[ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind

Sat Oct 16 10:12:53 CDT 2010

Doug,
How increase production of small diesel cars in the USA?
I favor reduction of "Do, do", (regs) rather than increases and taxes.

Howard Long 

On Oct 16, 2010, at 6:22 AM, Doug Aitken <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com> wrote:

> Howard:
> Try and tell that to the automobile industry. And especially the N American
> consumer, who feels that a car is not a car unless it has an inefficient V-8
> in it........
> I am constantly amazed at the apparent resistance to diesel engines in cars
> here. The car companies say it is the consumer, but I think it is lack of
> will 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,
> efficient diesels. Yet here, the government and media are pushing hybrids
> and electrics. But if you look at the "cradle to grave" cost of a hybrid, it
> does not make much sense (kinda like the mercury-filled "high efficiency"
> light bulbs....).
> 
> Simply switching to small diesels would make a major impact on oil
> consumption in the US. Take a VW Jetta as an example: 45 mpg easily, and
> faster than the equivalent gas-powered Jetta. And room for 5 at a pinch (but
> probably 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
> than efficient diesel electric power for heavy haulers), but am very much in
> favor of reducing gas-guzzling. 
> 
> Oh, and a change in attitude towards public transportation would be a good
> thing, 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
> fallen so far behind.
> 
> Doug 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Long
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:36 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind
> 
> 
> Doug,
> I like Franz argument that hydrocarbonds are better used for products and
> nuclear 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
> power. 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
> priorities.
>> 
>> 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
> change?
>> 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
> the 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
> thats 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
> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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