[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Fri May 30 11:22:08 CDT 2014

One thing upon which we could broadly agree is that if CO2 reduction from coal power is to occur, nuclear power has to be a larger component of electricity production.  

As soon as next week USEPA will announce some variant of cap and trade to reduce coal emissions.  It is unclear at least to me whether nuclear power will be allowed  to participate.   If the EPA is serious, then this could be an important link for the financing of future nuclear power.   Interested parties should make their thoughts known to the public, as well as the legislative and regulatory branches! 

Split atoms, spare trees! 

Bradly D. Keck

> On May 30, 2014, at 8:37 AM, "Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov> wrote:
> 
> ????
> 
> Not sure of what to make of all of this "hub-bub." Let's just paste a material safety data sheet on the foreheads of every person on Earth!  After-all, humans exhale CO2 as well as other more noxious gasses. Why not just regulate man-kind out of existence? Ahh yes, that's the real effort behind the  tree huggers and all of the excessive regulations - including trying to shut down over one third of the power plants in the US (yes, that means our available electricity will go down by over 30%) because they generate CO2. Who is going to pay for that? Please Google the print title: Behind the Green Mask. 
> 
> Read it. Understand it. Worry about what it says.
> 
> Regards,
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:58 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
> 
> The evidence, according to the majority of the people who have studied this the most, is that climate change doesn't bring an overall greening of the whole planet, but disruptions of the weather patterns that ecologies and human activities have adapted to.  Drought one place and flooding another doesn't actually average out to normal everywhere.  Winter temperatures that don't get as cold as they used to may sound good, but if the freeze doesn't kill the plants and insects it used to, or doesn't trigger the changes in the seeds needed for them to germinate, it is disruptive.  
> 
> I assure you, I understand the difference between CO and CO2.  Any facility that released CO in the tonnage a coal burning power plant releases CO2 in should be shut down, by artillery if necessary.  That CO2 is less toxic and less reactive than CO isn't, in my opinion, an argument against decreasing CO2 through improved efficiency (I accept the argument that improvements in engine design would improve the efficiency of the burn, improving efficiency and making catalytic converters unnecessary.  The first generation of catalytic converters decreased engine efficiency mostly as a "you're not the boss of me" statement from the US auto industry, which traditionally shows the maturity of a bunch of kindergartener thugs.)
> 
> As for water vapor: Yes, it is an important greenhouse gas, and yes, regulating it would be rather silly.  As an argument against regulating other greenhouse gasses this is like saying that since many forest fires start from lightening it is pointless to have laws forbidding throwing cigarettes from cars.  Besides, I suspect you will find the half-life of water vapor in the air is shorter than that of the greenhouse gasses it is suggested we try to control.   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Riely
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 10:26 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
> 
> Of course I agree with almost everything you wrote.  However, if you want an earth that looks greener, you probably should increase CO2.  Do not confuse carbon monoxide, the stuff that catalytic converters get rid of by turning it to CO2 and water, with carbon dioxide.
> 
> The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor; therefore, I am surprised there is not band on water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) < Mike.Brennan at doh.wa.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> Unfortunately, there are many factions that leap from "Climate change 
>> happens naturally" to "therefor we don't need to stop (x)", where (x) 
>> is whatever non-environmentally-sound activity they favor.  It remains 
>> true, however, that most of the things proposed in part as being good 
>> in the climate change arena are good in their own right.
>> 
>> Not throwing crap into the air is good, because the crap is hard on 
>> lungs, lakes, and buildings.  Almost all the crap that gets thrown 
>> into the air is entrained when fossil fuels are burned, with coal being the worst.
>> Therefor decreasing the amount of coal burnt is good, whether you are 
>> concerned about C02 or not.  Reduction of energy needs by improved 
>> efficiency and replacement of coal power by other energy sources, 
>> including new nuclear reactors, is good.
>> 
>> Deforestation is bad, for more economical, ecological, and ethical 
>> reasons than I care to list (but I can think of about a dozen without 
>> working at it).  The fact that not deforesting leaves carbon in trees 
>> rather than releasing it to the air is nice, but not the most 
>> important factor, and so not worrying about increased atmospheric CO2 
>> should not be connected with supporting unsustainable forestry practices.
>> 
>> Waste is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be reduced.  
>> Just because improving efficiency and decreasing waste can be touted 
>> as "decreasing carbon footprint" doesn't mean that not believing in 
>> climate change requires embracing gas guzzlers, leaking water systems, 
>> antique electrical distribution networks, and a sneering attitude 
>> towards recycling (all of which I've seen).
>> 
>> If you want to be skeptical that humans are contributing to climate 
>> change, fine.  I encourage you to be equally skeptical of the agendas 
>> of those arguing that what humans do doesn't matter.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
>> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Lorraine Marceau-Day
>> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 7:02 AM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
>> List; slgawarecki at gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
>> 
>> Thank you Clayton for your thoughtful comments.
>> 
>> From a historical perspective; the Romans were tenacious about holding 
>> on to their colony "Briton" now, of course, known as Britain - because 
>> it produced the best wines in all the Roman Empire.  It has only been
>> 30 years or so since the Southern portion of England has again been 
>> able to establish vineyards.  Further, if you look at the ice core 
>> data - we have been subjected to even wider temperature fluctuations over the millennia.
>> I am convinced that this too shall pass (again), though perhaps not 
>> in our lifetime.
>> 
>> Best;
>> 
>> Lorraine
>> 
>> Lorraine Day, PhD
>> RSO - Center for Advanced Microstructures and Devices day at lsu.edu
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
>> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dixon, John E.
>> (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)
>> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:52 AM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
>> List; slgawarecki at gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
>> 
>> Well stated Clayton!
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
>> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Bradt, Clayton
>> (HEALTH)
>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:16 PM
>> To: slgawarecki at gmail.com; RADSAFE
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
>> 
>> 
>> I have spent time with the publications of the IPCC, Susan. I simply 
>> don't find them that compelling. I do find that the scientific 
>> chapters tend to be a lot more tentative in their assertions than the 
>> summaries for policy makers.  The fact that the summaries are always 
>> published before the scientific chapters makes it pretty clear that 
>> there is more going on than the honest communication of the results of scientific research.
>> 
>> Now, computer models are central (essential) to support the hypothesis 
>> of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Without them there are only time 
>> series of proxy temperature data which show trends, or not, depending 
>> on the choice of endpoints. The proposed physical mechanism causing 
>> the warming can only be 'tested' on the computer.  In order to believe 
>> the computer models  one must believe that the physics of the 
>> earth-atmosphere-ocean system are thoroughly understood and 
>> quantitated correctly in the code. One misunderstood or missing 
>> relationship between input variables could render the programs' output 
>> meaningless. And the modelers' efforts to adjust their codes to produce results matching the data is fraught with potential bias.
>> 
>> But even if the computer models' predictions are generally correct (i.e.
>> most warming in colder-drier regions like Siberia, little warming in 
>> warm-humid regions like Amazonia), they still only predict one climate
>> parameter: temperature.  The models say nothing about precipitation, 
>> clouds, pressure, winds, etc. Yet this has not stopped the global 
>> warming enthusiast from predicting that every possible calamity known to humanity:
>> drought, floods, hurricanes, plagues, mass extinctions, blah-blah, 
>> blah-blah, blah-blah, will follow ineluctably from a warmer climate.
>> Nobody
>> - NOBODY - predicts anything good happening because of climate change, 
>> anywhere!  I find that very hard to believe.
>> 
>> Even if we accept that the CO2/warming connection, and I happen to 
>> think that it is certainly plausible, it doesn't mean that the case 
>> for a pending climate catastrophe hasn't been way over-sold. I think 
>> it has, and I'm not amused by that.
>> 
>> Clayton Bradt
>> Principal Radiophysicist
>> NYS Dept. of Health
>> clayton.bradt at health.ny.gov<mailto:clayton.bradt at health.ny.gov>
>> ********************************************
>> 
>> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:39:48 -0400
>> 
>> From: S L Gawarecki
>> <slgawarecki at gmail.com<mailto:slgawarecki at gmail.com>>
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming
>> 
>> To: RadSafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:
>> radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>>
>> 
>> Message-ID:
>> 
>>          <
>> CABtrgkWuyT6unNSbB-RN9R1x-Pris3HwTQwmJ+UBB8YeNXwcZQ at mail.gmail.com<mailto:
>> CABtrgkWuyT6unNSbB-RN9R1x-Pris3HwTQwmJ+UBB8YeNXwcZQ at mail.gmail.com>>
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I continue to be amused by the opinions on climate change by 
>> scientists who are not climate scientists or even earth scientists.
>> To understand the SCIENCE behind the conclusions about global warming, 
>> spend some time with the publications by the Intergovernmental Panel 
>> on Climate Change at http://www.ipcc.ch/ .  The Summary for Policy 
>> Makers of the 2013 report is a good place to start at 
>> http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf .
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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