[ RadSafe ] Why discuss "global warming" on radsafe?

[Jerry Cohen]

For years now, posts  related to the global warming (GW) controversy have 
appeared on this website despite the fact the subject is unrelated to radiation. 
As I see it, the main reason for this is that both GW and radiation protection 
have something in common. They both involve disputes where the forces of 
irrationality have far greater influence than those using logic, reason, and the 
principles of science. An ounce of passion is worth a pound of logic. It seems 
that the public didn't learn much from the  story of Chicken Little.




________________________________
From: Stewart Farber <SAFarber at optonline.net>
To: Brian Riely <brian.riely at gmail.com>; The International Radiation Protection 
(Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Sat, November 12, 2011 2:21:12 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] RADSAFE CONSIDERATION OF GREENHOUSE EFFECT 
VALIDITY.......NOT -- was: RE: WINTER DEATHS Climate change health effects

All,

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



Steward

You wrote:

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.

-----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, 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

Stewart, 

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

_______________________________________________

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