Re: Humans Raise Risk of Europe Heatwaves -Greenhouse Effect a Non-Issue???

[hflong@pacbell.net]

Art Robinson, PhD,

This slander of you, OISM and the 17,000 of us who carefully reviewed the

impressive data on the BENEFIT of more atmospheric CO2 needs succinct

rebuttle to the many health physicists who see this chat box. I hope you can

interest some of them in reviewing data for themselves. This is a different

group than the critical audiences of radsci or DDP who are generally

persuaded to endorse the petition. Perhaps  moderator Sabin will welcome

brief comment by yourself, Zach, and/or Salle B or Willie Soon, to persuade

critical analysis of data online about "the global warming myth" pertinent

to radiation safety.



Howard Long



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

From: "farbersa" <farbersa@optonline.net>

To: "Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>; "howard long"

<hflong@pacbell.net>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:13 PM

Subject: Re: Humans Raise Risk of Europe Heatwaves -Greenhouse Effect a

Non-Issue???





> Jim:

> Thanks for your thoughtful comment on the questionable oism paper against

> the greenhouse effect. I find the two positions argued by Howard Long a

> bit curious. He wants to get the public, regulators, and legislators to be

> less concerned about minor radiation exposures and even accept the

> benefits of radiation hormesis --something that will likely happen when

> hell freezes over. All these groups act on the basis that they "know" that

> ionizing radiation is harmful down to the last photon or alpha emission.

>

> At the same time, Howard is arguing against there being any problem with

> the release of about twenty billion tons of carbon dioxide a year into the

> air from fossil fuel burning  leading to steady increases in atmospheric

> CO2 levels [which baseload nuclear generation would help reduce]. Everyone

> [the public, regulators, and legislators] "knows" that the greenhouse

> effect is a serious environmental issue. This issue has the potential to

> cut nuclear power plant radiation risks some "slack" in the popular mind,

> if it were widely understood and accepted that nuclear power generated

> electricity helps to avoid some of the "accepted" and "obvious" risks from

> the greenhouse effect.

>

> I'm not a climate scientist, and neither is Howard. However, when the

> broad scientific consensus from the top climate research centers around

> the world is coming to accept the greenhouse effect is real and growing

> worse -- with sea level rising 3 mm/year [ 1 inch/8 years], why try to

> fight it?

>

> Even Tony Blair and the British Government is going to go to the mat

> opposing the Bush administration for not recognizing the seriousness of

> the greenhouse effect on the world's climate.

>

> Stewart Farber

> farbersa@optonline.net

> =================

> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:59:46 -0800, Dukelow, James S Jr

> <jim.dukelow@pnl.gov> wrote:

>

> > Howard Long wrote:

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

> > From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> > [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of howard long

> > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:36 PM

> > To: farbersa; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> > Subject: Re: Humans Raise Risk of Europe Heatwaves:

> >

> >

> > Stewart,

> > Your dismissive comment suggests that you did not review the 8 pp of

> > graphic, impressive data reviewed critically by the thousands of us who

> > signed the petition.

> > Again, that data at www.oism.org/pproject gives ample reason for us

> > nuclear power proponents to NOT associate ouselves with the selective

> > "science'" of the global warming industry.  We should then lose

> > credibility about the safety of nuclear power.

> > Howard Long

> >

> > ================

> > The 8 p. paper that Howard refers to -- as Stewart notes, available at

> > the oism website -- is an improved version of the piece-or-trash that

> > Frederick Seitz sent out to hundreds or thousands of scientists a number

> > of years ago, Seitz' pseudo PNAS paper scam.  The paper, with the same

> > authors, was formatted to look just like a PNAS paper.  Seitz solicited

> > signees to an early version of the current OISM petition.  There was

> > considerable, uncomplementary commentary about the scam in the science

> > press at the time.  The commentary included identification of some of

> > the ludicrous errors in the original version of the paper.  Most of

> > those have been removed in the revised version, but the marshalling of

> > evidence is still extremely selective.  Even the revised version is not

> > a reliable source of information about climate.

> > None of the authors of the OISM paper is a climate scientist, although

> > Baliunas and Soon are astrophysicists, formerly of the

> > Harvard-Smithsonian Ovservatory, currently working for a right-wing

> > "think" tank.  Robinson and his son are chemists, if memory serves.  The

> > focus of the OISM web-site is resources for religiously-based home

> > schooling.

> > I can recognize a number of the Washington State names in the list of

> > the "17000".  The ones I recognize are predominantly grumpy old nuclear

> > engineers, like myself.  It appears that none of the PNNL atmospheric

> > scientists is a signatory, even though they might get brownie points

> > with the current administration if they signed.  Interestingly, although

> > the petition form includes spaces for degree and degree field, none of

> > that information is provided with OISM listing of signatories.  I

> > googled a number of the Washington State Ph.D. signatories with

> > distinctive names.  None were climate scientists.  About a third were

> > only visible on the Internet as signatories of the petition.  Many were

> > biologist, chemists, mathematicians, and physicists, and one forester.

> > Several looked like they would be interesting people to know.  Several

> > had died between the time they signed and the present, a symptom of the

> > fact that many of them and many of the signatories that I know are

> > elderly.

> > Best regards.

> > Jim Dukelow

> > Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

> > Richland, WA

> > jim.dukelow@pnl.gov

> > These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my

> > management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

>



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

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/