Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 27-07-2010

By Jameskeon

Some confusion for you…

  • Hot debate over cold fusion.
  • Freeman Dyson’s inconvenient climate views.
  • A neuroscientist imagines life beyond the brain.
  • The financial crisis and the scientific mindset.
  • Last few early humans survived in Eden.
  • ITER a costly joke with the punchline always 30 years away.
  • Good connection really does lead to mind meld.
  • The rise of the caring industry.
  • Is hidden fungus making you ill?
  • Cervical cancer virus found in head and neck cancers.
  • Galactic thunderbolts.
  • Where the Higgs is not.
  • Ancient skull suggests head reshaping practice.
  • China floods put pressure on Three Gorges Dam.

Quote of the Day:

To be great is to be misunderstood.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jameske
Related

9 Comments

  1. The Higgs
    I’m confused. How does the predicted GeV value for the Higgs Boson work out? Where one proton is one GeV but the particle within lays somewhere between 100-200. Is that due to the speed in which they are traveling? Interesting indeed, I’ll have to look up some info on their measuring techniques.

    1. I looked it up
      So I looked up GeV and went to the wikipedia page describing Electronvolts… Yeah I tried to get it but it goes a little to heavy into the world of theories and experience. Still confused how they get that value though.

  2. Climate Change – Hoax?
    I continually find it amazing and disingenuous the fear and loathing over the climate debate. Like all things today polarization and denigration are the only answers to legitimate questions raised. One example – is the question is global warming man-made or a natural rhythm of the planet/solar system? Clearly climates have been warming and cooling long before our industrial age so this is a legitimate question regarding the current change – yet it rarely is respected as one. If you question the proponents of the man-made crowd you are immediately ridiculed and labeled as favoring the destruction of the planet for corporate profit and are evil and stupid all at once. I remember all through the 1970’s the talk from the so-called experts was the fear of the coming ice age and starvation… Whether the current global warming is man-made or a natural cycle there is no question it has been co-opted by political activists and parties to further their agendas, hence the change in nomenclature from Global Warming to Climate Change just in case the climate reverses and starts cooling unpredictably – any change can be used to further a specific political agenda. And what agendas? One is the further erosion of freedoms and concentration of power and control in the hands of governments.

    The focus seems to be on carbon dioxide emissions, and yet it is well known Methane is far more problematic to a true global warming problem and yet ZERO effort is made in mitigating man-made methane – why? Because this has been co-opted for political purposes with little actual regard for the environment or outcome. The biggest man-made contributor to methane production I believe is the industrialization of farming and ranching, e.g. the industrial cattle, hog, etc. farms where cattle are fed corn instead of grass. The resulting damage to cattle’s digestive systems and health result in massive methane releases to the environment literally from there bowels yet this is never addressed. Why? Money, lobbying power, political influence! Do we forget how quickly Oprah Winfrey was silenced when she suggested the beef industry was responsible for “mad cow” disease through their disgusting practices of rendering downed cows into meat byproduct to be fed back to cows as cheap and fast fattening food?! Government subsidization of corn results in cheap food for cattle (and people), resulting in cheap and unhealthy beef, resulting in fat and unhealthy people resulting in our current epidemic of obesity and ill health, as well as massive releases of methane into the environment. Point is, man-made global warming may or may not currently exist and yet the debate as everything these days is so polarized, so bereft of intellectual sincerity, and so corrupted by self-serving agendas that any real discussion or solutions are likely and sadly hopeless…as the debate inevitably degenerates into name calling by impassioned proponents at the pleasure of corporate and political manipulators.

    1. quantity
      As we all know and Yosef Stalin said, quantity has a quality all it’s own.

      It is certainly true that methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. The amount of warming due to the various gases depends not only on who effective they are, but on how much of it there is.

      So the greatest amount of greenhouse warming is not from CO2 or methane, but from water vapor.

    2. F’n A
      Very nice write up, Sir. I too have a major issue with the global warming theories. First and foremost I’ve learn all too many times that lies and disinformation are rampant and nothing is scientifically proven until irrefutable evidence is put forth. Now of course it goes without saying that we as a race need to implement suffient and cleaner products for use and pratices. One interesting piece of info I picked up was from Carl Sagan, where he said that deforestation may be reversing(or nullify) dramatic climate change due to the dark light soaking forest being chopped down and in it’s wake a much lighter color terrain appears, not allowing as much light to be absorbed. Change will come in time, just a matter of when.

      1. F’n A – Reply
        Thanks for the compliment. I agree change needs to occur. I am all for implementing clean energy solutions – especially solar & hydrogen to diminish our dependence upon oil. The problem arises in that no comprehensive solution is available without a wholesale reevaluation of the whole industrial method of food production, manufacturing, etc… and these types of changes never occur proactively, only reactively. Governments by their very nature are bogged down by inefficiency, bureaucracy, and self-perpetuation. Therefore democratic societies take few risks in implementing change lest they upset the masses and are voted out of office, i.e. unless the change is to further secure their lock on power and the dependence of the constituency upon their services. I don’t believe the one (climate/environment) can be separated from the other (political agendas) in any discussion on the topic in its present condition.

        In popular science magazine sometime back I saw two different articles on waste plants that render all manner of trash – even toxic waste into usable byproducts. One converted them into oil, while the other converted them into hydrogen and an industrial slag/glass material – both with virtually no environmentally contaminating byproducts. Technologies such as these that solve multiple problems simultaneously are worth pursuing from a federal level if a true desire for solutions existed, however what we see in reality is inaction for the most part and where there is action it is manipulative to weaken political enemies/opponents, shore up political positions and secure power, and to enrich favored industries/corporations. I’ve analyzed myself to be a pessimist in human nature on the macro scale, while an optimist when it comes to individuals – result being little faith in the masses to wake up and cause political leaders to enact any true solutions.

        1. Hammerhead
          Absolutley 100% Agree! Unfortunately mankind has an extreme nack for exploitation, every-which-way we can exploit something we will. The lesson we have yet to learn(or forgotten) is disipline… when enough is enough. But that singular type of consciousness is far from fruition, not too far though. Your discussion raises so many valid points that they shadow almost every level of the democratic proccess and corruption involved(a lot of people can learn from what you said up there). My ideology wholly on mankind is optimistic but like you said, I lean towards individualism and subectivilty more so than society.

          I’ve had many conversations on the same material here, but, they end in the same way everytime… WTF can you do abou it? God I hate that. A quote my father always used “You can only drive as fast as the person in front of you.” which is old man thinking in my opinion but if holds any merit in this, then a good reply would be “Sounds like our Rational Rolls Royce needs to change lanes.”

          Edit: Forgot to mention, your nickname should be hammerhead… Cause you hit the nail right on the head 😀

  3. Atlantic Monthly article
    To me it seems the fundamental error underlying all the economic activity described is The Atlantic Monthly piece is the born and bred in America notion that real estate can only increase in value; never decrease. It became widely-accepted conventional wisdom that real estate was always a safe and good investment.

    This lunacy, which took hold of the American psyche (and has been exported to the rest of the world), flew directly in the face of the fact that America experienced what can only be described now as a “modest” string of financial institution failures as well as a devaluation of existing real estate in the late 1980s (I know, that might as well have been the Pleistocene for the predominant age group working in US financial services when the system broke down recently). I, for one was caught in the 80s devaluation and it took almost 10 years for the value of my home to return to its pre-crash level. We won’t talk about today’s value.

    I strongly believe that the recent bailout of US financial institutions was a terrible mistake that flies in the face of the real nature of capitalism. Socialism is definitely the right term to apply, but its socialism for the rich, given the salaries and bonuses in the financial sector, at the expense of the livelihoods of millions who were duped into believing you can’t lose money buying real estate so it’s safe to leverage yourself way beyond your means to do so.

    The blame for the current situation sits not only on the shoulders of the financial sector, but on those of real estate developers, a wide variety of building contractors, realtors (estate agents in some countries), and also, unfortunately, millions who foolishly bought into the notion one could get rich just by buying real estate.

    How bad did things get? In 2006, my then mid-twenties niece who at the time had never held a real job was pre-approved for a $500,000 mortgage by a US banking giant that has since gone the way of the dodo bird. Only after constant badgering from her friends and family did she abandon her notion of purchasing a luxury condo. Now it’s clear that mortgage pre-approval was a bellwether sounding an alarm that the system was hopelessly out of control and would soon crash.

    1. Some thoughts
      In general, land values will only increase in real terms when population rises. The problem lies in greed on the part of lenders (as well as everyone else). In recent years, as interest rates for mortgages dropped substantially, lenders greatly increased their loan volume and hiring. Then the rush from cheaper loans started to dry up. Instead of adjusting to a lower (normal) volume, insane efforts were made to keep the loans coming, the commissions paid, and the accounts padded. Everyone else was happy to go along.

      The trigger that actually did the system in was the spike in energy prices. The situation was similar, although less severe, in the ’80s. Energy goes up, costs go up, purchases go down, people lose jobs, the unemployed cannot pay mortgages.

      I am not minimizing the faults you point out. However, as long as money is decoupled from real value (gold standard) and energy is artificially manipulated (restricted U.S. production), these kind of disasters are inevitable. A fiat currency and credit economy leaves the people holding nothing.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.