Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 96 01:11:40 GMT
In article <557ogf$9t@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) wrote:
(cut)
> Charlie,
>
> Quick question. No doubt you are aware of the "frog
>in the pot" story. I.e., if you toss a frog into a pot of
>boiling water it will jump out, but if you put the frog in
>room temperature water and slowly heat the pot, the frog
will
>stay in the pot until parboiled because it doesn't notice a
>problem until it's too late.
>
> Let's augment this story a little with a "smart"
frog.
>Though the smart frog can have no knowledge of the future,
it can feel
>changes in temperature and anticipate possible demise if it
gets too hot.
>However, if it decides to get out of the pot, it still
>has an unfortunate mental lag time of 15 minutes between
the
>time it decides to get out of the pot and when it actually
>jumps out. The frog will expire if the water reaches 70
deg. C.
>However, the frog doesn't know, and can't determine, the
temperature
>at which it dies.
>
> The water is at 30 deg. C, rising at 1 deg/min.
>When should the frog decide to get out of the pot?
>
> A) Never. There's no problem. The heat might be
> turned off at any moment.
>
> B) When it gets too hot. However, the frog has too
> wait 15 minutes after this point to jump. If it's
> "too hot" at 56 deg C, the frog's dead.
>
> C) Now. The trend extrapolates to the frog's death.
>
>
>You can answer the question now, or keep reading.
>
>
> A) is equivalent to saying that even though the
> model predicts problems, since we can't have
> perfect knowledge of the future there's no need to
act.
>
> B) is equivalent to saying that even if the model
> predicts future problems, there's no compelling
> reason to act unless disaster seems imminent.
>
> C) is equivalent to saying that if current trends
> indicate a potential problem in the future, the time
to
> act to circumvent disaster is now, not later.
>
>
> One possible reply is that there is no real current
> trend. I dispute that. Have you looked at the
> figure from the Hadley Centre?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Acker
>
>
>===============================================
>| James G. Acker |
>| REPLY TO: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
>===============================================
>All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
>and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
>or corporate entities.
I've heard the frog problem before. Question: If the frog
doesn't have a forecast of the pot temperature, and the
temperature hasn't yet changed appreciably, why in the world
should the frog jump out of the pot now?
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html
Subject: Re: Freon R12 is Safe
From: rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Date: 31 Oct 1996 02:40:44 GMT
Followups trimmed.
In article <01bbc4e6$1e8d00a0$89d0d6cc@masher>,
Mike Asher wrote:
>Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>>
>> We have measured CFCs in the stratosphere. Fact.
>
>CFC's do not destroy ozone. The theory is that a CFC breakdown product--
>specifically chlorine monoxide-- is responsible.
No, it is the Cl atom that attacks ozone. Chlorine Monoxide (ClO) is
the resulting reactive intermediate. It goes on by several mechanisms
to release Cl again, and thus close the catalytic cycle. The
observation of ClO in the stratosphere is direct evidence not just for
the presence of chlorine in the stratosphere, but for the reaction of
Cl with ozone. (ClO cannot be produced by Cl attack on O2 or H2O
because such reactions are endothermic by far too much.)
Even some of the scientific literature gets this wrong - ClO is
described as a "catalyst." Strictly speaking it is not, it is a
reactive intermediate. Cl is the catalyst.
> Typically it is chlorine
>monoxide and other reactive forms for chlorine that are measured in the
>stratosphere.
This is backwards - CFCs are a lot easier to measure in the stratosphere
than reactive intermediates such as ClO. It is because such
measurements are so routine that one doesn't hear much about them.
In contrast, ClO is much trickier - the first measurement of
stratospheric ClO, carried out from balloons in 1977, was a
tour-de-force of analytical chemistry. (The P.I. later got a tenured
position at Harvard, probably on the strength of this work.)
> I am not aware of any stratospheric measurements done for
>CFCs; typically this is done at ground-based stations. Perhaps you can
>provide some information on this?
Tons of it, where do you want to start? The first such measurements
were published in 1975:
A. L. Schmeltekopf et al., "Measurements of Stratospheric CFCl3,
CF2Cl2, and N2O", _Geophysical Research Letters_ _2_, 393, 1975.
There was a tremendous amount of research on this in the late 1970's.
A good review is:
P. Fabian et al., _Halocarbons in the Stratosphere_, _Nature_ _294_,
733, 1981.
See also any modern atmospheric chemistry textbook, such as
R. P. Wayne, _Chemistry of Atmospheres_, Oxford 1991, p. 162.
For the most recent data, see the work of R. Zander et al.:
"The 1985 chlorine and fluorine inventories in the stratosphere based
on ATMOS observations at 30 degrees North latitude",
J. Atmos. Chem. _15_, 171, 1992.
"The 1994 northern midlatitude budget of stratospheric chlorine
derived from ATMOS/ATLAS-3 observations", Geophys. Res. Lett.
_23_, 2357, 1996.
>It is interesting to note that, not only are CFCs naturally produced,
I know of no significant natural source for CFCs.
> but that many other chemicals are highly effective at ozone destruction (HC1,
>NO, NO2, CH4, and even water vapor).
NOx is important but less so than once believed. (While NOx catalyzes
ozone loss directly, it also inhibits chlorine-catalyzed ozone loss.
The antarctic ozone hole takes place under conditions in which NOx is
almost entirely _absent_, having been converted to nitric acid which
condenses with water into polar stratosphere clouds.)
CH4 actually _suppresses_ ozone loss, by scavenging Cl radicals.
Very little HCl reaches the stratosphere (measured HCl concentrations
at the tropopause are vanishingly small); the 1994 WMO assessment
estimates that direct HCl injection through large volcanic
eruptions, etc. is responsible for at most 3% of the chlorine in the
stratosphere. Manmade halocarbons are responsible for ~80%.
HOx from stratospheric water vapor is indeed important and largely
determines the natural ozone balance in the lower stratosphere.
Nevertheless, it is ClOx, not HOx, that has increased by a factor
of five in the past 30 years, and it is ClOx and BrOx that were
definitively linked to the antarctic ozone hole in the 1986-87
NOZE and AAOE experiments:
J.G. Anderson, D. W. Toohey, and W. H. Brune, "Free Radicals
within the Antarctic vortex: the role of CFC's in Antarctic Ozone Loss",
_Science_ _251_, 39, 1991.
M. McElroy and R. Salawich, "Changing
Composition of the Global Stratosphere", _Science_ _243, 763, 1989.
S. Solomon, "Progress towards a quantitative understanding of
Antarctic ozone depletion", _Nature_ _347_, 347, 1990.
[WMO 1994] World Meteorological Organization,
_Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994_
Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report #37.
------
Robert
Subject: DDT Human Toxicity Results
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 31 Oct 1996 02:45:05 GMT
Many here have challenged a prior post on DDT, it's toxicity and risks,
and the results of the DDT ban. This post addresses the issue of
HUMAN toxicity, as this issue is the least complex. Subsequent posts
will address tertiary issues.
For the record, I do _not_ state that DDT is 'harmless', i.e. has zero
heath implications. My statement-- which has not been challenged by
any of the serious debators here'-- is that DDT has a low order of
toxicity in humans, and presents no health risks when used appropriately.
A summary of the 19 research studies quoted below is:
- Humans exposed to large, longterm doses have had little
or no symptoms.
- DDT has not been shown to be a human carcinogen.
- DDT does not cause chromosomal damage
- DDT does not cause liver damage
- Dermal irritation from DDT is minor and presents no health risks
One study noted a possible increase in one lung cancer, but made no
determination as the study group was exposed to other contributory factors.
Note that the OSHA guidelines list DDT as class B2, a probable human
carcinogen. This is given to any substance that has been shown to have
a positive carcinogenic profile in any other animal species.
==== BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ====
DERMAL EXPOSURE ... HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH NO ILLNESS & USUALLY NO
IRRITATION. ... EVEN SUBCUTANEOUS INJECTION OF COLLOIDAL SUSPENSIONS OF
DDT IN SALINE SOLUTION UP TO 30 PPM CAUSED NO IRRITATION. ... ONE STUDY
REPORTED THAT DDT-IMPREGNATED CLOTHING CAUSED A SLIGHT, TRANSIENT
DERMATITIS, BUT THE METHOD OF IMPREGNATION WAS NOT STATED & THE ABSENCE
OF SOLVENT WAS NOT GUARANTEED. OTHER MORE THOROUGH STUDIES OF
DDT-IMPREGNATED CLOTHING HAVE FOUND IT NONIRRITATING. (HAYES, WAYLAND J.,
JR. PESTICIDES STUDIED IN MAN. BALTIMORE/LONDON: WILLIAMS AND WILKINS,
1982. 198)
Virtually all fatalities reported in the literature have resulted from ...
intentional ingestion of DDT in various toxic solvents. The toxicity of
these solutions is greater than that of either DDT or the solvent alone.
(DREISBACH, R.H. HANDBOOK OF POISONING. 12TH ED. NORWALK, CT: APPLETON
AND LANGE, 1987. 99)
... THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE THAT DIETARY ABSORPTION OF DDT, ALONE
OR IN COMBINATION WITH INSECTICIDES OF ALDRIN-TOXAPHENE GROUP, HAS CAUSED
CANCER IN GENERAL POPULATION. NO EVIDENCE ... PRESENTED THAT DDT HAS
CAUSED CANCER AMONG MILLIONS OF INDIVIDUALS (ALMOST ENTIRELY MEN) WHO
HAVE BEEN OCCUPATIONALLY ENGAGED FOR AS LONG AS 35 YEARS IN MFR &
HANDLING OR SPRAYING ... DDT (AS DUST, SOLN & SUSPENSION) IN ALL PARTS
OF WORLD & UNDER ALL POSSIBLE CLIMATIC CONDITIONS. (CLAYTON, G. D. AND F.
E. CLAYTON (EDS.). PATTY'S INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE AND TOXICOLOGY: VOLUME 2A,
2B, 2C: TOXICOLOGY. 3RD ED. NEW YORK: JOHN WILEY SONS, 1981-1982. 3697)
The peripheral lymphocytes of workers occupationally exposed to DDT were
examined and no increase in chromosomal aberrations was observed when
compared to an unexposed cohort. In one small group of severely exposed
workers, a small increase in chromatid aberrations was found. In general,
a positive correlation was observed between DDT levels in the plasma and
time of exposure. However, there was no relationship between the plasma
level of DDT and the frequency of chromosomal aberrations. (RABELLO MN ET
AL; MUTAT RES 28: 449-54 (1979))
HYPERSENSITIVITIES, SUCH AS DERMATITIS, ANAPHYLAXIS, & FATAL
PERIARTERITIS NODOSA & APLASTIC ANEMIA, HAVE BEEN REPORTED, BUT THEY ARE
RARE. WHETHER DDT OR OTHER INGREDIENTS IN COMMERCIAL MIXT HAVE BEEN
RESPONSIBLE HAS NEVER BEEN DETERMINED. (GOODMAN, L.S., AND A. GILMAN.
(EDS.) THE PHARMACOLOGICAL BASIS OF THERAPEUTICS. 5TH ED. NEW YORK:
MACMILLAN PUBLISHING CO., INC., 1975. 1014)
No increase in chromosomal aberrations were observed in human ...
lymphocyte cultures exposed to 1, 10, or 100 ug/ml DDT based on the
analysis of 25 metaphases per culture. (HART HM ET AL; XENOBIOTICA 2: 567
(1972))
There was no evidence of liver disease or abnormalities in liver function
tests in 31 chemical workers who in the course of their work had ingested
the equivalent of 3.6 to 18 mg of DDT daily for 16 to 25 years. Serum
concn of DDT & its metabolites in 10 patients were 20 times greater than
in the normal population. (REYNOLDS, J.E.F., PRASAD, A.B. (EDS.)
MARTINDALE-THE EXTRA PHARMACOPOEIA. 28TH ED. LONDON: THE PHARMACEUTICAL
PRESS, 1982. 835)
Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in
various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally
similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE. HUMAN
CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Inadequate. ANIMAL CARCINOGENICITY DATA:
Sufficient. **QC REVIEWED**(U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM (IRIS) ON
P,P'-DICHLORODIPHENYLTRICHLOROETHANE (DDT) (50-29-3) FROM THE NATIONAL
LIBRARY OF MEDICINE'S TOXNET SYSTEM, AUGUST 29, 1994)
In humans, ingestion of 20 gr. of DDT in the form of a 10 % dry mix with
flour has induced symptoms that persisted for more than 5 weeks,
(DREISBACH, R. HANDBOOK OF POISONING. 12TH ED. NORWALK, CT: APPLETON AND
LANGE, 1987 99)
Severe scrotal pain followed the local use of dicophane application for
pubic lice in two patients. Long term effects .. were not noted.
(REYNOLDS, J.E., PRASAD, A.B. (EDS. MARTINDALE-THE EXTRA PHARMACOPOEIA.
28TH ED. LONDON:
THE PHARMACEUTICAL PRESS, 1982 835)
DDT/DDE HAS NOT ... DEMONSTRATED A SELECTIVE TOXIC EFFECT ON EYES. PURE
DDT DISSOLVED IN PURIFIED KEROSENE WAS TESTED ... AT 0.01% ON HUMAN EYE &
CAUSED NO DISCOMFORT OR IRRITATION ... RARE INSTANCES HAVE BEEN REPORTED
OF OCULAR IRRITATION FOLLOWING CONTAMINATION OF THE EYE BY POWDERS
CONTAINING DDT, & IN ONE INSTANCE CHRONIC SUPERFICIAL PUNCTATE KERATITIS
WAS ASSOC WITH FATAL POISONING FROM LONG EXPOSURE TO THE DUST, BUT IT IS
PROBABLE THAT CONSTITUENTS OTHER THAN DDT WERE RESPONSIBLE, OR THAT THERE
WAS HYPERSENSITIVITY. ... IN EXPERIMENTAL EXPOSURE OF TWO MEN TO SKIN
CONTACT WITH DDT ONE DEVELOPED MANY COMPLAINTS INCL "YELLOW VISION" FOR
LESS THAN AN HR ON 2 OCCASIONS. (GRANT, W.M. TOXICOLOGY OF THE EYE. 3RD
ED. SPRINGFIELD, IL: CHARLES C. THOMAS PUBLISHER, 1986. 305)
EVIDENCE ... THAT SIGNIFICANT POISONING OR DISTURBANCE OF EYES OR VISION
IS UNLIKELY FROM PROLONGED OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY
STUDY OF 35 MEN EXPOSED FOR 11-19 YR TO LARGE AMT OF DDT IN ITS MFR, WITH
BODY FAT CONCN OF DDT & ITS ISOMERS & METABOLITES RANGING FROM 38-647
PPM, CONTRASTING WITH AVG OF 8 PPM FOR GENERAL POPULATION. AMONG THESE
MEN & IN OTHER EMPLOYEES OF MFR PLANT, NO INSTANCES OF CLINICAL POISONING
WERE RECOGNIZED. ... NONE OF 35 PATIENTS IN ... STUDY HAD EYE COMPLAINTS.
(GRANT, W.M. TOXICOLOGY OF THE EYE. 3RD ED. SPRINGFIELD, IL: CHARLES C.
THOMAS PUBLISHER, 1986. 306)
... ALMOST CONTINUOUS DAILY EXPOSURE TO AEROSOLS SUFFICIENT TO LEAVE
WHITE DEPOSIT OF DDT ON NASAL VIBRISSAE OF VOLUNTEERS PRODUCED MODERATE
IRRITATION OF NOSE, THROAT, & EYES. EXCEPT FOR THIS IRRITATION DURING
EXPOSURE, THERE WERE NO SYMPTOMS ... TESTS /ARE REPORTED/ IN WHICH
VOLUNTEERS WERE EXPOSED TO DDT DISPERSED INTO AIR ... BY VOLATILIZING
UNITS OR BY CONTINUOUSLY OR INTERMITTENTLY OPERATED AEROSOL DISPENSORS.
IN SOME INSTANCES, SLIGHT ODOR & SOME DRYNESS OF THROAT WERE NOTICED ...
. (HAYES, WAYLAND J., JR. PESTICIDES STUDIED IN MAN. BALTIMORE/LONDON:
WILLIAMS AND WILKINS, 1982. 198)
... STUDIES OF DDT IN VOLUNTEERS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED ... TO SEARCH FOR
POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF DOSES CONSIDERED TO BE SAFE. IN 1ST OF THESE STUDIES,
MEN WERE GIVEN 0, 3.5, & 35 MG/MAN/DAY. THESE ADMIN DOSAGES, PLUS DDT
MEASURED IN MEN'S FOOD, RESULTED IN DOSAGE LEVELS OF 0.0021 TO 0.0034,
0.038 TO 0.063, & 0.36 TO 0.61 MG/KG/DAY, RESPECTIVELY, EXACT VALUE
DEPENDING ON WT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL. SIX VOLUNTEERS RECEIVED HIGHEST
DOSAGE OF TECHNICAL DDT FOR 12 MO, & 3 RECEIVED IT FOR 18 MO. A SMALLER
NUMBER OF MEN INGESTED LOWER DOSAGE OF TECHNICAL DDT OR 1 OF DOSAGES OF
p,p'-DDT FOR 12 TO 18 MO. NO VOLUNTEER COMPLAINED OF ANY SYMPTOM ... SAME
RESULT WAS OBTAINED IN 2ND STUDY IN WHICH SAME DOSAGES WERE GIVEN FOR 21
MO & VOLUNTEERS WERE OBSERVED FOR MINIMUM OF 27 ADDNL MO. (HAYES, WAYLAND
J., JR. PESTICIDES STUDIED IN MAN. BALTIMORE/LONDON: WILLIAMS AND
WILKINS, 1982. 195)
Alveolar-cell carcinoma of the lung has been reported in 5 patients with
granulomatous disease of the lungs associated with the inhalation of DDT
powder. In 4 studies, tissue levels of DDT were reported to be higher in
cancer patients than in subjects who died from other causes; no
significant difference was found in 4 other studies, 1 of which was
confined to cancer of the breast & incl some living patients. Serum DDT
levels appeared to be elevated in another study of 9 cancer patients, but
the study is difficult to interpret. In 2 case-control studies of
soft-tissue sarcoma, & in 3 of malignant lymphoma, relative risks for the
assoc of these diseases with exposure to DDT were 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, & 1.8,
respectively. Some of the men in these studies had also been exposed to
chlorophenoxy herbicides & chlorophenols, for which there were higher
relative risks. (IARC. MONOGRAPHS ON THE EVALUATION OF THE CARCINOGENIC
RISK OF CHEMICALS TO MAN. GENEVA: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION,
INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER,1972-PRESENT. (MULTIVOLUME
WORK).,P. S7 186 (1987))
Excess of leukemia (particularly chronic lymphocytic leukemia) were noted
in 2 studies. A case-control study of colon cancer showed no increased
relative risk for exposure to DDT. A small excess of deaths from cancer
(3 observed, 1.0 expected) was found in forestry foremen exposed to DDT,
2,4-D & 2,4,5-T. In two other studies of men involved in production /
manufacture of DDT, there was no incr in mortality from cancer overall
(standardized mortality ratio (SMR), 68 & 95, respectively), although in
1, mortality from resp cancer was increased slightly (SMR, 156; 95%
confidence interval, 74-286). Possible incr. in lung cancer mortality was
also observed in agricultural workers who had used DDT & a variety of
other pesticides & herbicides, but a small case-control study of lung
cancer deaths in orchardists showed no excess. Studies of pesticide
applicators, who used DDT as well as a number of other pesticides, showed
excesses of lung cancer. In 1 of these studies, the risk for lung cancer
increased with duration of holding a licence to nearly 3-fold among those
licenced for 20 or more years. Exposure to multiple pesticides in these
studies prevents a clear evaluation of the cancer risk assoc with DDT
alone. (IARC. MONOGRAPHS ON THE EVALUATION OF THE CARCINOGENIC RISK OF
CHEMICALS TO MAN. GENEVA: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, INTERNATIONAL AGENCY
FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER,1972-PRESENT. (MULTIVOLUME WORK).,P. S7 186
(1987))
Three case studies ... of alveolar-cell carcinoma were performed among
men occupationally engaged in 2,4-D handling/manufacture ... mortality
rates were within control limits. (HAYES, WAYLAND, PESTICIDES
STUDIED IN MAN. BALTIMORE/LONDON: WILLIAMS AND WILKINS, 1982)
No effect on unscheduled DNA synthesis was observed in SV-40 transformed
human cells with concentrations up to 1,000 uM DDT either with, or
without S-9 microsomal activation. (AHMED FE ET AL; MUTAT RES 42: 161
(1977))
Subject: Re: Misrepresentation of Dioxin toxicity - WHAT !?!
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 31 Oct 1996 03:09:42 GMT
Miikka Raninen wrote:
> (coming up...)
As rebuttal to 14 case studies showing the negative effects of dioxin on
man, we have an Earth First member quoting from "Chemistry in Context".
Although represented as a scholarly work, this textbook is typically used
as an introductory course to elementary and high school teachers. I was
able to get a table of contents for this tome of knowledge; some of the
high points are below:
"Chemistry in Context"
Ch. 2: "Protecting the Ozone Layer"
Ch 3: "The Chemistry of Global Warming"
Ch 4: "Energy, Chemistry and Society"
Ch 5: "The Wonder of Water"
Ch. 8: "The Fires of Nuclear Fission"
Ch. 9: "Solar Energy: Fuel for the Future"
Ch. 12: "Nutrition: Food for Thought"
Miikka calls this environmental handbook, 'one of the most used and
respected chemistry studybooks in .. the world.' Regardless of your
personal beliefs Miika, here the evidence is irrefutable. The dioxin issue
is a paper tiger, created to advance an agenda.
> Miikka Raninen wrote:
> "Mike Asher" says:
>
> >POST SUMMARY: Scott Nudd's reply to my expose of dioxin dangers is easy
to
> >demolish. He fails to challenge any of the documented evidence I
provided,
> >which categorically proves that dioxin-- far from being 'the most
dangerous
> >chemical ever created'-- is a common substance that is of no threat to
man
> >in normal doses. He quotes two studies: one of which makes no claims
about
> >the effects of dioxin, the other of which had already been addressed in
my
> >original post.
>
> When looking to your absolutely hilarious claims I seriously doubt that
you
> could even draw the molecular structure of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
> (snip)
> ...and for those who have not yet studied their chemistry (everyone
should),
> here's a quotation from one of the most used and respected chemistry
study-
> books used in universities all over the world...
>
> "This contaminant is known as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
> (TCDD or dioxin for short). This chemical has been recognized as a
major
> hazard in the chemical industry for almost thirty years. It is
extrimely
> stable, being resistent to attack by neat and other chemicals. Once
> 0spilled it is almost impossible to remove from land, buildings or
> machinery. It has been tentatively linked with liver and kidney damage,
> cancer and brain damage. It is one of the most powerfull teratogens
> (foetus deformers) known and it is probably the minute traces of TCDD
> impurity which give rise to this hazard in the use of 2,4,5-T."
>
> - Chemistry in Context. ISBN 0-17-448164-0
>
> - Miikka Raninen - Earth First! Finland
>
> I admit that I represent an enviromental organization.
> What do you, Mike Asher, represent?
> Industry who wants to bring a new thalidomine on market?
> Or mayby the US-army who wants to use the agent orange again?
I have no involvement in the chemical industry Miika. Look elsewhere for
fulfillment of your paranoia.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
Subject: Re: Stephen Safe Misrepresentation concerning Dioxin toxicity
From: Jim Woodford
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 22:48:54 -0500
TL ADAMS wrote:
>
> Miikka Raninen wrote:
> >
> >
> > When looking to your absolutely hilarious claims I seriously doubt that you
> > could even draw the molecular structure of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
>
> It's this couple of Aromatics with 4 chlorines and some stuff inbetween.
>
> (Grin)
>
> The Epa draft study on the effects of dioxin is available at
> telnet:\\ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov or at http:\\ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov
>
> Its conclusions are alarming, and does make good reading. To anyone
> that says the
> EPA is a tool or allie of the environmentalist dosn't know crap about
> the current
> pollitical situation. When U.S. EPA publishes a study that sounds like
> an EarthFirst
> scare rag, then I have to take it serious.
>
> >
> > BUT as a scientist
>
> Me, I'm just a biomedical engineer, I will defer to your judgement.
>
>
> > "With laboratory animals, it seemed as if dioxin caused just
> > about any effect you can think of. You name it and dioxin
> > did it, and at extraordinaly low doses."
> >
> > - Steven Safe, Professor of Toxicology at A&M; University, Texas
>
> > You can't overthrow the conclutions that scientific community
> > already made over thirty years ago with your intimidation with
> > "bad-enviromentalists" !
>
> > I admit that I represent an enviromental organization.
> > What do you, Mike Asher, represent?
> > Industry who wants to bring a new thalidomine on market?
> > Or mayby the US-army who wants to use the agent orange again?
>
> Hey, now I am offended. Don't blame the agent orange mess just on us.
> We need
> a good defoliant in Vnam. Agent Orange was by fair the best available.
> How were
> we to know that it contained 1-2 percent dioxin. (Well, we could have
> read the warning
> literature from Dow., but real soldiers don;t read). We could have used
> some of the
> safety procedures we were suppose to, but in battlefield conditions fear
> of toxic
> exposure is fairly remote. Yet, when I do my weekend a month at the VA
> hospital, I do
> cry over the damage our ignorance caused.
Texas A&M; toxicologist Stephen Safe has tended to be a voice of reason
in the dioxin debate and his quote referenced earlier was likely taken
out of context. He has taken colleagues to task for hyping the
potential risk of dioxin as a reproductive health threat. He and others
point out that the so called 'hormone modulating' pollutants bind to
receptor sites hundreds of thousands of times more weakly than human
hormones. The pollutants are swamped by naturally occurring hormones,
further reducing the likelihood of any effect.
"In a stunning indictment of the lack of defensible science in setting
EPA policy, [an] independent panel told EPA that the Agency had
overstated the risks of dioxins, that its conclusions were not
scientifically defenisble and that it could not endorse the report as
currently drafted." (Dr. Kathryn Kelly, Wall Street Journal Editorial,
6-29-95 shortly after the USEPA's Science Advisory Board review)
Jim Woodford
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 30 Oct 1996 20:37:04 -0700
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996 22:20:07 GMT, gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>amusing alright, now name me one product that was developed from
>theory to shelf by big business. Hint all you can comne up with is the
>pet rock. The only business that was even close to doing so was the
>old Bell labs in the 20-30's.
Transistor - Bell Labs - late '40s
Signal Theory - Shannon @ Bell Labs - late 40's (NOT 20s)
many fundamental computer ideas - from basic research to deployment
Xerox PARC - ethernet, Smalltalk, windowed environments, etc
Laser - Hughes Aircraft 1960 or so
Genetically engineered pharmaceuticals - various venture capital
based firms - 80s and 90s
etc, etc, etc
> Secondly big business isn't intrested in
>doing reseach as it envolves risk,and they are scared of their own
>shadow.
Business does not thrive without risk. Businessmen would love for
there to be profit at no risk, but that only occurs when a government
enforces a monopoly. Otherwise we have to invest our money, always at
risk, in order to continue to survive, not to mention grow.
However, inability to deduct research expenses most definitely
increases the risk.
>
>
>>gone to Democrats. Small business (startups) gives its money to
>>Republicans.
>
>>More interesting is the assertion that "corps" want less research.
>>These "corps" have tried to get research as a tax credit or a tax
>
>read above. And why should the Us tax payer be forced to subisdize
>their business, you can bet they will never allow the reseach to be
>freely published. Thirdly they have been living high oin the hog off
>of academia reseach.
What makes you think that letting people keep the money they have
earned is a government subsidie? You must be one of those tax and tax
democrats who believes that all money belongs to the government, and
any tax reduction is a subsidy!
>>offset of some sort, but it has not gotten through Congress. In
>>addition, most of the government research funds went to these very
>>"corps", and the idea of them spurning government money to fund their
>
>the only reseach funds that went to private sector was defense, the
>bulk of everything else goes to academia
This is true.
>
>>research is amusing, it is so misdirected.
>
>>Finally, we are in a world market, and I would be surprised if any
>>large number of "corps" did not recognize that continuous innovation
>>and improvement of old products, and introduction of new ones, is
>>required just to maintain the US edge as the world's leading exporter.
>
>we also are the leader in reseach. The Japanese are very good at
>copying but leave one hell of a lot to be desired in the way of
>inventions, a fact that they even bemoan.
And which they are working to change.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: ozone@primenet.com (John Moore)
Date: 30 Oct 1996 20:57:02 -0700
On 30 Oct 1996 15:22:40 GMT, geoffh@wtl.co.nz (Wind Torque Ltd) wrote:
> Average year-round Land Area
> Output (% of all nations')
>Solar thermal electric 15 TW 0.18%
>Wind power 15 TW 0.04%
>Biomass (solid, liquid and gas) 15 TW 28.33%
>
>TOTALS 45 TW 28.55%
Last time I checked, solar cell efficiency was poor, and costs high,
leading to a cost of $5-$10 per peak kilowatt. This is about 10 times
the cost of conventional power, which should tell you that solar
technology is nowhere close to being efficient. If you consider that a
significant part of the cost of a technology is the energy that goes
into the acquisition of raw material, transport of raw and finished
product, manufacturing, and installation, there may be no net energy
gain from a solar cell today.
I keep an eye on this one, because I have a large house and pay high
electric bills, and I would love to go solar. But not at a cost of .35
cents per delivered kilowatt hour, when I can now buy energy for 7
cents per kilowatt hour. It would be much less if I were buying power
from a modern natural gas power plant rather than nuclear and coal
plants.
Furthermore, the production of solar cells involves considerable toxic
material, which will eventually enter the environment.
Wind power today is a laugh, as evidenced by dead wind farms all over
the countries.
Biomass produces just as much CO2 as petroleum, if not more, so that
isn't going to do a lot of good on the global warming front.
I find it amusing that you fail to list nuclear power. You list
biomass, which will do ZIP for CO2 and its alleged global warming
impact. But you ignore nuclear which is minimally polluting.
Do I smell an agenda here? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
>
>This ignores technologies like:
>� passive solar architecture for space heating - zero land use
>� solar water heaters - zero land use (rooftop application)
>� photovoltaic solar - zero land use (rooftop application, e.g. for
>battery charging for commuter electric/hybrid vehicles)
Hmmm... 15 years ago everyone was buying solar water heaters around
here. They're mostly gone, due to their high cost and the pain of
keeping them working and replacing them when they corrode.
Passive solar architecture is a good idea, except where I live
(Phoenix, Arizona) where caves are better - except I don't WANT to
live in a cave.
>� hydro-electricity - land use typically 20 times that of wind power.
And a very limitted, but clean, resource.
>
>So biomass on its own could meet present energy requirements (just as
>it provides our food requirements) but probably cannot meet projected
>energy demand (which will more than treble in the next fity years).
>But combined with wind power in the windy places, solar power and hot
>water in the sunny places, hydro in the wet, mountainous countries, the
>solar economy is actually quite feasible.
Sure... if we divert most of our GDP into it.
>
>The problem is not a shortage of solar energy - it is an economic
>laziness and addiction to the unsustainable use of fossil fuels (which
>themselves are nothing more than stored solar energy).
This is the old mythical thinking I keep seeing on this issue.
Sure, there is tons of solar power available - about 1KW/square meter.
But turning it into usable energy is a much different situation.
If *only* we just get less economically lazy... your desire
obviously... really means (whether you realize it or not)... if only
we would hobble our economy for decades.
I say that until the evidence is better, both of the effect of CO2
increeases, and the effect of ameliorative measures, we should wait.
The computer models agree.
>
>Once we have a level playing field (by requiring zero net CO2
>emissions, i.e. massive tree-planting funded by the fossil fuel
>companies as a transitional measure), the solar options will find their
>niches. But until then fossil fuels will always seem "cheaper" so
>solar options will seem "not quite economic yet". It's an inherent
>economic Catch-22 that we must face up to.
You are really talking about the issue of externalities. What is
cheap? If we could attach a realistic cost to the emission of a
certain quantity of greenhouse gas, then we could use government to
force those costs and let the free market sort it out.
This is fraught with peril.
>
>We need to adopt a very low technology option - "plant one tree for
>(approximately) every tonne of carbon you emit - and plant one tree for
>every one you chop down, do not chop down more than you can replant".
Yeah, right. Where are you going to plant all these trees? What makes
you think that the carbon in the trees will not be released back into
the atmosphere? The carbon cycle is complex... termites emit methane
when they eat those trees, for example.
>Administratively this will be simplest if the fossil fuel companies pay
>for massive planting and pass the cost onto the consumer.
>In the future biomass will be able to phase in while fossil fuels phase
>out.
Why in the world do you think biomass is going to solve the problem?
Are you implying that we burn ONLY the trees that we plant?
>If nuclear can compete with the solar economy, then it might have a
>future also. But I doubt it.
Well, nuclear is far future than solar is today, that's for sure. And
it could be made a lot cheaper by:
-standardizing the systems
-going to highly stable (dynamically stable) reactors
-greatly reducing the paperwork, delays and government meddling with
the operation of the reactors.
-admitting the obvious: we can bury nuclear waste with adequate
safety today
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
Date: 31 Oct 1996 05:54:38 GMT
In article <557rs0$smn@venus.plain.co.nz>,
geoffh@wtl.co.nz (Wind Torque Ltd) writes:
>>They [greenhouse gases] can't grow exponentially. There isn't enough
>fossil fuel around.
>
>This is quite wrong. CO2 concentrations are increasing at an
>accelerating rate and there are plenty of fossil fuels left. According
>to Scientific American (April 1989), if we burn all the estimated
>recoverable fossil fuels atmospheric CO2 will increase by a factor of
>between 5 and 10!
>
>This is a truly scary prospect - anyone for 1500-3000 ppm CO2 by the
>year 2300? (IPCC has so far focussed on the prospect of about 600 ppm
>by 2100).
You think we'll still be using fossil fuels in 2300? Or even 2100?
I don't even think we'll still be human in the same sense we are now
in 2300. In 2100 we'll probably look back at 1996 as though we today
were ignorant pygmies.
Really.. look at some statistical graphs of technological growth. It's
pretty close to an exponential curve. Particularly pay attention to
the incredible rate of growth in "key" technologies. The rate of
increase in the processing power of computers is an exponential curve for
instance. (Which will "apex" sometime in the early 21st century.)
>So what's the solution? As I posted a while ago under the heading
>"Solar Economy", the following gives a brief summary of how we can
>achieve a sustainable, non-greenhouse energy future.
>
>The solar constant is 1388 watts/sq meter. The Earth has a
>cross-sectional area of approx 1.27 E14 square meters. That works out
>at about 176,000 TW, compared to humanity's consumption of about 15 TW
>(which is about 3 kW/capita), i.e. the solar resource is more than
>10,000 times more than humanity's requirements. So the solar resource
>is abundant!
Solar energy is not really concentrated enough to be usable for industrial
needs, which require large amounts of energy. Solar could be used to fuel
electrical appliances in homes. Also, indirect solar energy such as
wind and hydroelectric might be better. We currently are not using all
available hydroelectric power.. not even close.
>Even taking into account conversion efficiencies and land use
>requirements, just 3 solar technologies could each provide present
>human requirements while using (between them and mainly due to one of
>the 3 technologies) just over a quarter of the nations' land areas.
>These are:
A quarter? That's a lot of land. What about cutting down all those trees? :)
> Average year-round Land Area
> Output (% of all nations')
>Solar thermal electric 15 TW 0.18%
>Wind power 15 TW 0.04%
>Biomass (solid, liquid and gas) 15 TW 28.33%
>
>TOTALS 45 TW 28.55%
>
>This ignores technologies like:
>� passive solar architecture for space heating - zero land use
>� solar water heaters - zero land use (rooftop application)
>� photovoltaic solar - zero land use (rooftop application, e.g. for
>battery charging for commuter electric/hybrid vehicles)
>� hydro-electricity - land use typically 20 times that of wind power.
>
>So biomass on its own could meet present energy requirements (just as
>it provides our food requirements) but probably cannot meet projected
>energy demand (which will more than treble in the next fity years).
>But combined with wind power in the windy places, solar power and hot
>water in the sunny places, hydro in the wet, mountainous countries, the
>solar economy is actually quite feasible.
Possibly for "civilian" power needs-- home appliances, computers, etc.
However, I don't think we'd be willing to devote enough land to harnessing
enough solar power to run industrial systems and to generate hydrogen for
transportation and aviation.
What about the E=mc^2 thing? Oh, I'm sorry. That's a sin.
>The problem is not a shortage of solar energy - it is an economic
>laziness and addiction to the unsustainable use of fossil fuels (which
>themselves are nothing more than stored solar energy).
>
>Once we have a level playing field (by requiring zero net CO2
>emissions, i.e. massive tree-planting funded by the fossil fuel
>companies as a transitional measure), the solar options will find their
>niches. But until then fossil fuels will always seem "cheaper" so
>solar options will seem "not quite economic yet". It's an inherent
>economic Catch-22 that we must face up to.
I think if we just stopped subsidizing fossil fuels they would probably become
too expensive and would be phased out by cheaper alternatives.
>We need to adopt a very low technology option - "plant one tree for
>(approximately) every tonne of carbon you emit - and plant one tree for
>every one you chop down, do not chop down more than you can replant".
>Administratively this will be simplest if the fossil fuel companies pay
>for massive planting and pass the cost onto the consumer.
What about not subsidizing fossil fuels and using that money instead to
subsidize tree-planting?
>In the future biomass will be able to phase in while fossil fuels phase
>out. Biomass will then be needed to the extent that the other
>non-carbon forms of solar energy (wind power etc) have not taken up the
>slack. Provided sustainable forestry is then practised, we will be
>able to have a steady biomass consumption without net CO2 emissions
>(growing trees will reabsorb the CO2) and without further increasing
>land area planted in trees (and other biomass crops).
>
>We need to get our "energy" on the same basis we get our food. It all
>part of the carbon cycle.
>
>If nuclear can compete with the solar economy, then it might have a
>future also. But I doubt it.
Yeah, splitting the atom is a sin so we can't do that.
--
Anyone sending me unsolicited advertising e-mail will be charged a $200.00
proofreading fee. Do not send me unsolicited mail!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Subject: Ontario EQ Committee Bill 57 Submission
From: bwc@the-alliance.com (Brian Collinson)
Date: 30 Oct 1996 22:04:07 GMT
The following is the Alliance submission on BIll 57, the Ontario Government's
legislation to reform the Approvals process. If you have any questions,
please contact Brian Collinson by e-mail, or at 416-798-8000, x. 236.
Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada
Ontario Division
Submission to the Resources Development Committee
on Bill 57
Mr. Chairman and Honourable Members of the Committee:
The Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada thanks you for the
opportunity to present the views of our association with respect to Bill 57.
The Alliance: Who We Are and Why We Care
The Alliance is the voice of the Canadian manufacturing and exporting sectors
on policy issues. Created by the amalgamation of the former Canadian
Manufacturers' Association and the former Canadian Exporters Association, we
have nearly 2000 member companies in Ontario and 3500 across Canada,
representing all sizes and types of manufacturing and exporting businesses.
Our members produce well over 80% of the manufactured output of Canada.
About 1.8 million people are employed directly in manufacturing and
processing in Canada, and 3 million more have jobs directly or indirectly
dependent upon these sectors. Most of these people are Ontarians.
Manufacturing accounts for 18.5% of GDP, making it the largest single
sector, while exporting accounts for over 37% of Canada's economic activity.
The truth is unavoidable: if Canada cannot manufacture and export in an
economic and competitive manner, the Ontario and Canadian economies will
wither and die.
The Need for Regulatory Reform: Why the Cost of Regulation Matters
Many believe that higher taxes or tighter regulation should be imposed on
businesses to compensate for the benefits which business is receiving at the
expense of Canadian society. This conception is fundamentally incorrect.
Canadian business paid $115 billion in government mandated expenditures in
1992. Regulatory compliance costs alone ran to an estimated $48 billion.
Moreover, manufacturers have faced a severe cost squeeze, with selling prices
increasing by only 19% from 1989 through 1995. Hourly wages, payroll taxes
and other expenses have increased by much more.
Hence, in 1995 it took the average firm approximately 7 hours and 37 minutes
out of every 8-hour production shift to cover operating expenses, and another
7 1/2 minutes to pay taxes.
Consequently, the cost of regulatory burden in Ontario will mean the
difference between creation or destruction of investment and jobs.
Regulatory compliance costs must be reduced from their extraordinarily high
levels if the Ontario economy is to provide the people of Ontario with jobs
and growth.
How can Ontario get the maximum "bang per buck", in the sense of maintaining
high standards of environmental quality while keeping compliance costs as low
as possible?
General Comments on Regulatory Reform
The Alliance supports the overall concept and direction of the Government's
Regulatory Reform package, particularly with regard to approvals reform and
Bill 57. Amendments are essential to keep pace with the rapid rate of
economic and technological change, which has rendered the present body of
legislation, regulation and policy obsolete.
Bill 57
The Alliance is broadly supportive of Bill 57, and the government's obvious
commitment to the regulatory reform of the approvals process. This is a
matter of the highest priority to our membership. Nonetheless, there are
some technical issues of major importance with respect to the language used
in several sections of Bill 57 which give us serious concern, due to what the
Alliance believes to be the extraordinarily broad regulation-making power
given to the Ministry.
We believe that it is essential that the legislative purpose of Bill 57 be
kept firmly in mind in assessing the breadth of the regulation-making powers
given in that Bill, and, in particular, in ss. 175.1(b), 176(1)(h)and (h.1),
176(1)(h.2) and 176(6)(I.1). Fundamentally, the purpose of Bill 57, as the
title indicates, is "to improve the efficiency of the environmental approvals
process".
Such broad powers might expedite the removal of many of the regulatory
obstacles found in the approvals process, but they could also be used to
introduce highly prescriptive and interventionist measures of the sort which
the government is seeking to remove. Undoubtedly, the Ministry could achieve
the desired regulatory results through a much simpler and less far-reaching
set of legislative measures.
These specific sections are considered in detail below.
1) Section 175.1(b)
Section 175.1(b) consolidates a range of powers found in various sections of
the EPA, but in so doing, it expands them. The section gives the power to
make regulations "prohibiting, regulating or controlling" a very large range
of activities, including sale, display, advertising, transfer,
transportation, operation, maintenance, storage, recycling, disposal or
discharge of a wide range of items including any activity, area, location ,
matter, substance, product, material, beverage, packaging, container or
"thing". This is unnecessarily broad for the purpose at hand. It should at
least be clearly stated that such a broad range of regulatory powers is only
in furtherance of the powers given by the EPA.
2) Sections 176(1)(h) and (h.1),
The language of s. 176(1)(h) bears strong resemblance to the language in s.
175.1(b). It gives extraordinarily broad powers to prescribe requirements
governing the discharge of any contaminant for "any plant, structure,
equipment, apparatus, mechanism or thing" with respect to "planning, design,
siting, public notification and consultation, establishment, insurance,
facilities, staffing, operation, maintenance, monitoring, record-keeping,
submission of reports to the Director and improvement".
Section 176(h.1) gives similar regulation-making power in respect of the
discontinuance of any facility.
The Alliance strongly believes that prescriptive regulation of this type and
this breadth could be a major impediment to the development of new industrial
projects, because of the uncertainty created by how such broad powers will be
used. In addition, performance-based regulation would be a much more
efficient means of protecting the environment.
3) Sections 176(1)(h.1) and 176(6)(l.1),
These sections create the regulatory power to deem the existence of
certificates of approval in circumstances where an exemption from a
requirement to obtain a certificate of approval has been granted. The
concept of a "deemed C of A" for facilities that have complied with
prescribed standards is unnecessarily cumbersome. We believe that it would
be more effective to have a system of deemed exemptions per se, rather than
deemed approvals, allowing firms to completely avoid the approvals process
wherever it is safe and practical to do so.
The Alliance strongly recommends that the language of Bill 57 be amended to
reduce the broad regulation-making powers granted, so that industry may give
its whole-hearted endorsement to the legislation reforming the approvals
process.
Mr. Chairman, the Alliance thanks the Committee for the opportunity to
present our views with respect to Bill 57, and the approvals process.