[ RadSafe ] WINTER DEATHS Climate change health effects

Howard Long howard.long at comcast.net
Fri Nov 11 17:35:04 CST 2011

What follows (CO2 increase) CANNOT cause what precedes (global T increase)!
Where is your logic?

See www.petitionproject.org 
True scientists tried to disprove beliefs (null hypothesis).
I am one of 32,000 scientifically trained
 ( over 900 with PhDs in oceanography, climatology and directly related disciplines) 
who signed the petition seen there. We can be tracked on Google.

I and most of them also support nuclear energy, and strongly.

7(SEVEN TIMES) the heat or cold related deaths occur in 10 different countries in WINTER compared with summer!

Howard Long MD MPH, VP Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

howard.long at comcast.net

On Nov 11, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Stewart Farber <SAFarber at optonline.net> wrote:

> A study appearing online today,  is being published in a true peer reviewed journal -- the  November issue of the journal Health Affairs. See:
> "Six Climate Change–Related Events In The United States Accounted For About $14 Billion In Lost Lives And Health Costs"
> Health Aff November 2011 30:112167-2176;
> A news summary of above journal article [the full article is by subscription to the Journal, Health Affairs, or single article purchase only]:
> http://www.onearth.org/article/climate-change-health-costs-big-bill
> The above analysis highlights, to any right-headed sentient person, the incentive for non-fossil fuel power generation, including the beneficial contribution of nuclear generation by over 400 nuclear plants worldwide.
> PLEASE, let's not make this post a stimulus to a contentious online debate about whether or not Global Warming is real or if real is occuring due to humanity's actions.  That ship has sailed, and to argue against it makes a person  appear as beyond-the-fringe. The public, media, legislators, and regulators have made that decision.
> There is no need for anyone to try and argue that radiation exposure as it exists from background,  medical uses, global fallout, Consumer, Misc. Industrial,  and nuclear energy [from highest to absolute lowest integrated exposure] is a minimal to trivial risk, while at the same time trying to argue that global warming does not exist.
> For the record, per the recent NCRP 160, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the US", a summation of radiation exposure is tabulated below in person Sv:
> Ubiquitous Background:        933,000 person Sv
> Medical:                      899,000
> Consumer-misc.:                37,400
> Industrial [non-nuclear power]: 1,000
> Nuclear Power:                    150    [less that 0.01% of total]
> TOTAL:                      1,870,000 person Sv
> Amazingly, there are reports that some "scientists"  try to make a lucrative career out of distorting the most basic issues of radiation dosimetry and risk, while exploiting trivial integrated radiation exposure from Nuclear Power. I have even heard that there may be some con men who attempt to terrify the Japanese public for example into such actions as buying little radiation detox mineral/multivitamin strength tablets at almost $100 per bottle. These extremist interests would have society squander over $1 trillion by shutting down a beneficial technology like today's worldwide nuclear electric generation capacity,  for their petty ego gratification and financial interests. Is such a thing possible?
> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
> 203-441-8433
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the RadSafe mailing list