Such nonsense. Recently noctilucent clouds have been observed with uncommon frequency all over the world, not just the US: http://www.nlcnet.co.uk/
These idiotic explanations (global warming, space shuttle) show that a political agenda is being protected. It is quite simple: noctilucent clouds are a symptom of cooling of the upper atmosphere. Only that allows ice crystals to survive at a height of 80 kilometers at such low latitudes.
This true explanation cannot be allowed to penetrate the public mind because it constitutes evidence that conflicts with the attempt to sell the global warming scam and impose a carbon tax. Hence the bullshit.
This isn't any kind of new or unpredicted phenomenon.
It is definitely unpredicted by conventional theory. The visible part of the black-body radiation spectrum (which you seem to be referring to) for an object at human-body temperature is far less than 1/1000th of what is still visible. These emissions are therefore not thermal. And the is no other conventional theory that mandates such emissions.
Similar "biophoton" phenomena have been studied in the past at the International Institute of Biophysics. It is most interesting as conventional theories do not predict such emissions.
If this is the case the photons should be detectable.
Indeed. And they have been detected with sensitive photon-counting equipment and cameras. The emissions are weak and, remarkably, extend into the UV. Fritz-Albert Popp in particular has done several such experiments. For some papers, see here: http://www.lifescientists.de/ib_003e_.htm.
Seriously, he replicated these studies 4 times TOTAL.
You have misread the abstract and have not read the experimental-setup section of the paper, which read:
Each experimental block consisted finally of 10 units: 2 types of material (glass or quartz) ×5 combinations of Paramecium (an inner cuvette containing 5 Paramecium within a cuvette containing 100 Paramecium, an inner cuvette with 5 Paramecium within a cuvette containing medium only or demineralised water, and an inner cuvette containing medium only or demineralised water within a cuvette containing 100 Paramecium). Twenty-eight blocks were assayed in 14 experimental sessions that were performed at different days. In each session two blocks were randomly placed on a four by five grid, where the units were optically separated from each other by a black carton.
As might be expected, they did more than enough replication runs to get sufficiently narrow error bars to show a significant inter-cuvette communication effect that, presumably, is light-mediated.
Worldwide there are about 40 scientific groups working on biophotons. The biggest association is the International Institute of Biophysics (IIB) e.V., founded in 1996 in Neuss (Germany) for an interdisciplinary approach of the understanding and the investigation of living systems.
Oh my, such venom and so many broad sweeping statements without data to back it up. Let's get specific. The following study shows that thimerosal is metabolized to inorganic mercury: "Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, et al. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113:1015-1021." Therefore, toxicity data for inorganic mercury is relevant.
The following paper reports on a fivefold fetal death rate on Thimerosal exposure: "Itoi M, Ishii Y, Kaneko N. Teratogenicities of antiviral ophthalmics on experimental animals. Jpn J Clin Ophthal 1972;26:631-640."
One of the effects is decreased fertility: "Goncharuk GA. Experimental investigation of the effect of organomercury pesticides on generative function and on progeny. Hyg Sanit 1971;36:40-44."
I suggest you watch the video of the presentation I linked before, rather more references are given there.
Hint: environmental, elemental mercury sources are not the same thing as thermerasol.
Hint: Thimerosal contains approximately 49% ethylmercury. The mercury is only weakly bound the the ethyl, and becomes readily physiologically available in elemental form.
Meanwhile, study after study has eliminated the link between vaccinations and autism.
Firstly, there are studies that support both the harmless and harmful hypotheses. Hence, "eliminated" is a vast overrepresentation of reality. Secondly, given the endemic corruption of the medical publishing industry (take for example the fake peer-reviewed journal set up by Elservier for Merck), all medical studies should be viewed with suspicion.
But the facts speak of endemic corruption. There is a revolvingdoor between the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA (and other government agencies). A pattern of industry funding of perks for FDA officials has emerged.
Consider that low-level operatives in the drug industry being afraid of the FDA is not mutually exclusive with the FDA being bought off: for the same reason that mobsters are not sanguine about the police, even when many officers in the department are on the take.
No doubt there is good industry-funded research. But statins have been turned into a roughly 20 billion dollar a year money spinner. That is an awful lot of incentive to misrepresent research data.
About 25 million Americans, and 4 million Brits are taking statins. That is nearly one in ten people. It boggles the mind.
But do these large placebo-controlled studies you refer to represent reality? Studies that support the efficacy of pharmaceutical treatments more often then not have been performed by researchers with industry ties and funding. A growing number of Cholesterol Skeptics are casting the high-LDL causes heart disease hypothesis into doubt, and are pointing out flaws in the studies supporting that hypothesis.
The view that high cholesterol is bad, and saturated fats are always a no-no is, on closer examination another example of problems being created out of nothing in order to sell more drugs.
A very profitable and corrupt situation has evolved where the FDA is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, the editorial boards of medical journals are bought and paid for, and academic research often dependent on industry money.
I so resent research scientists selling some cute tinkering on a nano-scale as having imminent potential for practical high-density memory or some other technology. Almost none of these stories have any chance of ever resulting in something that works and is economically competitive. The scientists in question know that very well, they're just putting a practical applications spin on it because popular-science writers/press/websites go for that. Pimps.
Yup, it is genocide that turns a profit. See here for some US death rates resulting from the health "care" system. The roughly 106.000 yearly deaths because of adverse drug reactions is a statistic that hides a much larger iceberg of deaths indirectly caused by drugs.
You see, the trick is to not kill people outright: you cannot make money off dead people. Instead, you design drugs that cause chronic disease (e.g. Zyprexa which causes diabetes), and market them to the general public, e.g. as a lifestyle drug, so as to get many people to ask their doctor for a prescription. That way you profoundly grow the market for selling further drugs and treatments. Any litigation you can always settle for a fraction of the profit later.
PCMark 2005 has been shown to yield wildly varying results for the nano depending on which CPU ID (CentaurHauls, GenuineAMD, AuthenticIntel) it is being presented with: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/atom-nano-review.ars/6. Not surprisingly, if PCMark is made to think it is an Intel CPU, the benchmarks suddenly jump up across the board. Intel money buys good benchmarks.
Well, if you don't want your time to be wasted, then there is no point in pointing out what works either: you see, you are not allowed to use these technologies and as such will have no access to them.
One technology that is being kept under wraps by http://www.blacklightpower.com/. Lots of experimental corroboration, also from other labs. But they are throwing up a large smoke screen by selling a bullshit theory. The underlying physical mechanism is closely related to the cold fusion phenomena. However, in all the time they have been developing their technology, no energy product has been released into the market place. It will only be once it is allowed.
When will that be? Well, a hopeful indicator is that electric cars are finally being allowed onto the market place. Looks like oil demand is no longer being protected. So maybe the rest of the energy scam will be unwound soon thereafter.
When it comes to global warming, the situation is complex since some vested interests have been trying to deny the evidence for global warming, as you have rightly noted, while other vested interests have been trying to sell it. Both, in the end, serve the same overall interest: keeping control. It is just that the narrow agenda that the former grouping is serving is a less informed and more greedy one.
To state the obvious: by denying anthropogenic global warming you are basically saying that burning oil, gas, and coal is not that bad, and as such you help keep up demand. However, the price of energy (if you factor out the short-term manipulation in the futures market) is determined by the equilibrium between supply and demand. If you can manipulate the price to be ten times too high, by squeezing the supply and nurturing the perception that energy is intrinsically scarce (peak oil, and all that bullshit), you can fleece the sheep for much more than by increasing demand a bit.
This is where the green world view comes into play. It is about selling the people on a belief in scarcity and the undesirability of population growth. By making people believe that something is scarce, they are made willing to have that resource be withheld from them, or to pay way too much for it. Instilling a belief in overpopulation supports the belief in scarcity (when there are too many people, will there be enough left for me?), but also makes room for measures to reduce population. Not because Earth cannot support more people, but rather because fewer people are easier to control.
You have a bit too much confidence in institutional science. Science could have set humanity free. That is why it had to be, and has become, controlled. Today's reality is one of censorship, destroyed careers, and revoked funding for research that risks upsetting the status quo.
I pointed you towards the Naudin website because it shows you how to do a replication yourself, easily. Not because of any papers on there. For that I suggest the peer-reviewed literature and conference proceedings.
You keep on coming back to the palladium experiments. From the perspective of energy production, they have not been of interest for a long time. Other much less expensive and scaled up systems have been validated. Read up on the state of the art before passing judgment. While doing so, take a bit broader perspective. There are pure plasma phenomena that are likely to be based on the same physical mechanisms underlying the LENR work. To read up on some of that, and get a good feel for how this class of research is being treated, see here: http://www.newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/BubblegatePortal.htm
Mind you, the electrolytic LENR work can be safely ignored when viewing it as a candidate for economic energy production. Much cheaper methods have been developed and validated. I chose the LENR work as an example because it is well-known and well-corroborated. You see, the main challenge people face, when confronted with something that does not fit their belief system, is to move beyond their preconceptions. Good luck with that.
I find it interesting how, when pointing obvious truths out to people, more often than not they retrench behind their belief system. I submit to you the hypothesis that this is not because people because of their intrinsic nature lack an open mind, but rather because of careful indoctrination through education and the media.
Slashdot Mirror
Such nonsense. Recently noctilucent clouds have been observed with uncommon frequency all over the world, not just the US: http://www.nlcnet.co.uk/
These idiotic explanations (global warming, space shuttle) show that a political agenda is being protected. It is quite simple: noctilucent clouds are a symptom of cooling of the upper atmosphere. Only that allows ice crystals to survive at a height of 80 kilometers at such low latitudes.
This true explanation cannot be allowed to penetrate the public mind because it constitutes evidence that conflicts with the attempt to sell the global warming scam and impose a carbon tax. Hence the bullshit.
It is definitely unpredicted by conventional theory. The visible part of the black-body radiation spectrum (which you seem to be referring to) for an object at human-body temperature is far less than 1/1000th of what is still visible. These emissions are therefore not thermal. And the is no other conventional theory that mandates such emissions.
Similar "biophoton" phenomena have been studied in the past at the International Institute of Biophysics. It is most interesting as conventional theories do not predict such emissions.
Indeed. And they have been detected with sensitive photon-counting equipment and cameras. The emissions are weak and, remarkably, extend into the UV. Fritz-Albert Popp in particular has done several such experiments. For some papers, see here: http://www.lifescientists.de/ib_003e_.htm.
You have misread the abstract and have not read the experimental-setup section of the paper, which read:
As might be expected, they did more than enough replication runs to get sufficiently narrow error bars to show a significant inter-cuvette communication effect that, presumably, is light-mediated.
Oh my, such venom and so many broad sweeping statements without data to back it up. Let's get specific. The following study shows that thimerosal is metabolized to inorganic mercury: "Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, et al. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113:1015-1021." Therefore, toxicity data for inorganic mercury is relevant.
The following paper reports on a fivefold fetal death rate on Thimerosal exposure: "Itoi M, Ishii Y, Kaneko N. Teratogenicities of antiviral ophthalmics on experimental animals. Jpn J Clin Ophthal 1972;26:631-640."
One of the effects is decreased fertility: "Goncharuk GA. Experimental investigation of the effect of organomercury pesticides on generative function and on progeny. Hyg Sanit 1971;36:40-44."
I suggest you watch the video of the presentation I linked before, rather more references are given there.
Hint: Thimerosal contains approximately 49% ethylmercury. The mercury is only weakly bound the the ethyl, and becomes readily physiologically available in elemental form.
Firstly, there are studies that support both the harmless and harmful hypotheses. Hence, "eliminated" is a vast overrepresentation of reality. Secondly, given the endemic corruption of the medical publishing industry (take for example the fake peer-reviewed journal set up by Elservier for Merck), all medical studies should be viewed with suspicion.
Watch the following video to learn more about the "altruistic vaccination" that the Gates Foundation is engaged in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7_xfUV4kSo
You do not need to say more as science has already spoken. Go get a clue here: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
But the facts speak of endemic corruption. There is a revolving door between the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA (and other government agencies). A pattern of industry funding of perks for FDA officials has emerged.
Consider that low-level operatives in the drug industry being afraid of the FDA is not mutually exclusive with the FDA being bought off: for the same reason that mobsters are not sanguine about the police, even when many officers in the department are on the take.
No doubt there is good industry-funded research. But statins have been turned into a roughly 20 billion dollar a year money spinner. That is an awful lot of incentive to misrepresent research data.
About 25 million Americans, and 4 million Brits are taking statins. That is nearly one in ten people. It boggles the mind.
But do these large placebo-controlled studies you refer to represent reality? Studies that support the efficacy of pharmaceutical treatments more often then not have been performed by researchers with industry ties and funding. A growing number of Cholesterol Skeptics are casting the high-LDL causes heart disease hypothesis into doubt, and are pointing out flaws in the studies supporting that hypothesis.
The view that high cholesterol is bad, and saturated fats are always a no-no is, on closer examination another example of problems being created out of nothing in order to sell more drugs.
A very profitable and corrupt situation has evolved where the FDA is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, the editorial boards of medical journals are bought and paid for, and academic research often dependent on industry money.
I so resent research scientists selling some cute tinkering on a nano-scale as having imminent potential for practical high-density memory or some other technology. Almost none of these stories have any chance of ever resulting in something that works and is economically competitive. The scientists in question know that very well, they're just putting a practical applications spin on it because popular-science writers/press/websites go for that. Pimps.
What you want might soon be available: http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/
Yup, it is genocide that turns a profit. See here for some US death rates resulting from the health "care" system. The roughly 106.000 yearly deaths because of adverse drug reactions is a statistic that hides a much larger iceberg of deaths indirectly caused by drugs.
You see, the trick is to not kill people outright: you cannot make money off dead people. Instead, you design drugs that cause chronic disease (e.g. Zyprexa which causes diabetes), and market them to the general public, e.g. as a lifestyle drug, so as to get many people to ask their doctor for a prescription. That way you profoundly grow the market for selling further drugs and treatments. Any litigation you can always settle for a fraction of the profit later.
Such are the joys of competing against a monopolist.
PCMark 2005 has been shown to yield wildly varying results for the nano depending on which CPU ID (CentaurHauls, GenuineAMD, AuthenticIntel) it is being presented with: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/atom-nano-review.ars/6. Not surprisingly, if PCMark is made to think it is an Intel CPU, the benchmarks suddenly jump up across the board. Intel money buys good benchmarks.
Well, if you don't want your time to be wasted, then there is no point in pointing out what works either: you see, you are not allowed to use these technologies and as such will have no access to them.
One technology that is being kept under wraps by http://www.blacklightpower.com/. Lots of experimental corroboration, also from other labs. But they are throwing up a large smoke screen by selling a bullshit theory. The underlying physical mechanism is closely related to the cold fusion phenomena. However, in all the time they have been developing their technology, no energy product has been released into the market place. It will only be once it is allowed.
When will that be? Well, a hopeful indicator is that electric cars are finally being allowed onto the market place. Looks like oil demand is no longer being protected. So maybe the rest of the energy scam will be unwound soon thereafter.
When it comes to global warming, the situation is complex since some vested interests have been trying to deny the evidence for global warming, as you have rightly noted, while other vested interests have been trying to sell it. Both, in the end, serve the same overall interest: keeping control. It is just that the narrow agenda that the former grouping is serving is a less informed and more greedy one.
To state the obvious: by denying anthropogenic global warming you are basically saying that burning oil, gas, and coal is not that bad, and as such you help keep up demand. However, the price of energy (if you factor out the short-term manipulation in the futures market) is determined by the equilibrium between supply and demand. If you can manipulate the price to be ten times too high, by squeezing the supply and nurturing the perception that energy is intrinsically scarce (peak oil, and all that bullshit), you can fleece the sheep for much more than by increasing demand a bit.
This is where the green world view comes into play. It is about selling the people on a belief in scarcity and the undesirability of population growth. By making people believe that something is scarce, they are made willing to have that resource be withheld from them, or to pay way too much for it. Instilling a belief in overpopulation supports the belief in scarcity (when there are too many people, will there be enough left for me?), but also makes room for measures to reduce population. Not because Earth cannot support more people, but rather because fewer people are easier to control.
You have a bit too much confidence in institutional science. Science could have set humanity free. That is why it had to be, and has become, controlled. Today's reality is one of censorship, destroyed careers, and revoked funding for research that risks upsetting the status quo.
I pointed you towards the Naudin website because it shows you how to do a replication yourself, easily. Not because of any papers on there. For that I suggest the peer-reviewed literature and conference proceedings.
You keep on coming back to the palladium experiments. From the perspective of energy production, they have not been of interest for a long time. Other much less expensive and scaled up systems have been validated. Read up on the state of the art before passing judgment. While doing so, take a bit broader perspective. There are pure plasma phenomena that are likely to be based on the same physical mechanisms underlying the LENR work. To read up on some of that, and get a good feel for how this class of research is being treated, see here: http://www.newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/BubblegatePortal.htm
Mind you, the electrolytic LENR work can be safely ignored when viewing it as a candidate for economic energy production. Much cheaper methods have been developed and validated. I chose the LENR work as an example because it is well-known and well-corroborated. You see, the main challenge people face, when confronted with something that does not fit their belief system, is to move beyond their preconceptions. Good luck with that.
I find it interesting how, when pointing obvious truths out to people, more often than not they retrench behind their belief system. I submit to you the hypothesis that this is not because people because of their intrinsic nature lack an open mind, but rather because of careful indoctrination through education and the media.
Ah yes, pick out one or two things, lump everything together and call it all bad. The low energy nuclear reaction field has grown remarkably diverse in terms of methods and results and cannot be dismissed that easily. The basic reality of such nuclear reactions it most utterly and undeniably obvious from the experiments that show the creation of new isotopes and elements where there were previously none. See these papers for some examples: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArapiAexperiment.pdf, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJmicroanaly.pdf
As to energy production, there are actually plasma experiments with kilowatts of excess energy. But I suggest you read some of more papers first.