Slashdot Mirror

http://www.fortfreedom.org/n15.htm

Regarding species extinction, surely any nominally intelligent person can grasp the qualitative difference when extinction rates are orders of magnitude higher than at any other time in human history.

Natural selection does not have a rate limit. The knee-jerk assumption that any species currently existent today must be preserved at all costs is just silly. Look, pandas are cute and all, but if the damn buggers won't have sex enough to have more babies, well, maybe we just need to sit back and let that dead end go.

BTW, can you name ten species that have gone extinct in your lifetime?

So has the acid rain in China destroyed all of their forests? Turned all of their waterways into lifeless wastelands?

Look, of course SOx and NOx turn into acid. The question is, what is the impact? GP was trying to make a point about having power over the entire earth, and cited acid rain. While it is certainly possible to have local impacts to paint jobs, it does not destroy forests and waterways wholesale.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/n15.htm

link for the quote: http://www.fortfreedom.org/n15.htm

Check it out: Google search for Acid Rain MYTH:

http://www.fortfreedom.org/n15.htm

"THE CONTINUING MYTHOLOGY ABOUT ACID RAIN (8/31/1989)"

If Acid rain was called a Myth in 1989, and its an accept fact now. ( Shuddap you no holocost guys.)
It tool 28 years to be accepted as on general principal to be true.

It took at least 5 years for the existance of HIV/AIDS to impact the screening of blood.

What do you think the acceptance rate for global warming will be?

How long before we ban the flying of airplanes in the stratosphere?

Your call

is a bogus shibboleth.

In the Pacific, not far from where my plane was shot down, and I was comforted by thoughts of freedom of action in space. no, that's the other George Bush... http://www.fortfreedom.org/b11.htm

I believe the nuclear winter scnenario as you describe it has long been disproven.

Here are some links...

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s05.htm

http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

I expect an even greater number of such clowns hitting the news any time now. It's only a shame that each will get far more than the 15 minutes they've already used up.

Nice to see you avoid technical discussion and head on off and dig up personal and work information to post up here. I've let CmdrTaco know. I've asked them not to get rid of our editorial comment (Nice to see how calm and reasoned you people are when someone shows information that doesn't abide by your religion).

Wouldn't have minded you mentioning what I do. I would have gladly clarified. My company provides environmental equipment for the oil industries, water monitoring, soil strength and the like. So you would rather they not be environmentally conscious in doing their perfectly legal business?? Who cares if it contaminates the water right? But regardless that's the home office, and it's an area they are TRYING to get into, not that we are in. The US division doesn't deal with oil companies at all. The closest energy area we work with is hydro-electric (Which I assume as a left wing Birkenstock wearing long haired nut your against as well.) and what we monitor is Dam integrity. I assume your against that too. You'd rather see dams collapse. But regardless MY company, the US division, does not even have an oil company in our customer database. Anyone who chooses to attack people personally rather than discuss the facts is obviously someone who lack knowledge, as well as intelligence, morals, etc etc etc.

Bet you also like donating money to the ALF, if not actually participating. I mean your tactics are the same. If you lived locally would I find you at my doorstep? Or maybe you'd toss a Molotov cocktail in my cars, seems like it's more your style. Any arson attacks on SUV in the SF area? Maybe the SF PD would like a tip.

But on to some of your mis-truths, lies in your words.

"real scientists"

Really? Well let's see who is behind real climate. Would that be Environmental Media Services with a name like that it tends to hold up my acertation that it's a PR firm. Even better they have the same street address as Fenton Communications yet another PR firm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Fenton the company that brought us such great science as the Alar scare. Yeah great source you've got there. Who's on the board of directors, Heinrich Himmler.

As to altenergyaction, do you always cite yourself as a reference? You don't see any issue with that, and is your buddy Smith the president (former?) of Cherokee Forest Voices. That some kind of group of scientists? Sounds like it's on par with the likes of MIT, UCLA and all that. Geez make it easier or me. Looks like you are directly paid by them, and admit it. Then attack me for selling equipment that makes large structures safe. Yeah money grubbing weasel that I am. At least I don't work directly for a PR company. Looks like you get a few bucks from Real Climate too. Anyways since you obviously run that site, anyone here can see the tactics of the group.

So again, would you rather discuss science, or are you going to continue with attacks lightweight communist thug. As to SidV, show your ignoarnce, no way you could, or do know why I use that handle. And again, your so simply minded to you there is only left wing and right wing, and attack anyone that doesn't agree with you. I'm pretty sure if Sid came back the only thing he'd care about is getting a fix, but I'm sure he wouldn't side with facists like you.

Alpha particles are quite heavy and are strongly interacting, which means that they have very short range. ie. with external exposure, most of the alphas are stopped by the skin & outer layers. But anyway, I agree with the general comment that the danger of plutonium toxicity is overstated. See here for a better source than the Wiki.

What you conveniently left out is how many innocent people would have died if the US had not gotten involved in the above conflicts.

From Hiroshima to Iraq, the US has fought to protect freedom and civility. We would be far more hated and dispised if we had not fought against Hitler, Pol Pot, Tojo, Sung, Omar, Milosevic, Hussein, Bin Laden, and the scores of other dictators that account for over 100 Million Murders this century alone.

You're wrong.

Highlights:

Ralph Nader has said that a pound of plutonium could cause 8 billion cancers, and former Senator Ribicoff has said that a single particle of plutonium inhaled into the lung can cause cancer. There is no scientific basis for any of these statements as I have shown in a paper in the refereed scientific journal Health Physics (Vol. 32, pp. 359-379, 1977).

There's a little bit of grandstanding at the beginning, but if you read on, it becomes clear that the author has solid evidence to back it up.

Is the author of this paper a kook? Judge for yourself: he describes the procedure he used to reach his conclusions in great detail, complete with references to original data sources and to other research entities. It should be trivial to investigate the bona fides of the author and his sources, and reach your own informed conclusion. Perhaps you have an aunt, or a cousin, or a friend in the field, who would be willing to review the document with a critical eye, and give you their own expert opinion on its veracity.

Nader's own credentials notwithstanding, it seems more likely that Plutonium is a bugbear, and not the angel of death he claims it is.

According to this smarty man, there's probably not enough plutonium inside a pacemaker to poison a small bunny rabbit. I imagine the crash testing is still pretty rigorous, though.

Got any evidence of the nuclear industry EVER making that claim? I didn't think so.

No, not on me, but I definitely remember seeing a British Public Information Film from the 50s that did indeed make that proud boast.

Of course, whether that was a genuine opinion from within the nuclear industry, or just deliberate false propaganda to keep public opinion onside while they built their nuclear-bomb factory (Windscale, now known as Sellafield), I don't know.

Talking of Sellafield, I'm no hippy, and am not always comfortable with everything Greenpeace do, but nevertheless this makes rather worrying reading...read the note at the bottom.Also, it looks like the U.K. needs to build its own version of this site to deal with all our own waste.

But back to the original question. One quick Google later, if this rather dodgy looking webpage is correct, the phrase was used by the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission on 16th Sept 1954 in a speech to the National Association of Science Writers, although to be fair the nuclear industry was already retracting it within four years.

Does that answer your question?

I fear you're parroting a bogus claim. (Besides, the anti-dioxin folks claim dioxin is among the most poisonous substance known to man...maybe you could arm-wrestle them over it.) The most poisonous substance known is botulism toxin. People might also wish to read this item by Bernard Cohen on the myth of plutonium toxicity.

For some enlightening background, check out The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity by Bernard L. Cohen. This article exposes an insidious enviro-lefty lie. Cohen has authored six books and over 300 papers in scientific journals, and he was awarded the Health Physics Society Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award, among several other major awards.