Re: As usual -- to account for these events, follow the money.

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

Maury,

    Your statement seems almost contrite, but I think you should stick to

your guns.

    I have also done much reviewing of environmental "science" studies

during

recent decades and conclude that almost all of it is driven by the paradigm

that man is "fouling his nest" and "destroying the planet" through greed,

thoughtless industrial development, and similar nonsense.

    Of course, on a relatively local scale, serious environmental damage can

and has been done (Minimata (Hg), Bhopal, etc.) However, on a global scale,

the ability of mankind's activities to affect the  environment is grossly

overrated. The earth will get along just fine regardless of whatever man

does or does not do. The greatest disasters, if any,  will be caused by

natural events. It seems that the worst damage man can do is to

make  apocalyptic predictions that divert precious resources from areas

where they could be beneficially applied and into the pockets those who cry

wolf. JMHO.





----- Original Message -----

From: maury <maury@webtexas.com>

To: <RuthWeiner@AOL.COM>

Cc: <fd003f0606@blueyonder.co.uk>; Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>;

Radiation Safety <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; <jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 4:36 PM

Subject: Re: As usual -- to account for these events, follow the money.





> I do not at all deny the existence of good environmental science as well

> as quality science in most scientific fields. This is true for work on

ozone

> depletion as well as references Jim Dukelow suggested regarding health

> effects of the dioxins. The fact remains, however, that there also is

plenty

> of work done ranging all the way from silly to excellent.

>

> It is also the case that, even though I cannot recall the exact instances,

> I recognize that Malloy has published a few very dubious contentions.

> And, of course, we can always entertain doubts about who funded the

> research and were the conclusions biased by the source of the money

> whether the source be public or private. I do recall specifically that

> through more than a couple of budget cycles, NASA would release "new

> and startling data" showing how we were further endangering the ozone

> layer and the ploy worked every time.

>

> Ruth, I cannot cite specific publications, but believe I have read journal

> references in the past few years which have moderated earlier

> conclusions about ozone depletion. Likewise for dioxins, anthropogenic

> influence on global climate, and other topics of interest to me. I really

> feel apologetic about this, but I understand fully how meaningful and

> important a good solid literature review would be. However, I can no

> longer feasible do those and it does bother me every time I try to post

> on the radsafe and riskanal lists.









************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/