|
|||||
|
It is certainly great to know that the United States food and disease oversight can pick up on a common food contaminant (salmonella, spp) increase and trace it back to a commonly accepted source, namely chickens. This previous farmboy knows that you have to be very careful of this pathogen because it is everywhere. We did not use cracked eggs unless you cooked the heck out of them. Those that were pristine were wiped/washed clean before use. Those that we sold off the farm were refrigerated to 45′F within 3 hours of being laid (multiple gatherings per day) and candled and washed before market. All this to suppress the bacteria to levels of non-existence or levels which the population’s gut protections could handle. All this is still true today. But, with these safeguards, salmonella still generates reported cases of about 50,000 per year or a projected 2 to 4 million per year. That works out to about 0.5% to 1% of the population during the year, nearly all of which are an overnight exercise in the bathroom. So, in the middle of the summer incubation heat while Congress is in recess and not making the news, someone notes an increase of 1200 to 2000 cases of salmonella poisoning traceable back to a 2 million egg/day producer. Duh! It was good to see that in some instances the news media actually provided some rational guidance on how to cook eggs. But, they failed to put the malady in perspective to normal life and they failed to note that public salad bars and the home kitchen are also havens for the bacteria. Perhaps a little more training of the overall population is in order. If we look at the geographic case incidence, it’s heavier in the industrialized sections of the country compared to the knowledgeable agrarian sector. Was the hype necessary? Was there a hidden agenda to sell newspapers? Or an ask for more taxation to fund more bureaucratic oversight in ‘protecting’ the population from itself? Or a drug company willing to sell chicken vaccinations as in England? Over the past few months, a number of people have asked for references and charts. Here are hotlinks to a number of them. Wind Power: Bonneville Power Administration Balancing Authority Wind/load chart. http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx and this blog, August 29, 2009. Climate: Arctic Sea Ice extent: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Solar/Sun spots: (this year has been running 15-19% void, better than last year, but a slower than expected rise into the next cycle). http://spaceweather.com/ US Energy Flowchart (from LLNL, personally annotated) This blog, June 22, 2009. Levelized Northwest Electrical Energy Costs: This blog, November 11, 2009. Ionizing Radiation Dose Ranges (from DOE Office of Science, note annotations for life examples) President Obama has chosen to direct the Department of Energy to abandon the Yucca Mtn. geologic repository for discarded nuclear materials. In addition, President Obama has commissioned a two year ‘Blue Ribbon’ panel to evaluate alternatives and nuclear energy in general. After a brief tour of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Souteastern Washington State , the panel provided a public forum for official and public input in Richland, Washington on July 14-15 . The following is this author’s presentation at that forum.
The gauntlet was thrown on climate change when the sound bites of ‘the science is settled’ and ‘consensus of scientists’ were uttered. Long before that, this scientist was aghast at the pontificating that man can change the weather, at least to the extent of catastrophe. As a result of the bites and the astonishment, scientists have come to the front with continuing research to understand, and in the ensuing discoveries, rebut and rebuke the ‘consensus’. The US Senate has had hearings regarding absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions dissolving into the oceans and changing the acidity therein. Senator Maria Cantwell1 (Washington State) has stated that it’s obvious that shellfish are negatively impacted due to increasing CO2 from human activities. More on this later. Absorption is not new, every carbonated beverage is an example enhanced by overpressure. Henry and Clausius–Clapeyron have well described gas absorption rules. Buffer solution chemistry further describes expectations on degree of acidity changes for weak acids such as carbonic, ie. limitations due to the normal ocean brew.  Figure 1 American lobster reared for 60 days at normal levels of CO2 (left) and under high levels of CO2 (2850 ppm). “There is no magic formula to predict how different species will respond, but one thing you can be sure of is that ecosystems as a whole will change because of these varied individual responses,” Justin Ries predicts. http://futurity.org/earth-environment/jumbo-shellfish-rule-in-acidic-oceans/ On the heals of the ‘viewing with alarm’ and ‘we must do something now’ come several scientific papers which show contrary evidence to potential loss of crustacean life in the seas due to excess CO2 and temperature increase. Findley2, et al, report that barnacles are not really affected by increased CO2 other than perhaps to have improved calcification (better shells). Rodolfo-Metalp3, et al, report that temperate zone corals also improve their livelihood, noting a secondary effect that photosynthesis increases if the waters warm slightly providing more food for them. Are these definitive? Absolutely, when compared to the above sound bites and alarmist posturing. In reality, it most assuredly shows that there is much more work to be done in understanding this wonderful spaceship Earth on which we live. Before we start leaping as lemmings, we better figure out what is going on. Another shot over the bow is a just published ‘cross examination’ by Johnston6 from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. With over two years of study, Mr. Johnston has examined the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its periodic Assessment Reports (AR) on climate change. His approach was to dissect and compare statements within and without the documents for consistency, clarity, and accuracy from a legal perspective. He notes serious problems with the debunked Hockey Stick, projections of climate sensitivity, modeling inconsistencies, ignorance of water vapor (cloud effects, humidity, snow, and ice) effects, and general ignoring or dismissing of valuable contrary studies and empirical evidence. On the one point of the missing cloud effects, he comments:
So, even an educated non-scientist can see through the story and understand the issues from basic principles and observations. He cites with numerous quotes, 343 literature references in coming to his conclusions: politically correct conventional wisdom on climate change as driven by IPCC and cohorts is simply wrong and without basis.  Shellfish production and CO2 increase To finish, I said I would have more on Senator Cantwell’s opinion. Her statement caused me to investigate the status of shellfish in US economics. I found that from 1995 to 2008, the shellfish market in the US doubled going from 0.5 million to 1.0 million metric tonnes annually. During that same period, atmospheric CO2 increased 6.4%. Mathematically, there is a 95% correlation in the data (see figures). To their credit, the petitioners8 cite observational data on softening of oyster shells and clams in contrast to the literature cited herein. But, is it possible that overfishing to satisfy the palate is not allowing proper shell maturation? Facetiously, is the increased consumption causing more CO2 or is it the other way round? Obviously, the more we know, the more we need to know before we jump off into the abyss of cap and trade. ——————————————————–  Shellfish Production vs. Atmospheric CO2 1Sen. Maria Cantwell, On Earth Day, We Must Not Forget Our Oceans, Press Release, April 22, 2010. http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=324055 2Findlay H. S., Kendall M. A., Spicer J. I., and Widdicombe S., 2010. Post-larval development of two intertidal barnacles at elevated CO2 and temperature. Marine Biology 157: 725-735. http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/post-larval-development-of-two-intertidal-barnacles-at-elevated-co2-and-temperature/#more-3715 3Rodolfo-Metalpa, R., Martin, S., Ferrier-Pages, C. and Gattuso, J.-P., 2010. Response of the temperate coral Cladocora caespitosa to mid- and long-term exposure to pCO2 and temperature levels projected for the year 2100 AD. Biogeosciences 7: 289-300. http://www.biogeosciences.net/7/289/2010/bg-7-289-2010.pdf 4Ries, J. B., Cohen, A. L., and McCorkle, D. C., Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification, Geology 2009, v. 37, p. 1131-1134, doi:10.1130/G30210A.1 http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/37/12/1131?ijkey=O79jdQYUdBqN2&keytype=ref&siteid=gsgeology#I0091761337121131F01 5Web article: Jumbo shellfish rule in acidic oceans, Futurity, Dec. 1, 2009. http://futurity.org/earth-environment/jumbo-shellfish-rule-in-acidic-oceans/ 6Johnston, J. S., Global warming advocacy science: a cross examination, Program on Law, Environment and Economy, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Research paper 10-08, May 2010. http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf 7Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi, On the Determination of Climate Feedbacks from ERBE Data, 36 Geo. Res. Lett. L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628 (2009). 8Dale Kelley, (76 signatories) to Sens. Maria Cantwell and Olympia Snowe, April 17, 2010, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=42f09695-b80f-4d23-8735-3dcae501735f A current item on the internet is the ’sudden’ discovery in the new federal health care legislation that employer funds for health care premiums are going to be included in employee ‘total’ pay and thus subject to taxation or tax bracket creep. Let’s do some thinking about this. First, does anyone know of any employer who has not represented the company provided insurance as an overall employee salary/wage. It is a part of the cost of an employee to the business. That’s reality. I have always recognized that and been grateful for what it was. I also have many times calculated the average payout rate for a group of employees and found it to be nearly a factor of 10 more than what my contribution (on the pay stub) may have been. Maybe if that money was given directly to me on the assumption I would have found my own individual insurance, I could have gotten it a bit cheaper, but unlikely. That’s what grouping is all about, generally selected by the employer when it exists. Second, shortly after World War II, business was granted tax incentives to provide health plans. This was a time of high inflation, excess capacity, and excess returning military people. The incentive spurred job creation. Ie, reducing taxes actually stimulates more business and jobs. It works. Prime example is the Irish economy in the last decade of the 20th century. Regardless, the business tax shelter continued until whatever is now about to happen. Third, there are small businesses which have never provided health plans because they 1) were not big enough to have sufficient profit margin and mass generated funds to live and support a plan, and 2) have too small a group to gain any economic leverage in the insurance market. Thus, there is no benefit margin to tax, and no hope for recognition of excess ‘hidden’ payments to the employee. If the intent is successful, the ‘extra’ tax will be a wealth redistribution for health care to the poor or perhaps the small business employees. This remains to be seen. Yes, tax brackets will now change, except for special unionized groups to 2018. But, suppose the ‘benefit’ amount, say, on the order of $26,000 per year is added to the employee pay and actually given out on the stipulation that it be used to buy personal insurance. Now the individual has to take command and understand how that money is spent. If they are in good health, they might be able to find catastrophic type coverage for $17,000 per year, leaving a net $9000 (which would be taxed) to play with. The chronically ill or those with risky behavior (smoking, bungee jumping) pay up to the $26,000. Now we have consumer driven health care (like buying a TV) and a population which examines their life choices with their own pocketbook. If they choose to not have health care, tough, they pay as they go at standard published maximum risk rates. My barber has elected the latter for 40 years very successfully, saving a portion of income with interest growth. Would you properly use the allocation? Would Joe Six-Bagle do so? If the current health bill were tweaked to have the health benefit considered as a pre-tax deduction, then the cost incentive is removed from the business and shifted to the employee. The unintended consequences are that without business tax avoidance incentive, the health allocation will go down, gradually moving us back to self reliance anyway. Bottom line? We have drifted health care through an ever increasing pay/cost/benefit economic maze to a behemoth that may be impossible to fix without a major upheaval in all sectors, and I really mean ALL. Finally, it is my concern that the top level controllers are about the business of rationing health care. Follow the thread at http://kandg.org/WPBlogger/?p=224 |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2010 KANDG - All Rights Reserved  Powered by FireStats
|
|||||
Recent Comments