[ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind - Global Warming Presentation with Data Linked
blreider at aol.com
blreider at aol.com
Sat Oct 16 09:49:16 CDT 2010
As I suspect is the case with most of us, I am not a climate scientist but have enough of a science background to know when questions are unanswered by articles and presentations. Scientific conclusions brought about by information in movies is suspect of being cargo-cult-science (Feynman speech http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm ). I was presented with a situation as it seems many of you were where I have not had "faith" in the message - but which conclusion is more viable scientifically? CO2 based global warming or natural phenomenon? In casual reading over the past few years I have seen a few reports that seem to evaluate ALL the data in a meaningful way, and these have in every case concluded that natural phenomenon is responsible. Below is an easy to understand presentation compiling data:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/04/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-watch
While this topic is not directly related to radiation safety, it impacts budgets and spending which can have a big effect on our health, lives and livelihoods as money that could be better used elsewhere is wasted or harmful. Some of you mentioned environmental issues. "Carbon footprint" is a nice buzzword however perhaps CO2 is not the pollutant to monitor. Not believing that data proves global warming is due to CO2 does not equate to policies that destroy the environment, in fact, more money would likely be available for meaningful environmental programs and research.
I do think that the main issue we as scientists in a different field can speak to as a group on issues other than Radiation Safety is whether information being presented is or is not scientific. As someone in this group noted, Health Physicists have had a lot of experience with bad science being used to influence policy and spending.
Barbara Reider, CHP
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Aitken <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List' <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 9:22 am
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind
Howard:
ry and tell that to the automobile industry. And especially the N American
onsumer, who feels that a car is not a car unless it has an inefficient V-8
n it........
am constantly amazed at the apparent resistance to diesel engines in cars
ere. The car companies say it is the consumer, but I think it is lack of
ill on their part and artificial barriers put in place by the government.
Anyone who travels to Europe will see that about 70% of all cars are small,
fficient diesels. Yet here, the government and media are pushing hybrids
nd electrics. But if you look at the "cradle to grave" cost of a hybrid, it
oes not make much sense (kinda like the mercury-filled "high efficiency"
ight bulbs....).
Simply switching to small diesels would make a major impact on oil
onsumption in the US. Take a VW Jetta as an example: 45 mpg easily, and
aster than the equivalent gas-powered Jetta. And room for 5 at a pinch (but
robably 75% of miles ridden in cars are with two or less passengers.....)
So, I am not in favor of switching transportation to an electric base (other
han efficient diesel electric power for heavy haulers), but am very much in
avor of reducing gas-guzzling.
Oh, and a change in attitude towards public transportation would be a good
hing, too, both from a government and public point of view.
As for nuclear power: 100% in agreement. It is a disgrace that the US has
allen so far behind.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
rom: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Long
ent: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:36 PM
o: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
ubject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind
oug,
like Franz argument that hydrocarbonds are better used for products and
uclear for energy.
Howard Long
On Oct 15, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Doug Aitken
jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com> wrote:
> Jerry:
First, I am not a climatologist. And I made no claim of connection. I
also said I am skeptical. But I keep an open mind. Which, as Mike
mentioned, is a good idea.
As for the global environment assimilating the "nasty stuff", I would
say that perhaps it can, but to the detriment of all living creatures.
Perhaps a walk along any shoreline will convince you? The amount of
man-made garbage should help convince you we can do better. I suppose
the Gulf of Mexico will recover eventually from the oil spill. But the
"dead zone" caused by fertilizer runoff via the Mississippi should be
seen as a fair indication that nature may have difficulty rebounding
from man's detriment. And surely the health effects of industrial
pollutants should give us reason to do better?
And relying on the hope that the global environment can rebound from
our detrimental activities is a pretty negative attitude.
I have worked all my life in the oil industry. And seen first-hand the
effects of the poor environmental practices of the past, where
drilling waste was casually dumped, oil spills left to
"self-remediate" and oil extraction causing massive subsidence (have a
look at the East coast of Lake Maracaibo for a fine example). However,
this industry currently has a very different attitude towards the
environment and makes major efforts to limit pollution (BP's recent
fiasco notwithstanding). But they are still seen as a dirty
industry... But little is said of the pollution caused by
agro-business's excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides? Most
would agree that the net impact of nuclear power is far less than coal
ower. But the lobbies keep that rolling along.
I am not offering any solutions to the environmental problems of the
world, as I am in no way qualified to do so. Nor can I offer any idea
of what can be considered cost-effective. And any effective action on
a large scale will be biased by political interests, with distortion of
riorities.
But, as a relative layman, I do feel we can do better. And I am pretty
sure that you do too.
Regards
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 6:06 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind
Doug,
Your comments raise 3 questions:
1- Is there reason to believe that "evidence of global climate
change" is not attributable to the current phase of cyclical climate
hange?
2- Is it possible that the global environment could assimilate
whatever man-made "nasty stuff" is emitted without significant
deterioration?,and 3-When you suggest that "we can do better", I
wonder ,how can it be determined when things are good enough and any
further improvement is simply not cost-effective? How do we know that
we have not already reached that point?
Jerry Cohen
________________________________
From: Doug Aitken <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 3:32:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind
Every so often, we seem to get into this "discussion" where some
members make rather strong statements about the "global warming" issue
(note I don't say "scam", phony science, etc).
I am skeptical regarding the actual cause being man-made, although it
would seem reasonable to say that (1) evidence of global climate
change cannot be reasonably denied - from retreating glaciers to
regional temperature changes, rainfall, etc... and (2) man is spewing
larger than ever quantities of nasty stuff into the atmosphere and
water (to the obvious detriment to all living creatures , cutting vast
swathes of forest and using our natural resources with little thought to
he future.
So it would seem to me that any effort to control these human excesses
would benefit all of us. I am not a fanatical green, but certainly do
think that we can do better, whether or not it would impact climate....
Regards
Doug Aitken
QHSE Advisor, D&M Operations Support
Schlumberger,
Drilling & Measurements HQ,
300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Edmond
Baratta
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 8:15 PM
To: Jerry Cohen; The International Radiation Protection (Health
Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind
Those who are for the new 'religion' of Global Warming are using it to
make a profit, i.e. Gore, and the Governments who wishes to make our
lives miserable. I can't believe that the Government is sponsoring
the mercury
(Hg) laden light bulbs. Previously, they forbade the fluorescent
lights that contained beryllium (Be).
Ed Baratta
edmond0033 at comcast.net
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 2:56 PM
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind
> Mike,
> Of course, you are correct. The climate is changing, but hasn't that
> always been the case? Historic evidence shows that the climate is
> cyclical in nature and the earth has continually alternated between
> "ice ages" and tropical periods.
> Dr.
> Fred Singer, has estimated that these cycles last about 1500 years,
> and currently increasing global temperatures simply indicate that we
> are predictably in an upward phase. In time, this trend will reverse,
> and we can start to worry about global cooling again, if we live that
> long.
> To attribute "global warming" to anthropic (man-made) causes is
> somewhat silly.
> Socialists believe it is due to capitalistic greed. "third world"
> nations may believe it is caused by developed counties squandering
> our limited resources; and some may think that witchcraft is to
> blame. I never liked witches, so I tend to blame them for everything
hats bad.
> In all likelihood, global climate change is controlled by cosmic
> forces (sunspots, etc) over which man has no control, so maybe we
> should just sit back and enjoy it.
> Jerry Cohen
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Quastel <maay100 at bgu.ac.il>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 1:13:31 PM
> 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
isit:
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
isit:
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
isit:
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
______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
adSafe rules. These can be found at:
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
adSafe 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:
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list