On fighting terror
Nice op-ed. The voice of reason is easily shouted down, but it doesn't make the points any less valid.
A NZ chemist's thoughts on energy science, politics and technology markets.
Hhhhmmmm, this kinda puts it in perspective, being fat seems 1000's of times more dangerous than not having stinky armpits.
But American Cancer Society epidemiologist Michael Thun, MD, says even if the parabens do promote estrogen-dependent tumor growth, the risk from cosmetic use is "minuscule" compared with other known tumor promoters.
In his editorial, Harvey cited animal studies suggesting that paraben exposure is 500 to 10,000 times less potent as a tumor promoter as taking oral estrogen or being obese."The risk at an individual level is tiny, compared to other known risks," Thun tells WebMD
"Our research certainly does not prove causality, but we believe that in a few of these tumors the level of this chemical was high enough to promote breast cancer cell growth," Darbre tells WebMD. "We don't know, however, if parabens can cause normal cells to become cancer cells."So it would seem like the media have done their own little beat up job looking for a headline. If you don't understand 'correlation is not causality', i think i've done a post on it or google for it, its in the top 3 science 'rules'.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of a harmful effect,"Whilst true, its hard to live your life by this kind of mindset. You'd be left quivering in your home not able to decide if using doorknobs gives you cancer - it might, but the fact no-one's put 2 and 2 together on this one puts it squarely in the 'acceptable risk' category....
But when the NHS includes a product in the Drug Tariff, you have to sit up and take notice.Although this statement is a bit rich:
Professional sceptics of alternative medicine got their comeuppance last weekWhat's a professional sceptic of alternative medicine? hhhm, i think they're just called doctors.
How do they work? Magnetic energy increases the blood flow to the area, increasing circulation, thus speeding healing and reducing pain and inflammation.This is bollocks, hold a magnet to your skin, does it go bright red (because of all the blood flowing toward it) ? No. Nor do you explode while having cat scans in hospitals or die doing an NMR in your average chemistry lab. Magnetic fields have little/no effect on you (can get complicated with electric fields however).
OMFG! I don't even know where to start with this pile of stinking dung... You can't get an isolate magnetic pole - they ALWAYS come in pairs (Maxwell's Equations - go ahead, look it up, i'll wait the 2.5 secs it'll take for you to freak out and skulk back. Don't think i'm insulting you, EVERYBODY takes one look at Maxwell's Equations and tries to skulk out of the room before anyone notices). Chop a magnet in half and you get 2 other magnets, both with the usual compliment of N and S poles. Your bollox meter should be off scale by now.
The polarities are said to have the following effect:
North Pole (+): Calming, relaxing effect
South Pole (-): Stimulating, activating effect
Enlightened nations know only a world-wide response will conquer climate change. But whatever their size, they know they can contribute with policies of their own. So the state governments of New South Wales and California, among others, have committed to a 60% reduction in their economies' greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2050. About 195 US cities, home to 50 million people, have made similar pledges.Not sure who believes NSW or California will reduce by 60%... and by 2050? good grief.
To avoid greater climate change, the world has to drastically reduce those emissions. The bad news, science tells us, is that astonishing new technologies such as hydrogen power are largely irrelevant to our response in the next 50 years.I agree with him here.
"Efficiency is and will remain our greatest source of energy," Richard Bradley, head of energy efficiency and the environment at the OECD's International Energy Agency, told the conference.This is just so stupid it beggars belief. No amount of 'efficiency' will push $hit uphill. Good grief, it's not an energy source (I expect it's quoted out of context and he is obviously referring to wasted energy thats already being produced) but this is where this piece goes a bit haywire so i can't be sure RO is thinking the same thing.
What Dr Bradley didn't point out was that New Zealand is a glaring anomaly. On average, OECD countries use today one-third less energy to generate $US1,000 of economic activity (at 1990 prices) than they did in 1973. But we use more because we use a lot to process low value primary products and our transport fleet is inefficient.So? If we're using our hydro resources to generate wealth what's the big deal, we've got bugger all else to do with it, it's a competitive advantage for us. I think RO is getting a little confused about what 'efficiency' means. If rainfall is free, anything I do with it is profitable and thats a good start... could it be more profitable? almost certainly, a more 'efficient' use of your free energy if you will, but the abstractions are starting to pile up.
Elsewhere in the world, energy efficiency is seen as a significant business opportunity, a spur to investment in new and better technology, in New Zealand its is grudgingly seen as a minor tool in reducing the cost of using old technology.ahhh, probably because they have to build coal or nuclear power stations... NZ isn't that efficient cause our power has been relatively cheap and relatively benign in origin. That's starting to change now and hence much confusion over what 'efficiency' means ensues.
Trading mechanisms are huge drivers of changes in technology and business practices. And they have become big commodity businesses in their own right. Since, the EU started its carbon market a year ago, it has traded two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide credits worth $US60 billion. That's double the value of the entire US corn, wheat and soybean output.Absolutely agree!
The steep rise in US petrol prices is equivalent to placing a $US250 a tonne carbon charge on petrol. Yet, business and the public did not riot nor inflation soar. In contrast, New Zealand business was apoplectic about a proposed $15 a tonne charge that would have raised petrol prices 4c a litre.Indeed...