Mechanisms for Policy: Nuclear Safety, Global Warming, etc

["Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>]

"If we choose to discount [commission reports on global warming, radiation

safety],

what mechanisms should we choose?"



Historically, "atom" policy was originally, "unsplittable" to ancient Greek

commissions, 7 heavens dominated papal commission reports (not Galileo's

observations), and Semmelweis observation that handwashing stopped epidemic

childbirth fever was discounted by commissions.



The mechanism I favor is reproducable observation, testing hypotheses, and

skeptical criticism from diverse sources. For example, ACS policy from

Field's observations of more radon (c5.0pC/L) in homes of Iowa lung cancer

cases than  similar controls, extrapolates beyond Iowa data -a 1% USA

outlier - to advise that all  Americans have less radon. But Cohen found USA

counties with less radon (USA av 1.3 pC/L) to have higher lung cancer

mortality. Policy should at least await other study before supporting a

radon removal industry that frightens the public into probably greater risk

by further depleting radon.



Global warming policy likewise. It should not impose Kyoto burdens, removing

ambient CO2 (proven to grow crops better with less water at c500 ppm than

current c350 ppm) when unselected evidence indicates that would do more harm

than good - except for the vast publishing and CO2 regulatory industry.

Coastal cities like London and Venice did not flood when Greenland was

green, 1000 years ago. Where are the predicted deaths and cancers at

Chernobyl, Hanford or Taiwan apts?



The mechanism for policy should put the burden of proof on those selling

expensive actions - like nanocurie cleanup that lines their pockets. Agreed,

John?



Howard Long







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

From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

To: "jjcohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>; "Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler@NMIA.COM>;

"John Fleck" <jfleck@abqjournal.com>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Cc: "RISKANAL Mailinglist" <riskanal@lyris.pnl.gov>; "Joseph L. Alvarez"

<jalvarez@auxier.com>

Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 7:56 AM

Subject: Re: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal Warming Hoax!





> I certainly agree that we should not have

> science-by-plediscite.  However, this is what this is.

>  National commissions have studied the issues, and it

> is my understanding that they believe that problems

> are real and man-made effects are causing or

> accelerating the climate changes.  If we choose to

> discount this reports, what mechanisms should we use?

>

>

> --- jjcohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:

> >   I am not a proponent of science-by-plebiscite, but

> > I think we are missing

> > the point on  the objective of the 17,000 signature

> > petition. This objective

> > is not to prove or disprove global warming

> > phenomena. Most of the public and

> > just about all of the news media believe  a pending

> > global warming

> > catastrophe to be a God-given fact. Perhaps if that

> > faith can be shaken a

> > little,  related policies could become more

> > rational.

> >

> >

> >

> >   ----- Original Message -----

> >   From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

> >   To: Fritz A. Seiler <faseiler@NMIA.COM>; John

> > Fleck

> > <jfleck@abqjournal.com>;

> > <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> >   Cc: RISKANAL Mailinglist <riskanal@lyris.pnl.gov>;

> > Joseph L. Alvarez

> > <jalvarez@auxier.com>

> >   Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 11:50 AM

> >   Subject: RE: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal

> > Warming Hoax!

> >

> >

> >   > Hi, Fritz,

> >   > Thanks for the comments.

> >   > Like you, I am not a climitologists.

> > Consequently,

> >   > who should I believe?

> >   > My impression is that there has been a great

> > deal of

> >   > problems with climate data collection, analysis

> > and

> >   > model.  There have been a number of reports

> >   > commissioned on the subject.

> >   >

> >

>

http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover.cgi?act=dourl&restric=NAP&url=.nap.edu/o

> > penbook/0309068916/html/index.html

> >   >  Can they all be wrong?  Could the data be

> > getting

> >   > better, and the models more accuarte?

> >   >

> >   > I still question the determination of scientific

> >   > issues by signing petitions.  What if 34,000

> > science

> >   > sign a petition that global warming exists?  Who

> > would

> >   > you believe?

> >   >

> >   > --- "Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler@NMIA.COM> wrote:

> >   > > Hi John,

> >   > >

> >   > > I am one of these 17,000 signatories of the

> > OISM

> >   > > petition.  I

> >   > > am not a climatologist, I am just a scientist.

> >   > > Actually, I grew up

> >   > > as a nuclear physicist who has now been

> > dabbling in

> >   > > risk assessment

> >   > > for 25 years.  However, what I think that I

> > have in

> >   > > common with the

> >   > > other signatories of the petition is a certain

> >   > > amount of skepticism

> >   > > for the loud and brash claims of

> > climatologists

> >   > > whose huge computer

> >   > > models do not fit what we already know by

> > experience

> >   > > and that is how

> >   > > El Nino and La Nina affect the winter weather

> > in the

> >   > > U.S.

> >   > > Some months ago, Jim Dukelow pointed out to me

> > that

> >   > > the Global

> >   > > Circulation Models now actually show currents

> > such

> >   > > as the Southern

> >   > > Oscillation that is associated with El Nino or

> > La

> >   > > Nina.  I read that

> >   > > also elsewhere and find it encouraging. But I

> > am

> >   > > still waiting for

> >   > > the loud shout of "Eureka!" that would have

> >   > > announced that they now

> >   > > can correlate the winter weather in the U.S.

> > with

> >   > > the events in the

> >   > > Southern Hemisphere.  Right now, I am still

> > willing

> >   > > to listen but I

> >   > > am not holding my breath!

> >   > > At this time, I am still skeptical about

> > scientists

> >   > > who make

> >   > > claims about effects such as man-made Global

> > Warming

> >   > > which are minor

> >   > > compared to other well established weather

> > effects.

> >   > > Their models do

> >   > > not cause the weather effects of El Nino and

> > La Nina

> >   > > in the U.S. but

> >   > > they claim to "see" man's influence emerging

> > from

> >   > > their models!  Now

> >   > > let's get real here! And maybe let's also

> > remember

> >   > > that the study of

> >   > > "Man-made Global Warming" is a SEVERAL BILLION

> >   > > DOLLAR A YEAR industry

> >   > > in the U.S. alone.



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

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/