[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Waste Disposal in Arizona
Cmtimmpe at aol.com
Cmtimmpe at aol.com
Mon Apr 30 12:10:11 CDT 2012
Go to the following:
_http://www.azfamily.com/news/Nuclear-power-waste-and-storage-facility-proposed-for-Ariz-149324535.html_
(http://www.azfamily.com/news/Nuclear-power-waste-and-storage-facility-proposed-for-Ariz-149324535.ht
ml) for an interesting article. Look particularly at the comments - all
very negative. The nuclear industry needs an organized effort to post
positive and educational comments for all articles such as this. Until that
becomes automatic and constant, the industry will be held hostage by the
nay-sayers.
Christopher M. Timm, PE
Vice President/Senior Project Manager
PECOS Management Services, Inc.
505-323-8355 - phone
505-323-2028 - fax
505-238-8174 - mobile
In a message dated 4/25/2012 11:01:42 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu writes:
Send RadSafe mailing list submissions to
radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
radsafe-owner at health.phys.iit.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RadSafe digest..."
Important!
To keep threads/discussions more easily readable PLEASE observe the
following guideline when replying to a message or digest:
1. When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of radsafe digest ..."
2. Do NOT include the entire digest in your reply. Include ONLY the
germane sentences to which you're responding.
Thanks!_______________________________________________
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Global Stuff (JPreisig at aol.com)
2. Re: On Globak Warming (Jerry Cohen)
3. Re: Global Stuff (Brian Riely)
4. Re: Global Stuff (Karen Street)
5. Re: Global Stuff (Dan McCarn)
6. Re: Arnie Gundersen on KGO (Lantzelot)
7. Re: Dosimetry records (Kenneth Marshall)
8. Re: Global Stuff (Karen Street)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:23:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: JPreisig at aol.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Stuff
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID: <2f322.6d6f50c9.3cc83b96 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Dear Radsafe:
From: _jpreisig at aol.com_ (mailto:jpreisig at aol.com) .
Hey All,
So, what do the NOAA global temperature data say???? Is there
global warming or is there
not??? La Ninas are usually interspersed with El Ninos. Do a google
search on ENSO
(El Nino/ Southern Oscillation Index).
Maybe global warming is real. I don't really think so, but my MS
geology advisor disagrees with me.
Like I said before, the Earth has had polar motion amplitude
(Chandler wobble, Annual wobble)
peaks in 1910, 1954, 1998 (and eventually 2042). Such peaks result in
the Earth's geometric
pole dipping more fully downward towards the Sun. Thus the global
warming. The hot Earth times
could be due to thermal heat storage during these high polar motion
amplitude times. Carbon etc.
effects may be taking place also. We need to lessen human population
on the planet by
exercising restraint, especially in certain nations. These nations are
experiencing continuing
suffering/poverty etc. due to their large populations.
My earlier postings on Earth polar motion and global warming are
in the Radsafe archives.
Look at the temperature data yourself. Make up your own mind.
Glaciers in the
Karakorum are apparently coming back (thickness wise), according to
some news report.
Al Gore is from Tennessee, and as such is an Oak Ridge Boy (Oak
Ridge National Lab) ---
he does what is good for Tennessee. See also TVA -- Tennessee Valley
Authority.
Have a good week!!! Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig, PhD
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] On Globak Warming
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <1335289168.51808.YahooMailRC at web82702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
??? The?average temperature today is one degree higher that it was
yesterday?,
and yesterday's temperature was one degree higher than it was the day
before.
This constitutes an averagre rise in temperature of one degree per day. If
this
trend continues, in about three years from now, the average temperature
will
exceed 1000 degrees? and the earths surface will be a molten mass. Who
said
global warming is not a problem??
??? Maybe these data should be sent to East Anglia for assessment.
________________________________
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:33:21 -0400
From: "Brian Riely" <brian.riely at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Stuff
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
Mailing List'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4f977e9a.466f340a.44c5.fffffd88 at mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Oh My! 2010 tied for 'hottest' year?! Relax, it is 'purely a political
statement' -- Even NASA's Hansen admits it is 'not particularly important'
-- Prof. mocks 'hottest decade' claim as 'a joke'
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9435/Oh-My-2010-tied-for-hottest-year-Relax-it
-is-purely-a-political-statement--Even-NASAs-Hansen-admits-it-is-not-particu
larly-important--Prof-mocks-hottest-decade-claim-as-a-joke
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Street
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 8:50 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Stuff
I always suggested to people that they not cite Lovelock as what he said
did
not overlap well with scientific consensus. So far as I can tell from the
article, he is admitting to just that. But I doubt that any in science
believe that climate consensus will collapse because one analyst who didn't
participate in the process that begins with peer review admits he was
wrong.
Re Earth not warming as fast as had been predicted, there is a range of
predictions. If Earth is heating at the 0.2?C/decade predicted, then the
range of expected temperature increases over any particular decade actually
includes some decades with cooling, because of weather (eg, lots of La
Ninas). That said, 2010 is the hottest year on record, despite the sun
being
the coolest on record (since satellite measurements began in the 1970s) and
despite the huge increase in particulates from coal and other fossil fuels
which cool the Earth, temporarily. So IPCC's prediction, consensus
predictions, look good; Lovelock's not so much.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created to report scientific
consensus, but it's a slow process. The most recent set of reports is 5
years old, based on information that is >6 years old. For more recent
understanding, you can go to NOAA or the lads in East Anglia.
On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:03 AM, John R Johnson wrote:
> Brad
>
> Thanks. That is closer to my view of reality.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Brad Keck <bradkeck at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Lovelock has softened his view:
>>
>>
>>
http://www.huliq.com/3257/climate-scientist-james-lovelock-says-he-was-wrong
-about-catastrophic-global-warming
>>
>> Something approaching the raw global temperature data can be had at
NOAA:
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
>>
>> if you work at it a while :} But it is still always better to plot the
>> data yourself than just listen to the lads in East Anglia! Also,
insomnia
>> just melts away..
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Brad Keck
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 1:08 PM, JPreisig at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> J.R. Johnson,
>>>
>>> Is there a reference referred to in the google news item??? I
>> don't
>>> know.
>>> He seems to be an independent researcher. The gentleman has written
>> books
>>> on global warming.
>>> Maybe his data source references are in one of his books???
>>>
>>> I suspect global warming data, in general, might be available from
>>> NASA/Goddard Space Center,
>>> US NOAA and its weather branches, etc. The British may have similar
>>> meteorological agencies.
>>>
>>> I remember some of the global warming reports coming out of the
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> (Britain). A weather/atmospheric/meteorology professor out of Penn
>> State
>>> (Dr. Mann) was also the
>>> source of some of the global warming articles.
>>>
>>> I guess a google search on global warming or earth AND temperature
>>> might be a good source
>>> of information. See also Wikipedia????
>>>
>>> Hope you find what you want. Joe Preisig
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In a message dated 4/23/2012 1:56:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>> idiasjrj at gmail.com writes:
>>>
>>> Isthere a reference to data that supports his opinion?
>>>
>>> J. R. Johnson
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, <JPreisig at aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Radsafe:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: _jpreisig at aol.com_ (mailto:jpreisig at aol.com) .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>
>>>> Hope you are well. Google news today has a news item about one
>>>> of the Global Warming gurus
>>>> (Lovelock???) and describes how he is stepping back from his original
>>> dire
>>>> predictions for Earth
>>>> Global Warming and the Earth's future. Seems temperature data for
the
>>>> Earth is indicating (over
>>>> the last decade or so) that the Earth isn't getting as toasty/hot as
>> he
>>>> had predicted. Please read the news
>>>> item if you so desire.
>>>>
>>>> Was it all just Earth polar motion (Chandler Wobble, Annual
>>>> Wobble) or other things????
>>>> Guess we'll see in the near future...
>>>>
>>>> Google news today also has a news item about the DARPA (not
>>>> DAPRA!!!!!) hypersonic
>>>> plane and recent tests trying to go MACH 20 (MACH 20, Geez, is that
>>> really
>>>> necessary; how much acceleration/velocity can a human or payload
>>>> stand???). The news item
>>>> addresses how the hypersonic plane/spacecraft failed.
>>>>
>>>> And for my friends in Pennsylvania, eastern Pennsylvania has
>>>> natural gas and western
>>>> Pennsylvania has coal. I'm sure USA power companies will be using
>> both
>>>> resources over the next
>>>> 20 to 50 years. And when everything else is gone, the USA will still
>>> have
>>>> nuclear power and
>>>> coal. I do remember there are a few nuclear plants in Pennsylvania.
>>>>
>>>> Is it time for Atmospheric researchers to jump off the global
>>>> warming bandwagon????
>>>>
>>>> Maybe if DARPA can lower the MACH number a bit, one of us
Health
>>>> Physicists,
>>>> Nuclear Engineers, Medical Physicists, Physicists etc. can take a
trip
>> on
>>>> the hypersonic plane/
>>>> spacecraft to Mars???!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Have a great week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig
--
Best wishes,
Karen Street
Friends Energy Project
blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:05:42 -0700
From: Karen Street <Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Stuff
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <93B61391-154E-490C-A95F-FAED8AE8A61A at sbcglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Oops! that web site, sponsored by Heartland Institute, says that climate
change is all wrong. Climate depot provides boucoup evidence from that other
method of doing science (skip peer review and appeal directly to the
public).
Has anyone else read Jonathan Haidt's excellent The Righteous Mind?
Apparently the use of exploratory reasoning (look at the issues and try to
understand them) isn't very common. Much more common, much, much more, is
confirmatory reasoning: have a gut reaction in a fraction of a second, and then
use your reasoning to confirm that your initial reaction is correct. That
makes science hard, because Nature often produces different rules than the gut.
So science is hard. Finding web sites that agree with the gut, not so
much.
> Oh My! 2010 tied for 'hottest' year?! Relax, it is 'purely a political
> statement' -- Even NASA's Hansen admits it is 'not particularly
important'
> -- Prof. mocks 'hottest decade' claim as 'a joke'
>
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9435/Oh-My-2010-tied-for-hottest-year-Relax-it
>
-is-purely-a-political-statement--Even-NASAs-Hansen-admits-it-is-not-particu
> larly-important--Prof-mocks-hottest-decade-claim-as-a-joke
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Street
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 8:50 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Stuff
>
> I always suggested to people that they not cite Lovelock as what he said
did
> not overlap well with scientific consensus. So far as I can tell from the
> article, he is admitting to just that. But I doubt that any in science
> believe that climate consensus will collapse because one analyst who
didn't
> participate in the process that begins with peer review admits he was
wrong.
>
> Re Earth not warming as fast as had been predicted, there is a range of
> predictions. If Earth is heating at the 0.2?C/decade predicted, then the
> range of expected temperature increases over any particular decade
actually
> includes some decades with cooling, because of weather (eg, lots of La
> Ninas). That said, 2010 is the hottest year on record, despite the sun
being
> the coolest on record (since satellite measurements began in the 1970s)
and
> despite the huge increase in particulates from coal and other fossil
fuels
> which cool the Earth, temporarily. So IPCC's prediction, consensus
> predictions, look good; Lovelock's not so much.
>
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created to report
scientific
> consensus, but it's a slow process. The most recent set of reports is 5
> years old, based on information that is >6 years old. For more recent
> understanding, you can go to NOAA or the lads in East Anglia.
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:03 AM, John R Johnson wrote:
>
>> Brad
>>
>> Thanks. That is closer to my view of reality.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Brad Keck <bradkeck at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Lovelock has softened his view:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
http://www.huliq.com/3257/climate-scientist-james-lovelock-says-he-was-wrong
> -about-catastrophic-global-warming
>>>
>>> Something approaching the raw global temperature data can be had at
NOAA:
>>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
>>>
>>> if you work at it a while :} But it is still always better to plot the
>>> data yourself than just listen to the lads in East Anglia! Also,
> insomnia
>>> just melts away..
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Brad Keck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 1:08 PM, JPreisig at aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> J.R. Johnson,
>>>>
>>>> Is there a reference referred to in the google news item??? I
>>> don't
>>>> know.
>>>> He seems to be an independent researcher. The gentleman has written
>>> books
>>>> on global warming.
>>>> Maybe his data source references are in one of his books???
>>>>
>>>> I suspect global warming data, in general, might be available from
>>>> NASA/Goddard Space Center,
>>>> US NOAA and its weather branches, etc. The British may have similar
>>>> meteorological agencies.
>>>>
>>>> I remember some of the global warming reports coming out of the
>>>> University of East Anglia
>>>> (Britain). A weather/atmospheric/meteorology professor out of Penn
>>> State
>>>> (Dr. Mann) was also the
>>>> source of some of the global warming articles.
>>>>
>>>> I guess a google search on global warming or earth AND temperature
>>>> might be a good source
>>>> of information. See also Wikipedia????
>>>>
>>>> Hope you find what you want. Joe Preisig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated 4/23/2012 1:56:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>> idiasjrj at gmail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>> Isthere a reference to data that supports his opinion?
>>>>
>>>> J. R. Johnson
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, <JPreisig at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Radsafe:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: _jpreisig at aol.com_ (mailto:jpreisig at aol.com) .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope you are well. Google news today has a news item about one
>>>>> of the Global Warming gurus
>>>>> (Lovelock???) and describes how he is stepping back from his
original
>>>> dire
>>>>> predictions for Earth
>>>>> Global Warming and the Earth's future. Seems temperature data for
the
>>>>> Earth is indicating (over
>>>>> the last decade or so) that the Earth isn't getting as toasty/hot
as
>>> he
>>>>> had predicted. Please read the news
>>>>> item if you so desire.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was it all just Earth polar motion (Chandler Wobble, Annual
>>>>> Wobble) or other things????
>>>>> Guess we'll see in the near future...
>>>>>
>>>>> Google news today also has a news item about the DARPA (not
>>>>> DAPRA!!!!!) hypersonic
>>>>> plane and recent tests trying to go MACH 20 (MACH 20, Geez, is that
>>>> really
>>>>> necessary; how much acceleration/velocity can a human or payload
>>>>> stand???). The news item
>>>>> addresses how the hypersonic plane/spacecraft failed.
>>>>>
>>>>> And for my friends in Pennsylvania, eastern Pennsylvania has
>>>>> natural gas and western
>>>>> Pennsylvania has coal. I'm sure USA power companies will be using
>>> both
>>>>> resources over the next
>>>>> 20 to 50 years. And when everything else is gone, the USA will
still
>>>> have
>>>>> nuclear power and
>>>>> coal. I do remember there are a few nuclear plants in
Pennsylvania.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it time for Atmospheric researchers to jump off the global
>>>>> warming bandwagon????
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe if DARPA can lower the MACH number a bit, one of us
Health
>>>>> Physicists,
>>>>> Nuclear Engineers, Medical Physicists, Physicists etc. can take a
trip
>>> on
>>>>> the hypersonic plane/
>>>>> spacecraft to Mars???!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a great week.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Karen Street
> Friends Energy Project
> blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Best wishes,
Karen Street
Friends Energy Project
blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:33:47 -0600
From: Dan McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Stuff
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CAD=JBaxNo2L-dEmPngA+_0UroAT4LPs8HmCUTaDQw0mxcuYV2A at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Hi Group:
Quite a lively discussion! I wanted to throw my 2 cents in. The global
temperature is quite sensitive to a number of factors including dust
shrouding from volcanic explosions. There was a the significant global
temperature drop caused by Krakatoa in the late 19th Century which amounted
to an average 1 degree C drop for several years. "Average global
temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following
the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and
temperatures did not return to normal until 1888." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
I remember the early portions of the climate debate being rather sane
until
it became a political debate, and then there was "Fact" with no discussion.
As a geologist, I hate having "facts" crammed down my throat before I have
a chance to look at the data. Being a geologist, it is impossible to
imagine an Earth that does not have very significant changes in climate on
a regular or irregular basis.
Dan ii
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home ? New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Karen Street
<Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
> I always suggested to people that they not cite Lovelock as what he said
> did not overlap well with scientific consensus. So far as I can tell from
> the article, he is admitting to just that. But I doubt that any in
science
> believe that climate consensus will collapse because one analyst who
didn't
> participate in the process that begins with peer review admits he was
wrong.
>
> Re Earth not warming as fast as had been predicted, there is a range of
> predictions. If Earth is heating at the 0.2?C/decade predicted, then the
> range of expected temperature increases over any particular decade
actually
> includes some decades with cooling, because of weather (eg, lots of La
> Ninas). That said, 2010 is the hottest year on record, despite the sun
> being the coolest on record (since satellite measurements began in the
> 1970s) and despite the huge increase in particulates from coal and other
> fossil fuels which cool the Earth, temporarily. So IPCC's prediction,
> consensus predictions, look good; Lovelock's not so much.
>
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created to report
scientific
> consensus, but it's a slow process. The most recent set of reports is 5
> years old, based on information that is >6 years old. For more recent
> understanding, you can go to NOAA or the lads in East Anglia.
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:03 AM, John R Johnson wrote:
>
> > Brad
> >
> > Thanks. That is closer to my view of reality.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Brad Keck <bradkeck at mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John,
> >>
> >> Lovelock has softened his view:
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
http://www.huliq.com/3257/climate-scientist-james-lovelock-says-he-was-wrong-about-catastrophic-global-warming
> >>
> >> Something approaching the raw global temperature data can be had at
> NOAA:
> >> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
> >>
> >> if you work at it a while :} But it is still always better to plot
the
> >> data yourself than just listen to the lads in East Anglia! Also,
> insomnia
> >> just melts away..
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Brad Keck
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 23, 2012, at 1:08 PM, JPreisig at aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> J.R. Johnson,
> >>>
> >>> Is there a reference referred to in the google news item??? I
> >> don't
> >>> know.
> >>> He seems to be an independent researcher. The gentleman has written
> >> books
> >>> on global warming.
> >>> Maybe his data source references are in one of his books???
> >>>
> >>> I suspect global warming data, in general, might be available
from
> >>> NASA/Goddard Space Center,
> >>> US NOAA and its weather branches, etc. The British may have similar
> >>> meteorological agencies.
> >>>
> >>> I remember some of the global warming reports coming out of the
> >>> University of East Anglia
> >>> (Britain). A weather/atmospheric/meteorology professor out of Penn
> >> State
> >>> (Dr. Mann) was also the
> >>> source of some of the global warming articles.
> >>>
> >>> I guess a google search on global warming or earth AND
temperature
> >>> might be a good source
> >>> of information. See also Wikipedia????
> >>>
> >>> Hope you find what you want. Joe Preisig
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In a message dated 4/23/2012 1:56:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> >>> idiasjrj at gmail.com writes:
> >>>
> >>> Isthere a reference to data that supports his opinion?
> >>>
> >>> J. R. Johnson
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, <JPreisig at aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear Radsafe:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: _jpreisig at aol.com_ (mailto:jpreisig at aol.com) .
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope you are well. Google news today has a news item about one
> >>>> of the Global Warming gurus
> >>>> (Lovelock???) and describes how he is stepping back from his
original
> >>> dire
> >>>> predictions for Earth
> >>>> Global Warming and the Earth's future. Seems temperature data for
> the
> >>>> Earth is indicating (over
> >>>> the last decade or so) that the Earth isn't getting as
toasty/hot as
> >> he
> >>>> had predicted. Please read the news
> >>>> item if you so desire.
> >>>>
> >>>> Was it all just Earth polar motion (Chandler Wobble, Annual
> >>>> Wobble) or other things????
> >>>> Guess we'll see in the near future...
> >>>>
> >>>> Google news today also has a news item about the DARPA (not
> >>>> DAPRA!!!!!) hypersonic
> >>>> plane and recent tests trying to go MACH 20 (MACH 20, Geez, is that
> >>> really
> >>>> necessary; how much acceleration/velocity can a human or payload
> >>>> stand???). The news item
> >>>> addresses how the hypersonic plane/spacecraft failed.
> >>>>
> >>>> And for my friends in Pennsylvania, eastern Pennsylvania has
> >>>> natural gas and western
> >>>> Pennsylvania has coal. I'm sure USA power companies will be using
> >> both
> >>>> resources over the next
> >>>> 20 to 50 years. And when everything else is gone, the USA will
still
> >>> have
> >>>> nuclear power and
> >>>> coal. I do remember there are a few nuclear plants in
Pennsylvania.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it time for Atmospheric researchers to jump off the global
> >>>> warming bandwagon????
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe if DARPA can lower the MACH number a bit, one of us
Health
> >>>> Physicists,
> >>>> Nuclear Engineers, Medical Physicists, Physicists etc. can take a
> trip
> >> on
> >>>> the hypersonic plane/
> >>>> spacecraft to Mars???!!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> Have a great week.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Karen Street
> Friends Energy Project
> blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:22:17 +0200
From: Lantzelot <lantzelot at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Arnie Gundersen on KGO
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4F8D3649.3080707 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Roger,
Good work!
I'd be happy to have the sound files.
/Mattias
On 04/17/2012 04:52 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:
> I have been very slowly working on typing a transcript word by word and
> have gotten to the first statement that I highly doubt - I still have a
way
> to go to the skyshine comment, but this was preceded with a brief
> statement, still being elaborated on that the biggest problem is still
the
> fuel pool at Unit # 4
>
>
> G Yes, the radiation exposure in the best reactor, which is Unit 2 was
> 7000 R an hour
>
> Since radiation measurements are no longer being given in Roentgens, I
> really doubt that anyone has reported 7000 Roentgens per hour in the
bowels
> of Unit 2 or any other reactor at Fukushima.
>
> I have completed cutting the radio hour into four segments and have
> eliminated the commercials and news breaks so if anyone would like the
> audio, please, let me know.
>
> Roger Helbig
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 07:19:37 -0400
From: Kenneth Marshall <kenneth.marshall at carestream.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dosimetry records
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<OF1B216855.233611F0-ON002579E5.003B1528-852579E5.003E38A3 at cs-notes.carestre
amhealth.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
We eliminated Social Security Number ID altogether as well as any
documented Date Of Birth for dosiemtry records (for over 5 years now). We
use a unique employee ID#.
With State Agencies, FDA GMP and other agency audits, this has been
routinely questioned if it is a "medical record" and we counter with that
it is occupational monitoring (e.g. Industrial Hygiene) an would be the
same as record of agents of exposure in the workplace (chemicals, noise,
etc) and this has usually left auditors satisfied. Ask if your employer
also considers noise studies with dosimeters "medical records".
With the electronic statements on Instadose, we don't post reports on the
wall - Employees login with their own secure ID and see only their data.
This helps immensely - If its not on the wall - its not subject to as much
audit scrutiny.
If the dosiemtry manager sees elevated employee dose values, we follow-up
with a standard form asking the employee to offer up reasons for the
elevated exposure - that may be "not occupational" its completely
voluntary, but I have yet to have anyone refuse.
-Ken
Kenneth Marshall
Carestream Health
Corporate Radiation & Laser Safety Officer
From: "Perle, Sandy" <sperle at mirion.com>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: "radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Date: 04/18/2012 05:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dosimetry records
Sent by: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
In all my years this was not a concern until the past years. We now only
display last 4 digits of SSN. The lint can request total info with full
SSN. Electronic distribution of data to individual with security
eliminates all of this
Regards,
Sandy Perle
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:19 AM, "Jeanne Haslett" <jhaslett at pikainc.com>
wrote:
> When I managed a dosimetry program the information was handled under the
> "Privacy Act". Any information associated with your name or SSAN was
not
> to be publicly distributed or displayed.
>
>
> From: Lawrence Jacobi <rjacobi at jacobiconsulting.net>
> Date: Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:26 AM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dosimetry Reports
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> Are OSL dosimetry reports showing personnel doses to individuals,
> whose names are listed on the report, subject to the privacy
> provisions of HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and
> Accountability Act)? ?The personnel director for one of my clients has
> determined this to be the case. ?In some facilities I have visited
> recently, the dosimetry reports are posted on the bulletin board in
> the break room or near the NRC Form 3 Notice to Workers for all to
> see. ?She treats bioassay reports the same way. ?I don't have an
> opinion either way, as I can see merit in her analysis. ?But, this is
> a new one to me.
>
> Any comments or advice?
> Best Regards,
>
> *Jeanne Haslett*
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:41:52 -0700
From: Karen Street <Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Stuff
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <35292FAD-F36B-4CE4-A323-18057CC05CB4 at sbcglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Rich Muller embarrassed himself by making exactly some of these claims in
a very public way before checking. He then accepted Koch money for the
explicit purpose of finding problems with the data used by climatologists
around the world. Here are the findings of his group: http://berkeleyearth.org/
Bottom line: the data used by climatologists are just fine.
> Hi Group:
>
> Quite a lively discussion! I wanted to throw my 2 cents in. The global
> temperature is quite sensitive to a number of factors including dust
> shrouding from volcanic explosions. There was a the significant global
> temperature drop caused by Krakatoa in the late 19th Century which
amounted
> to an average 1 degree C drop for several years. "Average global
> temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following
> the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and
> temperatures did not return to normal until 1888." From:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
>
> I remember the early portions of the climate debate being rather sane
until
> it became a political debate, and then there was "Fact" with no
discussion.
> As a geologist, I hate having "facts" crammed down my throat before I
have
> a chance to look at the data. Being a geologist, it is impossible to
> imagine an Earth that does not have very significant changes in climate
on
> a regular or irregular basis.
>
> Dan ii
>
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
> +1-505-672-2014 (Home ? New Mexico)
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Karen Street
<Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
>
>> I always suggested to people that they not cite Lovelock as what he
said
>> did not overlap well with scientific consensus. So far as I can tell
from
>> the article, he is admitting to just that. But I doubt that any in
science
>> believe that climate consensus will collapse because one analyst who
didn't
>> participate in the process that begins with peer review admits he was
wrong.
>>
>> Re Earth not warming as fast as had been predicted, there is a range of
>> predictions. If Earth is heating at the 0.2?C/decade predicted, then the
>> range of expected temperature increases over any particular decade
actually
>> includes some decades with cooling, because of weather (eg, lots of La
>> Ninas). That said, 2010 is the hottest year on record, despite the sun
>> being the coolest on record (since satellite measurements began in the
>> 1970s) and despite the huge increase in particulates from coal and other
>> fossil fuels which cool the Earth, temporarily. So IPCC's prediction,
>> consensus predictions, look good; Lovelock's not so much.
>>
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created to report
scientific
>> consensus, but it's a slow process. The most recent set of reports is 5
>> years old, based on information that is >6 years old. For more recent
>> understanding, you can go to NOAA or the lads in East Anglia.
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:03 AM, John R Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Brad
>>>
>>> Thanks. That is closer to my view of reality.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Brad Keck <bradkeck at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> Lovelock has softened his view:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.huliq.com/3257/climate-scientist-james-lovelock-says-he-was-wrong-about-catastrophic-global-warming
>>>>
>>>> Something approaching the raw global temperature data can be had at
>> NOAA:
>>>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
>>>>
>>>> if you work at it a while :} But it is still always better to plot
the
>>>> data yourself than just listen to the lads in East Anglia! Also,
>> insomnia
>>>> just melts away..
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Brad Keck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 1:08 PM, JPreisig at aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> J.R. Johnson,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a reference referred to in the google news item??? I
>>>> don't
>>>>> know.
>>>>> He seems to be an independent researcher. The gentleman has written
>>>> books
>>>>> on global warming.
>>>>> Maybe his data source references are in one of his books???
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect global warming data, in general, might be available
from
>>>>> NASA/Goddard Space Center,
>>>>> US NOAA and its weather branches, etc. The British may have similar
>>>>> meteorological agencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember some of the global warming reports coming out of the
>>>>> University of East Anglia
>>>>> (Britain). A weather/atmospheric/meteorology professor out of Penn
>>>> State
>>>>> (Dr. Mann) was also the
>>>>> source of some of the global warming articles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess a google search on global warming or earth AND
temperature
>>>>> might be a good source
>>>>> of information. See also Wikipedia????
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope you find what you want. Joe Preisig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In a message dated 4/23/2012 1:56:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>>> idiasjrj at gmail.com writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Isthere a reference to data that supports his opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> J. R. Johnson
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, <JPreisig at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Radsafe:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: _jpreisig at aol.com_ (mailto:jpreisig at aol.com) .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope you are well. Google news today has a news item about one
>>>>>> of the Global Warming gurus
>>>>>> (Lovelock???) and describes how he is stepping back from his
original
>>>>> dire
>>>>>> predictions for Earth
>>>>>> Global Warming and the Earth's future. Seems temperature data for
>> the
>>>>>> Earth is indicating (over
>>>>>> the last decade or so) that the Earth isn't getting as toasty/hot
as
>>>> he
>>>>>> had predicted. Please read the news
>>>>>> item if you so desire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was it all just Earth polar motion (Chandler Wobble, Annual
>>>>>> Wobble) or other things????
>>>>>> Guess we'll see in the near future...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google news today also has a news item about the DARPA (not
>>>>>> DAPRA!!!!!) hypersonic
>>>>>> plane and recent tests trying to go MACH 20 (MACH 20, Geez, is that
>>>>> really
>>>>>> necessary; how much acceleration/velocity can a human or payload
>>>>>> stand???). The news item
>>>>>> addresses how the hypersonic plane/spacecraft failed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And for my friends in Pennsylvania, eastern Pennsylvania has
>>>>>> natural gas and western
>>>>>> Pennsylvania has coal. I'm sure USA power companies will be using
>>>> both
>>>>>> resources over the next
>>>>>> 20 to 50 years. And when everything else is gone, the USA will
still
>>>>> have
>>>>>> nuclear power and
>>>>>> coal. I do remember there are a few nuclear plants in
Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it time for Atmospheric researchers to jump off the global
>>>>>> warming bandwagon????
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe if DARPA can lower the MACH number a bit, one of us
Health
>>>>>> Physicists,
>>>>>> Nuclear Engineers, Medical Physicists, Physicists etc. can take a
>> trip
>>>> on
>>>>>> the hypersonic plane/
>>>>>> spacecraft to Mars???!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have a great week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig
>>
--
Best wishes,
Karen Street
Friends Energy Project
blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RadSafe mailing list
RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 954, Issue 1
***************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list