Pics that make you smile

Such symptoms can make the causes difficult to diagnose. The health crisis that is unfolding in Flint Michigan with contaminated water will have healthcare consequences and projected costs in the billions for an entire generation of children (and some adults) who were unknowingly consuming lead contaminated water for an extended period.

That is my point- what 'science' has done is to extrapolate their 'facts' from somewhat dubious data. With things like this there are so many other factors involved that any conclusions one comes to must not be taken as absolute fact but more as a high probability. If i were an absolute fact there could not be any exceptions, and there are exceptions. In any other scientific analysis these 'facts' would not be accepted as such by the scientific community for they do not pass their normal standards of proof. THAT is the point I'm trying to make here; NOT that there is no danger with lead which there certainly IS ;) TBH I don't see a way to meet the usual standards of proof here without intentionally harming a person, which is something I do not advocate, but that should not be used as an excuse to overlook the standards.

Many of us including me were exposed to toxins like mercury, lead, asbestos and other substances early in life and we seem to have survived it. For most of us those exposures were short term events and we all probably dodged some bullets on way or another or perhaps experienced effects we couldn't notice directly. Whether we are experiencing any sort of long term health effects, we will never know for sure. But to suggest that lead in the environment is not a serious heath issue or that concerns over lead poisoning is some kind of "drink the kool-aid hoax sounds insane as does sanding leaded paints without a mask over a period of years. If you read the literature about lead toxicity you'll find out that there is still plenty of time for that to catch up to you. Lead is a cumulative toxin, it never leaves your body


Which helps make my point. I think there are other factors involved with this that have not received adequate study, and that will not happen if we don't question the way these 'facts' have been determined and whether other factors are involved in how this works. Something is causing the anomalies and we ought to learn why instead of simply accepting what we are being told because of the sources that information is coming from. Especially when those sources are not applying their own usual standards of proof to the question at hand :( Yes lead can be dangerous just not to everyone equally and nobody know why.

(BTW this message was delayed 18 hours because tho power went out last night and came back on sometime today when I was at work. The laptop idled through it all but the wifi router at my sister's house was out too so I was offline. Never lost power this long here in town before and the winds weren't really that bad- maybe 45MPH gusts- so I guess the outage length was from a lack of workers since most of ours went to Florida)

Phil
 
You chart is defective. Why doesn't it go back 200 million years?
It looks like it is cherry picking data.
 
Oh, it's a global warning, all right.

The problem isn't "warming", it's CO2. Some places will get colder while the oceans get warmer and more acidic.
The oceans are getting dramatically more acidic because of increased carbon dioxide in the air.
Club soda (carbonated water) is acidic because it's full of carbon dioxide bubbles.

View attachment 33205
thing is, current and future levels are FAR from the highest levels Earth has seen. that's why they call that chart the "hockey stick" graph. "for 650,000 thousand years" is a bit disingenuous. to me, that means that less than 1 million years ago, the CO2 concentration was higher. and the chart below supports that. note that the nasa chart above is labeled in HUNDREDS of PPM. the chart below is labeled in THOUSANDS of PPM.

Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png


now i'm not trying to say that humans aren't cranking out CO2 like there's no tomorrow - we are. and we should stop. and it finally looks like we might be on the right track for that, since alternative tech is finally becoming mature enough to effectively replace fossil fuels. and there's other tech already in place to help fossil fuels (effectively) burn cleaner, like catalysts, higher compression engines, hybrids, and whatever else.

personally i wish there wasn't such a massive amount of red tape to build nuclear plants. they've got some great new reactor designs that solve a lot of the worries from building nukes, like some of the molten salt reactors that basically CAN'T melt down. since it kinda looks like electric will be the way of the future, we're gonna need more power plants. wind alone can't make up all the difference needed if we were to shut down coal and even gas power plants, and neither can hydro, geothermal or other "renewables". not to mention all the aging nuclear fleet that will have to shut down (or file for a renewal) over the next decade or so due to age. maybe one day they'll finally make whatever breakthrough is needed to make fusion generation affordable and attainable.

stuff like this is exciting to me - where they designed a reactor that can run using waste from existing nuke plants: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...xt-gen-reactors-seek-to-revive-nuclear-power/
 
Last edited:
I am actually pro nuke, which not many Danes are, but i am cuz i am a realist and we need something that can kick in fast on those days with no wind.
Off course i would prefer if we could have some Tokamaks, but that tech are just not there yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
 
Just be the best you can be, whatever that is.
I know many parents have ambitions on behalf of their kids, but they might as well screw up their kids with those.
 
You chart is defective. Why doesn't it go back 200 million years?
It looks like it is cherry picking data.

You can go back 200 million years if you like but global temperatures were far warmer than they are now. The planet was an entirely different place at that time.
 
You can go back 200 million years if you like but global temperatures were far warmer than they are now. The planet was an entirely different place at that time.
As you admit that it used to be warmer why do you believe we affect the climate more than nature does?
The planet warms and cools. The 1930's were abnormally warm. There is no proven correlation between CO2 emissions and temperatures.
The sun changing position and changed amounts of activity is the most likely reason for these changes.
 
thing is, current and future levels are FAR from the highest levels Earth has seen. that's why they call that chart the "hockey stick" graph. "for 650,000 thousand years" is a bit disingenuous. to me, that means that less than 1 million years ago, the CO2 concentration was higher. and the chart below supports that. note that the nasa chart above is labeled in HUNDREDS of PPM. the chart below is labeled in THOUSANDS of PPM.

Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png


now i'm not trying to say that humans aren't cranking out CO2 like there's no tomorrow - we are. and we should stop. and it finally looks like we might be on the right track for that, since alternative tech is finally becoming mature enough to effectively replace fossil fuels. and there's other tech already in place to help fossil fuels (effectively) burn cleaner, like catalysts, higher compression engines, hybrids, and whatever else.

personally i wish there wasn't such a massive amount of red tape to build nuclear plants. they've got some great new reactor designs that solve a lot of the worries from building nukes, like some of the molten salt reactors that basically CAN'T melt down. since it kinda looks like electric will be the way of the future, we're gonna need more power plants. wind alone can't make up all the difference needed if we were to shut down coal and even gas power plants, and neither can hydro, geothermal or other "renewables". not to mention all the aging nuclear fleet that will have to shut down (or file for a renewal) over the next decade or so due to age. maybe one day they'll finally make whatever breakthrough is needed to make fusion generation affordable and attainable.

stuff like this is exciting to me - where they designed a reactor that can run using waste from existing nuke plants: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...xt-gen-reactors-seek-to-revive-nuclear-power/

Of course the planet at one time had higher CO2 levels but 500 million years ago the planet was a very different place because of many factors and that has little to no bearing on the climate change discussion as it applies to the world we live in today. BTW the GEOCARB III data has since been revised.
 
As you admit that it used to be warmer why do you believe we affect the climate more than nature does?
The planet warms and cools. The 1930's were abnormally warm. There is no proven correlation between CO2 emissions and temperatures.
The sun changing position and changed amounts of activity is the most likely reason for these changes.

There is a very strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and ocean acidification levels. The dramatic increase is not a good thing going forward and is widely believed to be caused by human activity. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. The CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater harming everything from coral reefs to any animal with a shell, such as krill, clams, lobsters, oysters, etc. Entire coral reefs have died off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
 
Last edited:
I used to have a black lab that would do exactly what the second dog is doing. Never saw any animal that loved water more than he did. (y)
Yeah most labs are great water dogs, and it's hard to keep them out of the water. My dad had a heck of a time keeping his black lab out of the in-ground pool at his last house. Then when they moved to Colorado (with the same dog) he had a new problem - keeping the dog from chasing deer and elk. The invisible fence mostly solved that problem though.
 
That is my point- what 'science' has done is to extrapolate their 'facts' from somewhat dubious data. With things like this there are so many other factors involved that any conclusions one comes to must not be taken as absolute fact but more as a high probability. If i were an absolute fact there could not be any exceptions, and there are exceptions. In any other scientific analysis these 'facts' would not be accepted as such by the scientific community for they do not pass their normal standards of proof. THAT is the point I'm trying to make here; NOT that there is no danger with lead which there certainly IS ;) TBH I don't see a way to meet the usual standards of proof here without intentionally harming a person, which is something I do not advocate, but that should not be used as an excuse to overlook the standards.




Which helps make my point. I think there are other factors involved with this that have not received adequate study, and that will not happen if we don't question the way these 'facts' have been determined and whether other factors are involved in how this works. Something is causing the anomalies and we ought to learn why instead of simply accepting what we are being told because of the sources that information is coming from. Especially when those sources are not applying their own usual standards of proof to the question at hand :( Yes lead can be dangerous just not to everyone equally and nobody know why.

(BTW this message was delayed 18 hours because tho power went out last night and came back on sometime today when I was at work. The laptop idled through it all but the wifi router at my sister's house was out too so I was offline. Never lost power this long here in town before and the winds weren't really that bad- maybe 45MPH gusts- so I guess the outage length was from a lack of workers since most of ours went to Florida)

Phil

The vast and in depth epidemiological historical record belies your personal pet theories concerning the reliance of medical "science" on so what you term "dubious data" when it comes to the deleterious health effects of exposure to lead in the environment, particularly long term or high level. I do sincerely hope that "sanding leaded paints without a mask for decades" doesn't finally catch up to you if it hasn't already in ways you may not even be aware of. Despite your professed cynicism towards "science" you might indeed turn out to be the subject of your very own medical experiment. Makes me think back to a long gone friend of mine, a leather worker who boasted that working with tanning chemicals without adequate protective measures would have no effect on him until he came down with a rare form of high aggressive cancer that soon killed him at the age of 34. The particular form of cancer and other maladies he came down with over time turned out to be extremely common among people who work with these chemicals.
 
Another brave American die on a far off world this friday

RIP Cassini (y)
 
Just cuz you can do some things dont actually mean you have to follow thru, and i have no problem seeing pumpkin beer as one of those things
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
DashcamDPR Off Topic 4
DrekiTech Off Topic 2
Back
Top