[ RadSafe ] A question of semantics

Tue Oct 19 11:00:15 CDT 2010

One of our trainers referred to 'x-radiation'. I understand what he means, but have not seen it called antyhing other than x-rays or 'fluorescent radiation' in my manuals from Cember Knoll, etc.... Is this a legitimate word to use in training?

Luke McCormick

> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:21:26 -0400
> From: FEARP at upstate.edu
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> CC: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?
> 
> But by looking at Wikipedia you should also notice that the atmosphere of
> Venus is +95% Carbon Dioxide and Earth's is 0.038%. The "large" percentage
> increase that we have seen is still no where near the amount on Venus.
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
> Peter Fear
> Health Physics Technologist
> SUNY Upstate Medical University
> Radiation Safety Office
> 636 UH
> 750 E. Adams St.
> Syracuse, NY 13210
> 
> Phone: (315)464-6510
> FAX: (315)464-5095
> fearp at upstate.edu
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Brent Rogers <brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au> 10/19/2010 10:41 AM >>>
> I lack the competence to debate climate science (other than to note that
> they strongly correlate with one's political views) but if you really find
> it "completely false" that increased levels of CO2 increases temperature may
> I suggest you redirect your wikipedia to the planet of Venus?
> 
> Regards
> Brent Rogers
> Sydney Australia
> (currently on vacation in Hot Springs Arkansas, USA) 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 18/10/2010, at 8:46 PM, Emilio Martinez <emiliommartinez at yahoo.com.ar>
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Here's an extended version of the graph:
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg 
> > 
> > The measurements for the last 150,000 years on CO2, CH4, temperature and
> O18 are 
> > strongly guided by the Earth's Milankovitch cycles (climatic changes
> produced by 
> > changes in the earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, etc) I find it
> completely false 
> > to asume that CO2 increases temperature just because they go hand in hand
> in 
> > some curtailed chart, while its clear that they are both moved by some
> much more 
> > powerful force.
> > 
> > By the way, I support nuclear power, but as someone said before, I'm not
> willing 
> > to use carbon emissions as an argument if I don't belive it to be true.
> > 
> > 
> > I see in you a group of thinking people, so please if you can prove me
> wrong, 
> > show me my mistake.
> > 
> > 
> > Emilio Martinez, 
> > Math Student
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > De:Jess Addis <ajess at clemson.edu>
> > Para:The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> 
> > <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > Enviado: lunes, 18 de octubre, 2010 14:36:53
> > Asunto: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open
> mind?
> > 
> > If you have time to read a little and really care for an explanation of
> the
> > lag time and probable cause for the initiation of the warming cycles
> this
> > article is one place to start. It's climate science from people who
> really
> > are climate scientist.
> > 
> >
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-a
> 
> > nd-co2/ 
> > 
> > The letter at the end of the article is also interesting and succinct.
> > 
> > Of course if one's mind is already made and maybe takes for granted that
> > hard working ethical scientist are all really just frauds spewing huge
> loads
> > of BS from universities, government agencies, and scientific bodies
> > .....well, it would be a waste of one's time. 
> > 
> > And remember, "chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed
> to
> > hatch from them". Love that one.
> > 
> > Jess Addis, RSO
> > Clemson U.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman
> > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:22 AM
> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open
> mind?
> > 
> > To all --
> > 
> > All of us, whether climate scientists or not (and I assume that most of
> us
> > on this list are NOT) should be astute enough scientifically to
> recognize
> > that correlation does not imply causation. While it may be true that
> levels
> > of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising, and it may also be true that the
> global
> > climate is changing (as it has done continually since the formation of
> the
> > planet) that doesn't mean that one "causes" the other.
> > 
> > I remember a presentation at Georgia Tech several years ago by a climate
> > scientist who looked at the available info, including pre-historic info
> re:
> > carbon levels and global temperatures -- however derived. As I recall,
> the
> > data appear to support the thought that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
> > "follow" rises in global temperature by tens to hundreds of years --
> > although if you plot them on time scales of hundreds of thousands of
> years,
> > the curves appear to be coincident.
> > 
> > Jim Hardeman
> > 
> >>>> <garyi at trinityphysics.com> 10/18/2010 10:22 >>>
> > Three words for you, Parthasarathy, "...hide the decline."
> > 
> > That should be enough to make anyone very sceptical, but it is just the
> tip
> > of the melting iceberg. As far as your comments go, you have commited a
> > sin, and a pretty serious one
> > too: the fallacy of appealing to authority. 
> > 
> > You don't need a climate scientist to evaluate charges of fraud. Again:
> the
> > question is NOT how much or why temperatures are changing. The question
> is
> > did Mann et al fake temperatures, suppress conflicting scholarship, and
> then
> > destroy their data when they could no longer hide what they were doing. 
> The
> > evidence is widely available and overwhelmingly damning. 
> > 
> > Not that it should matter, but the Royal Society has just been forced by
> its
> > membership to
> > backtrack:
> >
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-
> 
> > new-climate-
> > change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html
> > 
> > Here's a snippet from the article:
> > 'The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming
> trend
> > of
> > the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.
> > 
> > 'In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments
> should
> > take "urgent 
> > steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This
> > political activism 
> > has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific
> > evidence and 
> > ongoing climate debates.
> > 
> > 'If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position
> all
> > along, its 
> > message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's
> > unilateral 
> > climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world.'
> > 
> > Focus on the evidence of fraud, not on the evidence of warming. If you
> find
> > the evidence of fraud compelling, as I do, then the inescapable corollary
> is
> > that a hugh load of BS is spewing from the involved universities,
> government
> > agencies, and scientific bodies. Talk about an environmental problem!
> > 
> > -Gary Isenhower
> > 
> > On 17 Oct 2010 at 1:37, parthasarathy k s wrote:
> > 
> > [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 
> > 
> > Dear Dr Gary Isenhower,
> > 
> > From the discussions on the climate change issue by a few members of the
> > list, I got the impression that most of those who contributed their
> views
> > were not keeping an open mind. My knowledge of the field is limited. In
> such
> > instances I tried to look for the views of scholarly bodies. I am aware
> of
> > the controversies surrounding the IPPC. It appears to me that there is
> some
> > vested interest in some groups of individuals.
> > 
> > There were comments made on the views of APS. But the National Academy
> of
> > Sciences seems to support broadly the conclusions of IPPC. The British
> Royal
> > Society has come out with a summary of its observations on climate
> science. 
> > 
> > 
> > It concludes thus: 
> > 
> > "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations
> due
> > to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has
> > taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected
> to
> > continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many
> regions.
> > Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have
> > profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems."
> > 
> > The report ends with the following:
> > 
> > ..........."Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate
> > change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the
> > remaining uncertainties were substantially resolved, the wide variety of
> > interests, cultures and beliefs in society would make consensus about
> such
> > choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts of climate
> > change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be
> > made.
> > Climate science - including the substantial body of knowledge that is
> > already well established, and the results of future research - is the
> > essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be
> a
> > vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging
> > area."....
> > 
> > [Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science .September
> 2010].
> > 
> > This report is available at
> > 
> > http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/ 
> > 
> > 
> > I find it extremely difficult to believe that every scholarly body has
> > vested interest in the field. I am conscious of the fact that I belong to
> a
> > minority in the list. I am sure that there are many in the list who
> likes
> > to remain silent. 
> > 
> > 
> > I personally believe that there is no need for supporting nuclear power
> for
> > its green-house reducing attributes.
> > 
> > 
> > regards
> > Parthasarathy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 ( 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