[ RadSafe ] Why [ "NOT TO" ]discuss "global warming" on radsafe?
safarber at optimum.net
safarber at optimum.net
Sun Nov 13 11:21:07 CST 2011
As I suggested, how perception of Global Warming [GW] and the Greenhouse Effect [GE] affects rad technologies in terms of risk and benefit balancing by the public is completely relevant to Radsafe. What the public perceives, and is concerned about, without any doubt influences what regulators, legislators, media, and "environmental groups" ultimately do. Despite many other major incentives for nuclear energy, concerns about GW and the GE has become a major factor influencing attitudes and acceptability for nuclear power plants.
People are willing to accept what they perceive as a certain level of risk from various aspects of nuclear energy [or any of man's endeavors], if they perceive that there are other factors that provide a benefit worth accepting the perceived risk.
For more than a decade now, GW has changed the debate about nuclear energy acceptability. I am not suggesting radiation technology "scientists" distort the risks of GW or the GE for their self-interest, but recognize and accept as a factor how the public perceives the issues.
It is not generally the responsibility of radiation protection specialists [unless you are an atmospheric physicist or environmental technologist directly connected to the potential impacts of GW or the GE] to try and change public perceptions about GW.
Any nuclear technology involved technical specialist has more than enough work to do to promote a balanced and technically accurate perception of nuclear technologies by the public, legislators, regulators, media and any other "stakeholders" so a nuclear technology can operate in a justifiable manner. Otherwise, nuclear plants end up being forced to spend $100,000,000 to reduce a Sv of integrated population exposure.
Don't you just love the word "stakeholders" regarding nuclear or other environmental issues?
In general it is seen that "stakeholder" groups are generally intent on driving a stake through the body of the technology they are connected in some review activity. When I see the word "stakeholder", I immediately think of the old Wendy's commercial with the little old lady: "Where's the beef?"
For example in various situations the "Green Party" has managed to force an extremist representative into some technical review or oversight process. From the first step, their intent and actions were solely to derail the review process. These stakeholder's then tried to force consideration of fringe science with little or no technical basis. Like I wrote above: "Where's the beef?"
Stewart Farber, MSPH
SAFarber at optonline.net
Sat. Nov. 12
Jerry Cohen wrote:
"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
> To: Brian Riely ; The International
> Radiation Protection
> (Health Physics) Mailing List
> 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
> Radsafe is supposedly a site related very broadly to radiation
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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-
> 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
> What follows (CO2 increase) CANNOT cause what precedes (global T
> 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
> 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
> > 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
> >contribution of nuclear generation by over 400 nuclear plants
> > 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
> >capacity, for their petty ego gratification and financial
> interests. Is such a
> >thing possible?
> > Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
> > 203-441-8433
> > _______________________________________________
More information about the RadSafe