Slashdot Mirror

The UK and New Zealand recognise Great Apes as non-human individuals / persons; see 174 page in Kolber (2001). Medical experimentation on them is banned.

Kolber, A.J. 2001. Standing Upright: The Moral and Legal Standing of Humans and Other Apes. Stanford Law Review 54, 164–204.

http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/legislation/animal-welfare-act/index.htm

Great Britain and New Zealand already recognise Great Apes as persons e.g. New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Act of 1999. Accordingly, experiments on Great Apes is banned in these countries.

"As indicated above, some countries, including Great Britain and New Zealand have already enacted strong protections for great apes that are geared
toward apes as individuals." Kober (2001)

Ref.:
Kolber, A.J. 2001. Standing Upright: The Moral and Legal Standing of Humans and Other Apes. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 54, p. 163 to 204.
http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/legislation/animal-welfare-act/index.htm

Dams also require vast amounts of concrete which uses Portland cement as the main ingredient. Portland cement is made by heating limestone to 1450C in a kiln which requires a lot of energy. Along with the concrete dams also require a lot of steel which like concrete requires a lot of heat.

All true but doing full lifecycle calculations the CO2 emissions from Hydro are about as low any competing technology, though nuclear gives it a run from for its money in the right circumstances. (Rich Uranium ores and centrifugal enrichment).

See (Donnes et al International Journal LifeCycle Analayis 10 (1) 10 - 23 (2005)) which calculates 5 gram CO2 per KWhr for centrifuge enrichment powering a PWR.

Do those lifecycle analysis also factor in water vapor? Water vapor is more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. With the greater surface area of lakes behind dams, more water is allowed to evaporate. Then there's the methane, which is more than 20 tymes more potent than CO2, generated. How is it generated? As the water of the lake behind the dam raises it submerges organic matter such as trees. As the submerged vegetation decomposes it generates methane. See "Do Hydroelectric Dams Cause Global Warming?". It says, a little snippet, "dams increase the amount of plant matter that decompose in anaerobic condtions and produce methane which is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide."

From the The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in New Zealand:

" 6.2.2 Aeration of dams and troughs"
Aeration may also be used to enhance water quality in dams or troughs. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is essential to aquatic organisms in a dam. In waters with low oxygen levels, the production of 'swamp gases' such as hydrogen sulphide and methane is likely to occur, and phosphorus is more rapidly released from decomposing sediments. Increased phosphorus concentrations in water favour the growth of algae, including toxic blue-green species. In most dams, the decomposition of dead plants and animals uses up oxygen more rapidly than it can be absorbed from the atmosphere. Similarly, if the circulation of water in the dam is not complete, a layer of poorly-oxygenated (water) will develop at the bottom and noxious gases may be produced at depth."

So without aeration not only could more greenhouse gases be produced but water quality could go down. Wildlife downstream from dam could suffer. See also the "Three Gorges Dam an 'environmental catastrophe'" in China.

Dams also require vast amounts of concrete which uses Portland cement as the main ingredient. Portland cement is made by heating limestone to 1450C in a kiln which requires a lot of energy. Along with the concrete dams also require a lot of steel which like concrete requires a lot of heat.

All true but doing full lifecycle calculations the CO2 emissions from Hydro are about as low any competing technology, though nuclear gives it a run from for its money in the right circumstances. (Rich Uranium ores and centrifugal enrichment).

See (Donnes et al International Journal LifeCycle Analayis 10 (1) 10 - 23 (2005)) which calculates 5 gram CO2 per KWhr for centrifuge enrichment powering a PWR.

Do those lifecycle analysis also factor in water vapor? Water vapor is more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. With the greater surface area of lakes behind dams, more water is allowed to evaporate. Then there's the methane, which is more than 20 tymes more potent than CO2, generated. How is it generated? As the water of the lake behind the dam raises it submerges organic matter such as trees. As the submerged vegetation decomposes it generates methane. See "Do Hydroelectric Dams Cause Global Warming?". It says, a little snippet, "dams increase the amount of plant matter that decompose in anaerobic condtions and produce methane which is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide."

From the The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in New Zealand:

" 6.2.2 Aeration of dams and troughs"
Aeration may also be used to enhance water quality in dams or troughs. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is essential to aquatic organisms in a dam. In waters with low oxygen levels, the production of 'swamp gases' such as hydrogen sulphide and methane is likely to occur, and phosphorus is more rapidly released from decomposing sediments. Increased phosphorus concentrations in water favour the growth of algae, including toxic blue-green species. In most dams, the decomposition of dead plants and animals uses up oxygen more rapidly than it can be absorbed from the atmosphere. Similarly, if the circulation of water in the dam is not complete, a layer of poorly-oxygenated (water) will develop at the bottom and noxious gases may be produced at depth."

So without aeration not only could more greenhouse gases be produced but water quality could go down. Wildlife downstream from dam could suffer. See also the "Three Gorges Dam an 'environmental catastrophe'" in China.

Though I understand that many of these have been proven Urban Legends by snopes.com, here are a few other products that had marketing problems in foreign lands: Chevy Nova Awards

"Better stop and learn from our mistakes on Venus!"

Uh no, the lesson is, see what a planet with a runaway greenhouse effect looks like. By the time you get a chance to see it on Earth we will all be dead.

"And people claim that psychic phenomenon"

A couple key points. The survival of life on earth isn't hanging in the balance on whether you believe in psychics or not, big difference. There is also already empirical evidence that suggests global warming is happening and rapidly. You don't need to look much further than the fact the Arctic ice cap is melting and we are soon going to have a blue water ocean there. Ages old glaciers in many mountains are also disappearing.

"But when the chart with the temperatures at the end flying straight up and off the page is shown, it's a little hard to take seriously."

Maybe you should try proofreading your post a little better. I think you meant "Until the chart...". "When the charts" go ballistic me thinks maybe dumbasses like you will be saying "Oops". Again at the point chances are it will be to late to stop it and again everyone will be dead not long thereafter. All of the charts, ice surveys etc, already indicate the earth IS warming at a dramaticly faster rate than it did before the industrial age started and we started burning fossil fuels at a furious pace, and the population exploded, and we started wiping out the world's forests.

"The problem of cattle is not the methane."

You are quite wrong. Do a google search on "Cattle methane green house gas". Here is one of many references.

"The biggest polluters now are China, India, and Mexico."

Whats your point? I'm the one that said China is becoming the world's biggest polluter? I think you are trying to say global pollutions is not America's fault? I guess its lost on you that China and Mexico in particular are where all of America's factories and jobs moved to. Big American multinationals are moving them there precisely because there are no environmental regulations there oh and the cheap, exploitable labor and the cheap currencies.

America was one of the world's biggest polluters but sure its getting a lot better thanks to environment regulation, oh and all those dirty factories moved to Mexico and China precisely because the U.S. became an uncompetitive place for them partially because we have environmental regulations. We still do have a bounty of coal fired power plants though. And then too the Bush administration is doing its best to try to dismantle those regulations at every opportunity so his friends can make more money in the U.S. too.

People in the US are definitely not sheep shaggers, having only 8 million head of sheep in 2000, only approximately 0.03 sheep per person.

People in Australia are huge sheep shaggers, having 120 million head of sheep, approximately 6 sheep per person.

People in South Africa are not sheep shaggers, but could have more sheep-shagging tendencies than people from the United States,, since they have 30 million head of sheep, a reasonably low 0.75 sheep per person.

New Zealanders are definitely sheep shaggers, having 39 million sheep, 10 for every person. This is a highly disturbing number for such a sparsely populated country.

What's interesting is that Canada is closely behind, while the neighbouring USA doesn't even register. Credit still rules supreme there.