[ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?

[HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net]

2X the CO2 (750ppm) would save water, grow crops better and have little more greenhouse effect. 

Pollution?! 

Howard Long 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marty Bourquin" <Marty.Bourquin at grace.com> 
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:28:05 AM 
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind? 

Temporarily ignoring whether or not the rise in temperature is part of 
the natural cycle or is being caused by man made factors - is there 
anyone on this list that truly believes that putting over 6.2 billion 
(with a B) net tonnes per year of CO2 into the atmosphere will not, in 
the long term, have deleterious effects? (heating , cooling, turning the 
air pink, whatever) Do we all also believe that prohibiting the 
discharging of CFCs into the atmosphere was a scam designed to make 
money for one group or another? 

Sorry, but I have children and grandchildren who have to live on this 
rock - how can I, in good conscience, not oppose polluting the ground, 
water and air? 

Marty 

Martin W. Bourquin 
Manager - EHS, RSO 
W.R. Grace & Co 
Chattanooga, TN 37406 
423-697-8216 

423-309-1547(m) 





-----Original Message----- 
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Emer, Dudley 
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:06 PM 
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open 
mind? 

Considering that Venus is the second closest planet to the sun at 67 
Mega miles compared to earth's 93 Mega miles and the solar irradiance is 
twice earth's at 2600 W/cm^2. I guess one could expect a bit of heating 
with any atmosphere that is 90 times as dense as earth's. But comparing 
it to earth's global warming is a bit of a stretch. 

Although I bet if you went for a research grant on that theory the IPPC 
money would roll in. 

Dudley Emer 
Geophysicist 
National Security Technologies 
Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nv 
702-295-7808 office 
702-794-5824 pager 
702-521-8577 cell 


-----Original Message----- 
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Rogers 
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:54 AM 
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List 
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open 
mind? 

True that. But the average surface temperature is between 450 - 500C, 
therefore high CO2 does indeed result in higher temps. 


> Regards 
> Brent Rogers 
> Sydney Australia 
> (currently on vacation in Hot Springs Arkansas, USA) 

Sent from my iPad 

On 19/10/2010, at 10:21 AM, "Peter Fear" <FEARP at upstate.edu> wrote: 

> 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: 
>> 
_______________________________________________ 
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