AuthorTopic: Agelbert's Newz Channel  (Read 1712702 times)

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17526
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Costello said. “Like, hundreds of times faster, without adding any power."
« Reply #2175 on: February 20, 2014, 02:56:35 PM »
Surly,
I agree that you shouldn't feed the trolls. Yet you take enormous pains to avoid calling out a resident doomer troll for playing dumb and pretending to be neutral on renewable energy and global warming. Good luck with that. He loves to throw a rock into a doomer store window and then ask for "calm, objectivity and careful study of a most complex subject". That's bullshit and you know it.  :emthdown:

Your level of erudition, while much higher than mine, is no excuse for using kid gloves on that closet racist rand political reactionary just because he has a nice, fence straddling vocabulary.

Nevertheless, I continue to admire your take on just about everything, including not feeding the trolls. I get so bent out of shape at the raging, over-the-top, bold faced mendacity and doubletalk of said doomer that I want to disappear from this pointless discourse designed to delay progress and defend the status quo per secula seculorum

Maybe that is the plan. I can tell you it is working. But if he succeeds in driving me out of here, I have a going away present for him. The poser here that pushes propaganda is asking for somebody to publish his home address...

AG,
You know by now that I have great regard for your tireless research into alternative energy and refusal to be deterred by the fossil fuel BAU denialists. As long as there is money to be made in a given enterprise, there will be those eager to make it. And then to brag about how smart they are. . . Your work injects at least a glimmering of promise into a pretty gloomy future outlook; and this os on THESE pages, not NBL.

That said, I have mixed it up with just about every regular on this board, aside from the new folks, and can't say that I can get my adult diapers in a twist about words on a screen. My attitude was refined in this regard during Occupy. People of far different political stripes would come together for a common cause: we can't and won't agree on everything, but we agree on THIS, so let's work together on it. (Whether Occupy could have survived the small group dynamics even if DHS hadn't been calling plays from the sideline is arguable.) But my point is to agree where we can, disagree where we must, and overlook the stupid shit.

It's only words. I'm reminded of something that WHD and Roamer said last weekend during the Google hangout-- that what we have accomplished over the course of a couple years is a lot of WORDS. Time for some action. We were all delighted that some of the intrepid souls here will actually be putting words into action this spring in several venues.



This puts me in mind of a running discussion I have with Contrary. She will spend a certain amount of time on Facebook, and find herself drawn into drawn-out arguments on social or political issues, which tend to attract others, which then demands further response, and after an period she will find herself arguing with a horde of mouth-breathers, all to accomplish . . .? Zip. Except a sense of being frustrated and drained. Pointless and counterproductive. The quasi-anonymity of the web seems to confer a license for rudeness that we would never indulge in person. A remarkable squandering of creative essence. Which is why I have been telling her lately,



Arguing with trolls gives them air and validation. Should someone require another epic beatdown, as was administered in these pages last summer, I will certainly rise (or sink) to the occasion. But otherwise I read, take in with as many grains of salt as is necessary, and move along.

We can never change anyone's opinion; we can only equip them so that they are moved to want to learn more and perhaps change their own.

I wish you a long fuse, and the wisdom of age, and a double shot of good humor as we fasten our seat belts and prepare a last Manhattan against the coming of TEOTWATKI.
"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #2176 on: February 20, 2014, 09:24:14 PM »
Surly,
Your wisdom and your wise words have much value. Thank you for saying them.

I will try to take it easy and spend less time pondering the sheer futility of using logic, common sense and scientific objectivity to convince anyone of anything.

The bottom line is what I do with my talk to make sure I walk it. It won't change a damned thing in the modern world but you have to do what is right even if there is little hope. It's a fantasy to think any of us can change the inertia of this situation but hope is written on the forehead of men by God (paraphrasing Victor Hugo) so I'll see what I can do.

Well, that was depressing.  Here's a short Sci Fi flick that describes indirectly  the nature of the enemy we are dealing with HERE at the diner. Enjoy.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/FIZlR_H4uEs#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/FIZlR_H4uEs#&fs=1</a>
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Exxon CEO sues to stop FRACKING (near his property) LOL!
« Reply #2177 on: February 21, 2014, 08:21:38 PM »
Exxon CEO Joins Lawsuit Against Fracking Project Because It Will Devalue His $5 Million Property  :evil4:
As ExxonMobil’s CEO, it’s Rex Tillerson’s job to promote the hydraulic fracturing enabling the recent oil and gas boom, and fight regulatory oversight. The oil company is the biggest natural gas producer in the U.S., relying on the controversial drilling technology to extract it.

The exception is when Tillerson’s $5 million property value might be harmed. Tillerson has joined a lawsuit that cites fracking’s consequences in order to block the construction of a 160-foot water tower next to his and his wife’s Texas home.

The Wall Street Journal reports the tower would supply water to a nearby fracking site, and the plaintiffs argue the project would cause too much noise and traffic from hauling the water from the tower to the drilling site. The water tower, owned by Cross Timbers Water Supply Corporation, “will sell water to oil and gas explorers for fracing [sic] shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” the suit says.

Though Tillerson’s name is on the lawsuit, a lawyer representing him said his concern is about the devaluation of his property, not fracking specifically.

When he is acting as Exxon CEO, not a homeowner, Tillerson has lashed out at fracking critics and proponents of regulation. “This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth and global competitiveness,” he said in 2012. Natural gas production “is an old technology just being applied, integrated with some new technologies,” he said in another interview. “So the risks are very manageable.”

In shale regions, less wealthy residents have protested fracking development for impacts more consequential than noise, including water contamination and cancer risk. Exxon’s oil and gas operations and the resulting spills not only sinks property values, but the spills have leveled homes and destroyed regions.

Exxon, which pays Tillerson a total $40.3 million, is staying out of the legal tangle. A company spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal it “has no involvement in the legal matter.”

Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/21/exxon-ceo-joins-lawsuit-concerned-fracking-devalues-property/

I guess Rex "We will adapt to that!" is having a bit of TROUBLE ADAPTING to FRACKING. :icon_mrgreen:


Fossil Fuelers are PROUD members OF HYPOCRITES 'R' US! Money for them and the POLLUTION SHAFT FOR YOU!  :evil4:

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline monsta666

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #2178 on: April 09, 2014, 06:23:04 PM »
Good video posted by agelbert on his Renewable Revolutions website:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/-rtySUhuokM&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/-rtySUhuokM&fs=1</a>

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 40219
    • View Profile
New Animated Gifs Page!
« Reply #2179 on: August 14, 2014, 02:45:33 PM »
Hey AG, I found a new site with TONS of great Animated Gifs.  :icon_mrgreen:

http://wifflegif.com/tags/753-cat-gifs

Here's a one in Memory of Nino.  :'(



MANY other pages besides the Cat Gifs.  :icon_sunny:

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
The more you look at them, the more problems you find.
« Reply #2180 on: August 14, 2014, 03:17:53 PM »
RE,
Cool!  :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:

That kitty looks like the first cat I shared my house with (Mopsy). A pack of dogs were trying to kill her as a kitten. I took her in and she lived 18 years!


NOTE to Knarf, Palloy and Randy C and anybody else that does respectful commentary and posts. You are invited to post on Agelbert's channel about everything and anything! It's easier for newbies to just go to a channel and get a variety of news than going by topic thread. Also, old topic threads don't get "lost" so much because people can just go back to previous pages on the channel the discussion aired on.  :emthup: :icon_sunny:

And now for a bit of news to show just how FUCKED UP Mking's world view is.

'Stand Your Ground' Laws Linked to Rise in Homicides, Extreme Racial Bias: Study
Published on
Thursday, August 14, 2014
by Common Dreams
Task force co-chair: "][T]he more you look at them, the more problems you find."
by
Nadia Prupis, staff writer
« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 03:20:21 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel
« Reply #2181 on: August 14, 2014, 04:32:15 PM »
Flaw and Order: How Brookings  Got Its Analysis of Wind and Solar Costs So Wrong 

SNIPPET:

Pick your metric:

levelized cost of energy,
saved carbon,
cash flow profile,
financial return,
annual and
cumulative installed capacity or
global investment.


By any meaningful set of accurate data and recent trends, renewables such as PV and wind are making rapid and accelerating inroads against incumbent fossil fuels -- precisely because they’re proving themselves increasingly economical, not because they’re supposedly swimming against the economic tide.
 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 05:00:05 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
The Nukers are AT IT AGAIN...
« Reply #2182 on: August 14, 2014, 05:24:10 PM »
Sowing Confusion About Renewable Energy

Readers of The Economist may have been surprised to read in its 26 July 2014 “Free exchange” section on page 63, or in its online version, the “clear” conclu­sion that solar and wind power are “the most expen­sive way of reducing green­house-gas emissions,” while “nuclear plants…are cheaper,” so governments are foolish to boost renewables and mothball nuclear. 

In each of the past three years, the world has invested more than a quarter-trillion dollars to add over 80 billion watts of renew­ables (excluding big hydro dams). That growth is accelerating: solar power is scaling faster than cellphones. Big European utilities lost €0.5 trillion in market cap, as an Economist cover story fea­tured, not because renewables couldn’t compete, but because they competed all too well, wiping out old power plants’ profits. The same is happening to some well-running U.S. nuclear plants, now facing closure as uneconomic just to operate.

Shouldn’t the runaway market success of renewables—soon to beat grid power on price, says Bloomberg , in most of the world—have raised a flag at the Eco­no­m­ist article’s conclusion?

That full-page article highlights a May working paper by Charles R. Frank, Jr. (economics Ph.D. 1963)  , a nonresident fellow at the nonpartisan and notably debate-friendly Brookings Institution. His background is in international development and finance. I daresay most experts on the economics of energy technologies and climate change had never heard of him—but they have now. As soon as The Economist featured his paper, their inboxes and Twitter TWTR -1.06% feeds lit up with incredulity: could his conclusions possibly be true?

They’re not (and yes, I’ve written The Economist a letter saying so). My detailed critique explains why, and cites two other reviews and a podcast. But for anyone who knows the subject, Dr. Frank’s con­clu­sions don’t even pass the giggle test. He finds that new wind and solar power are the least, and new nuclear power and combined-cycle gas generation are the most, cost-effective ways to displace coal-fired power—just the opposite of what you’d expect from observing market prices and choices.

How does Dr. Frank reach his contrarian conclusions? By using, apparently unwittingly,obsolete data and incorrect methods. He assumes wind and solar power half as productive and twice as costly as they actually are, gas power twice as pro­duc­­­tive as it actually is (but with no methane leakage or price volatility), and new nuclear power at half its actual total cost and con­struction time and one-fifth its actual operating cost. He also posits a need for new U.S. generating capacity and bulk electricity storage, but no efficiency oppor­tuni­ties worth mentioning. His strange method of assessing reliability suggests little under­standing of how power grids integrate, and their operators analyze, renew­ables.

So are Dr. Frank’s odd findings artifacts of errors in his methodology, his data, or both? Both, but there are so many mistakes that just nine data points can carry the whole load. My colleague Titiaan Palazzi reconstructed Dr. Frank’s spread­­sheets, reproduced his results, then simply updated the nine most egregiously outdated figures to those in the latest official historical statistics (not forward-looking projections) from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Institute, and similarly authoritative sources.

Presto! The conclusions flipped. Instead of gas combined-cycle and nuclear plants’ offering the greatest net benefit from displacing coal plants, followed by hydro, wind, and last of all solar, the ranks reversed. The new, correct, story: first hydro (on his purely economic assumptions), then wind, solar, gas, and last of all nuclear—still omitting efficiency, which beats them all.

Beneath Dr. Frank’s wrong answer, however, lurks a useful question. He adopts the distinguished economist Prof. Paul Joskow’s 2011 valid thesis that the way power-sector investments are chosen—lowest long-run eco­nomic cost—is incomplete, because different technologies generate power at different times, creat­ing different amounts of value. Of course value as well as cost should be con­sidered. But interestingly, this case suggests that if we use correct and up-to-date cost and per­for­mance data, the cost- and value-based calculations yield the same priorities, whether judged from the perspective of financial investment or climate-protection effectiveness. That is, adjusting for different resources’ time of genera­tion, though theoretically nice, doesn’t change the result; cost-benefit analysis gives the same answer as a simple cost comparison. The resulting best-buys-first sequence would also gain even more value if other hidden costs, risks, and benefits were counted too.

Making a splash—intentional or not—with a flawed analysis that doesn’t survive more careful scrutiny is nothing new. My esteemed Stanford colleague Dr. Jon G. Koomey cowrote a 2002 Annual Review of Energy and the Environment paper called “Sorry, Wrong Number: The Use and Misuse of Numerical Facts in Analysis and Media Reporting of Energy Issues.” Its abstract says: “Students of public policy sometimes envision an idealized policy process where competent data collection and incisive analysis on both sides of a debate lead to reasoned judgments and sound decisions. Unfortu­nate­ly, numbers that prove decisive in policy debates are not always carefully developed, credibly documented, or correct. This paper presents four widely cited examples of numbers in the energy field that are either misleading or wrong. It explores the origin of those numbers, how they missed the mark, and how they have been misused by both analysts and the media. In addition, it describes and uses a three-stage analytic process for evaluating such statistics that involves defining terms and boundaries, assessing underlying data, and critically analyzing arguments.” It’s a bracing read, with a nice summary and update.

The diligent Dr. Frank  has collected not just one wrong number but a flotilla, together driving a false conclusion that gained a prominent platform in The Econo­mist. The ana­lytic lesson: rapidly changing data quickly pass their sell-by date.

It’s too early to guess whether prompt refutations will prevent the distres­sing phenomenon Dr. Koomey describes, whereby media and advocates fond of a false thesis (or who don’t know any better) keep repeating it long after it’s been de­cis­ive­ly debunked.  :evil4: Time will tell. But your ability to stay well-informed and to exer­cise your critical faculties can help build sound public discourse. If you hear a claim that sounds nutty, maybe it is. If it is, say so. As biologist Prof. E.O. Wilson wrote, “Some­times a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

This article originally appeared on Forbes.com

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_08_07_sowing_confusion_about_renewable_energy

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Which Bird has the Largest Wingspan?
« Reply #2183 on: August 14, 2014, 05:55:36 PM »
Which Bird has the Largest Wingspan?


The albatross has the largest wingspan of any other bird species, at approximately 11.5 feet (3.5 m). This large wingspan allows the bird to glide for hundreds of miles without ever flapping its wings. By the time an average albatross reaches 50 years old, the bird has flown over 3.7 million miles (6 million km). While the albatross has the largest wingspan of any living bird species, the ancient Pelagornis sandersi is thought to have had the largest wingspan of any bird in history at 21 feet (6.4 m), according to fossils estimated to be over 25 million years old.

More about the albatross:

•Albatrosses are also strong swimmers and can dive to depths of over 16 feet (5 m) when hunting for food.

•When a female and male albatross mate, they produce just one egg, which they each take turns caring for.

•Albatrosses have historically been hunted for their feathers to be used for decorations for women’s hats, as well as used for down cushioning. There is also evidence the birds were consumed as food by ancient Eskimos.

http://www.wisegeek.com/which-bird-has-the-largest-wingspan.htm
« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 08:14:51 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18226
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel --- Big White Birds
« Reply #2184 on: August 15, 2014, 05:48:10 AM »
I've been spending as many weekends as I can out at the lake, lately, what with the summer heat finally getting up to our "normal" 100F. There is a little island off the shore, about a hundred yards from my pier. It has a pier and a long abandoned cabin on it, and it's of no interest to humans except for a few fishermen who never get out of their boats.

What I've discovered is that it has become a nesting habitat for a big flock of Great Egrets. In the evening i can sit out there and watch them as they arrive, in ones and twos and threes, until maybe thirty or forty of them are tucked in high in the trees.

They aren't quite as impressive as the albatross, but they are beautiful birds, and fun to watch as they fly (they are pretty big) and i've also seen them quietly stalking their prey in the shallow waters of local rivers (the ones that have water left in them, anyway).

I hope to paddle out there in my kayak and take some good photographs. They look like this:







« Last Edit: August 15, 2014, 06:40:44 AM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 13817
    • View Profile
Why the Scientific Case Against Fracking Keeps Getting Stronger
« Reply #2185 on: August 15, 2014, 09:43:37 AM »
Anthony Ingraffea argues that fugitive methane emissions turn natural gas from a climate benefit into yet another strike against fossil fuels.
—By Chris Mooney | Fri Aug. 15, 2014 6:00 AM EDT

A Marcellus Shale gas drilling pad in Pennsylvania, with all the standard accompanying industrial hardware. Doug Duncan/US Geological Survey

On the political right, it's pretty popular these days to claim that the left exaggerates scientific worries about hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." In a recent National Review article, for instance, a Hoover Institution researcher complains that 53 percent of Democrats in California support a fracking ban "despite the existence of little if any credible scientific evidence of fracking's feared harms and overwhelming scientific evidence of its environmental benefits, including substantial reductions in both local and global pollutants."

Three or four years ago, a statement like that may have seemed defensible. The chief environmental concern about fracking at that time involved the contamination of drinking water through the fracking process—blasting water, sand, and chemicals underground in vast quantities and at extreme pressures to force open shale layers deep beneath the Earth, and release natural gas. But the science was still pretty ambiguous, and a great deal turned on how "fracking" was defined. The entire mega-process of "unconventional" gas drilling had clearly caused instances of groundwater contamination, due to spills and leaks from improperly cased wells. But technically, "fracking" only refers to the water and chemical blast, not the drilling, the disposal of waste, or the huge industrial operations that accompany it all.

PODCAST 59:37 minutes

How things have changed. Nowadays, explains Cornell University engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea on the latest installment of the Inquiring Minds podcast (stream above), the scientific argument against fracking and unconventional gas drilling is more extensive. It involves not simply groundwater contamination, but also at least two other major problems: earthquake generation and the accidental emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.



On the show, Ingraffea laid out the science on these issues—and it is certainly not something a reasonable person can ignore. Take earthquakes, for instance. According to Ingraffea, "there is now, in my opinion, scientific consensus that human-induced seismicity does occur" as a result of a particular aspect of unconventional gas drilling (namely, disposing of chemically laden "flowback water" in underground wastewater injection wells).

Ingraffea isn't the likeliest scientific foe of fracking. His past research has been funded by corporations and industry interests including Schlumberger, the Gas Research Institute, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. His original doctoral work, in the 1970s, involved the study of "rock fracture mechanics"—in other words, how cracks in rock form and propagate, a body of knowledge that is crucial to extractive industries like oil and gas. "I spent 20, 25 years working with the oil and gas industry…helping them to figure out how best to get oil and gas out of rock," Ingraffea explains.

But he has since become an outspoken critic of unconventional gas development. He recently appeared in the HBO film Gasland II, and was recognized in 2011 by Time (alongside actor Mark Ruffalo and his Cornell colleague Robert Howarth) for his work highlighting the environmental risks of shale gas development.

So what happened? In a word: Science. On Inquiring Minds, Ingraffea laid out the developing science on earthquakes and methane emissions as they relate to unconventional gas development—and even if you don't fully agree with everything he said, you still will find it unnerving. Let's take these topics in turn:
Fracking and Earthquakes. Somewhat surprisingly, the earthquake issue may actually be the least contentious scientific topic in the fracking debate. As Mother Jones has extensively reported, it now seems clear that wastewater injection—the underground storing of the chemical-laced water that comes back out of wells after fracking—can contribute to seismic activity. In fact, in a study published just last month in Science, researchers suggest that a dramatic increase in recent seismic activity in Oklahoma—including a 5.7 magnitude earthquake in 2011—is partly linked to the proliferation of wastewater disposal wells.

Granted, it may seem hard to understand (at least if you're a non-geologist) how underground disposal wells can cause an earthquake. Let Ingraffea explain: "We've mobilized pre-existing, stable faults," he says. Underground water from waste disposal "lubricates those faults and changes the pressure on them." Naturally, the waste injection wells at issue are the ones that are closest to faults. Here's a visualization:



As for the fracking process itself? That, too, can cause earthquakes, Ingraffea says, although earthquakes related to fracking (as opposed to injection wells) have been smaller ("so far," as Ingraffea puts it). When you think about what we're doing to the Earth, maybe that's not so surprising. Fracking water, after all, is blasted underground at "pressures approaching what you would get if you put, say, 10 SUVs on your fingertip," says Ingraffea.

Fracking and Fugitive Methane Emissions. Perhaps we can manage the earthquake issue. Certainly, it would help to stop injecting wastewater near faults. "That would be a design objective, yes," deadpans Ingraffea. (It happens, he contends, because of a lack of EPA regulation.)

But there's a potentially even graver issue—fugitive methane emissions from shale gas operations. This is the topic on which Ingraffea made his name in the fracking debate, and it's probably the most momentous one of all.

 
In 2011, Ingraffea and two other Cornell researchers published a highly discussed scientific study in the journal Climatic Change, arguing that between 3.6 and 7.9 percent of methane gas from shale drilling operations actually escapes into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. If true, then considering the unique atmospheric potency of methane—"methane is about 80 to 90 times…more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide" over a two-to-three-decade time period, says Ingraffea—the implications could be dramatic. Natural gas could swing from being a net climate benefit (because it burns cleaner than oil or coal) to a climate harm, because of all the escaping methane.


Four Fayetteville shale well heads in Arkansas. Critics like Ingraffea say significant amounts of fugitive methane gas are escaping from fracking operations around the country (though not necessarily the one above). Bill Cunningham, US Geological Survey.

Granted, it all depends on the leak rate from natural gas operations, across all the myriad stages of the process, from the initial release of the gas from the Earth all the way through to its transportation. And that's where the debate lies. "Every single measurement has concluded that the percentage of methane leaking into the atmosphere from oil and gas operations is far greater than two and a half percent," says Ingraffea. "I think the best estimate right now is somewhere around 5 percent"—an amount, he says, that would be more than big enough to doom the idea of natural gas as a "bridge fuel" to a clean energy future.

Ingraffea isn't the only researcher suggesting that methane leakage is troublingly high. In a 2013 study published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of researchers from both US universities and national labs found that the EPA is currently underestimating methane emissions from the energy industry (including both conventional and shale gas drilling). However, in another paper in Science earlier this year (covered here by Mother Jones), researchers again faulted EPA's methane measurements, but nonetheless concluded that natural gas can still contribute to a cleaner future if methane emissions are policed adequately. (The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reached a similar conclusion.)

The Bottom Line? It is certainly not the case that every expert agrees with Ingraffea. For instance, both publicly and in print, Ingraffea has regularly debated Terry Engelder, a professor of geosciences at Penn State University, who argues that the benefits of shale gas development still outweigh the risks.

Engelder certainly doesn't deny the problem of fugitive methane emissions. Rather, his view is that "by fixing leaks, green completions and what not, that can take care of the methane leaking into the atmosphere." ("Green completions" refers to a new EPA rule that will require natural gas operators to capture volatile organic compounds on site rather than allowing them to escape to the atmosphere—a process, the EPA says, that would also "significantly reduce" methane emissions.)

But Ingraffea counters that that's not enough. The new regulation, he says, only covers "one part of the whole supply train for natural gas, and it only applies to new gas wells, not the old ones." Plus, it only applies to gas wells, not oil wells that also release methane.

With mounting scientific evidence behind him, then, Ingraffea makes a pretty strong case today that natural gas is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The methane issue may not be settled fully, but it is undoubtedly grave—and certainly not something that we can afford to be wrong about. To still support President Obama's "all of the above" approach to energy (which favors renewables, but also natural gas), you have to assume we can mitigate the methane leakage problem somehow. And you shouldn't assume that without first listening, hard, to Ingraffea's warning. As he concludes the Inquiring Minds interview:

For those who say we can regulate our way around this, just give us time and we'll fix the problems—I'm sorry. We've had 100 years of commercial oil and gas development at very large quantities, around the world. Time is over. We've damaged the atmosphere too much, and it would take too long, it would take decades and billions of dollars, to begin to fix the problems that we know have existed for decades. And by then, it will be too late.

found at: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/inquiring-minds-anthony-ingraffea-science-fracking-methane
Mark Twain — 'There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages.'

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Shadow Medicine: The Placebo in Conventional and Alternative Therapies
« Reply #2186 on: August 15, 2014, 11:01:59 AM »
Eddie and Knarf,
Thanks for those posts. Keep em' comin'!  ;D

Here's one that shows a bit of real progress in the medical community:


Shadow Medicine: The Placebo in Conventional and Alternative Therapies
By John S. Haller Jr.
Columbia University Press, July 2014

In Shadow Medicine, medical historian John S. Haller Jr. calls for a truce between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

Haller writes. “The placebo highlights the nonspecific (i.e., nonbiological) aspect of medicine, a condition that creates a distracting ambiguity for the medical scientist who finds it difficult to build a bridge between the material and the psychosomatic and behavioral side of healing. To ignore or otherwise discount this phenomenon is to deny the multifactorial nature of disease causation.”


Devising new experimental protocols that can better tease out a scientific footing for the placebo could be the key to bridging the gap between EBM and CAM, Haller urges.

http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40601/title/Capsule-Reviews/
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
The left recurrent laryngeal nerve design in mammals is not poor design
« Reply #2187 on: August 15, 2014, 11:50:02 AM »
The left recurrent laryngeal nerve design in mammals is not poor design



by Jerry Bergman

A common claim by evolutionists is that the mammalian left recurrent laryngeal nerve was poorly designed because it travels downward past the larynx, then around the aorta and, last, back up to the larynx. They reason that a much shorter route directly to the larynx would be far more effective. This analysis concludes that the reasons for the longer route include both developmental and design constraints. Furthermore, the evidence for intelligent design of this arrangement is both obvious and compelling.

Evolutionists commonly claim that the human body is poorly designed, and that this proves it was not intelligently designed, but rather cobbled together by the unintelligent process of evolution. One of the most common examples of poor design cited by evolutionists today is that of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), which controls the larynx (voice box) muscles. The claim is often made by Darwinists that evolution is proved because examples of “poor or at least very puzzling design can be accumulated endlessly”, and one of the best examples is

“… the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which connects the brain to the larynx and allows us to speak. In mammals, this nerve... read more

http://creation.com/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-design


SNIPPET:

Reasons for the design

The most logical reason for this design is that it is due to developmental constraints. Embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve’s seemingly poor design in adults is due to the “necessary consequences of developmental dynamics and are not to be interpreted … as historical carryovers” from evolution.6 Human-designed devices, such as radios and computers, do not need to function until their assembly is complete. By contrast, living organisms must function to a high degree in order to thrive during every developmental stage from zygote to adult (figure 1). The embryo as a whole must also be a fully functioning system in its specific environment during every second of its entire development. For this reason adult anatomy can be understood only in the light of zygote-to-adult development:

“The pathway for nerve fibers is normally prescribed by the organs-to-be-innervated and is therefore laid down from without. We must assume that submicroscopic material (i.e., molecular) movements are decisive for this process; namely, that ordered metabolic movements work in a manner that determines the form of the incipient innervation pattern.”7

An analogy Blechschmidt uses to help elucidate his argument is the course of a river, which

“… cannot be explained on the basis of a knowledge of its sources, its tributaries, or the specific locations of the harbors at its mouth. It is only the total topographical circumstances that determine the river’s course.”7

Due to variations in the topographical landscape of the mammalian body, the “course of the inferior laryngeal nerve is highly variant” and minor anatomic differences are common.8 This fact has been documented by a series of neck dissections completed on 90 human cadavers 48 hours following death to study the anatomy of the right and left recurrent laryngeal nerves. The dissections found that the path of these nerves was sometimes different from that shown in the standard medical literature, illustrating Blechschmidt’s analogy.9 An interesting result of the RLN design is that it can be an indicator of vascular disease to a physician, i.e. an enlargement of the aorta or subclavian artery caused by an aneurysm may compress the left RLN, causing vocal dysfunction.10 As a result. vocal dysfunction can be indicative of an aneurysm.



http://creation.com/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-design
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 13817
    • View Profile
The Evidence Is In: Decriminalizing Sex Work Is Critical to Public Health
« Reply #2188 on: August 15, 2014, 12:34:38 PM »

Why are researchers only just beginning to recognize the connection between the decriminalization of sex work and HIV? And why is the trend toward criminalizing populations involved in the sex trades increasing in the United States—moving in the opposite direction from other countries?

During the 2014 International AIDS conference, The Lancet medical journal released a series of articles focused exclusively on HIV and sex work. One study by Kate Shannon et al., demonstrates that decriminalization of sex work could reduce HIV infections by 33 to 46 percent over the next decade. Shannon’s team showed that “multi-pronged structural and community-led interventions” are essential to promoting the human rights of sex workers, as well as improving their access to HIV prevention and treatment. Dr. Chris Beyrer, the researcher who coordinated this Lancet series, told AIDS conference participants that “[e]fforts to improve HIV prevention and treatment by and for people who sell sex can no longer be seen as peripheral to the achievement of universal access to HIV services and to eventual control of the pandemic,” drawing an irrefutable line between the social, legal, and economic injustices sex workers face and their subsequent vulnerability to HIV.

The Lancet series authors join many other prominent public health voices in identifying the decriminalization of sex work as vital to preventing the spread of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). For two decades, sex workers rights’ activists throughout the world have pushed human rights, public health, and HIV and AIDS response leaders to recognize that they, along with people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men, are “key populations” without whom an effective HIV and AIDS response is impossible. In 2012, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that “all countries should work toward decriminalization of sex work and elimination of the unjust application of non-criminal laws and regulations against sex workers.” In South Africa (with the largest population of people living with HIV in the world), the National AIDS Council is urging its government to decriminalize sex work—a demand that advocates and health policy professionals are making in dozens of other countries as well. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN’s Global Commission on HIV and the Law all endorse this position. The latter points out “the impossibility of governments stigmatizing people on one hand, while simultaneously actually helping to reduce their risk of HIV transmission or exposure on the other.”

Sex work has been decriminalized in New Zealand and one province (New South Wales) in Australia leaving sex work businesses subject to standard occupational health and safety regulations. Law enforcement treats the sale of sex as it does any other business, without any intrusion or interruption unless existing laws are being violated.

Decriminalization has resulted in higher rates of condom use and enables sex workers to organize community-based health practices that demonstrably improve health and reduce HIV risk. It also makes it possible for sex workers to report and for the police to address illegal acts as they occur, such as assault, theft of services, employment of minors, or client coercion. In this decriminalized setting, sex workers can be strong allies in the fight against trafficking, intimate partner violence, and child abuse since they can report incidents to the police and social service agencies without putting themselves at risk of arrest.

So, why is the HIV-AIDS field only just beginning to recognize the connection between the decriminalization of sex work and HIV? And why is the trend toward criminalizing populations involved in the sex trades increasing in the United States—moving in the opposite direction from other countries? The following are three contributing factors.

Conflating Sex Work With Trafficking

Public debate around sex work in the United States increasingly focuses on people who have been trafficked or otherwise coerced into the sex trade. Anti-trafficking advocates conflate sex work (people choosing to sell sexual services from among employment options available to them) with trafficking (people being forced into the sex industry against their will). Laws that criminalize all people selling sex (voluntarily or involuntarily) violate the rights of the former and undermine efforts to identify and assist the latter. The Global Commission on HIV and the Law states unequivocally that, “Sex work and sex trafficking are not the same. The difference is that the former is consensual, whereas the latter is coercive.”

A commentary by Steen et al. in the recent Lancet series notes that “repressive and counterproductive police action,” including the arrest and incarceration of trafficking victims for the purposes of “rescue,” has overtaken far more effective responses in several countries. The understandable, but destructively over-simplified, mandate to “rescue and restore” sex workers is also being imposed in public health settings where providers are now charged with identifying and intervening with potential victims of trafficking in the sex trade. Certainly, health-care providers have a duty to watch for and help patients in abusive situations of all kinds. They also have a duty to understand the complexities of human experience, respond to patient-identified needs, and maintain that patients are experts of their own lives, whatever that may look like.

Lack of Access to Health Care for Sex Workers

Providing access to health-care services targeted to consumers’ needs is a vital part of any country’s HIV response. Without it, those most in need of prevention, care, and treatment are least likely to get it.

In a 2010 survey, 53 percent of medical students said they were not adequately trained to address their patients’ sexual issues comfortably. Far fewer professional medical curricula explicitly prepare students to understand that they will encounter sex workers as patients who, like all other patients, are individuals with a wide range of experiences, backgrounds, and needs that can best be treated with patient-centered care.

When sex workers receive demeaning and unprofessional treatment in health-care settings, they see health-care providers as an extension of the larger system that criminalizes them. A survey by the New York City-based Persist Health Project found that few sex workers disclosed their occupation to their health-care provider; only one study participant reported a positive experience after doing so. As one respondent explained, “I think for security reasons, I don’t usually disclose. Mainly because I don’t trust doctors … I sort of treat them like law enforcement.” Another noted that most health-care providers “have no clue who you are, no clue about your background, you can’t read them or know that they’re not going to try to lecture you or give you a stink-eye.”

St. James Infirmary, a peer-based occupational safety and health clinic for sex workers in San Francisco, corroborates these findings. Of their incoming patients, 70 percent had never previously disclosed their occupation to a medical provider for feared of bad treatment. Providing sex-worker friendly health care requires training health-care workers appropriately and supporting services designed specifically with and for the communities they serve.

Violence Risk Exacerbated by Criminalization

People usually envision a sex worker as someone soliciting on the street, but only about 20 percent of U.S. sex workers are street-based. The vast majority see clients in other venues including massage parlors, brothels, apartments they share with other sex workers, or a client’s hotel room. Many connect with clients online.

HIV risk is high among street-based sex workers who experience high levels of violence at the hands of clients and abusive law enforcement personnel. One important way they reduce this risk is assessing a potential client before getting into his car—looking for signals that he might be violent and relaying his license number to a colleague in case the worker disappears. This assessment time is also used to negotiate price and condom use. Law enforcement crack-downs compel sex workers to complete their negotiations quickly (in order to avoid arrest), depriving them of the time needed for assessment and negotiation.

Street-based sex workers have little or no protection if a client becomes violent or refuses to use a condom. Of the street-based workers surveyed in The Lancet study by Shannon et al., 25 percent reported being pressured by clients to have sex without a condom. Those working in remote areas (such as industrial parks) to escape local policing were three times more likely to report being pressured into having sex without a condom than the study population overall. The recent Lancet series data also shows that, in some countries, up to one-third of sex workers do not carry an adequate supply of condoms due to “condoms as evidence” policies that allow police to seize a sex worker’s condom supply and use it as evidence of their intent to engaged in sex work—a widely-used policy in several U.S. cities.

Getting From Here to There

Punitive laws against sex work are in place in 116 countries, including the United States, creating, according to the Open Society Foundations, “a state-sanctioned culture of stigma, discrimination, exploitation, and police and client violence against sex workers.”

Decriminalizing sex work in the United States is a long and challenging process, but there is a path to follow. The 1988 ban on federal funding for syringe exchange remained in place for 20 years and, after briefly lifting it in 2009, the Obama administration agreed to its reinstatement in 2011 at Congress’ insistence. Advocacy pressure to overturn it continues.

Thanks to the efforts of dedicated researchers and activists during the two decades between 1988-2009, public health professionals, medical institutions and virtually everyone working in the HIV-AIDS field learned why harm reduction practices are essential. Services to people who use drugs began to improve, although they are still inadequate, primarily because they are grossly under-funded. Progress has been made.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a consensus statement that addressed the need for syringe exchange but also observed that “[p]rograms targeting sex workers have been highly efficacious in other countries, but [in the U.S., programs] will encounter cultural and political barriers.” The public silence maintained on this issue for the last 17 years is emblematic of those barriers.

But sex workers’ rights organizations in most U.S. cities, though heavily marginalized, have not been silent. They are struggling to end “condoms as evidence” practices, train health-care providers, find or establish sex worker-friendly health-care services, and demand their rightful place as invaluable allies in ending human trafficking and preventing the spread of HIV. Like the harm reductionists who set up the first syringe exchange sites in the United States, they need the support of mainstream sexual and reproductive health advocates willing to learn from them and join them. Like the early harm reductionists, they need the rest of us to bring our money, skills, and political support this human rights struggle.

We can’t stop HIV in the United States without sustainable and long-term solutions to end the arrest, detention, and incarceration of sex workers in the United States, as well as end the violations against sex workers within the correctional system. A meta-analysis of more than 800 other studies and reports, published in the recent Lancet series, listed abuse experienced by sex workers as including “homicide; physical and sexual violence, from law enforcement, clients, and intimate partners; unlawful arrest and detention; discrimination in accessing health services; and forced HIV testing.” It added “protection of sex workers is essential to respect, protect, and meet their human rights, and to improve their health and well-being.”

Expert voices in support of community-led, sex worker-centered health care in the fight against HIV are becoming more and more numerous. When will the mainstream HIV and AIDS organizations and women’s health advocacy communities join loudly in this demand?

found at: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/08/13/evidence-decriminalizing-sex-work-critical-public-health/
Mark Twain — 'There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages.'

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18226
    • View Profile
Re: Agelbert's Newz Channel --- Left Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
« Reply #2189 on: August 15, 2014, 01:19:44 PM »
From the link you posted:

Professor Richard Dawkins claims that the RLN is also proof of human evolution from fish. He writes that during the putative evolution of mammals

“… the neck stretched (fish don’t have necks) and the gills disappeared, some of them turning into useful things such as the thyroid and parathyroid glands, and the various other bits and pieces that combine to form the larynx. Those other useful things, including the parts of the larynx, received their blood supply and their nerve connections from the evolutionary descendants of the blood vessels and nerves that, once upon a time, served the gills in orderly sequence.”3
However, no scientific evidence exists to support gills “turning into useful things such as the thyroid and parathyroid glands”. Gill cells are very different from endocrine cells. Dawkins concludes:

“As the ancestors of mammals evolved further and further away from their fish ancestors, nerves and blood vessels found themselves pulled and stretched in puzzling directions, which distorted their spatial relations one to another. The vertebrate chest and neck became a mess, unlike the tidily symmetrical, serial repetitiveness of fish gills. And the recurrent laryngeal nerves became more than ordinarily exaggerated casualties of this distortion.”3
Anyone who has studied human anatomy knows that the vertebrate chest and neck are not a “mess”, but a well-designed, complex, functional system.



Anyone who has studied not just anatomy, but also embryology and human growth and development, knows that the thyroid, the parathyroid, and a whole bunch of other structures, arise not from gills, but from what are called branchial arches (that's what I was taught...apparently now the preferred term is pharyngeal arches, same thing), which appear to be somewhat analogous to similar structures in fish that (in fish) develop into gills.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/humandev/2004/Chapt9-PharyngealArches.pdf

The way that a human fetus develops, and the way these branchial arch structures change and morph into the adult structures is documented and observable.  There isn't any real argument about how this happens. The question of whether it's a good design or not is spurious, in my opinion. It is the design we have, whether God made it or it just happened.

The changes that occur in the development of a human fetus, or in any fetus, are a miracle in my book. Of course, occasionally the process can be flawed. Then we get unfortunate outcomes. It all has to happen just right, like clockwork, for a healthy infant to be born.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2014, 02:25:54 PM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2088 Views
Last post October 10, 2014, 02:00:44 AM
by Guest
0 Replies
1205 Views
Last post July 05, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
by Palloy2
0 Replies
1380 Views
Last post September 14, 2017, 04:20:30 PM
by azozeo