Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Brown, Gordon: Chancellor To PM

Just a move next door from No 11 to No 10. Peculiar that such greater responsibility is matched by a smaller number.


"The Best Chancellor We Ever Had..."
Don't forget...

Brown, Gordon: Connection with Dennis Healey
Brown, Gordon: Mr Nice Guy
Brown, Gordon: The Future
Brown, Gordon: Toxicity Warning
Brown, Gordon: More Toxic

...the persistent claim that income tax has never been so low. Direct taxation may have become slightly lower, but indirect taxation has consistently increased. The effect is that overall taxation has been going up and up and... It's the extreme of cynicism to even attempt to make such claims suggesting the British people are doing OK with direct taxation. Technically, the claim is an accurate one, though based on twisted logic. Direct taxation is never compared with indirect taxation.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Rehearsed Ignorance

The explanation for a politician's apparent evasiveness to answer a particular question lies possibly in the simple truth that they cannot. Literally. The rehearsed response is all that can be uttered and anything outside of this would need approval. In a 'live' situation this is obviously not possible.

To embark on actually verbalising an answer would just highlight the ignorance of a subject, especially when asked further questions. To tread the path of rehearsal stays within the boundary of the approved answer. Almost certainly not an individual sentiment, just the approved party line. The more able ones do appear to be more conversant with their subject and can easily disguise actual ignorance. It is clear when they are moving towards unknown ground and have limited answers. They will seek the refuge of repetition and answer only the question they wish they had been asked.

Or take an opportunity to utter a party line that is clearly out-of-context to the moment.

The status within the 'party' probably determines the evasiveness of answers or the ability to be honest. Yet others do not hesitate and speak from what is obviously a personal view. Occasionally, it appears that some individuals do show integrity, but this amounts to political suicide. It also shows courage to stand up for the individual's principles regardless of the consequences.

Devil's Advocate

Madness Of Nuclear Power

Watch for what is mentioned in the future regarding this subject. I predict almost nothing will be publicly debated as the outcome has already been 'settled'.

The fait accompli:


something that has happened and is unlikely to be reversed

Nuclear power it is and literally to


with us all.

Be careful to distinguish between what is wanted to be heard and what is needed to be heard.

Hazel Blears

Stays well inside the box. Trapped. Body language reveals much. The marvellous property of body language is that (unless extremely well groomed) the individual is totally unaware of it. Can change tune on the fly and then seems to be singing from a different hymn sheet.

David Cameron

Stays well inside the box - always. On the rise, but boxes have lids. Seems to understand body language and possibly exploits it. $lippery.

David Davis

Not constrained by boundaries

Graham Brady

Stepped outside the box, but demonstrates integrity

Sir Menzies Campbell

Stands for principles and integrity. Whatever the weight of policies and being a force in British politics, such a demonstration of values means a great deal.


Other 'politicians' seem not to know what principles actually are and switch ideas in a heartbeat.

Some of the many differences between different politicians, but be very aware and...

Monday, June 18, 2007

Madness Of Nuclear Power

Update: 10th October 2007

Chernobyl (10 Years On)
Chernobyl:


Enrico Fermi
Fast Breeder Reactor

During the period Thursday, 10th October and Friday, 11th October 1957,


50 years ago

one of two seven-year-old reactors at Windscale (Sellafield) was shut down (apparently it was being used for some kind of experiment) as a fire had started in at least two fuel channels in the centre of the reactor. This was fierce enough to vaporise fission products all the way up the 400-foot chimney and through the filters at its top. Hoses had to be used to play water down the fuel channels in a desperate attempt to control the temperature.

This was neither a routine plant breakdown nor a minor mishap, but a major accident.

Was the experiment being conducted responsible for this 'accident', and what was that experiment?

Clearly, the Windscale filters were inadequate for the job of preventing the escape of fission products. It was pure good fortune that the wind was blowing out to sea or contamination of the countryside would have been more serious to life. As it was, the contamination of the sea was bad enough and only diluted the problem. It didn't remove it. The issue was not made clear and everything was allowed to rest with the problem having been cleared up. The fact remains:

The sea was contaminated

And will remain so for hundreds if not thousands of years. Plutonium (239) has a half-life of 24,000 years.

Drenching the reactor with ordinary mains water added to the difficulties of bringing it back to working order. Not only did the burnt-out channels of radioactive debris (waste) need to be removed, but also the pile dried out [and presumably flushed] to remove all waterborne chemicals, and elements such as calcium, that would interfere with the fission process. Unless these products were [completely] removed, the entire reactor would need to have been stripped down and rebuilt.


Cost and time issues today (2007)
could potentially involve shortcuts
being made. How dangerous is that?

One undeniable fact:

Plutonium is produced in these reactors

In the 1957 Windscale 'accident', the amount of plutonium manufactured was between 1/4 and 1/3 of the country's production and as such affected the defence programme.

What is plutonium used for?

  • At 11.02am, 9th August 1945 the 'Fat Man' bomb was dropped by the American Air Force (USAAF) on Nagasaki killing 70,000 citizens and wounding 100,000. It was only 3 days earlier that the uranium bomb (code-named 'Little Boy') decimated Hiroshima. As a second plutonium bomb was not quite ready, 2 days later 6000 tons of conventional bombs were dropped on Kumagaya. WWII ended the following day.
  • The timing of just 3 days between the use of a uranium bomb ('Little Boy', 8.16am, 6th August 1945), with the destructive power of 12,500 tonnes of TNT, destroying 50,000 buildings and killing a total of some 75,000 people, following with a plutonium bomb, does seem to suggest that experiments were being conducted to see the effects of such novel weapons on live human beings. Some of the 75,000 died outright, but many others died later that month of their burns.
  • This probably remains the most wicked act to have been perpetrated on any living species. Ever. And just to witness the effects. Pure opportunism and ranks up there with Nazi experiments on human beings. Conflict acting as the mask that covered the face of evil. The 'winners' of the war. The Americans. Still the nastiest race on Earth.
More carnage had actually been scheduled by the Americans, but didn't happen, as the Japanese surrendered. The Devil had already visited. Even more powerful bombs are today available that


'mimic'

the activity of the Sun, so no further example is necessary to demonstrate the distorted ego of some of the elements that exist within mankind. Textbooks that outline the basic theory of nuclear reactions do not describe the detail of manufacture. The Devil resides in the detail. Text and reference books do not explode. Any idiot can recognise the potential in such weapons, but a twisted desire to make one and actually build it is not the same as just planning to build one.

Imagining any desirable item does not make the physical item.

Such meddling is madness

Compared to the Earth, the Sun is over 109 times the diameter with a mass nearly 333,000 as great and a volume 1.3 million times as large. To visualise the comparison of only the diameters, consider one average human step of about 1 metre (the Earth) and walk the distance of more than two Olympic-sized swimming pools (100 metres) placed back to back (the Sun).

The major difference between the uranium and plutonium atomic bombs and the hydrogen bomb is that the former are using the fission of these elements to produce smaller ones and heat and the latter is a fusion bomb that unites hydrogen isotopes to form helium and heat. Uranium (238) is a naturally occurring element on Earth that when bombarded with neutrons forms (the radioactive) plutonium (239).

It can ONLY be made in nuclear facilities.

Plutonium half-life = 24,000 years

This very much simplifies hugely complex elemental chemistry. The technical issues are not normally discussed publicly, but over the period of more than 60 years, a very large (unquantifiable) number of research and development experiments have been conducted. And 60 years is a long time to remain 'accident'-free. It is likely that 'accidents' just haven't been of sufficient severity to have been reported.

Every 'accident' adds to the unknown, or at least not communicated, (accumulative) total of radioactive material that today pollutes the atmosphere and oceans. Global pollution that is on the increase NOW and that will be around for thousands of years. The products of such experiments were undoubtedly radioactive and not usable as a desired end product. Any actual end products were then, at best, only predicted.

What happened to all these products along the way?

Many 'artificial' and radioactive elements have been made (very few occuring 'naturally'), but mostly in nuclear facilities (polonium-210, discovered by Marie Curie in 1898, is now made only in such places):

  • Polonium (1898) - atomic number 84
  • Astatine (1940) - atomic number 85
  • Radon (1900) - atomic number 86
  • Francium (1939) - atomic number 87
  • Radium (1898) - atomic number 88
  • Actinium (1899) - atomic number 89
  • Thorium (1815) - atomic number 90
  • Protactinium (1917) - atomic number 91
  • Uranium (1896) - atomic number 92
  • Neptunium (1940) - atomic number 93
  • Plutonium (1940) - atomic number 94
  • Americium (1944) - atomic number 95
  • Curium (1944) - atomic number 96
  • Berkelium (1949) - atomic number 97
  • Californium (1950) - atomic number 98
  • Einsteinium (1952) - atomic number 99
  • Fermium (1952) - atomic number 100
  • Mendelevium (1955) - atomic number 101
  • Nobelium (1956) - atomic number 102
  • Lawrencium (1956) - atomic number 103
  • Rutherfordium (1964) - atomic number 104
  • Dubnium (1967) - atomic number 105
  • Seaborgium (1974) - atomic number 106
  • Bohrium (1981) - atomic number 107
  • Hassium (1984) - atomic number 108
  • Meitnerium (1982) - atomic number 109
  • Darmstadtium (1994) - atomic number 110
Elements as yet unnamed:

  • Element-atomic number
  • Unununium-111 (1994)
  • Ununbiium-112 (1996)
  • Ununtriium-113 (predicted)
  • Ununquadium-114 (1998)
  • Ununpentium-115 (predicted)
  • Ununhexium-116 (2000)
  • Ununseptium-117 (predicted)
  • Ununoctium-118 (unconfirmed)
  • Ununennium-119 (predicted)
Fermium-257 (atomic number-100) has a half-life of 101 days decreasing with increasing atomic number: to 50 microseconds for ununhexium-116.

The element plutonium cannot be rendered harmless. Even buried in concrete, it remains extremely dangerous for a very long time, numbered in thousands of years. The global total of this element alone is just increasing and none of it is destroyed. More is being made all the time.

Just like 'making' lots of money and never spending any of it. One is the accumulation of 'wealth' and the other an accumulation of the means to the extermination of all life.


It is fascinating (in a somewhat cynical way - DA) to speculate how many now long obsolete chemical elements may have been 'natural' in a primordial existence - billions of years ago at the (speculated - DA) beginning of Earth's history. Time will have removed all trace of such elements. 50,000 years is nothing more than a moment in such terms. The plutonium half-life of 24,000 years is just a flash in time.

Imagine a new drug just... happening. Years and years of experimental work are necessary and thousands of experiments will produce a host of impurities. Reactions won't work. Wrong (impure) products will be synthesised to eventually generate the desired active entity. Such material can be totally destroyed either chemically or by burning (heat decomposition).

Reality is much different to any imagined situation. And that ignores all the 'spin' and lies used in the attempt to 'sell' an inherently flawed product to the public.

If anyone needs an illustration of what would happen today in the event of nuclear war, then...

These uranium-235 and plutonium-239 fission bombs originally happened 60 years ago. Uranium fission releases radioactive iodine-131 (half-life = 8 days) and, as iodine is essential to life and readily absorbed by the body, it is highly dangerous.

  • The fall-out from those detonations is still with us today and will be for thousands of years.
  • Such weapons are truly dreadful and to use the chemical process in a 'controlled' way is delusion. The very nature of these reactions is literally an out-of-control chain reaction. The first reaction produces several neutrons, each neutron then starting another reaction and so propagating the chain and (almost) instantly producing the enormous outpouring of energy.
  • The technology is 'safe' ONLY if the many factors involved are maintained within clearly defined limits. One critical issue is water. Basically, the heat supplied by the neutron chain reaction is controlled only by cooling the fuel rod source. Each fuel rod is essentially a small nuclear explosion slowed down to produce heat and not an explosion. An explosion is simply a VERY rapid expansion of gases. The heat transfer to the water is where the energy comes from. Steam. No water, or even insufficient water, will enable the reaction to overheat and so induce the runaway reaction. This is self sustaining. A moderator is a medium that slows the reaction and one such is heavy water (deuterium oxide).
  • The nuclear bomb cannot be 'uninvented', but it's use can be (realistically, though only theoretically) phased out. The smallpox virus has been 'eradicated' from the planet. Well, not entirely apparently. A tiny amount of the most deadly entity to human life to have ever been known, has been kept, even though it could and must be destroyed. Human logic in some 'people' is so devoid of sense, that some has actually been kept. Just in case. Of what? That it is needed? By whom? The solution to mankind's energy problems does not exist with nuclear energy and is an accident literally waiting to happen. The more examples of nuclear power stations, the sooner an accident will happen. It's not IF, but WHEN. And when it does happen then it'll just be too late to correct.

  • The contamination released 60 years ago is still in the air we breathe today and will be for many more thousands of years. Any further addition, however small the 'accident' will just add to what is already there. Like the build-up of mercury in the body. It accumulates and isn't purged from the body. It's why it is so dangerous. It has not gone away, it's just been forgotten.

  • Nuclear contamination is too diluted to be a recognised problem, but raises the question: "why is there so much disease and other health issues occurring today?"
  • The introduction of flawed technology is the same mad logic that would allow the release of pit-bull terriers into a crowd to 'control' a problem that is bothering that crowd. How many times have stupid people tried to mix young children and dangerous dogs just to experience the obvious. The child suffers both physical and mental trauma if they survive any attack. Stupid people simply remain stupid.
None of this is deluded or cynical thinking, but fact based on known science. Any desire to build nuclear power stations is a desire to make plutonium and other radioactive products that can only be created in nuclear facilities. The 'nuclear powers' know this and is why there is so much condemnation of Iran's desire to build these nuclear facilities and simply justifying such a desire on pure pragmatism.

The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering in that it's OK for the west to 'meddle' with nuclear power (the UK government intends to begin a construction programme), but any other country (in the Middle East especially) must not. Obviously, nuclear weapons are being manufactured. Even uranium depleted shells that are very, very hard and can penetrate most materials with ease is a simple example. Natural uranium-238 is enriched with uranium-239, the process being carried out in a nuclear reactor (uranium-238 is converted into uranium-239), and the two isotopes then separated (as the volatile hexafluorides) so enriching with uranium-239. Whether terrorists could make terrible weapons as a result would be academic if nobody can meddle with this deadly technology.

Hydrogen bombs

Such weapons of mass destruction can never be 'uninvented'.
They can be outlawed, but an effective policing strategy would be required. Something outlawed does not render it non-existent. Murder happens all the time. It's ludricrous that 'legal mass murder' is acceptable as long as biological weapons are not used. Similar sources of energy are contemplated today and that's in a relative 'peace-time' period. We are in the midst of all out global war (it's just not been officially declared).


Atom bombs, conventional bombs, bullets, knives...

anything excluding biological warfare.

The madness and hypocrisy of the 'nuclear' stance is totally indefensible, but it shouldn't be overlooked that Iran has probably more natural oil reserves than Iraq. Wars are being fought (heavily involving the USA) to wrench oil from Iraq. Arguments can be made that support the thesis that an American military presence anywhere outside America is purely to ensure that the oil pipeline to the USA is not threatened.

To my mind, no other examples are needed to support or deny who could be responsible for the September attack visited on New York in 2001 or the reasons why. It all stems from the US and the desperate need to maintain the external oil supply as there isn't enough internal capacity to satisfy it's growing demands.

Consider: Twin Towers and Controlled Demolition









(and consequential Patriot Act), Afghanistan, Iraq... stepping stones. Saudi Arabia?

Devil's Advocate

It would also offer one answer as to why Mugabe in Zimbabwe has been left alone (by the US and UK) to conduct his regime in the (alleged) nasty way he does.

Zimbabwe has no oil = no action
Iraq has oil = action

The UK is a MAJOR manufacturing base for weapons of war. The desire to build nuclear facilities is based on the fact that plutonium is made in these places. The justifiction is that CO2 'pollution' and an oil shortage conspire to make them necessary. A cynical justifiction that is based on lies and political 'spin'.

Humans produce CO2 by respiration in order to live and so we are, by definition, polluters and contribute to global warming. That's perverse. Completely, but uses the language of 'spin'.

The political noises (of the 'West') being made in opposition to Iran desiring nuclear power are so obviously aimed at weakening Iran so when the assault on the oil reserves begins it will be all relatively easy. The threats by 'western nuclear powers' against a non-nuclear Middle-Eastern power should make progress towards Iran's oil relatively easy.

Were Iran to have a nuclear capability, then the invasion of Iran would be rendered unthinkable without the likelihood of all-out nuclear war. It certainly couldn't be easy or even difficult, but probably impossible for America to invade Iran. The American Administration does consider itself so invulnerable by geographical location that anything is possible. The invasion of Iraq by conventional methods, as with Vietnam or Korea, almost defines a non-nuclear response is likely.

A nuclear onslaught on day-1 would end all further conflict, but also end all life. But:


The inconceivable is not impossible

In the language of 'spin':

The possible can be conceived and the unlikely becomes realistic

The future American oil supply IS the MAJOR issue and the Mad Max scenario is quite realistic. Mayhem caused by a shortage of petrol.

Paradoxically, the US route to global domination has the bizarre benefit of potentially uniting the rest of the world and splitting off North America into complete isolation. Then there is a real possibility of Armageddon.

Just because of the American demand for oil and delusion of being 'top dog'. We are at the brink to the end of 'peace-time' forever. Probably, that time in World History has already long gone.

What we 'meddle' with on Earth is beyond belief

GM

Should the US be isolated from the rest of the world, the GM production of foodstuffs would really become important. This could theoretically be used together in a conspiracy to destroy all crops outside the US at the same time enabling self sufficiency. Starving the world, once it has been made dependent on the US generated crops (Monsanto).

There could be a massive irony in the outcome...

The reactor at Windscale was one of the oldest in the world [suggesting one of the first to be built], designed and constructed when much less was known about fission. The detonation of an uncontrolled explosion in a nuclear bomb is one thing, but a 'controllable' nuclear reactor is quite another. It remains a fact that this was the design, construction and subsquent commission of a highly dangerous technology that was NOT properly understood.


This may have been at Windscale in 1957, but does demonstrate a MAJOR problem with nuclear power. There will ALWAYS be a problem with nuclear power.

The Sun is a long way off, some 93,000,000 miles (150,000,000km), yet still near enough to cause problems and if this nuclear reactor became very unstable, then that's it.


The End

The nature of the Sun is instability and emulating this chemistry without understanding it is actually being considered. Madness. The ego of the ignorant politicians who delude themselves that they understand it is ludicrous. In general, politicians understand only control, power (influence) and money. They do not understand common sense. Scientists can be too easily influenced, especially by politicians who hold the purse strings.

It's paradoxical in that the scientists who should know more are 'controlled' by the politicians who actually know less.

Not all scientists, but a majority implies consensus. Funding is an issue here and is where that beast called politics raises it's dangerous and ugly head like the Hydra.

Comments suggesting that design shortcomings will be fixed so that future reactors do not allow mistakes to be repeated do not inspire confidence. After all, the reactor was to be 'rebuilt' after the Windscale 1957 'accident' and it would seem without any major design modifications being possible. Time and cost considerations, let alone any practical reasons, would see to that.

Contamination was played down, but it did happen and it never went away. Diluted by the sea though still highly radioactive for thousands of years. Salt sea water does not neutralise radioactivity.


Nothing does that
Nothing can do that

The date of 1957 is literally within the blink of an eye to 2007 in terms of the lifetime of radioactive waste. The creation of radioactive material within a nuclear reactor (for example, plutonium) makes a substance that cannot be destroyed. Once made it becomes a Pandora's Box and talk that it can be safely buried in concrete is completely untrue.


A massive and even more GROTESQUELY CYNICAL lie

The storage of CO2 needs more explanation of the principles involved to capture and store billions of tonnes of this gas. The balance needs to be addressed that doesn't suffocate vegetation and trees. Photosynthesis requires this gas. It is oxygen that is the poison and is consumed by the humans that breathe it.

Don't hold your breath, though. It won't happen.

Caging a dangerous animal does not render that animal any less dangerous. The dangerous animal still exists and if let out will still be dangerous. A terrorist has only to destroy such a storage facility to release all the radioactivity. The potential of the 'suicide patriot' makes such a scenario quite feasible.

The lunacy of the will to self-destroy a nation should not be tested. It would only take a fanatical few to destroy an entire nation (and almost immediately the neighbouring nations) of those who are not so suicidal in their tendencies. The rest die later.

An animal can be destroyed, but radioactive waste never can

This makes global warming, climate change and CO2 management totally insignificant by comparison. It even suggests a hope that nuclear energy production will lessen the impact allegedly placed at the door of CO2.

That defines the justifiction for 'going nuclear'

It 'simply' replaces the problem with something much, much BIGGER and so it's a paradox that 1 tonne oil provides the same energy potential of something much SMALLER, 1g plutonium.


1g plutonium is 1,000,000 SMALLER

Any other potential solutions are given, at best, simple lip service since they have little potential to make shedloads of money for a relatively few people. Yet another ironical situation is that by making 'ordinary' people into stakeholders, they conspire to their own destruction by 'virtue' of their own blind greed.

$£bns

Money made from such construction will be useless as the end product itself will enable the destruction of all life

Greed is blind

The idol called money is the real Devil

Filthy Lucre

The irony is that these incredibly short-sighted (actually quite blind) 'business men' are also vulnerable humans and taking civilisation, and themselves, down a dead-end one-way street. Make no mistake, the conditioning being attempted NOW is that CO2 is the Devil and nuclear power is an Angel to make everthing safe again.

Never before has such a cynical lie been perpetrated in the pursuance of money.

The 'spin' is that France has had a nuclear programme for many years and therefore nuclear energy is safe. This is twisted and very dangerous, potentially lethal, logic. The more nuclear reactors there are in existence [hundreds or thousands around the globe at the financial cost (ie profit) of $£trillions] the greater the chances of a deadly accident on a global scale. The amount of radioactive waste produced will amount to an inconceivable annual tonnage that will remain lethally radioactive for thousands of years.

Pragmatism and common sense to nuclear energy shouts:



No, No, No (Survival)

Blind greed shouts:

Yes, Yes, Yes (Death)

There are no easy answers, but nuclear energy isn't one of them. In fact, it doesn't feature at all. It is the most dangerous route thinkable that will result in the annihilation of human and ALL other life. Imagine a runaway reaction BETWEEN two nuclear facilities and the chain reaction started by that. The more that such facilities are built, the greater the density by number are those facilities. They will exist nearer to each other and so threaten each other.

What is a 'safe' distance between them? Somewhat of a rhetorical question since the radioactive fallout will kill everything anyway. Academic.

Tidal Power

Wind Power

Once the building programme is underway and $£bns or more investments have been made, NOTHING will stop the final commissioning of this 'accident-in-waiting'. Except a global nightmare 'accident' of unimaginable proportions.

Too late

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Bush, George (Dubya): a profile

George W. Bush
  • Note: 1st three links go nowhere
Read the Bush quotes. Pure magic!
  • "George Bush likes to present himself as a straight-talking, regular guy. But it's an act -- regular guys don't go to Andover Prep, Yale and Harvard Business School, and straight-talking guys don't pretend to be regular guys after growing up in one of the most privileged ** homes in world history. Not only was Bush's dad president, his grandpa was a U.S. Senator and wealthy Wall Street banker, and his mom's blueblood family owned (among other things) the estate in Maine that Bush still hangs out at.
  • Now, as Bush's regular guy act is wearing thin, some of his other deceptions are becoming more obvious."
It's very tempting to substitute Cameron for Bush though 'call me Dave' is clearly much less intellectually challenged. Even though parallels are there for the taking George W. Bush (US): extreme privilege **. David Cameron (UK): extreme privilege

Transparent Castration

The hazy vagueness of the illusory incompetent UK government shows that it is still healthy. And becomes more and more transparent by the day. When looked at with the focus on votes and popularity, it gets even clearer. Human rights are used as a 'flag of convenience'. When something IS NOT favoured by government, then the human rights card is shown. When something IS desirable, even though voices should be heard screaming about abuse of such 'rights', there is a predictable silence. Even the news media seems to be warned off. The 'human rights' issue is totally ignored. There are these Downing Street press briefings, after all. The need to know can mean what is not to be publicly disclosed. To be spun or distorted (perhaps). Don't overlook Cherie Blair. When human rights are considered it is nearly always either the rights of the one OR the other, but usually the wrong one. The perpetrator OR the victim? But there is little money to be made protecting common sense. It is as though it is the victim's fault... for being the victim. They shouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. They should have been... somewhere else. It is your human right to be somewhere else, so you should exercise it. What human rights does a murder victim have? Come on Cherie, let's have a smart answer to that one, though I suspect it will be along the lines of the data protection act: dead people have no rights.

  • Incidentally, the Data Protection Act (the theory) can be used very cynically: should you want to find out about possible executor fraud, the data protection act fails to protect dead people by assisting the living (suspect embezzler) and allowing free reign to embezzle the estate of the dead person. [Hello, Ray: are you dead yet?] 

A cyclical argument and ring fencing the guilty. Protecting their 'human right' to defraud and a perverse method of redistribution. Another (New Labour) government ploy to keep secret knowledge a secret. The Freedom of Information joke is used as convenient: when such information is not desirable to be in the public domain, then it is kept out of the public domain. Free access to any information can still be denied. Hence the term 'joke'.

So, the chemical castration of paedophiles. Presumably, anything chemical is theoretically reversible. Castration isn't reversible. But how about including serial rapists too? Or any sexual abuser? Or any other nasty 'undesirable'? The typical cop-out is that individuals have no mental power over their 'uncontrollable urges' and so are not responsible for their actions. This attempts to excuse those actions. So called 'will power' is absent. Or it's actually present and defended thereby defining 'uncontrollable' desire. This is only the balance between desires being tipped one way or the other. It's easy to 'give in' to an undesirable desire, but too difficult to even THINK about changing it. Like giving up smoking or drinking.

More realistically, these 'uncontrollable urges' are simply enjoyable and there is absolutely no intention to stop having them. It could mean mental anguish to even make an attempt and that would infringe 'human rights'. Why has nobody (yet) claimed it a 'human right' to smoke and so pollute the atmosphere. Tobacco is a naturally occurring substance. And so is air, but not air polluted with the products of tobacco's destruction (this book concerns the excess of 8,400 chemical components). It is not even a 'human right' to commit suicide: take YOUR OWN LIFE. To be the cause of your own death. The state owns that too. But only because you may be trying to excuse yourself from paying taxes by so doing. It seems it is your 'human right' to be stupid, incompetent or error prone (a serial 'mistake-maker'). Logicality suggests that if you accidentally lose a leg or arm, even as the result of a self-directed accident with a chain saw, it is your 'human right' (presumably) to have two legs and two arms. You should be compensated for your loss.

Logically speaking, it must be your 'human right' to be born perfect. Physically and mentally. So, it would be up to a psychiatrist to determine whether your 'human rights' have been abused by virtue of a potential birth defect. And if you have influence, position, money... you could probably make the state responsible for your additional influence, position, money... Most would instantly think that's ridiculous. Absolutely, but total confusion is logical to the inept.

Remember this: birth status has absolutely no bearing on any ability for anything. But those influential to your circle do. The David Cameron route to Oxford via prep school and then Eton virtually guarantees passing through successfully. Whether this is truly earned or bought would form a fascinating debate. Then there's George W. Bush: a very different route, but possibly with the heavy (unknown) influence of others. The mess can get messier if common sense is allowed to be considered. Remove common sense and everything seems clearer. Not more sensible, just clearer. More transparent. So there's the answer


Transparency means the absence of common sense

Transparent government means complete inconsistency. A total lack of logic. Conclusions based on flawed reasoning. Favoured ideas of the day grab popularity. So very transparent, but the thinking (logic) is typically clear as mud. A mess.


The paradox here is surely that an
inconsistency in logic is
itself consistent logic

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Great CO2 Scam

Curtail greed or die. Simple choice.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and is partly responsible for increasing global temperatures. There are other reasons, but CO2 is surely a part of the problem. The pressing question:

Is fuel usage and energy production
causing climate change,
or is it just a scam?

It is fascinating that everyone who isn't in any commercial enterprise should minimise creation of CO2, but that commercial producers (money makers) can continue with little real discouragement: Aircraft Pollution. The effect is that the many 'guilty' producers curtailing their contribution are allowing the fewer big producers to continue theirs. This trade-off minimises the overall nett addition to the atmosphere. A highly dangerous and specious argument. Consider how many cars it would take to match the CO2 levels of one medium size commercial aircraft for one flight. Transporting goods or people: commercial. There seems to be no shortage of, or limit to, fuel for these leviathons. But a few less litres of petrol for the cars is a good thing. It's all about maximising revenue while doing very little about making inroads to cut down, or out, use.

Distance-tax

Bush will (generously) consider curtailing CO2 production and maybe contribute to the overall 50% reduction by 2050. But do little over the next 40 years by dithering around. Until it's too late. Other countries are just a little less obvious in their attitude. But talking a good argument, yet doing very little. Making noises to frighten the people [the FEAR = Factual Exchange for Accepted Reasoning strategy again (DA)], but doing little (if anything) to manage the real culprits.

But money talks the loudest

Over the next decade the global population will increase enormously. Even the CO2 just being respired by a global population will amount to a huge addition to the daily atmospheric tonnage of CO2. Consumption of forests will accelerate and the production of CO2 will continue to escalate: exponentially.

The lungs of The World are being destroyed. It's fascinating to witness 'spin' in action. Carbon dioxide is now regarded as pollution so logically every animal that breathes, and so produces CO2, is an active polluter. Even though breathing out (pure) CO2 is part of the life cycle. In fact, all animals that breathe oxygen (to live) actually remove a pollutant: Oxygen. If animals didn't breathe this gas, its concentration would increase to dangerous levels causing atmosphere fires, for example. The (hidden) argument is that The World's minimal producers (the majority) are penalised so that the major producers (minority) can continue to pollute:

The USA represents 5% of global population,
but produces about 25% global CO2.
Overall some 13% of the so-called rich countries
produce around 45% of global CO2

Hidden beneath all this is the supression of 'poor' countries. The minority of 'rich' nations create the majority of greenhouse gases. That's how they became 'rich' nations in the first place. Suppress the development of everyone else so the 'rich' nations can get richer. Simple economic strategy.

How much CO2 do humans respire in a year to stay alive? Whatever the figure, it can only increase as the global population continues to grow unchecked. It is possible that the global population is being allowed to swell out of control to create an ever growing consumer population. The population that buys 'goods' is getting bigger and that equates to more profits. Perhaps the 'poor' countries are not the target buyers ('rich' societies represent the monied buyers), and 'rich' countries are growing larger by the day. The actual overall growth in the 'rich' nation (buying) population, is masked (hidden) by the global figures.

The best place to hide a tree?
In a forest. Nobody notices

Short-term blind thinking gets shorter by the day. Bizarrely, it's to make as much money as quickly as possible since the time to make money is running out. What 'wealthy' people can do with their money is unanswerable.



The sole village idiot displays more sense than the combined global idiots that fill the world. Profitability and growth are proportional to CO2 production. India and China are joining the production teams.

Things can only get worse

Alcohol, Sugar And Tobacco

Sugar is very abundant and as such is very cheap.

For now anyway, until the use of land to grow this feedstock is compromised. Prices go up as the potential is exploited. So predictable. I have the code-book that translates 'greed talk'. The same book that encapsulates the ethics of capitalism.

Battle in Seattle

It is, therefore, simple economics that fermented sugar provides a very cheap synthesis of a simple compound (ethyl alcohol, ethanol) that can 'make' enormous amounts of revenue (money) through taxation. Ethanol has a dual function, one of which is ethanol fuel. The other is ethanol not consumed by engines, but humans.

Biofuels, Tax Revenue And GM

For a government to suggest concern over health issues is cynicism to the extreme. The smoker (or drinker) pays for treatment out of smokers' or drinkers' taxes funding the NHS. That the cost is to the NHS is really a MASSIVE red herring. The cost is borne by the taxpayer since the NHS is paid for by the taxpayer. Treatment for smoking or drink related problems is paid for out of smokers' or drinkers' taxes funding the NHS. However, more is contributed than is paid out providing treatment. The non-smoker and non-drinker pays for it as well and the argument mimics childless people funding the education and healthcare of someone else's children.

The HUGE revenue defines the inappropriateness of even considering stamping it out

The issue most anti-smoking people have is the pollution of the local breathable atmosphere. Personally, I care not if smokers want to kill themselves. That's their choice, except for that barbed hook called nicotine. (important link) The same hook that firmly connects tax and cigarettes to human users.

If people drink too much then so what? The issue here is that government makes the money and the citizens of primarily that country have to deal with the problems. It's a bonus for a control freak government by 'proving' that a state-controlled policing 'service' is needed to keep


ALL

of its citizens controlled. Effectively in a nationwide open prison.

Global Warming


Climate Change
Climategate - Global Warming Scam Exposure 
                            Author: Brian Sussman
Corporate Mantra
Global Warming Hoax (World Natural Health Organization)
Global Warming Hysteria List
The Resilient Earth

  • Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. As saturation vapour pressure increases exponentially with temperature, a positive feedback effect with respect to the current global warming trend is expected and confirmed by satellite measurements over the ocean. However, highly complex interactions via cloud formation and the release of latent heat, impacting convection, complicate matters and seem not to be well represented in climate models, especially in the tropics. Land-atmosphere coupling adds further uncertainties. An accurate knowledge of hydrological cycles and feedback mechanisms is therefore indispensable for reliable weather and climate predictions.
Clouds do not form a perfect insulator and although some heat may be retained in the water to be eventually precipitated to ground level (rain), a great deal is lost to the upper atmosphere and radiated into space. The higher (r) above the Earth, the volume of the 'atmosphere' increases by r³.

I admit to being somewhat disappointed by the moral high ground claimed by those like Tony Juniper (Friends of the Earth) that if you disagree with that opinion, then you are simply wrong. The reason I am disappointed is that I am under no illusion that global warming seems to be a reality and that increasing levels of carbon dioxide makes a reasonable argument based on good science. Mankind's lifestyle of spend it all (the oil) as though there is no problem is reckless. But doing that does make the money today since there will be no tomorrow.

The 'logic' of the lunatic

However, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas and is present at much lower levels than carbon dioxide and so presents a potentially much more dangerous atmospheric component. A veritable timebomb. The real problem is that it would be difficult to tax the Earth 'fart'. That logic is completely corrupt, though George Bush is an oilmen and so conveniently ignores everything not connected to oil and money.

  • Melting ice in the Arctic has caused the release of millions of tons of methane - a gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide
But there's none so blind as those that will not see.

Gordon Brown makes noises about rising oil prices and his solution is to flood the market with oil. Presumably, a glut will keep prices down. Of course, as a side effect, shedloads of profit are conveniently made and justified by keeping prices down. And the oil runs out faster. Very short term thinking. The pace of life accelerates until eventually...

...it just stops.


The long(er) view

Tax revenue through sales of an illusory never ending river of petrol creates another illusion that there is no problem and business is as usual, but cloaking the issue of the imminent drought.

Cynical?

Juniper's claim is that opposition to the Friends of the Earth stance defines support for Bush and Brown and all the lunatic ideas they might have. That is an absolute travesty. I feel I can remain objective even when criticised if I have belief in what I say. I am not influenced or persuaded by false claims if I know them to be based on misleading or bad information.

I do not personally know Tony Juniper and have no axe to grind. I fully support Friends of the Earth and much of what is argued I believe is absolutely right. They are doing a fine job. I will continue to support groups such as this as they describe the only sensible and long term approach.

But I am still disappointed that Juniper's attitude describes essentially a counter political stance. I remain apolitical, but don't want Bush to be allowed to expose us all to madness. Presidents and 'leaders' like him are the wrong targets. They will 'lead' us all to Hell. They are influenced by lobbyists and BIG money. Attitudes must start with persuading the general VOTING public with quality information. VOTES influence politicians. Bad publicity scares politicians. Truth scares politicians even more.Why?

It's NOT the route to power, glory and money

I puzzle over the concept that the mass extinction of the Human Race is somehow 'glorious'. Unless, of course, twisted thinking is considered. Then it makes absolute sense. Twisted thinking nearly always involves money, money, money. I do find it extremely puzzling that some people still find Stalin or Hitler figures of worship. Twisted AND deluded thinking. Long dead ideologies? It would seem not. It appears to be nothing more useful than the mindless acquisition of totalitarian power over people (control) and the total subjugation of independent thought.

The concept of the novel by George Orwell 1984. Incidentally, this is the pseudonym used by Eric Blair.

Pointing out misdirection used by politicians can be turned against those same politicians who would try to twist and spin truth for political ends. The welfare of people rarely makes an appearance in the argument. And even if it does it often carries a very cynical connotation.

David Bellamy

The paradoxical scientist


A reasonable challenge can never be construed as opposition except when it is twisted and spun about in attempts to mislead.

The influential positions that the likes of Bush and Brown have is probably the most damning and dangerous 'fly in the ointment' imaginable. Whenever money is at stake all else will be staked against common sense to protect what's at stake.

The money. The power. The control.

The Devil playing poker

I am not persuaded by the reasons put forward that it is purely mankind's behaviour that is totally to blame. I do not accept the blanket argument that this is the sole reason. The slow precession (wobble) of the Earth over 1000s of years is conveniently overlooked. And the Sun is very hot and getting hotter. This obvious fact is often ignored.

Some issues can be tackled, hopefully with success. Some are probably not achievable, but that doesn't mean that attempts to face them should not be made. The best approach must be sought to minimise the problems.

Every living soul will die one day. That fact is inevitable and cannot be changed.


Any complex issue reduced to simplistic argument never engenders confidence

Argument by Bush (for) and Juniper (against) as they are described both amount equally to the political, even though the stances are diametrically opposite. I do not accept the incomplete 'scientific' explanation, though mankind's lunatic use of gas, coal and oil products is clearly not going to help a desperate situation.

Greenhouse gases do trap heat and reflected heat cannot escape the atmosphere and pass out into the coldness of space.

Development (NOW) of alternative energy sources is essential, but consideration of Nuclear Power is an absolute

non-starter


This must not even be considered: the Madness Of Nuclear Power. Even in the short-term, which it could never be. Obviously, long(er)-term the oil will run out. Definitely. Unless its use is curtailed or completely stopped, future problems will be even more desperate than now. No energy provision and the rise in global temperature will almost certainly cause the mass extinction of life on Earth. All life.

Blind logic: one contributing factor to global warming is the production of CO2. The use of air-conditioners enable cooler surroundings (local interior). Air-conditioners require power to make them work. This produces more CO2 contributing to raised temperatures. Turn up the cooling unit as a consequence. Produce more CO2 so increasing temperatures. It's a never ending cycle until the power runs out - oil.

The right way forward is to reduce the production of CO2, but investigate alternative sources of energy that

DO NOT INCLUDE NUCLEAR POWER

Even the complete cessation of the non-sustainable fossil fuels may stop the production of CO2, but the Sun will continue to get hotter. Ways to provide energy must involve the zero production of CO2, and NOT directly include nuclear sources.

Our Sun could be a good place to start. Ironically, it is a nuclear source and the source of all the problems. It will probably be around for a few billions of years yet and there is zero Earthbound waste to manage. The Moon will be around for a long time yet and quite free of any charge it provides tidal power. The rotation of the Earth generates global wind patterns and movement of the oceans (Coriolis Effect). So wind power is a second obvious potential solution.

The most obvious places to possibly find a solution are also the most unlikely.


But these places will be overlooked deliberately

Why? Simply because there is no

OBVIOUS

way of


making lots of money

But that is not true. Shedloads of money have been made out of water. And any wealth 'creation' is always determined by an Earthbound resource. When no (realistic) alternative exists, tide and wind sources are definite answers. No doubt.

It will need true leadership and will start with thinking without the influence of politicians and money as the priority. Survival is the priority. Survival of life for hundreds of years. That defines a leader who is


NOT

a politician or an idiot businessman whose blind and very short-term goal is today and, maybe, tomorrow. Looking beyond the day after today is too far. Living in complete denial today is to die in denial tomorrow. Madness.

Look to the Sun and Moon

Bush and all other ditherers in the effort to keep making money are delusional and stand the charge of the mass extinction of all life on a global scale. Something as important as survival cannot and must not be left in the incredibly incapable hands of such people.

The mind-blowing paradox is that these types consider themselves so smart, but their arrogance renders them completely ineffective, totally dangerous and as such simply stupid. Lethally stupid.

Business + profit + shareholders = extinction

But there will be no justice as there will be no living being on Earth to administer it.