Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 105565 times)

silverfish · « **Reply #255 on:** December 11, 2009, 08:05:21 PM »

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 06:03:49 PM

Who said that? If they provide a link on an interesting topic, then I'll go there.

It's not worth it for several reasons. 1) IMO you've clearly demonstrate how biased you are. 2) You've made no point, as a law suite proves nothing until the verdict. 3) Failure for NASA to reveal data does not mean NASA is a liar. Again, if you can provide a valid reference, then great.

I've given you a good reference - it would be a simple matter to confirm or deny the fact of this lawsuit by contacting them directly - you are welcome to your opinions, by the way, whether or not I agree with them, which I mostly don't.

PaulLowrance · « **Reply #256 on:** December 11, 2009, 08:15:55 PM »

Quote from: silverfish on December 11, 2009, 08:05:21 PM

you are welcome to your opinions, by the way, whether or not I agree with them, which I mostly don't.

The main difference here is that most of the information I post is not just my opinion, it's what most scientists are saying. Indeed, you have the right to disagree with the majority of the science community.

And yes, on numerous occasions I've already provided the references that state most scientist believe that humanity is the main cause of global warming.

Paul

blueplanet · « **Reply #257 on:** December 11, 2009, 08:25:08 PM »

J Hazard Mater. 2009 Sep 15;168(2-3):591-601. Epub 2009 Mar 18.
Mercury pollution in Asia: a review of the contaminated sites.

Li P, Feng XB, Qiu GL, Shang LH, Li ZG.

State Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang 550002, China. fengxinbin@vip.skleg.cn

This article describes the mercury contaminated sites in Asia. Among the various regions, Asia has become the largest contributor of anthropogenic atmospheric mercury (Hg), responsible for over half of the global emission. Based on different emission source categories, the mercury contaminated sites in Asia were divided into various types, such as Hg pollution from Hg mining, gold mining, chemical industry, metal smelting, coal combustion, metropolitan cities, natural resources and agricultural sources. By the review of a large number of studies, serious Hg pollutions to the local environment were found in the area influenced by chemical industry, mercury mining and gold mining. With the probable effects of a unique combination of climatic (e.g. subtropical climate), environmental (e.g. acid rain), economic (e.g. swift growth) and social factors (e.g. high population density), more effort is still needed to understand the biogeochemistry cycle of Hg and associated health effects in Asia. Safer alternatives and cleaner technologies must be developed and effectively implemented to reduce mercury emission; remedial techniques are also required to restore the historical mercury pollution in Asia.

SOURCE:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345013?ordinalpos=25&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

blueplanet · « **Reply #258 on:** December 11, 2009, 08:27:52 PM »

Sci Total Environ. 2008 Aug 1;400(1-3):227-37. Epub 2008 Jul 9.
Mercury pollution in Guizhou, southwestern China - an overview.

Feng X, Qiu G.

State Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang, PR China. fengxinbin@vip.skleg.cn

Mercury (Hg) is a global pollutant and poses a worldwide concern due to its high toxicity. Guizhou province is recognized as a heavily Hg-polluted area in China due to both the special geochemical background and human activities. Here an integrated overview of current knowledge on the behavior of Hg in environments, as well as human health risk with respect to Hg contaminations in Guizhou was presented. Two key anthropogenic Hg emission sources in Guizhou were coal combustion and metals smelting, which dominantly contributed to the high levels of Hg in local ecosystems and high fluxes of Hg deposition. The annual Hg emission from anthropogenic sources ranged between 22.6 and 55.5 t, which was about 6.3-10.3% of current total Hg emissions in China. Meanwhile, Hg Hg-enriched soil in the province serves an important natural Hg emission source to the ambient air. The local environment of Hg mining and zinc smelting areas are seriously contaminated with Hg. It is demonstrated that rice growing in Hg Hg-contaminated soil can accumulate methylmercury (MeHg) to a level to pose health threat to local inhabitants whose staple food is rice. Local inhabitants in Hg mining areas are exposed to Hg through inhalation of Hg vapor and consumption of rice with high level of MeHg. Rice intake is indeed the main MeHg exposure pathway to local inhabitants in Hg mining areas in Guizhou, which is contrary to the general point of view that fish and fish products are the main pathway of MeHg exposure to humans.

SOURCE:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18617222?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

silverfish · « **Reply #259 on:** December 11, 2009, 08:39:15 PM »

Quote from: blueplanet on December 11, 2009, 08:02:52 PM

From my prospective, mercury and Cadmium are the only ones that are worrying. In the case of mercury, the half-life of mercury in the central nervous system can be anywhere between 15 years and 30 years. Because of such a long half-life, mercury is bioaccumulative in our bodies and can remain in the nerve tissues forever. Of all the metals that you have mentioned, mercury is only one that can cause direct damage to the nerve tissues.

It is not just the fishes that become the victims of mercury poisoning. Elemental mercury can end up being in our lungs. Unlike inorganic mercury, elemental mercury in the blood stream can reach the brain by way of blood circulation, causing damage to the nerve tissues.

Arsenic is another metal that can produce the similar symptoms of mercury. It can be found in pesticides. But the half-life of arsenic in our bodies is less than 3 hours. This means that at least half of the absorbed arsenic would be excreted out of the body within three hours.

Lead is not as toxic as mercury. And its half-life in blood is approximately 25 days; in soft tissue, about 40 days; and in bone, more than 25 years. Lead is not a potent neurotoxin, but some scientists suggest that lead can cause cognitive decline. If this is the case, then the upcoming climate deal is justified.

Cadmium is very toxic (but not neurologically toxic). Its presence in the human body can raise the serum GGT, which means the body would become more mercury-toxic. Its half-life can be anywhere between 6 and 38 years. But I think we should blame the smokers, not the environment.

I stand to be corrected.

You are missing the flouride component. Flourine is one of the most corrosive and toxic substances known - and flouride is a neurotoxin, read the book 'The Devil's Poison' and others. It damages the brain, creates infertility, cancer, dental flourosis, and contributes to a wide range of degenerative disorders. So why is this poison being added to our water supply? You say we should blame the smokers for cadmium - but tobacco is heavily taxed, isn't it? who benefits from this situation? You are leaving out the cocktail of pesticide residues, SSRIs and oestrogen-causing chemicals like Bisphenol A in plastics which cause infertility in humans and involuntary -change in fish. That's damaging the environment, isn't it? just as surfactants are doing, industrial products we use every day are leaching into the already polluted water supply.
Flouride poisoning is lethal, damages the bones and reproductive system, not just the brain. Arsenic poisoning is also potentially lethal, and there have been recent incidents of both contaminants leaching into the water supply causing horrendous damage.
You are also leaving out aluminium, one of the metals known to cause alzheimer's disease which damages neurons. This is also found in the water supply and in various food products. We also have toxic barium from chemtrails.

blueplanet · « **Reply #260 on:** December 11, 2009, 08:41:19 PM »

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Sep 22;106(38):16114-9. Epub 2009 Sep 2.
Polar firn air reveals large-scale impact of anthropogenic mercury emissions during the 1970s.

FaÃ¯n X, Ferrari CP, Dommergue A, Albert MR, Battle M, Severinghaus J, Arnaud L, Barnola JM, Cairns W, Barbante C, Boutron C.

Laboratoire de Glaciologie et GÃ©ophysique de l'Environnement (UnitÃ© Mixte de Recherche 5183 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/UniversitÃ© Joseph Fourier), 54 Rue MoliÃ¨re, B.P. 96, 38402 St. Martin d'HÃ¨res Cedex, France. xavier.fain@dri.edu

Mercury (Hg) is an extremely toxic pollutant, and its biogeochemical cycle has been perturbed by anthropogenic emissions during recent centuries. In the atmosphere, gaseous elemental mercury (GEM; Hg degrees ) is the predominant form of mercury (up to 95%). Here we report the evolution of atmospheric levels of GEM in mid- to high-northern latitudes inferred from the interstitial air of firn (perennial snowpack) at Summit, Greenland. GEM concentrations increased rapidly after World War II from approximately 1.5 ng m(-3) reaching a maximum of approximately 3 ng m(-3) around 1970 and decreased until stabilizing at approximately 1.7 ng m(-3) around 1995. This reconstruction reproduces real-time measurements available from the Arctic since 1995 and exhibits the same general trend observed in Europe since 1990. Anthropogenic emissions caused a two-fold rise in boreal atmospheric GEM concentrations before the 1970s, which likely contributed to higher deposition of mercury in both industrialized and remotes areas. Once deposited, this toxin becomes available for methylation and, subsequently, the contamination of ecosystems. Implementation of air pollution regulations, however, enabled a large-scale decline in atmospheric mercury levels during the 1980s. The results shown here suggest that potential increases in emissions in the coming decades could have a similar large-scale impact on atmospheric Hg levels.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19805267?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=9

blueplanet · « **Reply #261 on:** December 11, 2009, 08:59:52 PM »

Quote from: silverfish on December 11, 2009, 08:39:15 PM

You are missing the flouride component. Flourine is one of the most corrosive and toxic substances known - and flouride is a neurotoxin, read the book 'The Devil's Poison' and others. It damages the brain, creates infertility, cancer, dental flourosis, and contributes to a wide range of degenerative disorders. So why is this poison being added to our water supply? You say we should blame the smokers for cadmium - but tobacco is heavily taxed, isn't it? who benefits from this situation? You are leaving out the cocktail of pesticide residues, SSRIs and oestrogen-causing chemicals like Bisphenol A in plastics which cause infertility in humans and involuntary -change in fish. That's damaging the environment, isn't it? just as surfactants are doing, industrial products we use every day are leaching into the already polluted water supply.
Flouride poisoning is lethal, damages the bones and reproductive system, not just the brain. Arsenic poisoning is also potentially lethal, and there have been recent incidents of both contaminants leaching into the water supply causing horrendous damage.
You are also leaving out aluminium, one of the metals known to cause alzheimer's disease which damages neurons. This is also found in the water supply and in various food products. We also have toxic barium from chemtrails.

I am sorry I am not worrying about flouride. Are you sure alumium causes Alzheimer's disease? I thought Alzheimer's disease is a product of mercury poisoning. Aluminum will not cause direct damage to the nerve tissues. One univerisity has already demonstrated that mercury is the only metal that would destroy the nerve tissues.

http://knol.google.com/k/dr-max-daunderer/mercury-toxicity-and-alzheimer-disease/3otpgsm3m33p5/65#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImCpWzXJ_w&feature=related

silverfish · « **Reply #262 on:** December 11, 2009, 09:15:27 PM »

Quote from: blueplanet on December 11, 2009, 08:59:52 PM

I am sorry I am not worrying about flouride. Are you sure alumium causes Alzheimer's disease? I thought Alzheimer's disease is a product of mercury poisoning. Aluminum will not cause direct damage to the nerve tissues. One univerisity has already demonstrated that mercury is the only metal that would destroy the nerve tissues.

http://knol.google.com/k/dr-max-daunderer/mercury-toxicity-and-alzheimer-disease/3otpgsm3m33p5/65#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImCpWzXJ_w&feature=related

According to information I've looked from more than one source - I will chase it up for you -
aluminium can target neurons specifically causing damage leading to memory loss and Alzheimer's disease. Bear with me and I'll get back to you with something more specific. I recall that kidney dialysis patients were found to have deteriorated mentally as a result of water high in aluminium, but there is other material relating to aluminium toxicity which affects mental functions etc.

blueplanet · « **Reply #263 on:** December 11, 2009, 09:38:48 PM »

Quote from: silverfish on December 11, 2009, 09:15:27 PM

According to information I've looked from more than one source - I will chase it up for you -
aluminium can target neurons specifically causing damage leading to memory loss and Alzheimer's disease. Bear with me and I'll get back to you with something more specific. I recall that kidney dialysis patients were found to have deteriorated mentally as a result of water high in aluminium, but there is other material relating to aluminium toxicity which affects mental functions etc.

Aluminium may be indirectly related to mercury poisoning. But you apparently tried to downplay the problems of mercury pollution in a way to encourage others to oppose every climate deal. This is exactly what the mainstream media in the US is trying to do. Can we not talk about that in PM?

silverfish · « **Reply #264 on:** December 11, 2009, 10:25:28 PM »

Quote from: blueplanet on December 11, 2009, 09:38:48 PM

Aluminium may be indirectly related to mercury poisoning. But you apparently tried to downplay the problems of mercury pollution in a way to encourage others to oppose every climate deal. This is exactly what the mainstream media in the US is trying to do. Can we not talk about that in PM?

No, you misunderstand me. I have no interest in downplaying the importance of mercury poisoning - but it's not just in the air, it's injected into people and killing them, by corporations that profit massively from doing so. That's horrible. I'm saying that to focus on mercury alone is a mistake - when there are numerous other, not properly recognised and very dangerous elements such as genetically modified organisms contaminating the environment, which is already happening, DU which is worldwide killing wherever it goes, 4.5 billion years active, right? causing genetic mutations, maimed children as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan - not being reported, or underreported - the DU issue alone affects the entire ecosystem, and is almost never mentioned.
The dangers of nanotechnology are rarely talked about.
Mercury pollution is bad. So you have the UN banning incandescent light bulbs, we are told, to save energy - yet the bulbs replacing them contain mercury. Every time one of them breaks it releases mercury vapour into the atmosphere, and mercury vapour is very toxic.
So I am saying it is a grave mistake to seize on a gas like carbon dioxide, which has been with us for thousands of years, absorbed by plants, exhaling life-giving oxygen, now they call carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant, and will be taxing everyone into oblivion because of it. That's greed, it has nothing to do with 'saving the environment', it is a gross deception, everything to do with control and subjugation, nothing to do with the environment.
How is it that the authorities have suddenly cottoned on to 'saving the environment' when they have consistently ignored it for the past 50 years and more? because they are interested in two things only - profit and control. And if they can reduce the human population along the way, then they will do so. Why do you think that dozens of articles about a 1-child policy and population reduction have suddenly appeared everywhere? Over here in the UK, David Attenborough is going on about population reduction. This is all about eugenics.

Cap-Z-ro · « **Reply #265 on:** December 11, 2009, 11:08:39 PM »

Thanks to silver and blue for the supplementary ugly truths...most of which I am familiar with.

Putting it all in one spot is very helpful and informative for other readers...but at the same time, its also a real 'buzz' harsher though.

If thats the gist of your links of earlier today which I saved for tonite, please let me know, so as to avoid further mental trauma.

Thanks in advance.

Regards...

PaulLowrance · « **Reply #266 on:** December 12, 2009, 02:07:14 AM »

Coming on at 6pm PT on the LINK channel (375 DirecTV) is,

Title: Our Arctic Challenge
Description: Educational. A group from Denmark sets out on a multisport adventure race across Greenland and comes eye to eye with the effects of climate change.

These type of documentaries are on often. They document the devastating effects of climate change. This documentation Big Oil cannot hide.

Cap-Z-ro · « **Reply #267 on:** December 12, 2009, 02:51:12 AM »

Here another 'educational group' attend the Lord Monckton speech.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/brownshirt-youth-corps-invade-monckton-speech.html

Regards...

silverfish · « **Reply #268 on:** December 12, 2009, 10:24:17 AM »

Quote from: blueplanet on December 11, 2009, 08:59:52 PM

I am sorry I am not worrying about flouride. Are you sure alumium causes Alzheimer's disease? I thought Alzheimer's disease is a product of mercury poisoning. Aluminum will not cause direct damage to the nerve tissues. One univerisity has already demonstrated that mercury is the only metal that would destroy the nerve tissues.

http://knol.google.com/k/dr-max-daunderer/mercury-toxicity-and-alzheimer-disease/3otpgsm3m33p5/65#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImCpWzXJ_w&feature=related

As regards Alzheimer's,

Check this out:

http://www.scpnet.com/on_pap_3.htm

If you do a search on 'aluminium neurotoxicity' there are quite a few links, including a book
on the subject on Amazon (though it is prohibitively expensive.) As regards absorption from the water supply, I understand this is greatly increased by the presence of flouride, and that also depends on the particular form the aluminium takes. It apparently interacts with other toxins and heavy metals interfering with various body functions. In my books on flouride there is additional material on aluminium, I'll have another look. Cheers.

Cap-Z-ro · « **Reply #269 on:** December 12, 2009, 12:08:13 PM »

Here is what happened to the free speech rights of america's earliest opponent to this globalist cabal.

" During its height, [Father]Coughlin's radio program was wildly popular, with listeners flooding his office with 80,000 letters a week. It is estimated that almost a third of the nation tuned in at the time. However, Coughlin's popularity gained him some powerful enemies. The Roman Catholic Church itself did not approve of him and the Vatican wanted him silenced. The Roosevelt administration was determined to shut down the "Radio Priest".

Eventually accomplished this by performing an end run around the 1st Amendment. The administration decided that freedom of speech did not apply to broadcasting because radio was a "limited national resource" and should be regulated as a "publicly owned commons." New regulations were put into place demanding that regular radio broadcasters obtain operating permits. Coughlin was denied a permit and forced off the air. "

http://www.henrymakow.com/charles_coughlin_served_god_an.html

Regards...

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 105565 times)

silverfish

Re: Global Warming

PaulLowrance

Re: Global Warming

blueplanet

Re: Global Warming

blueplanet

Re: Global Warming

silverfish

Re: Global Warming

blueplanet

Re: Global Warming

blueplanet

Re: Global Warming

silverfish

Re: Global Warming

blueplanet

Re: Global Warming

silverfish

Re: Global Warming

Cap-Z-ro

Re: Global Warming

PaulLowrance

Re: Global Warming

Cap-Z-ro

Re: Global Warming

silverfish

Re: Global Warming

Cap-Z-ro

Re: Global Warming