Friday, November 26, 2010
Toxicity Of Cloudseeding
> This is only one of a very large number of articles turnned up by a search on Google for the toxic effects of cloudseeding and other sources of silver in the environment. All in all, there seems ample confirmation for the 1955 claim by Reich and McCullough that cloudseeding with silver iodine is a hazzard.
Is Cloud Seeding Harmful?
> by
> Johnny Micou
>
> When studying the efficacy and consequences of cloud seeding experiments, the experimenters tend to be biased in saying cloud seeding with silver iodide enhances precipitation without negative consequences. However, much of the literature substantiates that not only does cloud seeding fail to achieve the desired effect, it also yields harmful consequences. Some of these consequences include rain suppression, flooding, tornadoes, and silver iodide toxicity. (1,2,3)
>
> The harm of rain suppression is obvious to everyone. For farmers and ranchers, this would mean no rain, no gain -- an economic loss. Losses would include poorer crop harvest, lack of range vegetation, and a loss of hunting lease income due to wildlife reduction. This is particularly true for ranches in western Potter County, an area PGCD has called "geographically handicapped."(2) Most ranchers and farmers do not choose to take the gamble on their land and livelihood based on experimentation.(1,2)
>
> The harmful effects of silver iodide are insidious.(3) Yet, according to the web site of the PGCD, the effects are so minimized that the following is stated: "The concentration of iodide in iodized salt used on food is far above the concentration found in rainwater from a seeded cloud."(4) In addition, in early December of 2002, at the Amarillo meeting jointly conducted by the Panhandle Groundwater and the North Plains Groundwater Conservation Districts, one representative stated that silver iodide was good for the heart. In a private conversation, another explained that silver miners live longer. Iodized salt may seem benign; however, some states such as Colorado have outlawed the use of salting icy roads.(5) Among harmful effects, salt is toxic to the water and land.(5)
>
> The Office of Environment, Health and Safety, UC Berkeley, rates silver iodide as a Class C, non-soluble, inorganic, hazardous chemical that pollutes water and soil.(8) It has been found to be highly toxic to fish, livestock and humans.(6,7,8,9) Numerous medical articles demonstrate that humans absorb silver iodide through the lungs, nose, skin, and GI tract.(7,8,9) Mild toxicity can cause GI irritation, renal and pulmonary lesions, and mild argyria (blue or black discoloration of the skin). Severe toxicity can result in hemorrhagic gastroenteritis, shock, enlarged heart, severe argyria, and death by respiratory depression.(8)
>
>
> Moreover, a key manufacturer of silver iodide for weather modification, Deepwater Chemicals, warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet as follows:
>
> Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce "iodism", which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10)
>
> Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act by the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.(10) Some industries have learned this all too well.
>
> Obviously the cloud-after-cloud, year-after-year use of cloud seeding could lead to an insidious, cumulative effect. Especially when the same area is repeatedly seeded. If the toxicity manifests in pollution and illnesses, the effects may not be reversible. At this point, the PGCD monitoring of silver iodide toxicity is so small as to be nonexistent and flawed. C.E. Williams states, "water samples taken after rain from seeded clouds have revealed no silver iodide."(11) This is misleading.
>
> According to the PGCD, "Every year, two viable samples of rainwater must be sent to a laboratory for analysis and in return forwarded to TNRCC to ensure that the water is not contaminating the area."(4) This is faulty sampling and testing over a seven county area. If PGCD can not control where the seeded clouds dumps water, how can they take only two rain samples per year to test for silver concentrates of the clouds they seeded? At least it is an admission that silver toxicity is an issue. Such misleading statements based on faulty data are not uncommon to the PGCD. In 2001, rainfall amounts were grossly overinflated in multiple rain gauges.(2,11) Such overstatements are to prop up the benefits of their program while denying the adverse effects.
>
> To effectively monitor the levels of silver toxicity, at the very minimum, water samples should be taken on a monthly basis from every dam, creek, stock tank, and other water capture places in the respective district while cloud seeding is being conducted. Also, soil samples should taken. According to the Colorado National Park Service and the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, the result of cloud seeding with silver iodide and runoff have adverse effects on the water, soil, and flora and fauna. (7,9) "Elevated silver concentrations in biota occur in the vicinities of sewage outfalls, electroplating plants, mine waste sites, and silver iodide-seeded areas."(12) In fact, in the 1980s the CDC had hoped that silver toxicity would be reduced nationally based on a reduction of cloud seeding activity.(13)
>
> "Fallout from cloud seeding with silver iodide is not always confined to local precipitation; silver residuals have been detected several hundred kilometers downwind of seeding events."(7,13) "Anthropogenic sources associated with the elevated concentrations of silver in nonliving materials include smelting, hazardous waste sites, cloud seeding with silver iodide, metals mining, sewage outfalls, and especially the photoprocessing industry."(7,13) Silver leaches into groundwater, streams, soil, and the root systems of plants.(7,13)
>
> "Silver was measured in particular samples from rural and urban area both adjacent to and removed from activities such as metal smelting, refining, and silver iodide cloud seeding" and found "concentrations in precipitation resulting from seeding clouds with silver iodide were 10-450 ng/L compared with concentrations of 0-20ng/L without cloud seeding (Cooper and Jolly 1970)."(13) That translates in 10 to 225 times greater silver concentration in those areas.
>
> "The most likely sources of higher than background levels of silver for the general population are ingestion of contaminated food and drinking water (Letkiewicz et al. 1984)."(13) Additionally, "crops grown on soils with elevated silver concentrations or exposed to high ambient atmospheric concentration are likely to become enriched with silver (Ragaini et al. 1977; Ward et al., 1979)."(13)
>
> If the public is to allow the spreading of this toxic material on an experimental basis, monitoring should be required and published to protect the public health and private lands. The cloud seeding program is designed with the use of public money over private land without voter approval or landowners permission. If private land or public health is compromised, then the program should be held liable. In the past, a Texas rancher was able to stop cloud seeding over private land based on trespassing and nuisance law. However, there are greater issues at stake.
>
> The question is not that is cloud seeding harmful, but how harmful. It is obvious that it is significantly harmful. So far, programs such as PGCD have not provided effective monitoring and sampling to demonstrate that the silver concentrations in the water and soil caused by cloud seeding are at "safe levels." To test for silver in the water and soil, the methods are sophisticated and require the latest in technology, along with standards set by such agencies as the EPA.(7) Without such testing, such programs must be stopped immediately. There is too much at risk for their experimentation.
>
> http://ranches.org/experiment.htm (1)
>
> http://ranches.org/rainmaking_experiment_endangers.htm (2)
>
> http://webserv.chatsystems.com/~doswell/wxmod/wxmod.html (3)
>
> http://www.panhandlegroundwater.org/ (4)
>
> http://www.cerf.org/pdfs/reports/40410ch1.pdf (5)
>
> http://www.ehs.berkeley.edu/pubs/guidelines/draindispgls.html (6)
> http://www.nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/toxic//silver.pdf (7)
>
> http://www.silvermedicine.org/whosilvercompoundtoxicity.html (8)
>
> Amarillo Globe-News, Petition requests end to cloud seeding, by Rick Storm, December 26, 2002 (11)
>
> http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp146-c5.pdf (13)
>
> by
> Johnny Micou
>
> When studying the efficacy and consequences of cloud seeding experiments, the experimenters tend to be biased in saying cloud seeding with silver iodide enhances precipitation without negative consequences. However, much of the literature substantiates that not only does cloud seeding fail to achieve the desired effect, it also yields harmful consequences. Some of these consequences include rain suppression, flooding, tornadoes, and silver iodide toxicity. (1,2,3)
>
> The harm of rain suppression is obvious to everyone. For farmers and ranchers, this would mean no rain, no gain -- an economic loss. Losses would include poorer crop harvest, lack of range vegetation, and a loss of hunting lease income due to wildlife reduction. This is particularly true for ranches in western Potter County, an area PGCD has called "geographically handicapped."(2) Most ranchers and farmers do not choose to take the gamble on their land and livelihood based on experimentation.(1,2)
>
> The harmful effects of silver iodide are insidious.(3) Yet, according to the web site of the PGCD, the effects are so minimized that the following is stated: "The concentration of iodide in iodized salt used on food is far above the concentration found in rainwater from a seeded cloud."(4) In addition, in early December of 2002, at the Amarillo meeting jointly conducted by the Panhandle Groundwater and the North Plains Groundwater Conservation Districts, one representative stated that silver iodide was good for the heart. In a private conversation, another explained that silver miners live longer. Iodized salt may seem benign; however, some states such as Colorado have outlawed the use of salting icy roads.(5) Among harmful effects, salt is toxic to the water and land.(5)
>
> The Office of Environment, Health and Safety, UC Berkeley, rates silver iodide as a Class C, non-soluble, inorganic, hazardous chemical that pollutes water and soil.(8) It has been found to be highly toxic to fish, livestock and humans.(6,7,8,9) Numerous medical articles demonstrate that humans absorb silver iodide through the lungs, nose, skin, and GI tract.(7,8,9) Mild toxicity can cause GI irritation, renal and pulmonary lesions, and mild argyria (blue or black discoloration of the skin). Severe toxicity can result in hemorrhagic gastroenteritis, shock, enlarged heart, severe argyria, and death by respiratory depression.(8)
>
>
> Moreover, a key manufacturer of silver iodide for weather modification, Deepwater Chemicals, warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet as follows:
>
> Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce "iodism", which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10)
>
> Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act by the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.(10) Some industries have learned this all too well.
>
> Obviously the cloud-after-cloud, year-after-year use of cloud seeding could lead to an insidious, cumulative effect. Especially when the same area is repeatedly seeded. If the toxicity manifests in pollution and illnesses, the effects may not be reversible. At this point, the PGCD monitoring of silver iodide toxicity is so small as to be nonexistent and flawed. C.E. Williams states, "water samples taken after rain from seeded clouds have revealed no silver iodide."(11) This is misleading.
>
> According to the PGCD, "Every year, two viable samples of rainwater must be sent to a laboratory for analysis and in return forwarded to TNRCC to ensure that the water is not contaminating the area."(4) This is faulty sampling and testing over a seven county area. If PGCD can not control where the seeded clouds dumps water, how can they take only two rain samples per year to test for silver concentrates of the clouds they seeded? At least it is an admission that silver toxicity is an issue. Such misleading statements based on faulty data are not uncommon to the PGCD. In 2001, rainfall amounts were grossly overinflated in multiple rain gauges.(2,11) Such overstatements are to prop up the benefits of their program while denying the adverse effects.
>
> To effectively monitor the levels of silver toxicity, at the very minimum, water samples should be taken on a monthly basis from every dam, creek, stock tank, and other water capture places in the respective district while cloud seeding is being conducted. Also, soil samples should taken. According to the Colorado National Park Service and the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, the result of cloud seeding with silver iodide and runoff have adverse effects on the water, soil, and flora and fauna. (7,9) "Elevated silver concentrations in biota occur in the vicinities of sewage outfalls, electroplating plants, mine waste sites, and silver iodide-seeded areas."(12) In fact, in the 1980s the CDC had hoped that silver toxicity would be reduced nationally based on a reduction of cloud seeding activity.(13)
>
> "Fallout from cloud seeding with silver iodide is not always confined to local precipitation; silver residuals have been detected several hundred kilometers downwind of seeding events."(7,13) "Anthropogenic sources associated with the elevated concentrations of silver in nonliving materials include smelting, hazardous waste sites, cloud seeding with silver iodide, metals mining, sewage outfalls, and especially the photoprocessing industry."(7,13) Silver leaches into groundwater, streams, soil, and the root systems of plants.(7,13)
>
> "Silver was measured in particular samples from rural and urban area both adjacent to and removed from activities such as metal smelting, refining, and silver iodide cloud seeding" and found "concentrations in precipitation resulting from seeding clouds with silver iodide were 10-450 ng/L compared with concentrations of 0-20ng/L without cloud seeding (Cooper and Jolly 1970)."(13) That translates in 10 to 225 times greater silver concentration in those areas.
>
> "The most likely sources of higher than background levels of silver for the general population are ingestion of contaminated food and drinking water (Letkiewicz et al. 1984)."(13) Additionally, "crops grown on soils with elevated silver concentrations or exposed to high ambient atmospheric concentration are likely to become enriched with silver (Ragaini et al. 1977; Ward et al., 1979)."(13)
>
> If the public is to allow the spreading of this toxic material on an experimental basis, monitoring should be required and published to protect the public health and private lands. The cloud seeding program is designed with the use of public money over private land without voter approval or landowners permission. If private land or public health is compromised, then the program should be held liable. In the past, a Texas rancher was able to stop cloud seeding over private land based on trespassing and nuisance law. However, there are greater issues at stake.
>
> The question is not that is cloud seeding harmful, but how harmful. It is obvious that it is significantly harmful. So far, programs such as PGCD have not provided effective monitoring and sampling to demonstrate that the silver concentrations in the water and soil caused by cloud seeding are at "safe levels." To test for silver in the water and soil, the methods are sophisticated and require the latest in technology, along with standards set by such agencies as the EPA.(7) Without such testing, such programs must be stopped immediately. There is too much at risk for their experimentation.
>
> http://ranches.org/experiment.htm (1)
>
> http://ranches.org/rainmaking_experiment_endangers.htm (2)
>
> http://webserv.chatsystems.com/~doswell/wxmod/wxmod.html (3)
>
> http://www.panhandlegroundwater.org/ (4)
>
> http://www.cerf.org/pdfs/reports/40410ch1.pdf (5)
>
> http://www.ehs.berkeley.edu/pubs/guidelines/draindispgls.html (6)
> http://www.nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/toxic//silver.pdf (7)
>
> http://www.silvermedicine.org/whosilvercompoundtoxicity.html (8)
>
> Amarillo Globe-News, Petition requests end to cloud seeding, by Rick Storm, December 26, 2002 (11)
>
> http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp146-c5.pdf (13)
>
Nuclear Attacks On Planet Earth
How The World Nuked Itself Over 2,000 Times
06/20/2010 09:12 -0500
Who needs a wartime nuclear exchange when you have peaceful countries nuking the gamma rays out of their own sovereign territories - now that the environmental theme is rather popular, the following video by Isao Hashimoto shows all the nuclear "tests" conducted by the world in the period between 1945 and 1998. Based on public data, the world's peaceful countries have already nuked themselves at least 2,054 times, with the US nuking the state of Nevada and its immediate neighbors about one thousand times. And keep in mind - the fallout does not just miraculously "disappear." Feel free to consider that next time you look at bargain properties on the strip. Anyway, as Idealist.ws asks, "How would your life be different if you were taught in school a small nuclear war already took place?" One thing is certain - Congress would be stunned and appalled, and the disgraced CEO of Nukes R Us, Inc., who previously gave trillions in campaign contributions to every Congressional critter, would be facing a very unpleasant and theatrically televised day.
From a discussion on advanced fallout maps:
From a discussion on advanced fallout maps:
'Civilized countries' - that now form what we dub the 'nuclear club' - conducted over 2,000 nuclear blasts on the Earth, and these entities - the executioners of her slow death - vigorously deny any irreversible, incurable damage.
If you're looking for fallout maps, you won't find any such map here or anywhere that will satisfy your whim or sophisticated inquiry. Why? Because the executioners, to their best of their satisfactions, don't want you to see them. What you can and will see - if you seek it - are bits and pieces of the destruction: a high reading of radioactivity in wheat or milk here, of air over there, a trajectory map here, and a rare truthful analysis there. Put them together and you have what would happen in a small-but-non- mutually- destructive nuclear war (that we erringly refer simply to as the Cold War): the radioactive fallout circling - for eons - around the Earth and within her biosphere as a consequence of our historic, 'peaceful' tit-for-tat nuclear testing exchange is no different than the fallout in the event of an actual nuclear exchange had 400 or so atomic and hydrogen bombs fell only in remote regions of land and sea on the globe. How would your life be different if you were taught in school a small nuclear war already took place? How would that change the way you see your life and your health? Or your country or the world?
"Improving" The Cloudbuster
| The issue as I see it, is not if the cloudbuster can be improved or not, but if the operator can be improved. We do not need better equipment; what we need is more information on how the atmosphere functions and how to make better use of the equipment we have. A properly-trained surgeon, knowing the anatomy of the human body, can do surgery successfully with stone-age tools, but a person who does not know anatomy cannot do successful surgery with a modern, fully-equipped hospital operating room. Ideally, a full-scale training program for cloudbuster operators, comparable to medical school training required to practice medicine, would be a basic requirement to do cloudbusting. Many ideas have been proposed for "improvements" in the cloudbuster. Most of them seem to think that it could or should be made "more powerful". The idea that making the draw more "powerful" would be better is a fundamentally wrong one. The cloudbuster does not drag the air masses around by brute force. It draws only a very small portion of energy from a highly localized spot in the atmosphere, and the orgonomic potential is what does the rest. A stronger draw would not help anything. Anyone who claims to have a way to make the cloudbuster "more powerful" is simply displaying his authoritarianism. Such people should not do cloudbusting. The wish to "overpower" the atmosphere and FORCE it to do this or that is exactly the wrong way to go about cloudbusting. The response of the orgone atmosphere to cloudbusting is like an allergic reaction by the body. A very small grain of pollen can cause a very large man to convulse in a fit of sneezing. More pollen will not cause any more violent a sneeze. The reaction by the body is not in proportion to the stimulus. It is far greater than the mere amount of the stimulus would suggest. Cloudbusting can also be compared to sexual stroking and foreplay. Very gentle stroking at the right spot and at the right rate will accomplish the desired result far better than "powerful" rubbing will. In fact, the way a person behaves in bed with a lover is a prototype of the way that person will behave towards the atmosphere when doing cloudbusting. Someone who goes in for whips and chains in the bedroom will not be likely to show the proper respect and concern for the atmosphere when cloudbusting either. And the probable results will likewise be less than optimum. The usual "improvements" suggested for the cloudbuster generally fall into certain classes: the attachment of some electrical device to the cloudbuster, some form of geometrical shape, or some magnet, crystal, coil, or other attachment regarded as having some special properties. All of these suggestions show a lack of understanding of how a cloudbuster works. Any form of electrical stimulation of the field of the cloudbuster will cause a increase in the most popularized visual effect of a cloudbusting operation, the breaking up of clouds directly overhead. This impresses a lot of people who do not realize that breaking up clouds is not what a cloudbuster does. The name "cloudbuster" is highly misleading in this sense; it reflects the historical fact that that was the first effect noticed by Reich, but does not suggest to someone unfamiliar with that history the wide range of things a cloudbuster can do or how it does them. The expansion from over-excitation of the field of the cloudbuster is transferred to the atmosphere and causes an expansion of the atmosphere, breaking up clouds overhead. It also increases drought tendencies, and prevents the contraction phase of the pulsation of the atmosphere. If a drought tendency already exists, it will become worse and the continued operation of the cloudbuster will only prolong the drought. This has happened several times when the remote-controlled cloudbusters used by Blasband, DeMeo, and Eden were used in areas on the West Coast, where a chronic drought tendency exists. Blasband invented the idea of using 12-volt D.C. servomotors to move the pipes around from a safe distance to avoid the DOR that is attracted to the cloudbuster in a drought atmosphere from affecting the operator. It worked fine on the East Coast, where the atmosphere is much more moist and mobile, but on the drier West Coast, it only resulted in increased drought tendency. Electrical current, as produced by batteries or generators, is what Reich called "secondary energy", and any application of any form of secondary energy to the primary energy, the orgone, will have the same effects. It makes no difference what "voltage", what "amperage", or what "frequencies" or any other minor variation on the basic theme there may be, it is secondary energy, and therefor it will trigger a mild oranur effect. This mild oranur effect will normally be much less than the intense oranur effect caused by radioactive materials, but it is of the same basic nature. Trevor Constable and some others have sought to "improve" the basic cloudbuster design by incorporating various new-age junk like coils, magnets, pyramids, etc. into the design. So far, none of these innovations has really done anything much except confuse people who do not realize what it is that a cloudbuster is supposed to do. Constable himself did not really believe most of what he claimed in his promotional articles. He deliberately lied about how he got his results because he was mainly interested in commercializing cloudbusting, not in advancing scientific knowledge, and had a commercial motive to keep information secret so his prospective customers could not just go out and do it themselves instead of hiring him. Most of the "new, improved" designs he published photos of over the years were nothing but decoys, stage props intended to distract attention from how he was really getting his results. He would put on a show for his prospective customers with these props, while at some distance away, out of sight, an accomplice would be doing the actual cloudbusting with the original Reich-style equipment, at his directions, passed on by phone. I know this because it was my own idea, which I used in Australia and told him about when I got back from my expedition to Queensland. Later, when he started showing off his "new, improved" models of cloudbusting equipment, I recognized my own scam when I saw it. I later was able to confirm that by talking to an old farmer in Bakersfield, California, who told me he had operated some equipment for Trevor when Trevor had phoned and told him when to operate it and what direction to point it. When I asked him what the equipment looked like, he answered, "It was just some lengths of irrigation pipe stuck in a barrel of water with a hose going into it and the water overflowing". The use of fast-moving orgone accumulators, of whatever shape, on cars or airplanes, does have an effect on the atmosphere, and such fast-moving orgone concentrations do not need to be grounded to have an effect, but the effect of any ungrounded accumulating device will be only partial. It will stir up and break up a DOR barrier, true enough, but it still does not get rid of DOR as well as drawing it into a large body of moving water will. There are some situations where it might be helpful to break up a DOR blockage that way, but in other situations, it might be better to use water-grounding. Constable does not even mention DOR at all in any of his books or numerous articles because he thinks thinking about it causes it! He once told me Blasband was "socking in" the whole East Coast with DOR by worrying about it all the time! So when it comes to DOR-removal and what to do about DOR, we cannot expect to learn much from Constable. He won't even think about it for fear of attracting it. Again, we do not need to learn any more about how to construct cloudbusters. The original device works perfectly well enough. What is needed, what the direction of research ought to be, is learning more about how the atmosphere normally functions, how it malfunctions and how it reacts to the stimulus from a cloudbuster, in the context of how the orgone atmosphere reacts to any type of stimulus, not just from cloudbusting. When we know enough about the atmosphere, then we will be able to do whatever we need to do with a cloudbuster, without needing any "new, improved" models of equipment being operated by the same old, ignorant operators. |
Letter To An Ecologist
The following e-mail was sent to an ecologist I happened to meet, after a conversation which looked promising. While the organization involved turned out not to be interested, I am posting this letter here to illustrate there are circumstances and conditions under which I would consider conducting a major cloudbusting project and to show that I do not routinely and automaticly oppose all cloudbusting.
If a project were to be conducted by a non-profit organization with a specificly environmentally-based agenda, and under supervision of a qualified ecologist familiar with the region, I would find no reason to oppose it. The problems are from uninformed and essentially random cloudbusting by individuals unfamiliar with the potential ramifications of what they do. A professionally-advised and well-funded group effort by a responsible organization, in stark contrast to any project of which I am currently aware, would be of great benefit to this dying planet.
Hi, ..........!
It was really pleasant to meet you, even though it was only for such a short time, and I immediately kept my promise to send you a copy of my article criticizing the incompetent misuse of the cloudbuster by Dr. DeMeo and his associates, along with some other articles I thought you might be interested in, including an article giving the theoretical background to help you understand the cloudbuster.
It was really pleasant to meet you, even though it was only for such a short time, and I immediately kept my promise to send you a copy of my article criticizing the incompetent misuse of the cloudbuster by Dr. DeMeo and his associates, along with some other articles I thought you might be interested in, including an article giving the theoretical background to help you understand the cloudbuster.
I hope you have read the cloudbusting articles I sent you, as they will give you some idea of what I am going to say next is about.
I have now had a chance to take a look at your organizations' website, and I think it may be a fantastic stroke of good luck for both of us that we just happened to meet, even if only for such a short time.
I have now had a chance to take a look at your organizations' website, and I think it may be a fantastic stroke of good luck for both of us that we just happened to meet, even if only for such a short time.
I have had a cloudbusting project in mind for a long time, a properly done one, with an ecologist as part of the team from the very start of the planning process to avoid the sort of mistakes I have criticised some people for doing, and after seeing your website, it suddenly occured to me that your organization might be interested in it.
I will have to give it some more thought to decide exactly how to best present the idea, but if, after I send you an e-mail with the basic outline of the proposed project, you think your board of directors, or whoever is in charge of deciding such things, might go for it, I would be willing to go to London to talk to someone about it.
I will have to give it some more thought to decide exactly how to best present the idea, but if, after I send you an e-mail with the basic outline of the proposed project, you think your board of directors, or whoever is in charge of deciding such things, might go for it, I would be willing to go to London to talk to someone about it.
While I have been severely critical of some people who have engaged in cloudbusting without regard for the ecological ramifications, I do not oppose all cloudbusting; I do think it can be enormously helpful, in some cases, vitally necessary, if done properly, with due concern for the biological effects.
I do not think it would be a good thing for the environment to have cloudbusting exploited by commercial or agricultural interests, or taken up by governments with political agendas, but a non-profit with a specific mandate to give primacy to ecological interests, such as the one you work for, might be just what is needed to employ cloudbusters responsibly.
I do not think it would be a good thing for the environment to have cloudbusting exploited by commercial or agricultural interests, or taken up by governments with political agendas, but a non-profit with a specific mandate to give primacy to ecological interests, such as the one you work for, might be just what is needed to employ cloudbusters responsibly.
Especially in Africa, a well-conducted cloudbusting program could be the single most important project imaginable. If your organization decided to sponsor a project, I would be available to work on it.
Give me a week or two to work out exactly what to say and how to explain things, and then I will get back to you with a project outline. If you think it might be accepted, let me know and I will place a quick visit to England at the top of my itinerary.
I will also send you a lot more background information to familiarize yourself with the scientific principals behind the cloudbusting technology. Since I would want to have an ecologist on the project, it might as well be you.
Hope to see you again soon!
Joel
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Politicized Science
In case you ever need to argue against the prevailing scientific view, here is a good collection of evidence of how often politicized and corupted that scientific view may be.
The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science
| In recent years, scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific information. To document this abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists has created the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science. |
Pd is for Prairie Dogs
 |
From air pollution to Ground Zero, the A to Z Guide showcases dozens of examples of the misuse of science on issues like childhood lead poisoning, toxic mercury contamination, and endangered species. The United States government bears great responsibility for keeping our environment clean and Americans healthy and safe. And while science is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be objective and impartial. As the list of examples of political interference in science and the concern from government scientists grows, so has concern from the general public, public interest groups, members of Congress, and the media. Particular concern comes from the scientific community, as scientists know first hand that a strong investment in independent science has served as the foundation of American prosperity and contributed greatly to our quality of life. More than 15,000 of your scientist colleagues--including 52 Nobel Laureates--have spoken out against political interference; urge the president and Congress to restore scientific integrity to federal policy making. If you are a scientist, you can add your voice to the call right now. The A to Z Guide features examples of political interference in science from 2001 to 2008. Some of the examples are taken from two investigative reports issued in 2004. |
The Uselessness Of Argument
This article details some findings that might be of use to remember sometime:
When it comes to public issues pertaining to science and technology, "talking it out" doesn't seem to work. A new study from North Carolina State University shows that the more people discuss the risks and benefits associated with scientific endeavors, the more entrenched they become in their viewpoint – and the less likely they are to see the merit of other viewpoints. The researchers set out to see how people talk about risks associated with unfamiliar science and technology issues, Binder explains. "Most people, when faced with an issue related to science and technology, adopt an initial position of support or opposition," Binder says. "Our results demonstrate very clearly that the more people talk about divisive science and technology issues, the less likely the two camps are to see the issue in the same way. This is problematic because it suggests that individuals are very selective in choosing their discussion partners and hearing only what they want to hear during discussions of controversial issues." - Full Article Source
When it comes to public issues pertaining to science and technology, "talking it out" doesn't seem to work. A new study from North Carolina State University shows that the more people discuss the risks and benefits associated with scientific endeavors, the more entrenched they become in their viewpoint – and the less likely they are to see the merit of other viewpoints. The researchers set out to see how people talk about risks associated with unfamiliar science and technology issues, Binder explains. "Most people, when faced with an issue related to science and technology, adopt an initial position of support or opposition," Binder says. "Our results demonstrate very clearly that the more people talk about divisive science and technology issues, the less likely the two camps are to see the issue in the same way. This is problematic because it suggests that individuals are very selective in choosing their discussion partners and hearing only what they want to hear during discussions of controversial issues." - Full Article Source
Good Intentions
The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.
Albert Camus
Not all water shortages are due to DOR. We must always keep in mind that land-use policies are also a problem and there is little point in preserving the atmosphere if the land is to be devastated by ignorant uncaring humanity. In much of Africa, extensive over-grazing by cattle-raising tribes is the most important cause of expanding deserts. This group of well-meaning but ecologically uneducated meddlers is trying to help the cattle-raising savages to produce even more of their damned hoofed locusts to turn even more of Africa into a desert and drive away the remaining wildlife from even more of the few remaining water holes.
Below is a letter I wrote to one of these ignoramuses I had encountered:
Tuesday, June 1, 2010 11:49 AM
Albert Camus
Not all water shortages are due to DOR. We must always keep in mind that land-use policies are also a problem and there is little point in preserving the atmosphere if the land is to be devastated by ignorant uncaring humanity. In much of Africa, extensive over-grazing by cattle-raising tribes is the most important cause of expanding deserts. This group of well-meaning but ecologically uneducated meddlers is trying to help the cattle-raising savages to produce even more of their damned hoofed locusts to turn even more of Africa into a desert and drive away the remaining wildlife from even more of the few remaining water holes.
Below is a letter I wrote to one of these ignoramuses I had encountered:
Veterinaires Sans Frontieres A Menace to the Environment
Dear Ms......................,
After my conversation with you today, I read the Activity Report you gave me, and found it to be, as I had expected, totally anthropocentric in outlook. I am afraid it confirmed rather than alleviated my concerns about the short-sightedness and lack of ecological sophistication implied by a program that encourages cattle-raising in Africa. The practice of cattle-raising should be discouraged and phased out, not helped to continue to devastate Africa the way it has always done.
I found in your pamphlet no trace of concern for native species of animal life. No mention of any efforts being made to lessen the impact of cattle herds on wildlife population. No mention of any measures being undertaken to protect access to water sources for wildlife. No mention of restricting the numbers of cattle in an area to what the land can support. No mention of any concern that wild animals might be kept away from their only sources of water by herders who want to monopolize all available water for their cattle.
It seems not to have dawned upon the people in your organization that there is something much more important in Africa than humans and their cattle. There is a whole ecosystem there. An ecosystem that is the most diverse and biologically rich on earth. The same ecosystem, in fact, that created the human species among so many others. And unless the inherently highly destructive practice of raising cattle is reined in, it will not last another human generation. That would be a tragedy far greater than the mere economic displacement of a few cattle herders who would be far better served in any case by a program to re-train them for some other occupation that would be both better suited for their prosperity in the modern world and less destructive to the vital ecosystems of Africa.
You seemed in our short conversation to be unaware of the vast body of scientific and anthropological literature on the topic of biocentrism and the concept of Deep Ecology. That is not really surprising since most of the general public is unaware of those fields. But in the case of an activist who is working to promote programs you obviously believe and intend to be beneficial, it is dangerous in the extreme. I urge you to read up on the subject of Deep Ecology. You can find several books on it if you search the internet using search terms like "Deep Ecology", "biocentrism", and "restoration ecology".
I suggest reading Waste of the West, by Lynn Jacobs. It give a lot of scientific detail on the destructivness of cattle grazing to natural ecosystems.
If you really want to do something to help the humans of Africa, the most important thing you could do for them would be to promote birth control. Africa is drasticly over-populated and that is at the roots of all the other problems. Unless something is done to reduce the population, nothing else will help.
I urge you to re-think the long-term goals of your organization in light of the needs of all species, not just humans and their cattle. And please call this to the attention of your co-workers. If you have any further questions or comments, please let me know.
Sincerely,
After my conversation with you today, I read the Activity Report you gave me, and found it to be, as I had expected, totally anthropocentric in outlook. I am afraid it confirmed rather than alleviated my concerns about the short-sightedness and lack of ecological sophistication implied by a program that encourages cattle-raising in Africa. The practice of cattle-raising should be discouraged and phased out, not helped to continue to devastate Africa the way it has always done.
I found in your pamphlet no trace of concern for native species of animal life. No mention of any efforts being made to lessen the impact of cattle herds on wildlife population. No mention of any measures being undertaken to protect access to water sources for wildlife. No mention of restricting the numbers of cattle in an area to what the land can support. No mention of any concern that wild animals might be kept away from their only sources of water by herders who want to monopolize all available water for their cattle.
It seems not to have dawned upon the people in your organization that there is something much more important in Africa than humans and their cattle. There is a whole ecosystem there. An ecosystem that is the most diverse and biologically rich on earth. The same ecosystem, in fact, that created the human species among so many others. And unless the inherently highly destructive practice of raising cattle is reined in, it will not last another human generation. That would be a tragedy far greater than the mere economic displacement of a few cattle herders who would be far better served in any case by a program to re-train them for some other occupation that would be both better suited for their prosperity in the modern world and less destructive to the vital ecosystems of Africa.
You seemed in our short conversation to be unaware of the vast body of scientific and anthropological literature on the topic of biocentrism and the concept of Deep Ecology. That is not really surprising since most of the general public is unaware of those fields. But in the case of an activist who is working to promote programs you obviously believe and intend to be beneficial, it is dangerous in the extreme. I urge you to read up on the subject of Deep Ecology. You can find several books on it if you search the internet using search terms like "Deep Ecology", "biocentrism", and "restoration ecology".
I suggest reading Waste of the West, by Lynn Jacobs. It give a lot of scientific detail on the destructivness of cattle grazing to natural ecosystems.
If you really want to do something to help the humans of Africa, the most important thing you could do for them would be to promote birth control. Africa is drasticly over-populated and that is at the roots of all the other problems. Unless something is done to reduce the population, nothing else will help.
I urge you to re-think the long-term goals of your organization in light of the needs of all species, not just humans and their cattle. And please call this to the attention of your co-workers. If you have any further questions or comments, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Joel Carlinsky
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment