[ RadSafe ] BS to the max. Was: Re: Political vs natural market economics in nuclear power

Tue Nov 2 23:24:22 CDT 2010

What is going on with the endless  threads not related in any way to health physics, or radiation technologies?  Threads related to Creationism, Sarah Palin, Intelligent design [sic], the length of god's day, greenhouse gas conspiracy theories, Ivy elite, Mr. Al's disciples, etc.????  Let's stop it before this site becomes even more off-track and foolish.

Please, I'm wearing out my delete key. The nonsense [i.e.: major evidence of unintelligent design] overwhelming Radsafe is totally out of control. 

As a profession,  don't we have enough to do dealing with the public's radiophobia that substantially affects radiation technologies of every type? Do we have to spit in the wind of public opinion on the Greenhouse effect and climate change? Does anyone really think there is anything to gain by wading into the quagmire of issues mentioned above? The preceding are simply rhetorical questions. I am not seeking an answer.

Stewart Farber, MSPH

Farber Medical Solutions, LLC.

Bridgeport, CT 06604

[203] 441-8433 [office]

website: http://www.farber-medical.com
=================

--- On Tue, 11/2/10, Howard Long <howard.long at comcast.net> wrote:

From: Howard Long <howard.long at comcast.net>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Political vs natural market economics in nuclear power
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>
Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010, 11:44 PM

Mike and all,
1, "Planned economy" ( regulated politically, as with LNT in power or cleanup) 
does disrupt a natural market (God's way?). See Creating the New World, Ted Rockwell (who wrote the book on reactor shielding), esp. the 10x added cost and time with 10 x the political regulation. Also see Freedomnomics, John Lott, which has many examples and data indicating that private reputation is generally more influential for safety and honesty than political regulation.

2, Kitchen economics of Sarah Palin and the Tea party, like Battle - , Dick Armey, and How Capitalism Will Save Us, Steve Forbes, etc. is evidenced in recent spending of $3.5 T (with just $2.1T revenue), deepening unemployment. Yes,  I would trust any group of housewives before the current Ivy elite to use Laffer and Romer findings and 
JFK 1963 Econ Report that "tax reduction is the best way open to us to increase revenue- ". I like most Americans now, reject economists who play God with the market. 

Sarah also had the honesty and guts to reject oil co. bribes and political cameraderie. Read, A View From Alaska by reporter Dewey Whetsell (epilogue to Going Rogue). 
He writes, "Name one other governor who has --" (6 items). Her acts, not just the faith that may have enabled them, won her the enthusiasm she inspires in us, unlike those who fear others will emulate her social values. Daniels is my choice for president because of his experience with patient self-management (HSAs). He also should boost nuclear power, when looking at its safety (thank you, guys) and economy - when not overregulated (planned with LNT)

3, The scientists I most respect have the humblest view of a God and universe beyond our understanding of its "intelligent design". Big Bang?
Howard Long 

On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:09 PM, "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> wrote:

> Howard, Intelligent Design is a intellectually dishonest attempt to get
> Creationism taught in science classes.  Almost all the major players in
> ID were involved in "Scientific Creationism" before it got shot down by
> the courts.  In its most basic form ID replaces "God" with "Unknown
> Designer (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink)".  I don't claim to understand the
> math behind the models of the Big Bang, nor do I claim to know how life
> started, but I do know that "God did it" is not a scientifically
> verifiable statement.  Adding it in doesn't help any model.
> 
> As for Sarah being right on market control, if it were true it would
> only be so due to blind luck.  Based on an admittedly incomplete
> sampling of her statements, she has no idea about market theory.  I
> would bet that if you asked her what condition are necessary for a self
> sustaining free market to exist, she would freeze like a caribou in a
> snowmobile's headlights.  I understood market theory better than she
> does before I went through my MBA program, and by the time I was done I
> knew the best current answers to things she doesn't even understand are
> questions.  
> 
>> The market grows investment and jobs better than political command -as
> you can see with current collapse of a planned economy.
> 
> The US has a regulated market economy with a fair amount of government
> involvement in infrastructure, but it is by no means a "planned
> economy."  Much of the current collapse comes from decades of management
> decisions (theoretically for the benefit of the stock holders, but in
> reality for the benefit of the managers themselves) to ignore the wisdom
> of people like Henry Ford, and use (usually) non-market conditions to
> produce product without paying labor enough to create markets that could
> afford those products.  Much of the rest of the collapse is from the
> economic costs of trying to fight two wars, without expending enough
> resources to bring either to a desirable conclusion.  
> 
>> Can you see where central planning gets us, vs what private investors
> do to protect their reputations and investment in nuclear reactors?  
> 
> This statement shows a lack of understanding that I despair at trying to
> explain.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 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 11:40 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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