Rotten meat smells bad...
You have been reading too many green newsletters, and are ignoring too much of real science. I should not be answering your post --it is so naive-- but I have some free time left today, and I am in the mood for banging away at the keyboard.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"... of how politicians are at the finger-tips of the lobby's,..."</i>
You should consider that <b>these too are lobbies:</b> The Club of Rome, Greenpeace, WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature), World Resources Insitute, Nature Conservancy, Wilderness Society, Conservation International, Earth Island Society, Planned Parenthood, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), The Worldwatch Institute, The Audubon Society, The Sierra Club, Rachel.org, (and about 8,000 more) funded by Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon, Ritchfield Oil, Amoco, Chevron, Conoco, Philip Petroleum, Arco, British Petroleum Oil, DuPont, Ford Foundation, The Carnegie Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, (and more than 500 "charitable" foundations and huge corporations) that makes more harm to the environment (people are part of it) than common polluters.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>February 9, 2000 Radioactive Water Leaked from Garoña Nuclear Plant--Again. The Garoña nuclear plant in the province of Burgos again has leaked low-level radioactive water." </i>
Low level? What do you consider low- or high-level radioactive? Specify that in grays, rads, millirems, milliSieverts, picoCuries, or whater radiation measure unit you like. Until we know the level of radioactivity, your information remaind as a "gossip". By the way, waters in the thermal baths (hot springs) around the world are in the range of 1,500 picoCuries/liter, and natural gas used for cooking in the English city of Bath has <b>33,650 picoCuries/liter</b>. Compare this to the high level for radon gas set by the EPA of <b>4 picoCuries/liter</b>. After that, they should take "remediation measures". The EPA must tell people living in Bath that they should move fast out of town! And think about those poor people who goes to Bath for curing their ailments! Know something? They actually get cured. The world is full of mysterious things. (The campaign against Garoña nuclear station is promoted by Greenpeace. Nuclear paranoia at its best).
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"Because ultraviolet radiation is damaging to DNA--a vital component of living material--you should avoid unnecessary exposure to high levels of it. Take precautions in summer by wearing a sunhat, useing protective creams and building and wearing your cosmic ray deflector... "</i>
Somebody sold you rotten meat... and you bought it without smelling it first. You should go back to your physics textbooks (I wonder if you ever saw one). UV damages DNA in the UV-C range of the spectrum (286 nm to 40 nm) which is almost completely filtered by oxygen molecules (O2) high in the stratosphere, as ozone has not the potential to filter UV-C. You might find <b>infinitesimal</b> amounts of UV-C in the top of the Everest (about 9000 meters high), but not much lower than that.
Using a hat in summer is a good advise, but wearing sunblocking creams is not. Read this an see why: <A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/PlaySafe.html><b>Play It Safe: Take Sun at Noon"</b></A>
<b>Quote</b>.<i>"Global warming is caused by too much greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere causing an overly strong greenhouse effect."</I>
The main greenhouse gas is <b>water vapor</b>, that accounts for about 95% of the heat retaining capacity of Earth's atmosphere. CO2 takes just 3,5% of its capacity. The rest is accounted for by the remaining gases (Argon, Krypton, Neon, Methane, etc, and even CFCs.) But the concentration of CFCs is so infinitesimal that they are just a drop in the Pacific Ocean.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"The extra CO2 (carbon dioxide) comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Many or most factories burn fossil fuels and release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.</i>
So what? The amount of CO2 released by human activities is just as somebody posted previously: <b>just 1%.</b> Even if we stopped completely our industrial activities, that 1% does not make any difference.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"... but in burning these trees, it creates huge amounts of CO2 and at the same time removes trees --some of the most important CO2 absorbers on earth ... Methane is another greenhouse gas that we are releasing into the air."</i>
You keep buying rotten meat, Do you have something wrong with your smell sense? The <b>whole vegetal mass of Earth</b> produces just 3.5% to 5.00% of the oxygen produced every year in our wonderful planet. This means that trees, plants, crops, golf lawns, and anything green covering Earth's surface just takes about 5% of the CO2 from the atmosphere. The great producers of oxygen (they take it from CO2 in the air) are the trillions of tiny creatures known as "phytoplankton", swimming in the ocean blue...
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"The 1985 report of the discovery of an "ozone hole" over Antarctica focused attention on the idea that humans can have a significant impact on the global environment."</i>
That's a lie, but <b>it is not your lie.</b> It's that habit of yours of buying rotten meat. The infamous "Ozone Hole" was "discovered" --in the exact same way that Colombus "discovered" America-- by Gordon M.B. Dobson, the bristish scientist, back in 1957 during the first really scientific studies made on the ozone layer. That happened during the "International Geophysical Year Campaign", and the hole was also noticed --on the other side of the Antarctic continent by the French scientists at the Dumont D'Urville scientific station. Worse yet: the recorded decrease of ozone levels then, in 1957, have not been reached in recent decades. The ozone hole --as America-- have been there since Earth gained its atmosphere, or at least, since the terrestrial axis got into its present position.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"This discovery, along with evidence that ozone is being lost at nearly all latitudes outside the tropics, ..." </i>
I'll quote what Lic. Victoria Tafuri, head of the Ozone Measuring Dept. at the National Meteorological Observatory in Villa Ortúzar, Buenos Aires stated to the press, after she came back from Antarctica in 1997: <i>"We have been measuring ozone levels over Buenos Aires (that is, outside the tropics) for the last 25 years, and found those levels have been normal for that period."</i> And Isidro Orlansky and Ernesto Martinez, from the Physics Lab at Buenos Aires National University, found that UV-B radiation passing through an ozone "mini-hole" over Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, was delivering barely 100-150 watts/m2, while at the same time there were falling over Buenos Aires 300 watts/m2.
<b>Quote:</B> <i>"The chlorine remains unchanged so in keeps reacting with more ozone, destroying a large amount of it in a short space of time.CFC's can remain in the atmosphere for up to 100 years!!!"</I>
That's a fairytale. But even if it were true: So what? CFCs never reach the altitude of the stratosphere where the strong UV-C rays could dissociate them. CFCs have been found at its highest point at about 30 kms, and UV-C radiation is almost gone by 45 km. Add to this that concentrations of CFCs there are measured in the <b>trillion per parts"</b> range, because the overwhelming majority of CFCs remain at ground floor, even deep in the oceans. They are 4,5 times heavier than air. Atom by atom, CFCs are heavier than iron!.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"An enormous floating ice shelf in Antarctica that has existed since the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago collapsed with staggering speed during one of the warmest summers on record there" ... "``We're seeing a very rapid and profound response by the ice sheet to a warming that's been around for just a few decades,'' said Ted Scambos... "Hard to believe that 500 million billion tons of ice sheet has disintegrated in less than a month.'' </i>
Better believe it or bust! When someting collapses --as the Twin Towers did-- things happen quite fast. Now you see it, now you don't. The collapse of the Larsen and other ice shelf was due to their huge weight, that provokes the breaking of the "balconies", and their fall into the sea underneath. I wonder if you knew that "ice barriers" are mostly hanging --not floating?. They are being "eaten" (or melted) from below, by the warmer waters where they formed.
Glaciers move over the Antarctic land and keep moving advancing into the sea. The warmer waters melt the botton of the high barrier forming a perfect balcony. This balcony is pushed forward by the glacier's advance and after some thousand years they are so large, so long and wide, that the ice finally gives up. The balcony breaks in some points and collapses to the sea. Nothing strange here. Nature doing its work.
The barriers didn't <b>melt</b>at the sides. They broke off because the ice that had been forming over them for centuries, or millenia, finally broke the resistance of the ice in the borders of the shelfs. Just physics. Mechanical forces at work. Warming had nothing to do with it, simply because <b>there have not been ANY warming in Antartica for the past 70 years!</B>
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"Previous measurements showed the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed an average of more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit during the past half-century, a rate that is as much as five times faster than the global average!!!</i>
More rotten meat. Check satellite measurements at <b>ALL</b> Artic and Antarctic scientific stations: <A HREF=http://www.john.daly.com/stations/stations.htm><b>Wheather Stations of the World</b></A>. Make your comparisons, make your homework.
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"Land mass will be smaller and many major cities flooded due to melting of the polar ice caps."</I>
Rotten meat once more. Artic ice is <b>floating</b> on the Artic Ocean. Even if melted down completely it would not add a millimeter to the ocean levels. Physics again. But ice in the Artic has not melted an inch since scientific studies began on the subject. Some years there is more ice, some years there is less ice. Natural variations. If the "warming" had melted the ice, the warming would have prevented the formation and growing again of the Artic ice cap. (and Greenland's too...).
<b>Quote:</b> <i>"(remember the floods in China?): Flood facts: More than 14 million people have lost their homes to the ever-rising waters of the Yangtze and Songhua rivers."</I>
Yes, I remember the floods in China. I don't know if you do, or if you ever knew... During the 2,200 years, from the beginning of the Han Dynasty to the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1991, <b>there have been 214 floods</b>, and average of one every 10 years. In this century there have been five severe floods. Combined floods in the Yangtze and Han rivers in 1911, is said to have claimed hundred of thousands of lives. The great flood in 1931, <b>took the lives of 145,000 people</b>, inundated an area the size of New York State, submerged more than 3 million hectares of farmland and <b>destroyed 108 million houses</b>. Four years later, the flood of 1935, <b>142,000 people were killed</b>. Now floods seem to be much "lighter", according to the data you provide to scare us:
<b>quote:</b> <i>"According to reports on August 10, more than <b>300 people</b> have been killed and over <b>five million made homeless</b> ... The Korea Times reported that floodwaters had submerged 60,000 houses and 2,000 hectares of farmland, causing up to 97 billion won ($74.5 million) in damages. "</i>
Well, put into mathematical terms: 300 deaths < 145,000 deaths, 60,000 houses < 108 million houses, and 2,000 hectares < 3 million hectares. Today floodings are child's play.
<b>Quote:</b> "... if our environment's health keeps declining at the rate it is now, earth will not be sufficient to sustain life before the technology is capable enough to sustain live on Mars, or any other planet."
You have been reading too much of Paul Erhlich and Lester Brown. It is time for you to start checking other sources as:
<A HREF=http://www.junkscience.com>Junkscience.com</A>,
Or maybe: <A HREF=http://www.lewrockwell.com><b>
http://www.lewrockwell.com</b></A>
Or this really good one: <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/"><b>Still Waiting for the Greenhouse</b></A>
Or, why not an update to : <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html"><b>Myths and Frauds in Ecology</b></A>
Or really serious climate science: <A HREF="http://www.co2science.org/">Science and Climate Org.</b></A>
That's enough for a starter on sound science learning.
