principiascientificinternational--2020-06-22--750M Genetically modified mosquitoes to be released in Florida

750M Genetically modified mosquitoes to be released in Florida A plan to release genetically modified mosquitoes has been condemned as a ‘ Jurassic Park experiment ’ .
The insects , which have been bred by British-based biotechnology company Oxitec , have been designed to help reduce the mosquito population in the state and in so doing , reduce the risk of spreading deadly diseases such as West Nile virus and St. Louis encephalitis .
The key to the experiment lies in having the mosquitoes carry a certain protein which , when passed down to female offspring , will prove lethal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so by selectively reducing their numbers , scientists hope that the spread of disease will be massively reduced too .
Both the US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) and the Florida department of agriculture and consumer services have given the green light for scientists to proceed with the release of 750 million genetically modified insects in the Florida Keys , however conservation groups argue that the environmental impact of the scheme has not been properly assessed .
Describing the move as a “ Jurassic Park experiment ” , opponents of the scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that it could do serious damage to other species in the state .
“ What could possibly go wrong ?
” asked Jaydee Hanson , policy director for the International Center for Technology Assessment and Center for Food Safety .
“ We don ’ t know , because they unlawfully refused to seriously analyze environmental risks.
” Barry Wray , executive director of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition , was also critical .
“ People here in Florida do not consent to the genetically engineered mosquitoes or to being human experiments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

750M Genetically modified mosquitoes to be released in Florida
Written by The Guardian
A plan to release genetically modified mosquitoes has been condemned as a ‘Jurassic Park experiment’.
The insects, which have been bred by British-based biotechnology company Oxitec, have been designed to help reduce the mosquito population in the state and in so doing, reduce the risk of spreading deadly diseases such as West Nile virus and St. Louis encephalitis.
The key to the experiment lies in having the mosquitoes carry a certain protein which, when passed down to female offspring, will prove lethal. Only female mosquitoes actually bite, so by selectively reducing their numbers, scientists hope that the spread of disease will be massively reduced too.
Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Florida department of agriculture and consumer services have given the green light for scientists to proceed with the release of 750 million genetically modified insects in the Florida Keys, however conservation groups argue that the environmental impact of the scheme has not been properly assessed.
Describing the move as a “Jurassic Park experiment”, opponents of the scheme now intend to sue the EPA and argue that it could do serious damage to other species in the state.
“What could possibly go wrong ?” asked Jaydee Hanson, policy director for the International Center for Technology Assessment and Center for Food Safety.
“We don’t know, because they unlawfully refused to seriously analyze environmental risks.”
Barry Wray, executive director of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition, was also critical.
“People here in Florida do not consent to the genetically engineered mosquitoes or to being human experiments,” he said.
Read more at www.theguardian.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-23--YOUNG CHILDREN Used In U.K. COVID-19 Vaccine Trial

The University of Oxford ’ s Jenner Institute and Oxford Vaccine Group in the United Kingdom has announced that its researchers have begun recruiting children aged five to 12 years for phase II and phase III clinical trials testing an experimental COVID-19 vaccine the university is developing in partnership with AstraZeneca plc.1 Oxford ’ s ChAdOx1 nCov-19 ( “ chimpanzee adenovirus Oxford 1 ” novel coronavirus-19 ) recombinant vaccine is made from a genetically modified adenovirus that infects chimpanzees used as a viral vector into which the COVID-19 genome is inserted so the cells of the human body express the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ S ) and induce antibodies that are supposed to prevent infection.2 Some researchers have noted that , “ Viral vector-based vaccines require assessment of efficacy and safety , including immunogenicity , genetic stability , ability to evade pre-existing immunity , replication deficiency or attenuation , and genotoxicity.
” 3 Others have emphasized that the selection of an appropriate viral vector for a new vaccine depends upon “ a thorough knowledge of the infectious agent for which the viral-vectored vaccine is being developed.
” 4 There are gaps in scientific knowledge about the origin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mechanisms involved in the way it infects and causes disease in humans but , like most COVID-19 vaccines being fast tracked to licensure , the vaccine being created by Oxford/AstraZeneca is compressing clinical trials testing into months rather than years .
The phase I trial began in April when over 1,000 healthy adult volunteers received their experimental “ ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 ” vaccine .
Phase II expanded the age range to include those aged five to 12 years , 56 to 69 years , and those over age 70 to assess the immune response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ages and find out if the immune system responses of older people and children are different .
The phase III part of the study assesses how the vaccine works in a larger number of people over age 18 in terms of preventing infection and symptoms of COVID-19 .
In the U.K. , recruitment of children to participate in vaccine trials is usually done through doctors ’ offices and by health care workers .
The experimental vaccine being tested in clinical trials is often given at home and parents are asked to take regular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child ’ s reaction , with follow-up visits and blood tests.5 There is no financial incentive to join the vaccine trial , and parents can withdraw their child at any point .
The clinical trial team also gives the child participant other routine vaccinations during home visits for the length of the study.6 Personal benefit and contributing to “ the greater good ” are the two most common reasons parents cite for enrolling their children in vaccine trials , according to Shamez Ladhani , MRCPCH , PhD , a pediatric infectious disease consultant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London , and consultant epidemiologist for Public Health England .
He commented that , while there are risks , vaccine adverse reactions are rare—so much so that they often don ’ t get noticed until the vaccine goes on sale and is given to many more patients .
Dr. Ladhani , who is frequently involved in vaccine trials , said : Some side effects you actually don ’ t find out until you have given 100,000 doses—that ’ s always a worry—but there isn ’ t a clinical trial that ’ s big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear to be less affected by COVID-19 , although their role in transmission of the virus remains unclear .
In the U.S. , 1.7 percent of COVID-19 cases for which age was known occurred in children younger than 18 years , even though they make up 22 percent of the U.S. population.8 Additionally , relatively few children with COVID-19 are hospitalized , and fewer children than adults experience fever , cough , or shortness of breath .
Children May Or May Not Be Last To Get COVID-19 Vaccine As scientists race to develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that children could be among the last to be vaccinated.9 The process for testing a COVID-19 vaccine in children could take “ extra months and maybe years longer , ” according to Paul Duprex , PhD , Director of the Center for Vaccine Research and professor of microbiology and molecular genetics at the University of Pittsburgh .
However , Anthony Fauci , MD , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) and a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force , commented that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catch up ” to those in adults , if they are done correctly .
“ There is no reason not to believe that [ a vaccine ] wouldn ’ t be available simultaneously for adults and children , ” Dr. Fauci said.10 Duke University Professor Sallie Permar , MD , believes children are “ key ” to ending the COVID-19 pandemic and testing vaccines in children must be a priority because , “ If we prioritize children now in the steps we take to end this pandemic , we will protect them while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In USA Today , she recently advocated for experimental coronavirus vaccines to be tested in children once safety testing in adults is completed:11 Early trials of coronavirus vaccine safety and immune responses have excluded children .
Once safety testing is completed in adult volunteers , however , leading candidate vaccines should be tested for safety and effectiveness in children .
And once safety and efficacy are established , children should be among the first to receive the vaccine .
Throughout history , scientists have consistently found that infants and children are not simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and maturing immune systems function differently from adults,12 which is why pharmaceutical products are often studied separately in children and adults .
Already , scientists are pointing out differences in immune system responses by children to COVID-19 infections compared to responses by adults , who are at increased risk for complications.13 The University of Oxford and AstraZeneca researchers are proceeding with testing the experimental ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine in children , even though a May 13 , 2020 published report indicated that small trials of the vaccine in mice and monkeys were not successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the animal trials provided evidence that the experimental vaccine induced a “ robust humoral and cell mediated response ” in mice and appeared to protect against development of viral pneumonia in monkeys , it did not prevent infection with COVID-19.14 15 On June 5 , 2020 , Market Watch reported that AstraZeneca has begun manufacturing two billion doses of Oxford ’ s COVID-19 vaccine before clinical trials have been completed and results analyzed and published , reportedly in August .
AstraZeneca has received more than $ 1B in funding from the U.S. government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver 300 million doses to the U.S. , which will include a Phase 3 clinical trial in the U.S. this summer involving 30,000 volunteer participants.16 AstraZeneca has struck a $ 750 million agreement with backed by [ Bill ] Gates and his wife Melinda — the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi , the vaccine alliance—to provide and distribute 300 million doses fairly across the world .
AstraZeneca has also agreed to supply the Serum Institute of India with 1 billion doses for low and middle-income countries , with a commitment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020.17 The company has indicated that as many as 30 million doses could be available in Britain as early as September 2020 and the U.S. could begin receiving supplies of the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine as early as October.18 PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

YOUNG CHILDREN Used In U.K. COVID-19 Vaccine Trial
Written by Barbara Cáceres and Barbara Loe Fisher
The University of Oxford’s Jenner Institute and Oxford Vaccine Group in the United Kingdom has announced that its researchers have begun recruiting children aged five to 12 years for phase II and phase III clinical trials testing an experimental COVID-19 vaccine the university is developing in partnership with AstraZeneca plc.1
Oxford’s ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (“chimpanzee adenovirus Oxford 1” novel coronavirus-19) recombinant vaccine is made from a genetically modified adenovirus that infects chimpanzees used as a viral vector into which the COVID-19 genome is inserted so the cells of the human body express the new coronavirus’s Spike Protein (S) and induce antibodies that are supposed to prevent infection.2
Some researchers have noted that, “Viral vector-based vaccines require assessment of efficacy and safety, including immunogenicity, genetic stability, ability to evade pre-existing immunity, replication deficiency or attenuation, and genotoxicity.”3
Others have emphasized that the selection of an appropriate viral vector for a new vaccine depends upon “a thorough knowledge of the infectious agent for which the viral-vectored vaccine is being developed.”4
There are gaps in scientific knowledge about the origin of the new coronavirus and the biological mechanisms involved in the way it infects and causes disease in humans but, like most COVID-19 vaccines being fast tracked to licensure, the vaccine being created by Oxford/AstraZeneca is compressing clinical trials testing into months rather than years.
Phase I, II, III Clinical Trials Of Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Held Simultaneously
The phase I trial began in April when over 1,000 healthy adult volunteers received their experimental “ChAdOx1 nCoV-19” vaccine.
Phase II expanded the age range to include those aged five to 12 years, 56 to 69 years, and those over age 70 to assess the immune response to the vaccine in people of different ages and find out if the immune system responses of older people and children are different.
The phase III part of the study assesses how the vaccine works in a larger number of people over age 18 in terms of preventing infection and symptoms of COVID-19.
In the U.K., recruitment of children to participate in vaccine trials is usually done through doctors’ offices and by health care workers.
The experimental vaccine being tested in clinical trials is often given at home and parents are asked to take regular temperature readings and a diary of their child’s reaction, with follow-up visits and blood tests.5
There is no financial incentive to join the vaccine trial, and parents can withdraw their child at any point. The clinical trial team also gives the child participant other routine vaccinations during home visits for the length of the study.6
Vaccine Trials Don’t Pick Up All Side Effects
Personal benefit and contributing to “the greater good” are the two most common reasons parents cite for enrolling their children in vaccine trials, according to Shamez Ladhani, MRCPCH, PhD, a pediatric infectious disease consultant at St. George’s Hospital in London, and consultant epidemiologist for Public Health England.
He commented that, while there are risks, vaccine adverse reactions are rare—so much so that they often don’t get noticed until the vaccine goes on sale and is given to many more patients.
Dr. Ladhani, who is frequently involved in vaccine trials, said:
Some side effects you actually don’t find out until you have given 100,000 doses—that’s always a worry—but there isn’t a clinical trial that’s big enough that can pick that up.7
Children appear to be less affected by COVID-19, although their role in transmission of the virus remains unclear. In the U.S., 1.7 percent of COVID-19 cases for which age was known occurred in children younger than 18 years, even though they make up 22 percent of the U.S. population.8
Additionally, relatively few children with COVID-19 are hospitalized, and fewer children than adults experience fever, cough, or shortness of breath.
Children May Or May Not Be Last To Get COVID-19 Vaccine
As scientists race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, some are acknowledging that children could be among the last to be vaccinated.9
The process for testing a COVID-19 vaccine in children could take “extra months and maybe years longer,” according to Paul Duprex, PhD, Director of the Center for Vaccine Research and professor of microbiology and molecular genetics at the University of Pittsburgh.
However, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, commented that it’s possible that studies in children might “catch up” to those in adults, if they are done correctly.
“There is no reason not to believe that [a vaccine] wouldn’t be available simultaneously for adults and children,” Dr. Fauci said.10
Duke University Professor Sallie Permar, MD, believes children are “key” to ending the COVID-19 pandemic and testing vaccines in children must be a priority because,
“If we prioritize children now in the steps we take to end this pandemic, we will protect them while protecting all members of our community.”
In USA Today, she recently advocated for experimental coronavirus vaccines to be tested in children once safety testing in adults is completed:11
Early trials of coronavirus vaccine safety and immune responses have excluded children. Once safety testing is completed in adult volunteers, however, leading candidate vaccines should be tested for safety and effectiveness in children. And once safety and efficacy are established, children should be among the first to receive the vaccine.
Throughout history, scientists have consistently found that infants and children are not simply small adults. Children’s bodies and maturing immune systems function differently from adults,12 which is why pharmaceutical products are often studied separately in children and adults.
Already, scientists are pointing out differences in immune system responses by children to COVID-19 infections compared to responses by adults, who are at increased risk for complications.13
Oxford’s COVID-19 Animal Trials Failed But Manufacturing Ramps Up
The University of Oxford and AstraZeneca researchers are proceeding with testing the experimental ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine in children, even though a May 13, 2020 published report indicated that small trials of the vaccine in mice and monkeys were not successful in proving effectiveness against infection.
Although the animal trials provided evidence that the experimental vaccine induced a “robust humoral and cell mediated response” in mice and appeared to protect against development of viral pneumonia in monkeys, it did not prevent infection with COVID-19.14 15
On June 5, 2020, Market Watch reported that AstraZeneca has begun manufacturing two billion doses of Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine before clinical trials have been completed and results analyzed and published, reportedly in August.
AstraZeneca has received more than $1B in funding from the U.S. government to accelerate development of its vaccine and deliver 300 million doses to the U.S., which will include a Phase 3 clinical trial in the U.S. this summer involving 30,000 volunteer participants.16
According to Market Watch:
AstraZeneca has struck a $750 million agreement with two health organizations backed by [Bill] Gates and his wife Melinda — the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi, the vaccine alliance—to provide and distribute 300 million doses fairly across the world.
AstraZeneca has also agreed to supply the Serum Institute of India with 1 billion doses for low and middle-income countries, with a commitment to provide 400 million before the end of 2020.17
The company has indicated that as many as 30 million doses could be available in Britain as early as September 2020 and the U.S. could begin receiving supplies of the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine as early as October.18
Read more at: TheVaccineReaction.org
***
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-23--COVID19: The difference between the Virus and the Disease

COVID19 : The difference between the Virus and the Disease The Mainstream media and therefore the general public have some misconceived notions about the current pandemic often referred to as COVID-19 .
This document offers an explanation for the Medical Professionals , Mainstream Media , and the general public to clear up the issues surrounding the pandemic .
The Virus SARS-CoV-2 is ‘ Novel ’ meaning it has not been seen before and is rather an unknown quantity .
There is much debate about its origin into which very technical discussions regarding its Genome and possible lineage are being investigated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germ Theory , the Virus when encountered by Humans tries to find a location for itself a suitable place where it can multiply .
In the theory all viruses are claimed to do that , they can not replicate outside a host medium , be that a live specimen , or in a specialized petri dish .
The virus SARS-CoV-2 finds and can attach itself to the human ACE2 receptor which is present in vast numbers on the outside of cells of many human organs .
This is the first oversight of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are many ways that any virus can enter the human body .
Infectious DISEASES like Influenza are THOUGHT to be exclusively spread by aerosol contact , breathing in virus laden air expelled by an existing and infectious host .
The Disease labelled COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused when the virus enters the human lungs ( Alveolar ) and lodges there to replicate .
The effects are the same as with the start of an influenza infection , but take longer to progress and can and do become very serious in some people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by , but there is anecdotal evidence of people getting digestive disorders as early symptoms , they do not express the flu like symptoms .
They sometimes get those later , MUCH later !
This brings me to the recent information out of China regarding the recent outbreak in Beijing and the virus being found on the preparation boards used to process Salmon !
Now some old history , in 1948 I contracted Polio , spent 6 weeks in hospital , the local outbreak was traced to the local swimming pool , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular , but the epicentre of the local cluster of polio sufferers .
The Polio Virus was found to be in the often very wet wooden laths that made the changing room benches .
Those benches were removed and replaced with metal ones there was some serious disinfections used and the outbreak wound down and stopped .
Do you see the reason for this history lesson , Wet or damp Wood can sustain viral loads for some longer time than virus particles as an aerosol , Plastic preparation boards are not much better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their once smooth surfaces .
This then suggest rather strongly that the virus was being carried around upon the prepared food that did NOT require cooking !
From a newly infectious host to the food preparation board and from there to the prepared food .
It is highly probable that the infection is expelled by infected host with the COVID-19 disease .
The virus entered the new host via the mouth and lodged in the gut where it found ACE2 receptors on cells in which to reside and replicate .
The Hosts auto-immune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level war against this invader and a long incubation period occurs until the virus , note it is NOT COVID-19 at this time , overcomes some cells and releases its new cohorts some of which enter the blood stream and these can then find their way into the hosts lungs and become a COVID-19 infection .
Once into the blood stream the virus can lodge in any convenient ACE2 receptor on any cell in the human body .
In this way the original Virus infection may visit several organs before reaching the lungs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Gut can slowly spread into other organs before reaching the lungs and causing the flu like symptoms .
During the initial 14 day quarantine the virus replicates in the gut eventually spreading to secondary organs where it also takes 14 day to mature to replication state .
This is probably good news in as much that only when the virus reaches the hosts lungs and after an incubation period become infectious via aerosol ’ s expelled by coughs and sneezes .
It is bad news regarding quantifying the true time period between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silent long incubation period answers many of the puzzles around SARS-COV-2 infections and tests that show positive from Asymptomatic hosts long after period of quarantine like the Essendon Footballer in Australia .
It would therefore seem that mandatory testing and repeat testing of everyone is required of those who had contact with other hosts .
It also raised the question of cold foods that come in wet or damp containers and prepared outside the home .
There is then the rather large problem of where the other freshly minted Gut Virus cohort goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where there are many nutrients and possible hosts .
A task being investigated by some .
Names will be needed for diseases in hosts who have SARS-COV-2 infections in other organs as there are many that have the ACE2 receptor as part of their cell make-up .
But then again , the above may not apply for those who believe the competing theory on viruses .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

COVID19: The difference between the Virus and the Disease
Written by Michael Clarke
The Mainstream media and therefore the general public have some misconceived notions about the current pandemic often referred to as COVID-19. This document offers an explanation for the Medical Professionals, Mainstream Media, and the general public to clear up the issues surrounding the pandemic.
The Virus SARS-CoV-2 is ‘Novel’ meaning it has not been seen before and is rather an unknown quantity. There is much debate about its origin into which very technical discussions regarding its Genome and possible lineage are being investigated vigorously elsewhere.
According to the consensus Germ Theory, the Virus when encountered by Humans tries to find a location for itself a suitable place where it can multiply. In the theory all viruses are claimed to do that, they cannot replicate outside a host medium, be that a live specimen, or in a specialized petri dish.
The virus SARS-CoV-2 finds and can attach itself to the human ACE2 receptor which is present in vast numbers on the outside of cells of many human organs. This is the first oversight of the Medical profession. In Germ Theory there are many ways that any virus can enter the human body. Infectious DISEASES like Influenza are THOUGHT to be exclusively spread by aerosol contact, breathing in virus laden air expelled by an existing and infectious host.
The Disease labelled COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused when the virus enters the human lungs (Alveolar) and lodges there to replicate. The effects are the same as with the start of an influenza infection, but take longer to progress and can and do become very serious in some people.
Now information is hard to come by, but there is anecdotal evidence of people getting digestive disorders as early symptoms, they do not express the flu like symptoms. They sometimes get those later, MUCH later!
This brings me to the recent information out of China regarding the recent outbreak in Beijing and the virus being found on the preparation boards used to process Salmon!
Now some old history, in 1948 I contracted Polio, spent 6 weeks in hospital, the local outbreak was traced to the local swimming pool, the only one for miles around and very popular, but the epicentre of the local cluster of polio sufferers. The Polio Virus was found to be in the often very wet wooden laths that made the changing room benches. Those benches were removed and replaced with metal ones there was some serious disinfections used and the outbreak wound down and stopped.
Do you see the reason for this history lesson, Wet or damp Wood can sustain viral loads for some longer time than virus particles as an aerosol, Plastic preparation boards are not much better and become criss-crossed with grooves made into their once smooth surfaces.
This then suggest rather strongly that the virus was being carried around upon the prepared food that did NOT require cooking! From a newly infectious host to the food preparation board and from there to the prepared food. It is highly probable that the infection is expelled by infected host with the COVID-19 disease.
The virus entered the new host via the mouth and lodged in the gut where it found ACE2 receptors on cells in which to reside and replicate. The Hosts auto-immune system would soon be waging a low level war against this invader and a long incubation period occurs until the virus, note it is NOT COVID-19 at this time, overcomes some cells and releases its new cohorts some of which enter the blood stream and these can then find their way into the hosts lungs and become a COVID-19 infection.
Once into the blood stream the virus can lodge in any convenient ACE2 receptor on any cell in the human body. In this way the original Virus infection may visit several organs before reaching the lungs. Thus, the original infection in the Gut can slowly spread into other organs before reaching the lungs and causing the flu like symptoms.
During the initial 14 day quarantine the virus replicates in the gut eventually spreading to secondary organs where it also takes 14 day to mature to replication state.
This is probably good news in as much that only when the virus reaches the hosts lungs and after an incubation period become infectious via aerosol’s expelled by coughs and sneezes. It is bad news regarding quantifying the true time period between original infection and being infectious.
This silent long incubation period answers many of the puzzles around SARS-COV-2 infections and tests that show positive from Asymptomatic hosts long after period of quarantine like the Essendon Footballer in Australia.
It would therefore seem that mandatory testing and repeat testing of everyone is required of those who had contact with other hosts. It also raised the question of cold foods that come in wet or damp containers and prepared outside the home.
There is then the rather large problem of where the other freshly minted Gut Virus cohort goes, out and into the sewerage system where there are many nutrients and possible hosts. A task being investigated by some.
A monumentally difficult task.
Names will be needed for diseases in hosts who have SARS-COV-2 infections in other organs as there are many that have the ACE2 receptor as part of their cell make-up.
But then again, the above may not apply for those who believe the competing theory on viruses.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-23--Dr. Andrew Kaufman Destroys Reuters COVID-19 ‘Fact Check’

In this must see report , Dr Kaufman responds to the Reuters ‘ fact checking ’ report .
Dr. Andrew @ @ @ @ @ Genetically Modify Us With The COVID-19 Vaccine ( Updated ) Antisperm Contraceptive Vaccines : Where @ @ @ @ @ are going ?
The HSD-hCG Vaccine Prevents Pregnancy in Women : Feasibility Study of a @ @ @ @ @ Bar Group Calls for ‘ Mandatory ’ COVID-19 Vaccinations , Regardless of Objections AstraZeneca CEO @ @ @ @ @ will protect for just one year New COVID-19 restrictions will be needed for anti-vaxxers Colorado @ @ @ @ @ ” Classes for Parents Who Refuse Coronavirus Vaccine Among Americans who say they wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ in 10 worry about safety There appears to be a coronavirus vaccine on the horizon—but @ @ @ @ @ and the FDA would need to approve testing GMO tomato as edible COVID vaccine ?
@ @ @ @ @ it a reality

In this must see report, Dr Kaufman responds to the Reuters ‘fact checking’ report. Dr. Andrew Kaufman: They Want To Genetically Modify Us With The COVID-19 Vaccine (Updated)
Antisperm Contraceptive Vaccines: Where we are and where we are going?
The HSD-hCG Vaccine Prevents Pregnancy in Women: Feasibility Study of a Reversible Safe Contraceptive Vaccine
State Bar Group Calls for ‘Mandatory’ COVID-19 Vaccinations, Regardless of Objections
AstraZeneca CEO Soriot says fast-tracked COVID-19 shot will protect for just one year
New COVID-19 restrictions will be needed for anti-vaxxers
Colorado Bill Would Require “Re-Education” Classes for Parents Who Refuse Coronavirus Vaccine
Among Americans who say they wouldn’t get vaccinated, 7 in 10 worry about safety
There appears to be a coronavirus vaccine on the horizon—but it’s a GMO and the FDA would need to approve testing
GMO tomato as edible COVID vaccine? Mexican scientists work to make it a reality


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-23--Failed Pandemic Models No Better Than Climate Forecasts

Failed Pandemic Models No Better Than Climate Forecasts Tony Abbott ’ s suspicion that climate change modeling was “ absolute crap ” soon will resonate more broadly — so spectacularly bad was expert modeling of the spread and lethality of the coronavirus , faith in all modeling must surely suffer .
Why trust the experts to forecast the climate decades into the future when they were so wrong about a disease related to the common cold ?
Official coronavirus and climate change modeling share catastrophic predictions .
Unfortunately for virus modelers , reality dawned a lot sooner and it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic has damaged the credibility of “ experts ” and highlighted the limits of “ the science ” and the misplaced hubris of the political class .
On whatever measure you choose — deaths , infections , rate of transmission — the epidemiological models that convinced governments to take a sledgehammer to their economies , now mired in unrest , have proved scandalously pessimistic and out by orders of magnitude .
We were told the virus ’ s spread would be “ exponential ” .
It wasn ’ t ; transmission was falling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people .
The infection fatality rate , we were told , would be about 1 percent ; it ’ s closer to 0.2 percent , akin to severe flu .
Apparently , lifting lockdowns early would see cases surge ; they haven ’ t .
And we were all vulnerable — but most weren ’ t ; the median age of death is well over 80 .
Driving is more dangerous .
At least half of deaths globally have been in aged-care homes , which were already locked down .
We understood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .
We closed schools and wore masks , but the evidence we needed to do so is scant .
The raw numbers speak for themselves .
The death toll globally is on track to be smaller than the flu pandemics of the 1950s and 60s , when the world ’ s population was less than half that today .
Indeed , if you put the number of global deaths last year , this year , and next year ( about 60 million each year ) on a simple column chart you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 .
Future historians will be shocked at the disproportionate response .
At least they will chuckle at SAGE , the acronym for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies , the expert panel advising the British government , which has presided over the worst performance of any country .
But it wasn ’ t only the British .
Experts in Sweden warned 100,000 would die by June if it didn ’ t lockdown as the rest of Europe had yet fewer than 5,000 were lost .
Experts said 420,000 might die in Japan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 950 did .
Our own experts at the Doherty Institute said 5000 intensive care unit beds would be required , even with strict isolation and social distancing ; fewer than 50 were needed .
For anyone here who is worried about the second wave of COVID-19 , we ’ re still waiting on the first one .
Climate modeling was struggling even before the pandemic , given the planet has warmed about half as much as forecast by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in back 1990 .
“ Almost the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on model predictions .
If you just look at the last 30 to 40 years of data , nothing spectacular has happened , there ’ s no sign temperature increase is accelerating , ” says Benny Peiser , founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London .
It ’ s remarkable we put so much faith in expert models , given their history of failure .
The Club of Rome in 1972 notoriously forecast that growth would collapse as the world ’ s resources ran out , ignoring human ingenuity and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account for — indeed they probably facilitated — the global financial crisis .
And as almost every utterance by a central bank governor since has reminded us , economists struggle to know what happened last month , let alone forecast the impact of a policy change tomorrow .
In the late 1990s , models suggested the entire Great Barrier Reef would bleach every year by 2020 , but in the last 15 years parts of the reef have bleached on only three occasions , with each event affecting only one-third of the reef @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former professor of James Cook University .
In the last 15 years , parts of the Great Barrier reef have bleached on only three occasions .
It ’ s remarkable we put so much faith in climate modeling , given it is a far more complex task .
“ Climate sensitivity ” — the size and speed of the response of global temperatures to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — is harder to predict than a spreading virus .
Even if we knew it , drawing implications about future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The big mistake that ’ s clearly been made is the failure to systematically appraise the models that underpin policy with actual data , ” notes Gordon Hughes , a former professor of economics at the University of Edinburgh , speaking on a panel about the pitfalls of mathematical modeling last month .
By April , we knew the coronavirus was not as dangerous as feared yet modelers and governments doubled down on the catastrophe narrative .
It ’ s almost July and people in our capitals are wearing masks in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hysteria next time ?
It won ’ t be easy .
All the incentives are stacked in favor of dodgy doomsday modeling ; apocalyptic scenarios allow politicians to increase their power and appear caring .
Public health experts enjoy more prestige .
And some of the media naturally prefer models with horrifying forecasts to draw eyeballs .
Humans have a natural tendency to focus on extremes — what psychologists call a “ negativity bias ” .
Models are almost cartoons , highly simplified versions of reality .
History has proved a better guide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pity we ’ re wasting resources on a royal commission into the bushfires .
How and why authorities have overreacted so much , and how we can avoid doing so again , would be a better line of inquiry .
Read more at The Australian PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Failed Pandemic Models No Better Than Climate Forecasts
Written by Adam Creighton
Tony Abbott’s suspicion that climate change modeling was “absolute crap” soon will resonate more broadly — so spectacularly bad was expert modeling of the spread and lethality of the coronavirus, faith in all modeling must surely suffer.
Why trust the experts to forecast the climate decades into the future when they were so wrong about a disease related to the common cold?
Official coronavirus and climate change modeling share catastrophic predictions. Unfortunately for virus modelers, reality dawned a lot sooner and it has delivered an F for fail.
The pandemic has damaged the credibility of “experts” and highlighted the limits of “the science” and the misplaced hubris of the political class.
On whatever measure you choose — deaths, infections, rate of transmission — the epidemiological models that convinced governments to take a sledgehammer to their economies, now mired in unrest, have proved scandalously pessimistic and out by orders of magnitude.
We were told the virus’s spread would be “exponential”. It wasn’t; transmission was falling before mandatory lockdowns scared the daylights out of people.
The infection fatality rate, we were told, would be about 1 percent; it’s closer to 0.2 percent, akin to severe flu. Apparently, lifting lockdowns early would see cases surge; they haven’t.
And we were all vulnerable — but most weren’t; the median age of death is well over 80. Driving is more dangerous.
At least half of deaths globally have been in aged-care homes, which were already locked down. We understood you could catch COVID-19 again — also wrong. We closed schools and wore masks, but the evidence we needed to do so is scant.
The raw numbers speak for themselves. The death toll globally is on track to be smaller than the flu pandemics of the 1950s and 60s, when the world’s population was less than half that today.
Indeed, if you put the number of global deaths last year, this year, and next year (about 60 million each year) on a simple column chart you’ll struggle to see the impact of COVID-19.
Future historians will be shocked at the disproportionate response. At least they will chuckle at SAGE, the acronym for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the expert panel advising the British government, which has presided over the worst performance of any country.
But it wasn’t only the British. Experts in Sweden warned 100,000 would die by June if it didn’t lockdown as the rest of Europe had yet fewer than 5,000 were lost. Experts said 420,000 might die in Japan without a hard lockdown. Fewer than 950 did.
Our own experts at the Doherty Institute said 5000 intensive care unit beds would be required, even with strict isolation and social distancing; fewer than 50 were needed. For anyone here who is worried about the second wave of COVID-19, we’re still waiting on the first one.
Climate modeling was struggling even before the pandemic, given the planet has warmed about half as much as forecast by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in back 1990.
“Almost the entire alarm about global warming is based on model predictions. If you just look at the last 30 to 40 years of data, nothing spectacular has happened, there’s no sign temperature increase is accelerating,” says Benny Peiser, founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London.
It’s remarkable we put so much faith in expert models, given their history of failure. The Club of Rome in 1972 notoriously forecast that growth would collapse as the world’s resources ran out, ignoring human ingenuity and the shale revolution.
Financial models failed to account for — indeed they probably facilitated — the global financial crisis. And as almost every utterance by a central bank governor since has reminded us, economists struggle to know what happened last month, let alone forecast the impact of a policy change tomorrow.
In the late 1990s, models suggested the entire Great Barrier Reef would bleach every year by 2020, but in the last 15 years parts of the reef have bleached on only three occasions, with each event affecting only one-third of the reef,” says physicist Peter Ridd, a former professor of James Cook University.
In the last 15 years, parts of the Great Barrier reef have bleached on only three occasions.
It’s remarkable we put so much faith in climate modeling, given it is a far more complex task. “Climate sensitivity” — the size and speed of the response of global temperatures to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — is harder to predict than a spreading virus.
Even if we knew it, drawing implications about future economic growth are even more heroic.
“The big mistake that’s clearly been made is the failure to systematically appraise the models that underpin policy with actual data,” notes Gordon Hughes, a former professor of economics at the University of Edinburgh, speaking on a panel about the pitfalls of mathematical modeling last month.
By April, we knew the coronavirus was not as dangerous as feared yet modelers and governments doubled down on the catastrophe narrative. It’s almost July and people in our capitals are wearing masks in their own cars.
How can we avoid hysteria next time? It won’t be easy. All the incentives are stacked in favor of dodgy doomsday modeling; apocalyptic scenarios allow politicians to increase their power and appear caring.
Public health experts enjoy more prestige. And some of the media naturally prefer models with horrifying forecasts to draw eyeballs.
Humans have a natural tendency to focus on extremes — what psychologists call a “negativity bias”. Models are almost cartoons, highly simplified versions of reality. History has proved a better guide to the future.
It’s a pity we’re wasting resources on a royal commission into the bushfires. How and why authorities have overreacted so much, and how we can avoid doing so again, would be a better line of inquiry.
Read more at The Australian
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-23--Study: Natural Variability Explains West Antarctic Warming

Ten days ago the journal Science issued an embargoed press release about a forthcoming paper that suggested the warming observed in West Antarctica was due to natural climatic variability .
West Antarctica has always been looked on by alarmists as being the southern example of polar temperature amplification – a phenomenon predicted by most climate change models .
The Arctic temperature amplification is very apparent so there must be an Antarctic equivalent , and there it is .
But while scientists have been well aware that Antarctica is warming asymmetrically , with West Antarctica experiencing more than East Antarctica and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underlying causes of this phenomenon have been poorly understood , and the suggestion that West Antarctica may be experiencing natural warming has been suggested before though not taken up very enthusiastically , if at all .
This new paper , “ The internal origin of the west-east asymmetry of Antarctic climate change ” , expresses the dilemma well .
In explaining the asymmetry , it suggests factors such as atmosphere-ocean feedbacks along the coast of West Antarctica and the shape of the Antarctic terrain combine to create a pattern of upper troposphere circulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite to the Earth ’ s rotation .
They add that the consistent pattern of warmer sea surface temperatures over the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Antarctic seas suggests that regional sea surface temperature anomalies around Antarctica are a driving factor behind the continent ’ s asymmetrical warming .
Paleoclimate datasets revealed variability in surface air temperatures spanning multiple decades , suggesting climate fluctuations in the tropics , such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation , may also contribute to the discrepancies in warming rates between both subcontinents .
Overall , it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region ’ s ice decline leading to present and future sea-level change .
But unless you look at two or three specialized outlets you won ’ t have heard about it .
The embargoed information from the Science journal is normally released four days before the embargo is lifted on Thursday evening UK time .
Thousands of journalists around the world see it as Science along with Nature are the world ’ s leading science journals .
So why is it that no mainstream news media covered this important story ?
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other pressing environment stories to eclipse it .
What it demonstrates is the asymmetry in environment and science reporting .
If the story confirms the dire news that anthropogenic climate change affects everything and is visible anywhere it ’ s much more likely to be trumpeted by the mainstream media than if it explains some of the climatic changes we see is due to mother nature .
Not every change we see is attributable to human influence .
We still have to deal with the consequences .
Accurate knowledge is the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand the cause of particular climatic changes we will waste a lot of time and effort combatting things we never caused and have no power to influence .
Read more at the GWPF PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Study: Natural Variability Explains West Antarctic Warming
Written by Dr David Whitehouse
Ten days ago the journal Science issued an embargoed press release about a forthcoming paper that suggested the warming observed in West Antarctica was due to natural climatic variability.
West Antarctica has always been looked on by alarmists as being the southern example of polar temperature amplification – a phenomenon predicted by most climate change models.
The Arctic temperature amplification is very apparent so there must be an Antarctic equivalent, and there it is.
But while scientists have been well aware that Antarctica is warming asymmetrically, with West Antarctica experiencing more than East Antarctica and frequently attributed to climate change, the underlying causes of this phenomenon have been poorly understood, and the suggestion that West Antarctica may be experiencing natural warming has been suggested before though not taken up very enthusiastically, if at all.
This new paper, “The internal origin of the west-east asymmetry of Antarctic climate change”, expresses the dilemma well.
In explaining the asymmetry, it suggests factors such as atmosphere-ocean feedbacks along the coast of West Antarctica and the shape of the Antarctic terrain combine to create a pattern of upper troposphere circulation over the West Antarctic subcontinent that flows opposite to the Earth’s rotation.
The researchers conclude,
The current west-east asymmetry of Antarctic surface climate change is undoubtedly of natural origin because no external factors (e.g., orbital or anthropogenic factors) contribute to the asymmetric mode.”
They add that the consistent pattern of warmer sea surface temperatures over the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Antarctic seas suggests that regional sea surface temperature anomalies around Antarctica are a driving factor behind the continent’s asymmetrical warming.
Paleoclimate datasets revealed variability in surface air temperatures spanning multiple decades, suggesting climate fluctuations in the tropics, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation, may also contribute to the discrepancies in warming rates between both subcontinents.
Overall, it’s a fascinating paper especially given the concern about the region’s ice decline leading to present and future sea-level change. But unless you look at two or three specialized outlets you won’t have heard about it.
The embargoed information from the Science journal is normally released four days before the embargo is lifted on Thursday evening UK time.
Thousands of journalists around the world see it as Science along with Nature are the world’s leading science journals. So why is it that no mainstream news media covered this important story? It’s not as though there were any other pressing environment stories to eclipse it.
What it demonstrates is the asymmetry in environment and science reporting. If the story confirms the dire news that anthropogenic climate change affects everything and is visible anywhere it’s much more likely to be trumpeted by the mainstream media than if it explains some of the climatic changes we see is due to mother nature.
Not every change we see is attributable to human influence. We still have to deal with the consequences.
Accurate knowledge is the first step because if we don’t understand the cause of particular climatic changes we will waste a lot of time and effort combatting things we never caused and have no power to influence.
Read more at the GWPF
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-24--‘Black neutron star’ discovery changes astronomy

Scientists have discovered an astronomical object that has never been observed before .
It is more massive than collapsed stars , known as “ neutron stars ” , but has less mass than black holes .
Such “ black neutron stars ” were not thought possible and will mean ideas for how neutron stars and black holes form will need to be rethought .
The discovery was made by an international team using gravitational wave detectors in the US and Italy .
Charlie Hoy , a PhD student from Cardiff University , UK , involved in the study , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We can ’ t rule out any possibilities , ” he told BBC News .
“ We don ’ t know what it is and this is why it is so exciting because it really does change our field.
” Mr Hoy is part of an international team working for the Ligo-Virgo Scientific Collaboration .
The international group , which has strong UK involvement backed by the Science and Technology Facilities Council , has laser detectors several kilometres long that are able to detect minute ripples in space-time caused by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The collected data can be used to determine the mass of those objects involved .
Last August , the instruments detected the collision of a black hole 23 times the mass of our Sun with an object of 2.6 solar masses .
That makes the lighter object more massive than the heaviest type of dead star , or neutron star , previously observed – of just over two solar masses .
But it was also lighter than the lightest black hole previously observed – of around five solar masses .
Astronomers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve come to call the “ mass gap ” .
Writing in the journal The Astrophysical Journal Letters , the research team believes that of all the possibilities , the object is most likely to be a light black hole , but they are not ruling out any other possibilities .
• Gravitational waves are a prediction of the Theory of General Relativity • It took decades to develop the technology to directly detect them • They are ripples in the fabric of space-time generated by violent events • Accelerating masses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speed of light • Ligo/Virgo fire lasers into long , L-shaped tunnels ; the waves disturb the light • Detecting the waves opens up the Universe to completely new investigations Having collided with the large black hole , the object no longer exists .
However , there should be further opportunities to learn more about these mass-gap objects from future collisions , according to Prof Stephen Fairhurst , also at Cardiff .
“ It is a challenge for us to determine what this is , ” he told BBC News .
“ Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or is it the heaviest neutron star ever ?
” If it is a light black hole then there is no established theory for how such an object could develop .
But Prof Fairhurst ’ s colleague , Prof Fabio Antonioni , has proposed that a solar system with three stars could lead to the formation of light black holes .
His ideas are receiving increased attention following the new discovery .
If , however , this new class of object is a heavy neutron star then theories for how they form may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Prof Bernard Schutz of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam , Germany .
“ We don ’ t know a lot about the nuclear physics of neutron stars .
So , people who are looking at exotic equations that explain what goes on inside them might be thinking , ‘ maybe this is evidence that we can get much heavier neutron stars ’ .
” Both black holes and neutron stars are thought to form when stars run out of fuel and die .
If it is a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a black hole , an object with such strong gravitational force that not even light can escape its grasp .
If the starting star is below a certain mass , one option is for it to collapse into a dense ball composed entirely of particles called neutrons , which are found inside the heart of atoms .
The material from which neutron stars are composed is so tightly packed that one teaspoonful would weigh 10 million tonnes .
A neutron star also has powerful gravity pulling it together , but a force between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force , pushes the particles apart , counteracting the gravitational force .
Current theories suggest that the gravitational force would overcome the nuclear force if the neutron star were much larger than two solar masses – and cause it to collapse into a black hole .
According to Prof Nils Andersson of Southampton University , if the mystery object is a heavy neutron star then the theorists will have to rethink what goes on in these objects .
“ Nuclear physics is not a precise science where we know everything , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how the nuclear strong force operates under the extreme conditions you need inside a neutron star .
So , every single current theory we currently have of what goes on inside of one has some uncertainty.
” Prof Sheila Rowan , director of the University of Glasgow ’ s Institute for Gravitational Research ( IGR ) , said the discovery challenges current theoretical models .
“ More cosmic observations and research will need to be undertaken to establish whether this new object is indeed something that has never been observed before or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black hole ever detected.
” • A laser is fed into the machine and its beam is split along two paths • The separate paths bounce back and forth between damped mirrors • Eventually , the two light parts are recombined and sent to a detector • Gravitational waves passing through the lab should disturb the set-up • Theory holds they should very subtly stretch and squeeze its space • This ought to show itself as a change in the lengths of the light arms • The photodetector captures this signal in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

‘Black neutron star’ discovery changes astronomy
Written by Pallab Ghosh
Scientists have discovered an astronomical object that has never been observed before. It is more massive than collapsed stars, known as “neutron stars”, but has less mass than black holes.
Such “black neutron stars” were not thought possible and will mean ideas for how neutron stars and black holes form will need to be rethought.
The discovery was made by an international team using gravitational wave detectors in the US and Italy.
Charlie Hoy, a PhD student from Cardiff University, UK, involved in the study, said the new discovery would transform our understanding.
“We can’t rule out any possibilities,” he told BBC News. “We don’t know what it is and this is why it is so exciting because it really does change our field.”
Image copyright LIGO-VIRGO/F.ELAVSKY/A.GELLER Image caption This event involved an object more massive than known neutron stars but less massive than known black holes. It existed in what has become known as the “mass gap”
Mr Hoy is part of an international team working for the Ligo-Virgo Scientific Collaboration.
The international group, which has strong UK involvement backed by the Science and Technology Facilities Council, has laser detectors several kilometres long that are able to detect minute ripples in space-time caused by the collision of massive objects in the Universe.
The collected data can be used to determine the mass of those objects involved.
Last August, the instruments detected the collision of a black hole 23 times the mass of our Sun with an object of 2.6 solar masses.
That makes the lighter object more massive than the heaviest type of dead star, or neutron star, previously observed – of just over two solar masses. But it was also lighter than the lightest black hole previously observed – of around five solar masses.
Astronomers have been searching for such objects in what they’ve come to call the “mass gap”.
Writing in the journal The Astrophysical Journal Letters, the research team believes that of all the possibilities, the object is most likely to be a light black hole, but they are not ruling out any other possibilities.
Image copyright NSF Image caption The labs that detect gravitational waves fire lasers down long tunnels
Gravitational waves are a prediction of the Theory of General Relativity
It took decades to develop the technology to directly detect them
They are ripples in the fabric of space-time generated by violent events
Accelerating masses will produce waves that propagate at the speed of light
Detectable sources include merging black holes and neutron stars
Ligo/Virgo fire lasers into long, L-shaped tunnels; the waves disturb the light
Detecting the waves opens up the Universe to completely new investigations
Having collided with the large black hole, the object no longer exists. However, there should be further opportunities to learn more about these mass-gap objects from future collisions, according to Prof Stephen Fairhurst, also at Cardiff.
“It is a challenge for us to determine what this is,” he told BBC News. “Is this the lightest black hole ever, or is it the heaviest neutron star ever?”
If it is a light black hole then there is no established theory for how such an object could develop. But Prof Fairhurst’s colleague, Prof Fabio Antonioni, has proposed that a solar system with three stars could lead to the formation of light black holes. His ideas are receiving increased attention following the new discovery.
If, however, this new class of object is a heavy neutron star then theories for how they form may also need to be revised, according to Prof Bernard Schutz of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, Germany.
“We don’t know a lot about the nuclear physics of neutron stars. So, people who are looking at exotic equations that explain what goes on inside them might be thinking, ‘maybe this is evidence that we can get much heavier neutron stars’.”
Image copyright N.FISCHER AND COLLEAGUES Image caption A scientific visualisation of a gravitational waves-producing merger where one object is 9.2 times more massive than the other
Both black holes and neutron stars are thought to form when stars run out of fuel and die. If it is a very large star, it collapses to form a black hole, an object with such strong gravitational force that not even light can escape its grasp.
If the starting star is below a certain mass, one option is for it to collapse into a dense ball composed entirely of particles called neutrons, which are found inside the heart of atoms.
The material from which neutron stars are composed is so tightly packed that one teaspoonful would weigh 10 million tonnes.
A neutron star also has powerful gravity pulling it together, but a force between the neutrons, called the nuclear strong force, pushes the particles apart, counteracting the gravitational force.
Current theories suggest that the gravitational force would overcome the nuclear force if the neutron star were much larger than two solar masses – and cause it to collapse into a black hole.
According to Prof Nils Andersson of Southampton University, if the mystery object is a heavy neutron star then the theorists will have to rethink what goes on in these objects.
“Nuclear physics is not a precise science where we know everything,” he said.
“We don’t know how the nuclear strong force operates under the extreme conditions you need inside a neutron star. So, every single current theory we currently have of what goes on inside of one has some uncertainty.”
Prof Sheila Rowan, director of the University of Glasgow’s Institute for Gravitational Research (IGR), said the discovery challenges current theoretical models.
“More cosmic observations and research will need to be undertaken to establish whether this new object is indeed something that has never been observed before or whether it may instead be the lightest black hole ever detected.”
A laser is fed into the machine and its beam is split along two paths
The separate paths bounce back and forth between damped mirrors
Eventually, the two light parts are recombined and sent to a detector
Gravitational waves passing through the lab should disturb the set-up
Theory holds they should very subtly stretch and squeeze its space
This ought to show itself as a change in the lengths of the light arms
The photodetector captures this signal in the recombined beam
Read more at www.bbc.co.uk
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-24--One-Fifth of Earth’s Ocean Floor Is Now Mapped Out

One-Fifth of Earth ’ s Ocean Floor Is Now Mapped Out We ’ re one step closer to better understanding our planet .
An impressive collaboration that is working towards mapping out the entire ocean floor has triumphantly managed to carry out one-fifth of its mission .
The Nippon Foundation-GEBCO Seabed 2030 Projectannounced on Sunday , World Hydrography Day no less , that it has mapped out an area roughly double the size of Australia .
The project launched in 2017 when it had 6 % of our ocean floors mapped out , today , it has now advanced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of work to do Even though the fantastic news has pushed the project forward there is still 81 % of the planet ’ s ocean floor to map out .
That ’ s why the project currently has 133 official partners , contributors , and supporters , and is still looking for more .
It ’ s a joint effort that will enable this project to reach its final goal .
One such collaboration includes Ocean Infinity ‘ s robot boats that can get to hard-to-reach zones of our oceans without putting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Armada of unmanned robot ships .
“ This is a leap forward towards achieving our mission , by the year 2030 , to empower the world to make policy decisions , use the ocean sustainability and undertake scientific research based on detailed bathymetric information of the Earth ’ s seabed , ” said James McMichael-Phillips , Seabed 2030 Project Director , in a press release .
The strong international collaborations have assisted in moving the project further , and Chairman of The Nippon Foundation , Yohei Sasakawa , explained there are three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistance on in order to meet its promise by 2030 .
These include : supporting the mapping of unexplored areas , collecting data through crowdsourcing , and advancing technology for data collection .
Why is this project important ?
Mapping out the ocean floor will heighten our understanding of some core processes our planet undergoes , such as ocean circulation , weather systems , sea-level rise , tsunami wave propagation , tides , sediment transport , benthic habitat distribution , and climate change .
It ’ ll also further assist in the work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our oceans .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

One-Fifth of Earth’s Ocean Floor Is Now Mapped Out
Written by Fabienne Lang
We’re one step closer to better understanding our planet.
An impressive collaboration that is working towards mapping out the entire ocean floor has triumphantly managed to carry out one-fifth of its mission.
The Nippon Foundation-GEBCO Seabed 2030 Projectannounced on Sunday, World Hydrography Day no less, that it has mapped out an area roughly double the size of Australia.
The project launched in 2017 when it had 6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of our ocean floors mapped out, today, it has now advanced to 19{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
Still a fair amount of work to do
Even though the fantastic news has pushed the project forward there is still 81{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the planet’s ocean floor to map out. That’s why the project currently has 133 official partners, contributors, and supporters, and is still looking for more. It’s a joint effort that will enable this project to reach its final goal.
One such collaboration includes Ocean Infinity‘s robot boats that can get to hard-to-reach zones of our oceans without putting the lives of humans in danger thanks to its Armada of unmanned robot ships.
“This is a leap forward towards achieving our mission, by the year 2030, to empower the world to make policy decisions, use the ocean sustainability and undertake scientific research based on detailed bathymetric information of the Earth’s seabed,” said James McMichael-Phillips, Seabed 2030 Project Director, in a press release.
The strong international collaborations have assisted in moving the project further, and Chairman of The Nippon Foundation, Yohei Sasakawa, explained there are three main areas that the project needs further assistance on in order to meet its promise by 2030.
These include: supporting the mapping of unexplored areas, collecting data through crowdsourcing, and advancing technology for data collection.
Why is this project important?
Mapping out the ocean floor will heighten our understanding of some core processes our planet undergoes, such as ocean circulation, weather systems, sea-level rise, tsunami wave propagation, tides, sediment transport, benthic habitat distribution, and climate change.
It’ll also further assist in the work towards conservation and sustainability that revolve around our oceans.
Read more at interestingengineering.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-24--UK Environment Official Claims Britain Isn’t Wet And Rainy

The head of the government ’ s Environment Agency is claiming that the UK is no longer a wet and rainy country and is urging us to turn off taps and take showers rather than baths to save water .
Sir James Bevan , CEO of the Agency , is backing a report , The Great British Rain Paradox , which warns of potential water shortages in the UK in years to come .
The report claims that the major factor for this is climate change .
In its foreword , Sir James says : These claims have no basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that the UK has actually been getting wetter in recent decades .
What is particularly noticeable in England and Wales is the absence of severe drought years in recent decades .
May 2020 certainly was not the driest on record either – in the UK as a whole , it was only the ninth driest since records started in 1862 .
The driest May was in 1896 .
Analysis of regional rainfall data also fails to support Sir James ’ s claims .
Nor does the claim of exceptionally dry weather in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to scrutiny .
Met Office data proves that rainfall there between 2017 and 2019 was close to average .
There are undoubtedly good reasons why water shortages may occur in the future , such as population growth and increased demands .
Spurious claims about climate change will simply serve to draw attention away from these very real issues and the failure to expand storage and deal with water leaks .
This is not the first time Sir James has been caught playing fast and loose with the facts to support a political agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correction .
Read more at The Conservative Woman PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

UK Environment Official Claims Britain Isn’t Wet And Rainy
Written by Dr Benny Peiser
The head of the government’s Environment Agency is claiming that the UK is no longer a wet and rainy country and is urging us to turn off taps and take showers rather than baths to save water.
Sir James Bevan, CEO of the Agency, is backing a report, The Great British Rain Paradox, which warns of potential water shortages in the UK in years to come. The report claims that the major factor for this is climate change.
In its foreword, Sir James says:
‘Climate change is causing long spells of dry weather that are putting our water resources under increased pressure. May 2020 has been the driest on record and exceptionally dry weather across the southeast between 2017 and 2019 led to some of the lowest groundwater levels we have ever seen.’
These claims have no basis in fact.
Official Met Office data shows that the UK has actually been getting wetter in recent decades.
What is particularly noticeable in England and Wales is the absence of severe drought years in recent decades.
May 2020 certainly was not the driest on record either – in the UK as a whole, it was only the ninth driest since records started in 1862. The driest May was in 1896. Analysis of regional rainfall data also fails to support Sir James’s claims.
Nor does the claim of exceptionally dry weather in the South East of England stand up to scrutiny. Met Office data proves that rainfall there between 2017 and 2019 was close to average.
There are undoubtedly good reasons why water shortages may occur in the future, such as population growth and increased demands.
Spurious claims about climate change will simply serve to draw attention away from these very real issues and the failure to expand storage and deal with water leaks.
This is not the first time Sir James has been caught playing fast and loose with the facts to support a political agenda. He should apologize and issue a correction.
Read more at The Conservative Woman
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-24--Unquestioningly ‘Following The Science’ Is a Dead End

Surely one of the more embarrassing moments in Anderson Cooper ’ s career as the host of his CNN nightly show was the night back in May when he brought in 17-year-old Greta Thunberg as a star interview for a CNN Town Hall — not on the climate crisis , for which Thunberg has been famously treated as an expert of sorts , but on the COVID-19 crisis .
The link between COVID-19 and climate change is a little unclear , so presumably Cooper and Town Hall co-host Dr. Sanjay Gupta , CNN ’ s medical expert , thought Thunberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the virus crisis .
The only advice from Thunberg , however , was to urge everyone to “ follow the science ” as suggested by Cooper , who seemed to be appealing to the 17-year-old for confirmation of his views : “ This is a time , it seems , that the global scientific community is so critically important and we ’ re really seeing how important it is to follow the science.
” Thunberg took that soft handoff from Cooper as one might expect — as confirmation of her claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on climate change .
“ People are starting to realize that we are actually depending on science and that we need to listen to scientists and experts .
And I really hope that stays , ” she said , adding that she also hoped it will apply to other crises “ such as the climate crisis and the environmental crisis.
” When it comes to COVID-19 , however , Thunberg seemed to have missed some of the science she said we should all be following .
She suggested it was misinformation to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elderly .
“ During any crisis , it is always the most vulnerable people who are hit the hardest , and that is children , ” she proclaimed .
“ Yes , this does affect elderly people a lot , but we also have to remember that this is also a children ’ s rights crisis because children are the most vulnerable in societies .
Children do get the virus and they also spread it.
” The actual science shows , as we all now know , that children are not the hardest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable .
Children are in “ extremely low risk ” of getting the disease and when they do get it they are more likely to be asymptomatic .
Few have died .
Welcome to FP Comment ’ s 22nd annual Junk Science Week , guided by our standard definition : Junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted , the risk is exaggerated and the science adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda .
Both CNN and Thunberg are manifestations thereof .
Whether the politicization of science is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems fair to conclude that there have been few signs of retreat .
As we shall explore later this week , peer-review regimes continue to fail , correlations are propelled into causation , health risks converted into draconian legislation .
Calls to follow the science are heard almost daily from politicians and activists — and many scientists .
But what are they advocating ?
When a politician declares “ I believe in the science ” ( as per U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren ) , it ’ s akin to admitting a lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being promulgated .
And what if , as is too often the case , the science politicians are following is tainted and falls into the great science world where deliberate distortions and exaggerations — even fabrications — are common ?
Lest anyone believe that doesn ’ t happen , it ’ s worth recalling the famous words of Stephen Schneider , the late Stanford University climate scientist who — along with many others over the years — saw fudging and fakery as the proper role of scientists .
“ On the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method .
On the other hand , we are not just scientists but human beings as well .
To do that we need to get some broad-based support , to capture the public ’ s imagination .
That , of course , means getting loads of media coverage .
So we have to offer up scary scenarios , make simplified , dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have .
Each of us has to decide what the right balance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” There is one area of science where a small blow — or maybe it will prove to be large — has been dealt to the “ scary scenarios ” that have driven climate policy over much of the past two decades .
That scenario is the work of the UN climate agency — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) — which produced a so-called “ business-as-usual ” scenario implying that without drastic action to curb carbon emissions the world would plunge into economic and environmental hell .
Guelph University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ page today that the official UN climate scenario known as RCP8.5 — cited by media and others to describe climate change risk — is a form of junk science based on assorted wrong-headed assumptions , including impossible projections of carbon emissions increases .
McKitrick concludes : “ If we want to avoid the RCP8.5 future scenario all we have to do is stop feeding it into climate models because that ’ s the only place it exists.
” If we just unquestioningly “ follow the science , ” that ’ s where it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that don ’ t exist , to nowhere .
Read more at Financial Post PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Unquestioningly ‘Following The Science’ Is a Dead End
Written by Terence Corcoran
Surely one of the more embarrassing moments in Anderson Cooper’s career as the host of his CNN nightly show was the night back in May when he brought in 17-year-old Greta Thunberg as a star interview for a CNN Town Hall — not on the climate crisis, for which Thunberg has been famously treated as an expert of sorts, but on the COVID-19 crisis.
The link between COVID-19 and climate change is a little unclear, so presumably Cooper and Town Hall co-host Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s medical expert, thought Thunberg would bring some special wisdom and insight to the virus crisis.
The only advice from Thunberg, however, was to urge everyone to “follow the science” as suggested by Cooper, who seemed to be appealing to the 17-year-old for confirmation of his views:
“This is a time, it seems, that the global scientific community is so critically important and we’re really seeing how important it is to follow the science.”
Thunberg took that soft handoff from Cooper as one might expect — as confirmation of her claim that we should also be following the science on climate change.
“People are starting to realize that we are actually depending on science and that we need to listen to scientists and experts. And I really hope that stays,” she said, adding that she also hoped it will apply to other crises “such as the climate crisis and the environmental crisis.”
When it comes to COVID-19, however, Thunberg seemed to have missed some of the science she said we should all be following.
She suggested it was misinformation to believe initial reports that COVID-19 affected only the elderly. “During any crisis, it is always the most vulnerable people who are hit the hardest, and that is children,” she proclaimed.
“Yes, this does affect elderly people a lot, but we also have to remember that this is also a children’s rights crisis because children are the most vulnerable in societies. Children do get the virus and they also spread it.”
The actual science shows, as we all now know, that children are not the hardest hit, nor are they the most vulnerable.
Children are in “extremely low risk” of getting the disease and when they do get it they are more likely to be asymptomatic. Few have died.
Welcome to FP Comment’s 22nd annual Junk Science Week, guided by our standard definition: Junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, the risk is exaggerated and the science adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda.
Both CNN and Thunberg are manifestations thereof.
Whether the politicization of science is more widespread today is unanswerable, but it seems fair to conclude that there have been few signs of retreat.
As we shall explore later this week, peer-review regimes continue to fail, correlations are propelled into causation, health risks converted into draconian legislation.
Calls to follow the science are heard almost daily from politicians and activists — and many scientists. But what are they advocating?
When a politician declares “I believe in the science” (as per U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren), it’s akin to admitting a lack of knowledge about the science behind whatever policy is being promulgated.
And what if, as is too often the case, the science politicians are following is tainted and falls into the great science world where deliberate distortions and exaggerations — even fabrications — are common?
Lest anyone believe that doesn’t happen, it’s worth recalling the famous words of Stephen Schneider, the late Stanford University climate scientist who — along with many others over the years — saw fudging and fakery as the proper role of scientists.
“On the one hand,” said Schneider, “as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
There is one area of science where a small blow — or maybe it will prove to be large — has been dealt to the “scary scenarios” that have driven climate policy over much of the past two decades.
That scenario is the work of the UN climate agency — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — which produced a so-called “business-as-usual” scenario implying that without drastic action to curb carbon emissions the world would plunge into economic and environmental hell.
Guelph University’s Ross McKitrick outlines on this page today that the official UN climate scenario known as RCP8.5 — cited by media and others to describe climate change risk — is a form of junk science based on assorted wrong-headed assumptions, including impossible projections of carbon emissions increases.
McKitrick concludes: “If we want to avoid the RCP8.5 future scenario all we have to do is stop feeding it into climate models because that’s the only place it exists.”
If we just unquestioningly “follow the science,” that’s where it seems to be leading, to places that don’t exist, to nowhere.
Read more at Financial Post
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-24--New German Study Shows E-Cars Worsen Global Warming

The German online Business Insider here reports on just how climate ( un ) friendly electric cars really are .
It concludes that e-cars in Germany are “ far from being climate-friendly.
” As much of the public already suspects , the electricity coming out of German outlets is still largely produced by fossil fuel plants .
And so e-cars indeed leave a large carbon footprint .
Moreover , all the mining of raw materials and the massive amounts of energy needed to produce the batteries in the first place means it takes a very long time before the electric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget than a comparably sized internal combustion engine .
And never mind other disadvantages such as long charging times , high vehicle purchase price , and low range .
A new study by Ulrich Schmidt , a researcher at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy , concluded that electric cars do not contribute to climate protection , and in fact “ actually exacerbate global warming if the current electricity mix is taken as a basis.
” The study found the point when electric mobility can contribute to climate protection is still “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the future of mobility belongs to electric cars , but the Kiel Institute for the World Economy researcher says that this is not so given Germany ’ s current power supply mix , which still relies heavily on coal .
Claims that electric cars are clean are based on false assumptions , says Schmidt .
As Schmidt points out in his study , a complete switch to e-mobility would increase electricity demand by almost 20 percent in the German automotive sector alone .
This , in turn , would require more electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ availability is the same in both cases .
This would considerably worsen the climate balance of e-cars.
” Schmidt adds : “ Regardless of what you fill up your electric car with ; from a macroeconomic perspective , it runs de facto on 100 percent electricity from fossil fuels , nowadays even 100 percent from coal .
This means that electric cars do not contribute to climate protection , but actually make global warming worse.
” This , Schmidt says , will remain true as long as the share of fossil fuels in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Business Insider points out that even the “ EU Commission estimates that the share of fossil fuels will still be around 40 percent in 2050.
” Read more at No Tricks zone PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

New German Study Shows E-Cars Worsen Global Warming
Written by Pierre Gosselin
The German online Business Insider here reports on just how climate (un)friendly electric cars really are. It concludes that e-cars in Germany are “far from being climate-friendly.”
As much of the public already suspects, the electricity coming out of German outlets is still largely produced by fossil fuel plants. And so e-cars indeed leave a large carbon footprint.
Moreover, all the mining of raw materials and the massive amounts of energy needed to produce the batteries in the first place means it takes a very long time before the electric car ends up with a better carbon budget than a comparably sized internal combustion engine.
And never mind other disadvantages such as long charging times, high vehicle purchase price, and low range.
“Actually exacerbate global warming”
A new study by Ulrich Schmidt, a researcher at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, concluded that electric cars do not contribute to climate protection, and in fact “actually exacerbate global warming if the current electricity mix is taken as a basis.”
The study found the point when electric mobility can contribute to climate protection is still “far off.”
“Based on false assumptions”
Climate activists like insisting that the future of mobility belongs to electric cars, but the Kiel Institute for the World Economy researcher says that this is not so given Germany’s current power supply mix, which still relies heavily on coal. Claims that electric cars are clean are based on false assumptions, says Schmidt.
Business Insider writes:
As Schmidt points out in his study, a complete switch to e-mobility would increase electricity demand by almost 20 percent in the German automotive sector alone. This, in turn, would require more electricity generation from fossil fuels. Provided that availability is the same in both cases. This would considerably worsen the climate balance of e-cars.”
Schmidt adds: “Regardless of what you fill up your electric car with; from a macroeconomic perspective, it runs de facto on 100 percent electricity from fossil fuels, nowadays even 100 percent from coal. This means that electric cars do not contribute to climate protection, but actually make global warming worse.”
“40{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of fossil fuels in 2020”
This, Schmidt says, will remain true as long as the share of fossil fuels in the electricity mix remains above 20 percent. Business Insider points out that even the “EU Commission estimates that the share of fossil fuels will still be around 40 percent in 2050.”
Read more at No Tricks zone
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related