" is more likely a billion earth orbits of the sun than a single revolution, thus integrating much-translated scriptures with evolving knowledge of physics.
>> 
>> Am I a Sarah syncophant? She's also right on kitchen economics ( market controls). The market grows investment and jobs better than political command -as you can see with current collapse of a planned economy. The latter has led to LNT dictates to enable easier command. Can you see where central planning gets us, vs what private investors do to protect their reputations and investment in nuclear reactors?
>> 
>> Howard Long
>> 
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:21 AM, "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> wrote:
>> 
>>> In your desire to ridicule the Apostil of Al, make sure you don't become
>>> a Sycophant of Sarah.  Most of the people speaking most loudly against
>>> the idea that humans can and are effecting climate in larger areas than
>>> previously acknowledged (city heat islands have been well documented
>>> since at least my childhood) are not doing it from a basis of sound
>>> personal research.  A fair check is to find out where they stand on the
>>> teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes.
>>> 
>>> As I have stated before, I don't particularly care about the whole
>>> climate change debate; I remember when the some scientists predicted
>>> that we were about to enter another ice age.  There are, however, a
>>> number of things that are proposed as useful in reducing our impact on
>>> the climate that are worth doing in their own right.  For example,
>>> whether you care about CO2 or not, almost everything that is burned puts
>>> other stuff into the air, too.  In most cases, a little bit isn't a
>>> problem, but a lot is.  I would submit that when things burned in China
>>> contribute noticeably to air pollution in LA, it would be a good idea if
>>> there was less burning going on.
>>> 
>>> There is an interesting article here:
>>> http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/greener-battlefields-wo
>>> uld-be-safer-for-troops-24716/.  The short of it is that after years of
>>> rejecting ideas because they were "green", the military is realizing
>>> that acting on some of these improves their ability to carry out their
>>> mission, and saves vast amounts of money (how many businesses would like
>>> a change that saves two million dollars per day, with a pay-back time of
>>> less than two months?).
>>> 
>>> Those who believe in climate change because of slanted reporting by
>>> biased sources are not using a good decision making process.  Those who
>>> do not believe in climate change because of slanted reporting by biased
>>> sources are not using a good decision making process, either.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:59 AM
>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
>>> 
>>> Not to be indelicate, but Mr. Al's disciples should probably try to do
>>> something about their methane emissions as well ...
>>> 
>>> Jim Hardeman
>>> 
>>>>>> "Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov> 11/1/2010 18:23
>>>>>> 
>>> That's great Ed. I also "don't do hockey sticks..." It might be worth
>>> the effort for ALL of Mr. Al's disciples to hold their breath for a
>>> long, long, time.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> John Dixon
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Edmond Baratta
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 5:45 PM
>>> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>>> List'
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
>>> 
>>> Larry:
>>> 
>>> I'm not a 'Disciple' of Al Gore's climate change.  My recommendation was
>>> for
>>> those who subscribe to it.
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Jess L. Addis III" <ajess at clemson.edu>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:27 AM
>>> To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>>> List'"
>>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
>>> 
>>>> Great idea!  Do us a favor Ed, you go first.
>>>> 
>>>> Larry Addis
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Edmond
>>> Baratta
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:31 AM
>>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>>> List
>>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
>>>> 
>>>> Jerry:
>>>> 
>>>> We must first stop breathing for at least one hour of a day.  Think of
>>> how
>>>> much CO2 we will save.  First start with the Governments.  However the
>>>> trees, plants, grass will not appreciate this.
>>>> 
>>>> Ed Baratta
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>> From: "Rosen, Jerry C" <jcrosen at pitt.edu>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:23 PM
>>>> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>>>> List"
>>>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
>>>> 
>>>>> 1. The Green House Effect is a recognized scientific fact.
>>>>> 2. It is recognized that CO2 contributes to the phenomenon.
>>>>> 3. Modern technology, automobiles, power plants etc. generate CO2.
>>>>> 4. The green house effect results in warming of the atmosphere which
>>>>> directly effects climate.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Therefore, CO2 and man's actions contribute to climate change.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One can argue the degree of contribution but not whether the
>>> phenomenon
>>>>> exists.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. Fact: CO2 is not the only green house gas that is generated by
>>> man's
>>>>> activities.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 5. Fact: sun spots don't contribute to ocean acidity.
>>>>> 6. Fact: There has been a significant change in ocean acidity in the
>>> last
>>>>> 150 years.
>>>>> 7  Fact: CO2 is the major contributor to ocean acidity.
>>>>> 8. Fact: There is already recognizable damage to coral reefs from
>>> ocean
>>>>> acidity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ocean acidity is not far below the level that will result in
>>> dissolution
>>>>> of reefs and prevent shell fish from forming shells.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So completely ignore climate change but don't plan to go scuba diving
>>> on
>>>>> reefs or eat oysters in the future.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The potential impact goes far beyond what I've described.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Don't worry about that either because we can't afford to make the
>>> changes
>>>>> to limit the problem and the full effect may not happen in our life
>>> time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let me get personal. My father-in-law will turn 100 next year. He has
>>> a 5
>>>>> year old grandson. This has caused me to rethink my attitude about
>>> many
>>>>> things. Mostly, I make decisions which might affect people on a
>>> century
>>>>> scale not my projected and somewhat limited life span.
>>>>> I worry about bankrupting my children, grandchildren and potential
>>>>> succeeding generations with the national debt. So do a lot of people.
>>>>> The people who scream the most about the debt tend to be many of the
>>>>> climate change deniers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Because of the debt, my great grandchildren may not be able to afford
>>>>> food, shelter or clothing, but I don't worry about this because the
>>> earth
>>>>> won't be inhabitable anyway.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>>>> [radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Quastel
>>>>> [maay100 at bgu.ac.il]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 4:13 PM
>>>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>>>>> List
>>>>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have been concerned to hear during the past year or so, even  from
>>>>> this otherwise informative and properly skeptical group, statements
>>>>> that findings of climate warming- or more properly climate change- is
>>>>> some sort of fraud, scam or conspiracy. The geologic and
>>>>> oceanographic evidence so far really does seem to support that
>>>>> climate change is taking place in our own lifetime. Whether it will
>>>>> turn out to be man made, a natural cycle, some sort of solar
>>>>> phenomenon, temporary or cumulative in the long run remains to be
>>>>> seen. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical -  indeed, that is
>>>>> the proper scientific approach -  but in view of the potentially very
>>>>> serious global consequences, it would be wise to keep an open mind on
>>>>> the subject and most definitely not rule out the possibility of human
>>>>> causation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mike Quastel
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>> 
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3233 - Release Date: 11/02/10 07:34:00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu