Newsletter 53

I sent a letter to SAFE members outside of Delaware, enclosing information they could use to help stop the “human caused global warming bandwagon.” I encouraged them to consider giving talks on the subject.

If you did not receive the letter, I now encourage you to give talks, and I am eager to help you anyway I can. Members of service clubs (Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions) are very interested in the information. My audience so far exceeds 600 in my territory, New Castle County, DE and nearby PA. Over 99% of the U.S. is open for such talks.

Please join me in spreading the word in whatever way works for you. One way is to use

He concise “Global Warming in a Nutshell” on page 5. You may want to photocopy before using your scissors.

WEB SITE RESTRUCTURED

President Bill Whipple and web site Guru Charles Kaszytski have restructured our web site, addressing different policy areas separately. If you haven’t checked www.s-a-f-e.org lately, we hope you will. Any comments or suggestions will be welcomed at (ww3@atlanticbb.net).

E-MAIL ALERTS

Did you know that we send out e-mail alerts (about once a month) to SAFE members only? If you are not on the list and would like to be, just e-mail Bill Whipple (ww3@atlanticbb.net) and ask that your name be added.

PITHY QUOTES FROM BILL WHIPPLE

· “The government is moving 180 degrees from our position.” (see “Budget Discipline” on www.s-a-f-e.org)

It was severe. Unemployment went from 5.2% to 11.7%. It was over so rapidly that the federal government didn’t have time to get its hooks into it. Fortunately, Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover was unable to convince President Harding to intervene rapidly enough. By the time Harding was persuaded, the depression was over and prosperity returned.

There were no bail-outs. Prices and wages were reduced. Weak firms were promptly eliminated. Unemployment dropped to 6.7% in 1922 and 2.4% in 1923.

Both Hoover and Roosevelt employed government intervention after 1929 and it did not work.

(This from “Two Ways to fight an economic depression” by Gregory Bresiger in March of 2009 “Freedom Daily” (703) 934- 6101).

When I attended the University of Missouri, I worked as a waiter – 3 hours for 3 meals. It was ok for the time, about 35 cents an hour. My roommate obtained a much better job, earning a dollar an hour, working for a professor, and later arranged for me to get the same job.

The job involved concentrating radioactive material. We would dissolve crystals in water, using large bowls. Then, we’d heat the solution using a Bunsen burner under a hood until enough water was evaporated to reach the proper concentration. We occasionally blew our breath onto the surface. When crystals formed, we’d turn of the heat and return later to pour off the liquid into a separate bowl. Then, we’d dissolve the more radioactive crystals, and repeat the procedure for both bowls. Using fractional crystallization, we’d pour low radioactivity material down the drain and end up with most of the radioactivity in a small container, which were then sent to the company that had supplied the crystals.

Ironically, the small container was handled inside a larger lead container as a radiation shield. Obviously, about the same amount of radiation was present before the radioactivity was concentrated.

We worked in a small room, and more than once we each spilled some of the solution onto the concrete floor. We would then return at night, turn off the light, and look for spots that glowed.

Then we’d sponge up the solution and squeeze it into a bowl. On one occasion, my roommate accidentally sat in the bowl. He went home and took a bath.

Years later, in a conversation with a University of Missouri graduate, I was told of a radioactivity survey at MU. Outside of the building where we had worked, the survey meter went to the peg. In a room (and I know which room) they had to remove the concrete floor in order to meet the radioactivity standard.

Obviously, my roommate and I had been exposed to a considerable amount of radiation. Just as obviously, it did little if any harm, and I have to believe that it could have been beneficial. My roommate died in his 80’s and, being in excellent health at 88, I’m almost a cinch to live into the 90’s (maybe more).

I believe my exposure to nuclear radiation was much greater than the low levels that people worry about, and that are subject to regulation. It evidently did me no harm. In fact, I may have benefited from “hormesis” (Discussed in Newsletter #49). Wide understanding of hormesis would decrease the anti-nuclear sentiment that has prevented the much-needed expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. Multiple sources of scientific data demonstrate the beneficial effect of low level radiation.

Thank you for your 12/19/08 response to our 11/17/08 letter on energy policy. This letter will briefly address several points that you raise:

· It is puzzling how the U.S. share of oil reserves can be accurately estimated at this point – given that huge areas have been kept “off limits” to exploration for the past 40 years or so. Wouldn’t one need to conduct some exploratory activity to estimate what is there and what the peak production is likely to be in 2025? Also, don’t forget the vast shale oil reserves with which this country is endowed, reportedly constituting (assuming 50% could be extracted) three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

· As to whether oil and gas exploration and extraction would be economically feasible, we would suggest that this judgment be left to the oil companies and future energy prices. So long as drilling was conducted in an environmentally responsible manner (as is currently being done in the Gulf of Mexico), we see no reason for the government to micromanage the situation.

· It is unclear why “a significant portion of the royalties and revenues that accrue to the federal government from domestic oil and gas production should be invested in technologies that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.” With the federal government already financially overextended, such revenues should be applied to reduce the deficit and hopefully avert a fiscal meltdown. If alternative fuel and/or energy saving technologies are economically meritorious, they presumably will be undertaken by the private sector. It not, why should they be subsidized by the government?

In short, SAFE continues to have faith in free markets and private enterprise. We hope that you and your colleagues feel the same way.

· “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentation on how dangerous it is.”

· “If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say ‘Oh, global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.’”

· “We (climate-related scientists) have a vested interest in creating panic because then money will flow to climate science.”

· “There’s one thing you, shouldn’t say, and that is, this might not be a problem.”

“CAGW was vital to the effort to block the proposal known as ‘Cap-and-Trade,’ which would have rationed energy use and dramatically increased the government’s control over Americans’ daily lives. Cap-and-Trade is nothing more than a hidden tax that would require businesses to report their greenhouse gas emissions and allow bureaucrats to set limits. Those over the limits would have to buy additional allowances or go out of business. CAGW agrees with Czech President Vaclav Klaus’s conclusion that this kind of environmentalism is nothing more than an elite command-and-control system, which, like communism, will kill prosperity.” (However, Cap-and-Trade is very much alive. President Obama repeated his support during his 3/24 news conference on the budget. Cap-and-Trade is a hidden tax which increases energy prices and can lead to corruption. A very bad idea).

“Violence in Mexico, mostly related to the trade in illegal drugs, has risen sharply in recent years and shows signs of becoming even worse.” This from the summary of Cato Institute’s Policy Analysis No. 631.

This report, entitled “Troubled neighbor,” tells how violence is spilling into the U.S. It demolishes three “Bogus Solutions” – “Stopping the Flow of Guns into Mexico,” “Seal the Border” and “Win the War on Drugs”.

The real solution is legalization of currently illegal drugs.

STOP THE BANDWAGON	MY EXPOSURE TO NUCLEAR RADIATION
WEB SITE RECONSTRUCTED	SAFE TO THE SENATOR
E-MAIL ALERTS	GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS SPEAK
PITHY QUOTES FROM BILL WHIPPLE	FROM CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE
THE 1920-21 DEPRESSION	SAFE OFFICERS