[ RadSafe ] RADSAFE CONSIDERATION OF GREENHOUSE EFFECT VALIDITY.......NOT -- was: RE: WINTER DEATHS Climate change health effects
SAFarber at optonline.net
Sat Nov 12 16:21:12 CST 2011
Radsafe is supposedly a site related very broadly to radiation protection, assessing and mitigating radiation impacts on man and the environment, risk assessment, nuclear energy, medical, and other societal uses of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and radioactivity, etc.
I don’t believe Radsafe is a site to debate the technical basis and fine details of the Greenhouse effect. I feel that consideration of the impact of the Greenhouse effect on public, legislative, regulatory, and media PERCEPTION of the pros and cons of nuclear energy or other radiation technology issues, IS a legitimate point of discussion on Radsafe. However, whether there is a worsening greenhouse effect and whether mankind is contributing to it in my opinion is completely irrelevant to our focus. We have enough to deal with in considering how to handle nuclear issues, let’s not bring on totally extraneous technical issues.
There are countless environmental sites devoted to every aspect of the Greenhouse effect from a human and environmental point of view. If someone is inclined to debate the existence, impact, trends, or causes of the so-called Greenhouse Effect they should debate it elsewhere.
Stewart Farber, MS Public Health --
Air Pollution Control, UMass Amherst School of Public Health ‘73
SAFarber at optonline.net
From: Brian Riely [mailto:brian.riely at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:59 AM
To: safarber at optonline.net
Cc: howard.long at comcast.net
Subject: FW: [ RadSafe ] WINTER DEATHS Climate change health effects
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.
It is well know that last year Phil Jones reluctantly admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. Therefore, the actual data indicates there has been no global warming in the past 15 years, although Phil Jones insists that this is only a blip. What should be obvious is that every model that shows man creating a significant increase in CO2 causes a statistically significant warming during the past 15 years is wrong.
He also admitted that the northern hemisphere was a lot warming around 1000 AD to 1400 AD; however, he is hoping that he can find data that shows the southern hemisphere was cooling. This is the exact opposite of how scientific research should be done: You assume that nature, i.e., the actual data is correct and you try to explain it. If your models do not explain the data, you make corrections or try to understand why your models fail; you do not try to cherry pick data to fit your model.
I believe the charts in Al Gore's movie show that first the oceans heat up, then they release CO2. There are also numerous data that shows an increase in CO2 follows an increase in global warming. That is, as Howard Long said, " What follows (CO2 increase) CANNOT cause what precedes (global T increase)!"
What has really impressed me about the man-made global warming agenda is the massive amount of fraud being perpetrated by the man-made global warming alarmist. As you probably know, the person responsible for claiming that global warming is killing the polar bears is being invested for scientific fraud.
As someone who is involved in the nuclear energy business, I guess you know that a lot of the anti-nuclear beliefs stem from people, in some cases noble prize winners, who purposely present fraudulent information to advance their agenda. This is usually done for political reasons. However, recently it was discovered that Sybil, the women with multi-personalities, was a complete hoax. The purpose of the hoax was for the perpetrators of the hoax to make money. I believe some 40,000 people were later diagnosed with multi-personalities.
Yes, media, legislators, and regulators have made the decision that man-made global warming is real because they have the same agenda. Also when you have a multi-trillion dollar industry, there are a lot of people who want to tap into that money source.
Heck, if you have a company that on paper is going to have trouble making money, you can still get the Obama administration to give you over 500 million dollars by saying it will create green jobs. (Then a year later the company files for bankruptcy and the American taxpayers foot part of the bill.)
As we experience record cold temperatures and rising energy cost, the public has become less interested in global warming.
Bottom line: man-made global warming is not a settled science, there has been a massive amount of fraud on the part of the global warming alarmist in an attempt to push their agenda, and the deleterious effects of man-made global warming has been greatly exaggerated.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Long
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:35 PM
To: SAFarber at optonline.net; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] WINTER DEATHS Climate change health effects
What follows (CO2 increase) CANNOT cause what precedes (global T increase)!
Where is your logic?
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]:
> 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
> 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
More information about the RadSafe