In today's installment of 4WORD Magazine presents the unedited writings of Owsley "Bear" Stanley, we bring you Bear's take on Myths of Modern Environmentalism. We may not always agree with Bear but it's important to read the writings of somebody with such extreme intelligence. EnjoY
Most of the people that know me, know that I am definitely predisposed towards the preservation of our environment. I support the idea of population control and the reduction of waste in industrial processes. In fact, I feel that there is no such thing as "waste". What we term "waste" in one process is actually the feedstock for some other process. I believe that we will have to demand that all new industrial plants utilize ALL of the raw materials which are taken in to produce usable products, with nothing rejected as waste (something which cannot be used without some further processing, or is a hazardous and unusable material).
I am concerned that there are certain agendas in the environmental movement which are untrue and divert a considerable amount of valuable resources from the real issues which need attention. These agendas benefit a small group at the expense of us all, and in some cases are downright detrimental.
Here are three major ones, which I could call the Great Myths of Modern Environmentalism.
1. The Great "Global Warming" Myth
The greenhouse effect is a myth. Extensive and complete measurements which show absolutely NO increase in the average global temperature have been taken over the entire surface of the planet by the Pan Global Temperature satellite, which follows a polar orbit, It and its replacements have been there since 1979. Measurements are taken at a consistent height above the surface, about 300 m, to avoid local variations in terrain. The change it measured is a constant, continuing decline in temperature of 0.01 degree C per year, thus the current glabal temperature is now a full quarter of a degree LOWER than it was 21 years ago. Perhaps the decrease is due to the melting of polar ice. Measurements showing a rise are taken exclusively from the temperate regions, and may reflect the transport of heat on its way to the polar regions. Quite simply, Global warming does not exist. There are so many buffers in the atmosphere that it is highly unlikely to ever happen, even if the so called "greenhouse gas" content were to increase hundreds of times over.
CO2, this important gas is the principle 'culprit' according to the eco-terrorists. The CO2 content in the atmosphere is only a very tiny amount, about 300 parts per million (.03%). This CO2 stays in the air in equilibrium with the CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Since CO2 has a very steep curve of solubility in water, the amount found in the air is critically dependent upon the sea surface temperatures (cold rain falling is an excellent CO2 scrubber). World CO2 measurements have traditionally been based on the levels tested in the air at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The charts of the levels fluctuate seasonally, rising in the early summer and falling in the early winter. If the levels are compared to the actual sea surface temperature measurements taken at Hilo, which is at the base of Mauna Loa, the seasonal variations are seen to track exactly with the temperature. Even the gradual increase over time is duplicated in the temperature reading, as the average SST temperature at Hilo has been rising in exact lock step with the rise in the Mauna Loa CO2 levels. (The charts of these measurements are available, making this a trivial exercise if you wish to verify my statements).
Burning fossil fuels is probably one of the most important aids to the life cycle on this oxygen-rich, carbon-poor planet that man can do. Most of the primeval carbon is locked away in the oil and coal deposits formed over the ages by cell death of the phytoplankton (diatoms), which created the oxygen-rich environment by decarboxylating the CO2 in the primitive atmosphere. The limits placed on CO2 are unreasonable and impede the creation of wealth which benefits everyone, and are harmful to the plant life at the same time.
2. The Great "Hole in the Ozone" Myth.
Likewise another myth, that of "ozone damage" was a scam developed by DuPont in a push to outlaw Freon. The patent has run out, and since it is a totally stable compound, is the most ideal refrigerant known, AND is very cheap to manufacture, they needed to ban it so that they could sell a (patented) replacement HFC, which is nowhere near as good a refrigerant, called (get this!): Soma.
There is absolutely no verifiable data that the "destruction" reactions between chlorine and ozone actually occur anywhere other than in apparatus and under laboratory conditions.
There is no verifiable data that there is any significant portion of the atmosphere's chlorine is the result of breakdown of CFC's (Freon is the principal member of this class of compounds). CFC's are so stable that they have been used in very successful fire-extinguishing systems.
Another factor is that there is no verifiable evidence that CFC's, which are very dense, heavy gases have any way to make it out of the troposphere into the lower portion of the stratosphere. Of course there is no mechanism known to science which would transport these dense compounds to the upper levels of the stratosphere (stratos means layered, there is no convective mixing in this part of the atmosphere, because the temperature rises with increased height). It is in the uppermost layers of the stratosphere where the energy from the sun in the form of very short wave UV and electrons in the solar wind create the ozone we need to protect us at the surface.
The "hole in the ozone" scam was attacked by a large group of prominent scientists in the so-called Heidelberg paper, with volcanologists as prominent signatories. Volcanos are the single highest source of atmospheric chlorine, measured in the tens of millions of metric tonnes/year. Man's total OUTPUT of Freon never exceeded a hundred thousand pounds of equivalent chlorine, and of course most of that never gets into the atmosphere, never mind that it is one of the most stable organic chemicals known.
3. The Great "Your Car Causes Smog" Myth
The last of the great modern environmental myths is that "cars cause smog". This has an extreme impact on all of us in that the cost of manufacturing cars has risen to the point that many cars cost more than the cost of a home.
Ozone in the lower atmosphere is the cause of smog. This ozone is formed primarily by the decay of tritium (by beta particle emission= high velocity electrons) in the atmosphere, and by lightning and electrical discharges such as corona on electrical high-tension transmission lines. This energetic electron is captured by an ordinary oxygen molecule (O2), which cannot exist as a stable molecule with an extra electron, and so splits into two very reactive oxygen atoms ("nascent" oxygen). These two reactive oxygen atoms each combines instantaeously with another normal molecule of oxygen to form two new molecules of ozone (O3). The only other source of ozone is very short wave UV, and the amount we receive from the sun doesn't penetrate to sea level (thanks to the ozone in the upper stratosphere). Those old-fashioned toilet seat sterilizers that you occasionally run across in public restrooms produce a detectable amount of ozone, as you may remember if you ever ran across one. They aren't as common nowadays as they once were.
In real terms the smog-induction is primarily and almost entirely dependent upon the presence of tritium which is produced in large quantity by nuclear activity. Almost all reactors use either heavy water- deuterium oxide (which produces the most tritium, by capture of a single neutron), or ordinary water (requires the capture of 2 neutrons, first to make deuterium, then to produce tritium from the deuterium) to enclose and absorb the neutrons escaping from the reactor. Also the storage of radioactive waste is done in pools of water. In addition to all this, the military makes tritium on purpose to use in "hydrogen" fusion bombs. All this tritium is chemically the same as hydrogen and escapes into the atmosphere quite easily. Usually the beta particle is of no concern, since it doesn't cause the sort of health damage that alpha particles, gamma rays and neutrons cause. Most of the concern with nuclear radiation is connected with gamma rays and neutrons.
There is absolutely NO way that ozone can be generated by any chemical or long-wave (visible) light-mediated reaction, and certainly not by any of the purported means the smog-control advocates present. Even the commercial generation of ozone for industrial purposes (due to its powerful oxidizing properties), must be done by bombarding oxygen with high-speed electrons.
Of course the explosion of bombs, even underground ones, produces the most tritium, (and therefore ozone) and does so all at once. The most severe smog event in history occurred immediately after the only nuclear explosion ever to take place in the water, just after WW II. Almost every one has seen the aerial photographs of all the war ships in the harbour and the monstrous column of water and it's huge mushroom cloud. Almost immediately afterwards the burning of diesel fuel in "smudge pots" in the California orange groves was outlawed. The smoke was one of the most economical ways to prevent frost in the winters, and the smoke always dissipated by a few hours after sunrise. Until, that is, the water drop bomb test. I can verify this personally, as I lived within a few blocks of the orange groves in central Los Angeles during WW II (Park LaBrea).
To this day the intensity of a smog event is measured by the amount of ozone present in the air at the surface. It is known as the "Ozone Number"
For the convenience of distracting people from the real cause of smog by the nuclear industry (and the military), we now have to pay almost as much for a new car as for a house. And you can't live in a car - not to mention that, unlike a piece of real estate, it is a very poor investment.
In reality ALL of man's hydrocarbon emissions total only about 4% of the total that is found in the air, most of which comes from plantlife, with some from oil seeps and volcanism. To burden us with a technology which in reality benefits slightly only those in cities (where there are few plants, so most hydrocarbons come from human activities) and greatly those in the nuclear industry (and people are placed in many dangers by this very dangerous enterprise), is a massive act of folly.
Share this Article
Digg
Facebook
Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon
E-mail
