[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Humans Raise Risk of Europe Heatwaves -Greenhouse Effect aNon-Issue???
All other radsafers
This radsafers supports "moderator Stabin"
_________________
John R Johnson, Ph.D.
*****
President, IDIAS, Inc
4535 West 9-Th Ave
Vancouver B. C.
V6R 2E2
(604) 222-9840
idias@interchange.ubc.ca
*****
or most mornings
Consultant in Radiation Protection
TRIUMF
4004 Wesbrook Mall
Vancouver B. C.
V6R 2E2
(604) 222-1047 Ext. 6610
Fax: (604) 222-7309
johnsjr@triumf.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Stabin, Michael
Sent: December 3, 2004 3:46 AM
To: hflong@pacbell.net; farbersa; Dukelow, James S Jr;
radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc: info@oism.org
Subject: RE: Humans Raise Risk of Europe Heatwaves -Greenhouse Effect a
Non-Issue???
Moderator Stabin welcomes interesting and vigorous debate on issues
related to radiation safety on this list. Discussions about global
warming are relevant, as they do have implications for the continuation
and expansion of the use of nuclear power. Moderator Stabin DOES NOT
appreciate allegations of "slander" against those who simply disagree
with someone else's views. Mature people can have vigorous debate
without it deteriorating into inappropriate emotional exchanges.
Moderator Stabin is now tired of referring to himself in the third
person and will go back to work.
Mike
Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Vanderbilt University
1161 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37232-2675
Phone (615) 343-0068
Fax (615) 322-3764
Pager (615) 835-5153
e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu
internet www.doseinfo-radar.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of
hflong@pacbell.net
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:38 PM
To: farbersa; Dukelow, James S Jr; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc: info@oism.org
Subject: Re: Humans Raise Risk of Europe Heatwaves -Greenhouse Effect a
Non-Issue???
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/
************************************************************************
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/