Green paganism

Many zealous greens are strongly imbued with pagan values .
Paganism is generally defined as polytheism mixed in with nature worship .
Primitive pagans frequently cowered before the forces of nature , fatalistically resigned to being at nature ’ s mercy , believing that progress was not only impossible , but a criminal offense against nature .
So complete was their submission to nature , and so foreign to them was the idea that individual lives have value , that pagan societies often practiced human sacrifice to appease the gods of nature , particularly the sun god ( e.g.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forget about polytheism for now .
What ’ s more important are the attitudes toward nature and human life .
In the modern scientific era , many people – whether prompted by theistic or humanistic beliefs and values – reject the pagan beliefs that humankind should submit to nature and that individual human lives deserves protection .
However , many other people , particularly hardcore greens , reject those principles and replicate primitive paganism by exalting nature and devaluing human life .
Pagan greens insist that we cling to dependence on natural , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy , namely , from the wind and sun .
Try as they might , though , they can ’ t coax consistency and reliability out of those fickle natural sources .
Nor are wind and solar energy really clean or renewable , since they depend on massive consumption of many “ nonrenewable ” resources , some of them highly polluting .
( They also kill more wildlife than fossil fuels do , but that ’ s another story . )
Of particular concern are the sometimes rabidly anti-human beliefs of green pagans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race “ a virus , ” “ a disease ” “ vermin , ” “ a cancer.
” The hatred for humanity is palpable .
Here is more : “ The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing ” ; “ Human beings , as a species , have no more value than slugs ” ; “ Man is no more important than any other species.
” Like some primitive pagan societies , groveling in fear before the forces of nature , pagan greens believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life to go on .
Thus , the founder of the Environmental Defense Fund , favored banning DDT because the ban would , “ get rid of some of them ” ( in Ebenezer Scrooge ’ s words , “ decrease the surplus population ” ) via insect-borne malaria and insect-caused crop destruction .
Indeed , the human death toll from banning rather than moderating the use of DDT has exceeded the death toll from communism , making environmentalism the most lethal leftist ideology in history .
That shouldn ’ t be surprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service ( however dishonestly ) to “ the good of the people , ” while pagan greens regard human life as no better than a pestilential germ .
The anti-human animus of pagan greens even gave rise to a pejorative term : “ speciesism ” – i.e.
, the belief that humans are superior to other species .
Well , in pagan green cosmology , humans may not be superior to other species , but in the real world , we are .
Forget about us being at the top of the food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mozart and McCartney .
Humans are unique .
Every other species pursues its self-interest without a thought for the long-term survival of other species .
Only humans have enough foresight to take deliberate steps to try to conserve other species .
Only humans could feel regret and grieve if a beloved species goes extinct .
Only humans are clever enough to discover or invent 57 different genders .
Sorry , animal kingdom , but it ’ s no contest – humans are superior .
The contrary belief to speciesism is that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be harmful to humans .
About 30 years ago , the Environmental Protection Agency blocked the cleanup of sewage in the Tijuana River Basin on the grounds that the cleanup would endanger the survival of the life forms that dwelled in that toxic ( to humans ) brew .
Yes , federal bureaucrats placed the survival of various bacteria above the health of human beings .
That ’ s pagan !
Another manifestation of anti-human green paganism is their preference for anti-growth agendas .
The deadliest environment for a human being is poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development in developing countries by trying to deny them access to the very fossil fuels that enabled the people in developed countries to climb out of poverty and live thriving , healthy lives .
You can read details of these tragic and genocidal policies in Paul Driessen ’ s superb book , Eco-Imperialism .
We need an environmentalism as if people mattered .
( As a counterpoise to Friends of the Earth , we could use an environmental advocacy group called “ Friends of people who live on Earth . )
Green icon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth is not the solution it ’ s the problem.
” He is 180 degrees off-target .
Growth is the solution .
If it were true that the more economic development there is , the more polluted our environment would be , then our goose would be cooked .
We could conceivably get so prosperous that we ’ d pollute ourselves to death .
But the world doesn ’ t work that way .
Instead , there is a well-known pattern known as the Kuznets curve ( named after the late economist Simon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What happens is that when societies begin to develop and climb out of poverty , pollution rises .
But once development gets to the point where basic needs are met and discretionary income rises , people are willing and able to spend money on both pollution remediation and pollution prevention .
Consequently , affluent ( developed ) societies are less polluted than developing societies .
Contemporary green paganism is an atavistic , anti-life fetish .
Cloaked in mystical ignorance and wildly misanthropic , contemporary green pagans are as much of a threat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever were .

Many zealous greens are strongly imbued with pagan values. Paganism is generally defined as polytheism mixed in with nature worship. Primitive pagans frequently cowered before the forces of nature, fatalistically resigned to being at nature’s mercy, believing that progress was not only impossible, but a criminal offense against nature. So complete was their submission to nature, and so foreign to them was the idea that individual lives have value, that pagan societies often practiced human sacrifice to appease the gods of nature, particularly the sun god (e.g., the Aztecs).
Let’s forget about polytheism for now. What’s more important are the attitudes toward nature and human life. In the modern scientific era, many people – whether prompted by theistic or humanistic beliefs and values – reject the pagan beliefs that humankind should submit to nature and that individual human lives deserves protection. However, many other people, particularly hardcore greens, reject those principles and replicate primitive paganism by exalting nature and devaluing human life.
Pagan greens insist that we cling to dependence on natural, “clean, renewable” sources of energy, namely, from the wind and sun. Try as they might, though, they can’t coax consistency and reliability out of those fickle natural sources. Nor are wind and solar energy really clean or renewable, since they depend on massive consumption of many “nonrenewable” resources, some of them highly polluting. (They also kill more wildlife than fossil fuels do, but that’s another story.)
Of particular concern are the sometimes rabidly anti-human beliefs of green pagans. They have variously labelled the human race “a virus,” “a disease” “vermin,” “a cancer.” The hatred for humanity is palpable. Here is more: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing”; “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs”; “Man is no more important than any other species.”
Like some primitive pagan societies, groveling in fear before the forces of nature, pagan greens believe that some individuals need to be sacrificed for life to go on. Thus, the founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, favored banning DDT because the ban would, “get rid of some of them” (in Ebenezer Scrooge’s words, “decrease the surplus population”) via insect-borne malaria and insect-caused crop destruction. Indeed, the human death toll from banning rather than moderating the use of DDT has exceeded the death toll from communism, making environmentalism the most lethal leftist ideology in history. That shouldn’t be surprising, for communists at least paid lip service (however dishonestly) to “the good of the people,” while pagan greens regard human life as no better than a pestilential germ.
The anti-human animus of pagan greens even gave rise to a pejorative term: “speciesism” – i.e., the belief that humans are superior to other species. Well, in pagan green cosmology, humans may not be superior to other species, but in the real world, we are. Forget about us being at the top of the food chain. Think moon-landings, movie magic, Mozart and McCartney. Humans are unique. Every other species pursues its self-interest without a thought for the long-term survival of other species. Only humans have enough foresight to take deliberate steps to try to conserve other species. Only humans could feel regret and grieve if a beloved species goes extinct. Only humans are clever enough to discover or invent 57 different genders. Sorry, animal kingdom, but it’s no contest – humans are superior.
The contrary belief to speciesism is that all species are equal. That belief can be harmful to humans. About 30 years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency blocked the cleanup of sewage in the Tijuana River Basin on the grounds that the cleanup would endanger the survival of the life forms that dwelled in that toxic (to humans) brew. Yes, federal bureaucrats placed the survival of various bacteria above the health of human beings. That’s pagan!
Another manifestation of anti-human green paganism is their preference for anti-growth agendas. The deadliest environment for a human being is poverty, yet greens work to thwart economic development in developing countries by trying to deny them access to the very fossil fuels that enabled the people in developed countries to climb out of poverty and live thriving, healthy lives. You can read details of these tragic and genocidal policies in Paul Driessen’s superb book, Eco-Imperialism. We need an environmentalism as if people mattered. (As a counterpoise to Friends of the Earth, we could use an environmental advocacy group called “Friends of people who live on Earth.)
Green icon Paul Ehrlich once asserted, “Economic growth is not the solution it’s the problem.” He is 180 degrees off-target. Growth is the solution. If it were true that the more economic development there is, the more polluted our environment would be, then our goose would be cooked. We could conceivably get so prosperous that we’d pollute ourselves to death. But the world doesn’t work that way.
Instead, there is a well-known pattern known as the Kuznets curve (named after the late economist Simon Kuznets who explained the pattern). What happens is that when societies begin to develop and climb out of poverty, pollution rises. But once development gets to the point where basic needs are met and discretionary income rises, people are willing and able to spend money on both pollution remediation and pollution prevention. Consequently, affluent (developed) societies are less polluted than developing societies.
Contemporary green paganism is an atavistic, anti-life fetish. Cloaked in mystical ignorance and wildly misanthropic, contemporary green pagans are as much of a threat to their fellow humans as their primitive forbears ever were.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-15--Fusion and fission both: The U.S. reenters the nuclear energy universe

Now that the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ ITER ] is under construction , the playing field for the planet ’ s energy future has shifted .
Given even the most promising lead time for fusion viability is decades ahead , nuclear fission will have to compete with both fossil fuels and so-called renewables for market share .
So where are we ?
Well , just last month the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation ( DFC ) finalized a change to its Environmental and Social Policy and Procedures that lifts its legacy prohibition on supporting nuclear energy projects abroad .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ definition of renewable energy with that of the U.S. Energy Information Administration .
The DFC , with a total investment limit of $ 60 billion , supports projects in emerging markets through equity financing , debt financing , political risk insurance , and technical development .
U.S. companies have lamented the difficulties of competing globally on nuclear technology with countries such as China and Russia , which have government-supported nuclear programs .
Nuclear Matters , a national coalition supporting the clear benefits of nuclear energy , says the DFC ’ s decision will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our economy , and help advance global clean energy goals .
This landmark policy change will enable U.S. nuclear companies and exports to compete on a more level playing field against state-owned rivals from countries such as Russia and China.
” Now the DFC will be permitted to support the work of U.S. companies working on advanced nuclear technologies including small modular reactors ( SMRs ) and microreactors , which have lower costs than existing nuclear power plants .
Nuclear Matters says the U.S. is now better positioned to help countries reach their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
U.S. nuclear energy companies can offer a portfolio of innovative technologies to meet the increasing global demand for reliable , carbon-free energy over the next decade .
Meanwhile , the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a new approach to licensing non-light water reactor technologies .
The new guidance is expected to significantly streamline the advanced reactor design and licensing processes that have been slowed down for years due to longstanding and unresolved regulatory policies .
The new process is the direct result of a 4-year Licensing Modernization Project ( LMP ) supported by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LMP project , led by industry experts with assistance from Idaho National Laboratory ( INL ) , worked in tandem with the NRC to develop this key part of the advanced reactor regulatory framework that offers developers clear guidance on an acceptable approach for licensing new reactors .
The effort included a number of industry pilot demonstration projects and data analysis to better inform the LMP proposal as it relates to specific advanced reactor technologies ( molten salt , high-temperature gas , fast reactors , etc. )
.
Just weeks earlier , Energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visit to INL , that the Department of Energy will provide $ 65 million in nuclear energy research funding that will advance 93 nuclear technology projects in 28 states .
This funding will be distributed through DOE ’ s Nuclear Energy University Program , the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies , and the Nuclear Science User Facilities , providing thousands of Americans with new jobs , as well as promoting nuclear research and development across public and private sector partners .
Even the U.S. Senate is getting into the act .
Back in June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cosponsor and fellow Idahoan Rep. Mike Simpson , introduced the Integrated Energy Systems Act of 2020 to increase research and to leverage the resources and expertise at U.S. National Laboratories ( including INL ) , the Department of Energy , and our higher education institutions .
The House bill is a companion to S. 2702 , sponsored by both Idaho Senators , Mike Crapo and James Risch , and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin .
Then , on July 23 , Sen. Lisa Murkowski ’ s S. 903 , the Nuclear Energy Leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the National Defense Authorization Act that was approved by the full Senate by an 86-14 vote .
Murkowski lamented that the U.S. has lagged “ woefully behind ” on innovative nuclear energy technologies at great cost to the U.S. economy , America ’ s global leadership , and the environment .
“ The Department of Defense is a logical first customer for advanced reactors , ” said Murkowski , “ especially the microreactors currently under development , which can be deployed to remote regions .
Nuclear energy can also provide safe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , schools , and businesses that traditionally rely on more costly energy sources.
” NELA aims to reestablish U.S. leadership in nuclear energy by focusing the Department of Energy on demonstrating advanced reactor concepts , providing fuel for initial advanced nuclear reactors , and developing the nuclear energy workforce .
The advanced reactors supported by NELA have significant potential to provide safe , clean , reliable , and affordable energy to installations such as military bases , remote communities in states like Alaska , and to larger towns and cities across the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advances may not be supported by future administrations .
Yet even Democratic members of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis included the potential for carbon-free nuclear power in its mammoth and wide-ranging policy plan to embed climate action and resilience within the country ’ s economy .
Then they added a caveat by calling for a thorough assessment of the technology ’ s costs and potential risks .
But best of all , testing conducted at INL of triso ( tristructural isotropic ) fuels has found these submillimeter-sized grains of uranium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to withstand reactor temperatures of over 3,200o F. This is far above the operating temperature of even next-generation high-temperature reactors .
According to Paul Demkowicz , director of INL ’ s Advanced Gas Reactor Field Development and Qualification Program , not one of the 300,000 triso particle coatings failed during the two-week long test .
In short , the future of nuclear fission is as bright in the short term as the future of nuclear fusion may be in a couple of decades – that ’ s if it can compete economically @ @ @ @

Now that the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER] is under construction, the playing field for the planet’s energy future has shifted. Given even the most promising lead time for fusion viability is decades ahead, nuclear fission will have to compete with both fossil fuels and so-called renewables for market share.
So where are we?
Well, just last month the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) finalized a change to its Environmental and Social Policy and Procedures that lifts its legacy prohibition on supporting nuclear energy projects abroad. The change aligns the DFC’s definition of renewable energy with that of the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The DFC, with a total investment limit of $60 billion, supports projects in emerging markets through equity financing, debt financing, political risk insurance, and technical development. U.S. companies have lamented the difficulties of competing globally on nuclear technology with countries such as China and Russia, which have government-supported nuclear programs.
Nuclear Matters, a national coalition supporting the clear benefits of nuclear energy, says the DFC’s decision will “bolster U.S. national security, boost our economy, and help advance global clean energy goals. This landmark policy change will enable U.S. nuclear companies and exports to compete on a more level playing field against state-owned rivals from countries such as Russia and China.”
Now the DFC will be permitted to support the work of U.S. companies working on advanced nuclear technologies including small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors, which have lower costs than existing nuclear power plants. Nuclear Matters says the U.S. is now better positioned to help countries reach their development, climate, and decarbonization goals. U.S. nuclear energy companies can offer a portfolio of innovative technologies to meet the increasing global demand for reliable, carbon-free energy over the next decade.
Meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a new approach to licensing non-light water reactor technologies. The new guidance is expected to significantly streamline the advanced reactor design and licensing processes that have been slowed down for years due to longstanding and unresolved regulatory policies. The new process is the direct result of a 4-year Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.
The LMP project, led by industry experts with assistance from Idaho National Laboratory (INL), worked in tandem with the NRC to develop this key part of the advanced reactor regulatory framework that offers developers clear guidance on an acceptable approach for licensing new reactors. The effort included a number of industry pilot demonstration projects and data analysis to better inform the LMP proposal as it relates to specific advanced reactor technologies (molten salt, high-temperature gas, fast reactors, etc.).
Just weeks earlier, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette announced, during a visit to INL, that the Department of Energy will provide $65 million in nuclear energy research funding that will advance 93 nuclear technology projects in 28 states. This funding will be distributed through DOE’s Nuclear Energy University Program, the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies, and the Nuclear Science User Facilities, providing thousands of Americans with new jobs, as well as promoting nuclear research and development across public and private sector partners.
Even the U.S. Senate is getting into the act. Back in June Rep. Russ Fulcher, joined by original cosponsor and fellow Idahoan Rep. Mike Simpson, introduced the Integrated Energy Systems Act of 2020 to increase research and to leverage the resources and expertise at U.S. National Laboratories (including INL), the Department of Energy, and our higher education institutions. The House bill is a companion to S. 2702, sponsored by both Idaho Senators, Mike Crapo and James Risch, and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.
Then, on July 23, Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s S. 903, the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA), was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act that was approved by the full Senate by an 86-14 vote. Murkowski lamented that the U.S. has lagged “woefully behind” on innovative nuclear energy technologies at great cost to the U.S. economy, America’s global leadership, and the environment.
“The Department of Defense is a logical first customer for advanced reactors,” said Murkowski, “especially the microreactors currently under development, which can be deployed to remote regions. Nuclear energy can also provide safe, clean, and affordable power to homes, schools, and businesses that traditionally rely on more costly energy sources.”
NELA aims to reestablish U.S. leadership in nuclear energy by focusing the Department of Energy on demonstrating advanced reactor concepts, providing fuel for initial advanced nuclear reactors, and developing the nuclear energy workforce. The advanced reactors supported by NELA have significant potential to provide safe, clean, reliable, and affordable energy to installations such as military bases, remote communities in states like Alaska, and to larger towns and cities across the country.
Of course, these nuclear energy advances may not be supported by future administrations. Yet even Democratic members of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis included the potential for carbon-free nuclear power in its mammoth and wide-ranging policy plan to embed climate action and resilience within the country’s economy. Then they added a caveat by calling for a thorough assessment of the technology’s costs and potential risks.
But best of all, testing conducted at INL of triso (tristructural isotropic) fuels has found these submillimeter-sized grains of uranium individually wrapped in protective shells to be able to withstand reactor temperatures of over 3,200o F. This is far above the operating temperature of even next-generation high-temperature reactors. According to Paul Demkowicz, director of INL’s Advanced Gas Reactor Field Development and Qualification Program, not one of the 300,000 triso particle coatings failed during the two-week long test.
In short, the future of nuclear fission is as bright in the short term as the future of nuclear fusion may be in a couple of decades – that’s if it can compete economically and survive politically.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-15--New book brings clarity to a world without fossil fuels

Electricity from wind and solar are the rage these days , as governments around the world are advancing their energy policies believing that intermittent electricity can replace the fossil fuels industry .
The purpose of the recently released book “ Just GREEN Electricity – helping Citizens Understand a World without Fossil Fuels ” is to help citizens understand a world without fossil fuels .
The book is an “ aha moment ” that every green advocate should experience .
The inventions of the automobile , airplane , and the use of petroleum in the early 1900 ’ s led us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World Wars I and II .
The healthier and wealthier countries of today now have more than 6,000 products manufactured from petroleum derivatives that did not exist before 1900 .
Today , we have a medical industry , electronics , communications , plastics , transportation , militaries , and a space program that did not exist prior to 1900 .
Possibly to the dismay of those promoting current energy policies , intermittent electricity from wind or solar can not produce the thousands of products manufactured from petroleum derivatives that help the world economies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the globe .
Many in the world believe we are facing climate change caused primarily by fossil fuels that will cause irreversible damage to the planet and humankind unless we act now and , therefore , we must curtail or quit all fossil fuel use , this book will enlighten you on understanding a world without fossil fuels .
The book reviews why China and India — two of the world ’ s most populous countries — are rejecting the use of intermittent electricity from wind and solar for scalable , reliable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from coal ; and discusses the worldwide environmental degradations and humanity abuses for the materials mined for solar panels , wind turbines , and EV batteries .
With billions living in abject poverty in underdeveloped lands , the authors believe this book will make you look at electricity , fossil fuels , and nuclear energy in a new and fresh way while obtaining a better understanding of the lifestyle demands of societies within developed countries , and how it is different from most of the world ’ s population now living in developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globe are suggesting intermittent electricity from solar panels and wind turbines can save us .
The reality , however , is much more complicated .
Ronald Stein and Todd Royal , two seasoned veterans of the energy industry , explore the implications of a world reliant on intermittent green electricity without fossil fuels in the book “ Just GREEN Electricity – Helping Citizens Understand a World without Fossil Fuels ” that will enhance your energy literacy .
They are also the authors of the five-star rated “ Energy Made Easy – Helping Citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Energy is multifaceted , and the just published book allows the reader to grasp enough knowledge quickly so they can participate in discussions with family , friends , co-workers , or while watching news reports .
The main purpose of the both books is to help citizens become energy-literate .
It is dangerous and delusional to believe anything can be explained in sound bites , much less energy .
This book will make you look at energy and ELECTRICITY in a new , fresh way , and perspective .
We believe this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , and global events taking place in China , Russia , Iran , Africa , India , and South America .
Energy is more than electricity .
Electricity by itself can not support the military , airlines , cruise ships , supertankers , container shipping , and trucking infrastructures .
Nor can electricity alone , and especially that generated solely from intermittent renewable sources such as wind and solar , provide the thousands of products from petroleum that are essential to our medical industry , transportation infrastructure , our electricity generation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and agriculture—indeed , virtually every aspect of our daily lives and lifestyles .
Electricity needs fossil fuel derivatives for its parts to function , and in the context of Brexit , the 2020 U.S. Presidential election , the instability in the Middle East , and the U.S. – China trade war/tensions , are circumstances electricity faces .
The book “ Just GREEN Electricity – Helping Citizens Understand a World without Fossil Fuels ” explains them all in a clear , concise , well-researched and documented way , while showing the deep ramifications of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power , and the products from petroleum derivatives that support lifestyles and economies around the world .

Electricity from wind and solar are the rage these days, as governments around the world are advancing their energy policies believing that intermittent electricity can replace the fossil fuels industry. The purpose of the recently released book “Just GREEN Electricity – helping Citizens Understand a World without Fossil Fuels” is to help citizens understand a world without fossil fuels.
The book is an “aha moment” that every green advocate should experience. The inventions of the automobile, airplane, and the use of petroleum in the early 1900’s led us into the Industrial Revolution and victories in World Wars I and II. The healthier and wealthier countries of today now have more than 6,000 products manufactured from petroleum derivatives that did not exist before 1900.
Today, we have a medical industry, electronics, communications, plastics, transportation, militaries, and a space program that did not exist prior to 1900.
Possibly to the dismay of those promoting current energy policies, intermittent electricity from wind or solar cannot produce the thousands of products manufactured from petroleum derivatives that help the world economies “make products and move things” around the globe.
Many in the world believe we are facing climate change caused primarily by fossil fuels that will cause irreversible damage to the planet and humankind unless we act now and, therefore, we must curtail or quit all fossil fuel use, this book will enlighten you on understanding a world without fossil fuels.
The book reviews why China and India — two of the world’s most populous countries — are rejecting the use of intermittent electricity from wind and solar for scalable, reliable, affordable, abundant and flexible electricity from coal; and discusses the worldwide environmental degradations and humanity abuses for the materials mined for solar panels, wind turbines, and EV batteries.
With billions living in abject poverty in underdeveloped lands, the authors believe this book will make you look at electricity, fossil fuels, and nuclear energy in a new and fresh way while obtaining a better understanding of the lifestyle demands of societies within developed countries, and how it is different from most of the world’s population now living in developing countries.
Meanwhile, leaders around the globe are suggesting intermittent electricity from solar panels and wind turbines can save us. The reality, however, is much more complicated.
Ronald Stein and Todd Royal, two seasoned veterans of the energy industry, explore the implications of a world reliant on intermittent green electricity without fossil fuels in the book “Just GREEN Electricity – Helping Citizens Understand a World without Fossil Fuels” that will enhance your energy literacy. They are also the authors of the five-star rated “Energy Made Easy – Helping Citizens Become Energy Literate” in 2019.
Energy is multifaceted, and the just published book allows the reader to grasp enough knowledge quickly so they can participate in discussions with family, friends, co-workers, or while watching news reports. The main purpose of the both books is to help citizens become energy-literate.
It is dangerous and delusional to believe anything can be explained in sound bites, much less energy. This book will make you look at energy and ELECTRICITY in a new, fresh way, and perspective. We believe this is desperately needed with the upcoming U.S. Presidential election, and global events taking place in China, Russia, Iran, Africa, India, and South America.
Energy is more than electricity. Electricity by itself cannot support the military, airlines, cruise ships, supertankers, container shipping, and trucking infrastructures. Nor can electricity alone, and especially that generated solely from intermittent renewable sources such as wind and solar, provide the thousands of products from petroleum that are essential to our medical industry, transportation infrastructure, our electricity generation, our cooling, heating, manufacturing, and agriculture—indeed, virtually every aspect of our daily lives and lifestyles.
Electricity needs fossil fuel derivatives for its parts to function, and in the context of Brexit, the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, the instability in the Middle East, and the U.S. – China trade war/tensions, are circumstances electricity faces. The book “Just GREEN Electricity – Helping Citizens Understand a World without Fossil Fuels” explains them all in a clear, concise, well-researched and documented way, while showing the deep ramifications of a world without fossil fuels, nuclear power, and the products from petroleum derivatives that support lifestyles and economies around the world.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-15--Perspective on recent paper on hurricanes getting stronger

As one of the worlds oldest active hurricane forecasters , I think I am allowed to comment on this Now , notice I did not say “ best ” or use the term expert .
Part of that is because if you forecast long enough ( over 40 years now ) you realize that such terms are an invitation for nature to shut your mouth After all , Its not nice to mess with mother nature Now first of all , I don ’ t necessarily disagree with this , but I do want to add perspective .
I respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are questions that I want to be addressed First of all , the study is over the last 40 years .
So we don ’ t know how this would have stacked up before the satellite era , specifically the 30s-60s when the US got hit by by major hurricanes far more than the 40 years of the study : So right off the bat it is obvious that if we are increasing intensity , there has to be a reason for why we are not getting hit as much .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and at the very least , there are factors that are open for debate .
As far as a big season , if it does come , it should be no surprise , This was written in April , the first forecast made in March !
The fact is that hurricanes need focused energy to thrive , In a simple way , the function of tropical cyclones is to take heat out of the tropics , the imbalance that develops naturally between the warmer tropical waters and the colder temperate areas and redistribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ha ha ) But if its already warm in those areas and pressures are lower , there is a distortion of that function , So while there may be more storms , unless the weather pattern near the coast favors development thru enhanced convergence ( a product of higher pressures to the north of the storms ) the mature storm will spread out and weaken as it approaches an area with lower than average pressure Here look at this , The average SLP June- from 1948-1969 ( we can ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower pressure in the tropics , the higher pressure over the north Atlantic one of the dangers btw of this year , which we outlined from back in march was the similarity in that pattern .
When you have a pressure pattern like this there is enhanced convergence in the tropical western Atlantic , look at the season so far SLP So if this continues we will be seeing major threats , which if you saw our hurricane forecast so far has shown where the strongest action relative to normal would be , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cristobal hit at their peaks !
Now look at the modern warm era The center of lower pressure is TO THE NORTH OF THE TROPICS !
So the set up for long tracked classic storms is not as favorable .
But again , we look for patterns that enhance convergence near the coast , not spread it out as what happens when there is low pressure to the north , This is a direct result of the warmer planet and overall a positive since repeating the 30s-60s with the kind of build up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to much greater damage costs than the pre study era .
But notice that storms like Katrina , Rita , Wilma , Irma , Dorian , Matthew ( just to name a few ) were OFF THEIR PEAK .
while the short tracked Harvey and Michael were at their peaks .
No question a warmer ocean means if everything is lined up right storms can be stronger .
But the greatest threats would be in the tropical islands , rather than mainland Asia.or North America .
Many of the storms are what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ocean where they bother no one .
But again this year we are worried about the pattern being quite favorable near the coast .
I wrote this last year , so I show some evidence in here .
The other inconvenient truth for this paper ( again just to put things in perspective ) : If there are more storms and stronger storms , why isn ’ t the ace index , the measure of accumulated cyclonic energy , increasing ?
Major landfalls are not increasing , Majors are not increasing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ detection methods in the 30s-60s that we do now ?
But it is interesting that this paper came out just before what a lot of people think will be a big burst in hurricanes .
But before it occurs , a lot is already being made of how fast we got to 10 storms .
Yet the ace/storm is near the lowest on record ( storms are weaker ) And the total ACE is one of the lowest on record for 10 storms .
But the most remarkable thing about this season GLOBALLY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyebrows about bias , is how quiet the western Pacific is .
This is the world ’ s most productive basin and its on pace for a record low ACE .
Is that not a good thing , to balance out the bad ?
As far as slowing moving storms , Well if they are moving slow in the middle of nowhere , who cares .
If they are approaching the coast then upwelling of the water causes the storms to weaken .
Florence was classic .
It is true rain amounts increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duration .
But the swap is the wind weakens .
Florence weakened coming to the coast with very warm SST ’ s .
As for Harvey , the storm stalled because an anomalous cool trough of low pressure trapped the storm close enough to the coast , so that after hitting land moving quickly to the northwest , it stalled close enough to the coast so the processes associated with a tropical cyclone continued to pull in huge amounts of water into a environment that increased condensation rates ( due to cooling ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the table , but there are many more out in the middle of nowhere that are moving slower than the ones coming to the coast , In addition past storms are legendary for rainfall but I am not going to bore you to tears with that To sum up , a valuable and excellent study .
However as you can see there are some debatable points here , including the idea that there are positives to the warming on the table .
So it makes sense , I would add my 2 cents @

As one of the worlds oldest active hurricane forecasters, I think I am allowed to comment on this:
https://www.studyfinds.org/hurricanes-growing-stronger/
Now, notice I did not say “best” or use the term expert. Part of that is because if you forecast long enough (over 40 years now) you realize that such terms are an invitation for nature to shut your mouth.
After all, its not nice to mess with mother nature!
Now first of all, I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but I do want to add perspective. I respect the people that did this, but there are questions that I want to be addressed.
First of all, the study is over the last 40 years. So we don’t know how this would have stacked up before the satellite era, specifically the 30s-60s when the US got hit by by major hurricanes far more than the 40 years of the study:
last 40 years, 21 major hurricane hits
But 1931-1970
36 major hits
So right off the bat it is obvious that if we are increasing intensity, there has to be a reason for why we are not getting hit as much. I have written about this many times, and at the very least, there are factors that are open for debate.
As far as a big season, if it does come, it should be no surprise as this was written in April, the first forecast made in March!
https://www.cfact.org/2020/04/15/higher-us-hurricane-impact-on-the-table/
The fact is that hurricanes need focused energy to thrive. In a simple way, the function of tropical cyclones is to take heat out of the tropics. The imbalance that develops naturally between the warmer tropical waters and the colder temperate areas, redistribute that heat (are they socialist?, ha ha). But if its already warm in those areas and pressures are lower, there is a distortion of that function. So while there may be more storms, the mature storm will spread out and weaken as it approaches an area with lower than average pressure. This, unless the weather pattern near the coast favors development thru enhanced convergence (a product of higher pressures to the north of the storms).
Here look at this, the average SLP June- from 1948-1969 (we can’t get back to before that)
Notice the lower pressure in the tropics, the higher pressure over the North Atlantic:
One of the dangers of this year, btw, which we outlined from back in March was the similarly in that pattern. When you have a pressure pattern like this there is enhanced convergence in the tropical western Atlantic. One of the dangers of this year, btw, which we outlined from back in March was the similarly in that pattern. When you have a pressure pattern like this there is enhanced convergence in the tropical western Atlantic.
Look at the SLP for the season so far:
So if this continues we will be seeing major threats, which if you saw our hurricane forecast so far has shown where the strongest action relative to normal would be. All storms that have hit, except Cristobal, at their peaks!
Now look at the modern warm era:
The center of lower pressure is TO THE NORTH OF THE TROPICS! So the set up for long tracked classic storms is not as favorable. But again,we look for patterns that enhance convergence near the coast, not spread out, as what happens when there is low pressure to the north. This is a direct result of the warmer planet and overall a positive. This, since repeating the 30s-60s with the kind of build up we have on the coast, would lead to much greater damage costs than the pre study era. But notice that storms like Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Irma, Dorian, Matthew (just to name a few) were OFF THEIR PEAK. While the short tracked Harvey and Michael were at their peaks. No question, a warmer ocean means if everything is lined up right storms can be stronger. But the greatest threats would be in the tropical islands, rather than mainland Asia or North America. Many of the storms are what we call fish storms, out there in the ocean where they bother no one. But again this year we are worried about the pattern being quite favorable near the coast.
I wrote this last year where evidence can be seen:
https://www.cfact.org/2019/06/24/hurricanes-have-always-been-bad-why-arent-they-worse/
The other inconvenient truth for this paper ( again just to put things in perspective): If there are more storms and stronger storms, why isn’t the ace index, the measure of accumulated cyclonic energy, increasing? Major landfalls are not increasing. Majors are not increasing. Imagine if we had the kind of detection methods in the 30s-60s that we do now?
But it is interesting that this paper came out just before what a lot of people think will be a big burst in hurricanes. But before it occurs, a lot is already being made of how fast we got to 10 storms. Yet the ace/storm is near the lowest on record (storms are weaker) and the total ACE is one of the lowest on record for 10 storms. But the most remarkable thing about this season GLOBALLY, and this is what raises my eyebrows about bias, is how quiet is the western Pacific. This is the world’s most productive basin and its on pace for a record low ACE. Is that not a good thing, to balance out the bad?
As far as slowing moving storms, well if they are moving slow in the middle of nowhere, who cares. If they are approaching the coast then upwelling of the water causes the storms to weaken. Florence was classic. It is true rain amounts increase with a slow moving storm due to duration. But the swap is the wind weakens. Florence weakened coming to the coast with very warm SST’s. As for Harvey, the storm stalled because an anomalous cool trough of low pressure trapped the storm close enough to the coast, so that after hitting land moving quickly to the northwest, it stalled close enough to the coast so the processes associated with a tropical cyclone continued to pull in huge amounts of water into a environment that increased condensation rates ( due to cooling). So the slower movement is on the table, but there are many more out in the middle of nowhere that are moving slower than the ones coming to the coast. In addition, past storms are legendary for rainfall but I am not going to bore you to tears with that.
This sums up a valuable and excellent study. However as you can see there are some debatable points here, including the idea that there are positives to the warming on the table. So it makes sense that I would add my 2 cents.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-16--Sanders scolds Elon Musk for taking government subsidies that Bernie made possible

In a twitter battle last week , U.S .
Senator Bernie Sanders criticized Elon Musk for accepting billions of dollars in government support .
The exchange erupted over Sanders ’ new bill to impose a wealth tax on Musk and other billionaires .
But most of the payments received by Musk ’ s companies came from electric vehicle and solar energy programs that Sanders , green advocates , and state governments established to promote green energy .
The coronavirus pandemic caused the stock market to plunge in February and March of this year .
The subsequent market recovery between March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaires by more than $ 700 billion .
Last week , Senators Bernie Sanders , Ed Markey , and Kirsten Gillibrand introduced a bill to tax wealth gained by billionaires during the stock market recovery .
The bill would place a 60 percent tax on wealth gained by billionaires between March and the end of this year .
It proposes to use the money raised to pay health care expenses for other Americans .
Analysts estimate that Musk would be required to pay a tax of $ 27.5 billion on his gains .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Sanders with the comment , “ Official Bernie Sanders Drinking Game !
Every time The Bernster mentions a free government program , chug somebody else ’ s beer.
” Sanders then tweeted a reply , “ Every time Elon Musk pokes fun at government assistance for the 99 % , remember that he would be worth nothing without $ 4.9 billion in corporate welfare .
Oh , Elon just l-o-v-e-s corporate socialism for himself , rugged capitalism for everyone else.
” The $ 4.9 billion number is actually an old estimate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles Times .
Payments and incentives were paid and continue to be paid to electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors and to SolarCity , companies founded by Musk .
These subsidies continue under programs established by the Obama Administration , supported by Senator Sanders and other progressives , and state governments eager to promote green energy .
By 2015 , Tesla Motors had received more than $ 2.4 billion in subsidies and tax incentives , a number that continues to grow .
This includes over $ 1 billion in incentives to be spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada for the Tesla gigafactory .
The factory produces electric motors and batteries for electric cars , and battery storage products .
Tesla also received about $ 1.4 billion from the state of California in tax breaks for electric car production , zero-emissions vehicle credits , rebates to buyers of electric cars , rebates for deployment of distributed energy , and job training reimbursements under the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program .
The federal government chipped in with hundreds of millions in tax credits to buyers of Tesla cars and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
SolarCity gained more than $ 2.5 billion in incentives , with the largest portion estimated at $ 1.5 billion from the federal 30 percent tax credit for solar installations .
The state of New York also provided more than $ 1 billion in the form of subsidies for a solar manufacturing facility in New York and property tax exemptions .
As a senator , Sanders voted for many of the policies that granted billions in subsidies and incentives to Musk and his companies .
For example , Sanders voted for passage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2009 , which boosted the solar energy tax credit from 10 percent to 30 percent of the cost of a solar installation .
Sanders also voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that provided tax credits of up to $ 7,500 to purchasers of electric vehicles .
Tesla Motors sold 200,000 electric cars to buyers able to claim this credit .
Senator Sanders and presidential candidate Joe Biden support the “ Solving the Climate Crisis ” report that was issued in June by the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 30 percent tax credit that provided more than $ 1 billion to SolarCity .
It also proposes a national mandate “ to achieve 100 % sales of zero-emission cars by 2035.
” The report calls for billions of dollars in additional subsidies for green energy that would flow to the companies of Elon Musk and other green billionaires .
It appears that billionaires don ’ t deserve to grow their wealth except when they build green energy companies .

In a twitter battle last week, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders criticized Elon Musk for accepting billions of dollars in government support. The exchange erupted over Sanders’ new bill to impose a wealth tax on Musk and other billionaires. But most of the payments received by Musk’s companies came from electric vehicle and solar energy programs that Sanders, green advocates, and state governments established to promote green energy.
The coronavirus pandemic caused the stock market to plunge in February and March of this year. The subsequent market recovery between March and August increased the wealth of U.S. billionaires by more than $700 billion. Last week, Senators Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, and Kirsten Gillibrand introduced a bill to tax wealth gained by billionaires during the stock market recovery.
The bill would place a 60 percent tax on wealth gained by billionaires between March and the end of this year. It proposes to use the money raised to pay health care expenses for other Americans. Analysts estimate that Musk would be required to pay a tax of $27.5 billion on his gains.
In response, Musk tweeted an image of Sanders with the comment, “Official Bernie Sanders Drinking Game! Every time The Bernster mentions a free government program, chug somebody else’s beer.” Sanders then tweeted a reply, “Every time Elon Musk pokes fun at government assistance for the 99%, remember that he would be worth nothing without $4.9 billion in corporate welfare. Oh, Elon just l-o-v-e-s corporate socialism for himself, rugged capitalism for everyone else.”
The $4.9 billion number is actually an old estimate that comes from a 2015 article in the Los Angeles Times. Payments and incentives were paid and continue to be paid to electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors and to SolarCity, companies founded by Musk. These subsidies continue under programs established by the Obama Administration, supported by Senator Sanders and other progressives, and state governments eager to promote green energy.
By 2015, Tesla Motors had received more than $2.4 billion in subsidies and tax incentives, a number that continues to grow. This includes over $1 billion in incentives to be spread over 20 years from the state of Nevada for the Tesla gigafactory. The factory produces electric motors and batteries for electric cars, and battery storage products.
Tesla also received about $1.4 billion from the state of California in tax breaks for electric car production, zero-emissions vehicle credits, rebates to buyers of electric cars, rebates for deployment of distributed energy, and job training reimbursements under the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program. The federal government chipped in with hundreds of millions in tax credits to buyers of Tesla cars and loans from the U.S. Department of Energy.
SolarCity gained more than $2.5 billion in incentives, with the largest portion estimated at $1.5 billion from the federal 30 percent tax credit for solar installations. The state of New York also provided more than $1 billion in the form of subsidies for a solar manufacturing facility in New York and property tax exemptions.
As a senator, Sanders voted for many of the policies that granted billions in subsidies and incentives to Musk and his companies. For example, Sanders voted for passage of the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009, which boosted the solar energy tax credit from 10 percent to 30 percent of the cost of a solar installation.
Sanders also voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that provided tax credits of up to $7,500 to purchasers of electric vehicles. Tesla Motors sold 200,000 electric cars to buyers able to claim this credit.
Senator Sanders and presidential candidate Joe Biden support the “Solving the Climate Crisis” report that was issued in June by the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. The report calls for extension of the 30 percent tax credit that provided more than $1 billion to SolarCity. It also proposes a national mandate “to achieve 100% sales of zero-emission cars by 2035.” The report calls for billions of dollars in additional subsidies for green energy that would flow to the companies of Elon Musk and other green billionaires.
It appears that billionaires don’t deserve to grow their wealth except when they build green energy companies.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-16--Could coal be the answer for Billions without energy?

Over 600 million Africans are still without energy and electricity .
The movie “ Juice ” brilliantly illustrates through visual representation how billions are without electricity ; and without electricity and the energy from mainly fossil fuels , life returns to the Dark Ages .
Whereas liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore exposes the fallacy , human misery , and environmental degradation that occurs when towns , cities , counties , states , nations , or continents rely on renewable energy to electricity from wind turbines ( enormous emitters of greenhouse gases ) and solar panels ; or destructive biomass is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life has no purpose , happiness , and meaning without electricity and sources of energy that are abundant , scalable , reliable , affordable , and flexible .
That describes coal – but isn ’ t coal outdated , outlawed , and the worst form of energy possible ?
In fact , coal has always been , and is back at the forefront of what could save billions without hope , a future , and the key to environmental stewardship the west desperately craves .
At this time there are approximately 1,600 coal-fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or currently under construction .
Hard to believe since this reliable source of electricity is under attack in western nations such as the U.S. and the entire European Union .
Elsewhere coal is used more than ever .
China , Japan , and India are using and building newer “ high efficiency low emission ( HELE ) , ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants.
” HELE electricity-generating plants operate at higher than normal temperatures and increased efficiency .
A HELE-plant additionally operates at emission and pollutant levels “ 45 % lower than from existing coal-fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is for coal to be its main energy source of electrical generation .
Japan is working towards building 22 HELE plants to replace nuclear power after the Fukushima accident .
China wants to build 300 HELE plants domestically and internationally .
Any Green New Deals , Paris Climate Agreements or excoriating of coal by the U.S. EPA are offset by Japan , India , China , and the EU , which is building twenty seven coal-fired plants to counter the energy to electricity dysfunction from overreliance on the wind and sun .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are committing energy suicide when they refuse to embrace and regulate out of existence lower-emitting by up to forty-five percent , rich in energy density , and always firing 24/7/365 , HELE coal-fired power plants .
Countries rich in coal , but unable to afford sophisticated and lower emitting , but expensive natural gas-fired power plants and billion ( s ) dollar ( s ) liquid natural gas terminals ( LNG ) could use coal to leave lives without fulfillment , and sophistication .
The book The End of Doom describes in rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and continents generally destroy their environments searching for basic necessities the U.S. and Europe take for granted .
“ If you want to minimize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2070 you might want to accelerate the burning of coal in India today ( as an example ) .
It doesn ’ t sound like it makes sense .
Coal is terrible for carbon .
But it ’ s by burning a lot of coal that they ( India ) make themselves wealthier , ( similar to America in the early 1900 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealthier ( any poor region of the world ) they have fewer children , and you don ’ t have as many people burning carbon , you might be better off in 2070 .
We shouldn ’ t be forced to choose between lifting people out of poverty and doing something for the climate.
” Billions without energy or electricity who are mainly using wood and cow dung , which are the worst emitting forms of energy , could be generating sustainable energy and electricity utilizing coal to save their local environments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more energy to electricity than renewables under current technological constraints .
The main factor why is “ HELE plants have a capacity factor of 86 % , while wind has a capacity factor of 35 % , and PV solar has a capacity factor of , at best , 22 % .
” Counterintuitive for today ’ s energy wisdom , and climate change-nihilism , but coal can lead to cleaner air and healthier children and families .
Climates changing are about more than the earth warming or not over mankind ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Asian century , ” and they need more energy , power , and electricity than at any point in mankind ’ s history that coal provides .
Aggressive climate change action that the U.S. Democratic Party and European Green parties advocate for are “ egregiously misleading ” when coal is demonized in favor of lowering human flourishing .
The mantra of coal is death is unbelievably exaggerated when economic reality meets an environmental movement termed a “ climate-industrial-complex.
” Nowhere are the poor kept in the rotting pits of life more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be built to the detriment of billions of Chinese , Africans , and Indians .
Soul crushing poverty the west can ’ t even imagine becomes the norm .
Multilateral development is then crushed when organizations such as the World Bank don ’ t allow the Asian century to flourish , or the second half of this century where Africa is likely to become the largest region in the world .
Asserting renewables and climate change mitigation programs bring “ co-benefits ” is false , a bold-faced lie , and justifies the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bold souls in India , China , Africa , and elsewhere deserve the abundant , affordable , scalable , reliable , flexible , and energy dense life-giving qualities that coal brings globally .
Coal can lay the foundation for prosperity that historically leads to clean landscapes , fresher air , and an all-around better earth for all .

Over 600 million Africans are still without energy and electricity. The movie “Juice” brilliantly illustrates through visual representation how billions are without electricity; and without electricity and the energy from mainly fossil fuels, life returns to the Dark Ages.
Whereas liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore exposes the fallacy, human misery, and environmental degradation that occurs when towns, cities, counties, states, nations, or continents rely on renewable energy to electricity from wind turbines (enormous emitters of greenhouse gases) and solar panels; or destructive biomass is used for electrical generation.
Literally, life has no purpose, happiness, and meaning without electricity and sources of energy that are abundant, scalable, reliable, affordable, and flexible. That describes coal – but isn’t coal outdated, outlawed, and the worst form of energy possible? In fact, coal has always been, and is back at the forefront of what could save billions without hope, a future, and the key to environmental stewardship the west desperately craves.
At this time there are approximately 1,600 coal-fired power plants being planned, permitted, or currently under construction. Hard to believe since this reliable source of electricity is under attack in western nations such as the U.S. and the entire European Union. Elsewhere coal is used more than ever. China, Japan, and India are using and building newer “high efficiency low emission (HELE), ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants.”
HELE electricity-generating plants operate at higher than normal temperatures and increased efficiency. A HELE-plant additionally operates at emission and pollutant levels “45% lower than from existing coal-fired power plants.”
Official Indian energy policy is for coal to be its main energy source of electrical generation. Japan is working towards building 22 HELE plants to replace nuclear power after the Fukushima accident. China wants to build 300 HELE plants domestically and internationally.
Any Green New Deals, Paris Climate Agreements or excoriating of coal by the U.S. EPA are offset by Japan, India, China, and the EU, which is building twenty seven coal-fired plants to counter the energy to electricity dysfunction from overreliance on the wind and sun. The west led by the U.S. and EU are committing energy suicide when they refuse to embrace and regulate out of existence lower-emitting by up to forty-five percent, rich in energy density, and always firing 24/7/365, HELE coal-fired power plants.
Countries rich in coal, but unable to afford sophisticated and lower emitting, but expensive natural gas-fired power plants and billion(s) dollar(s) liquid natural gas terminals (LNG) could use coal to leave lives without fulfillment, and sophistication. The book The End of Doom describes in rich detail that poorer peoples, nations, and continents generally destroy their environments searching for basic necessities the U.S. and Europe take for granted.
MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel says:
“If you want to minimize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2070 you might want to accelerate the burning of coal in India today (as an example). It doesn’t sound like it makes sense. Coal is terrible for carbon. But it’s by burning a lot of coal that they (India) make themselves wealthier, (similar to America in the early 1900’s), and by making themselves wealthier (any poor region of the world) they have fewer children, and you don’t have as many people burning carbon, you might be better off in 2070. We shouldn’t be forced to choose between lifting people out of poverty and doing something for the climate.”
Billions without energy or electricity who are mainly using wood and cow dung, which are the worst emitting forms of energy, could be generating sustainable energy and electricity utilizing coal to save their local environments, and lives. HELE plants generate overwhelmingly more energy to electricity than renewables under current technological constraints. The main factor why is “HELE plants have a capacity factor of 86%, while wind has a capacity factor of 35%, and PV solar has a capacity factor of, at best, 22%.”
Counterintuitive for today’s energy wisdom, and climate change-nihilism, but coal can lead to cleaner air and healthier children and families. Climates changing are about more than the earth warming or not over mankind’s activities. We are living in the “Asian century,” and they need more energy, power, and electricity than at any point in mankind’s history that coal provides.
Aggressive climate change action that the U.S. Democratic Party and European Green parties advocate for are “egregiously misleading” when coal is demonized in favor of lowering human flourishing. The mantra of coal is death is unbelievably exaggerated when economic reality meets an environmental movement termed a “climate-industrial-complex.” Nowhere are the poor kept in the rotting pits of life more than when coal-fired power plants are not allowed to be built to the detriment of billions of Chinese, Africans, and Indians. Soul crushing poverty the west can’t even imagine becomes the norm.
Multilateral development is then crushed when organizations such as the World Bank don’t allow the Asian century to flourish, or the second half of this century where Africa is likely to become the largest region in the world.
Asserting renewables and climate change mitigation programs bring “co-benefits” is false, a bold-faced lie, and justifies the worse kind of environmental racism. These bold souls in India, China, Africa, and elsewhere deserve the abundant, affordable, scalable, reliable, flexible, and energy dense life-giving qualities that coal brings globally. Coal can lay the foundation for prosperity that historically leads to clean landscapes, fresher air, and an all-around better earth for all.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-17--CLINTEL issues Great Charter of Universities for research freedom

The climate change debate might be one of the worst cases of academic suppression in history .
We see these days a lot of complaints about threats to academic freedom , but very little action .
So it makes a lot of sense that CLINTEL has taken a positive step forward .
CLINTEL has issued the Magna Carta Universitatum 2020 .
This short is basically an aspirational code of conduct for freedom of inquiry and speech at universities .
There is some impressive here .
The first Magna Carta Universitatum was issued in 1988 and to date at least 889 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CLINTEL notes that it is building directly on this precedent , to fit “ the special challenges of today ” .
It is spot on that CLINTEL ’ s MCU 2020 is primarily directed to the present university leadership .
The Magna Carta was in fact the Magna Carta Libertatum or Great Charter of Freedoms .
It dates from 1215 , showing that protecting freedoms is far from new .
The scope of CLINTEL ’ s Magna Carta is twofold .
The main body is focused on five principles , each of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content is general in nature , applying to all sciences .
But for each principle there is also given a climate science example , indicating that political authority and economic power today are suffocating climate science .
CLINTEL argues in its preamble that universities have become a primary source of prosperity in their region .
The higher the scientific level realized , the larger the contribution to prosperity .
Universities , therefore , should promote excellence at all times .
This means that they should not settle for followership , but aim at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership in research and teaching does not follow political and commercial pressure .
Here are the five principles of Magna Carta Universitatum 2020 : 1 .
Sound scientific research is open-minded and is characterized by a wide variety of viewpoints without dogmas and prejudices Professors that criticize the Anthropogenic Global Warming ( AGW ) hypothesis are excommunicated .
Students and speakers are shouted down .
2 .
The complexity of multi-factor , multi-scale systems demands the input from a wide range of scientific fields and disciplines Knowledge areas that reveal the natural variability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored .
3 .
Improved measurement systems are decisive for scientific progress ; sound science requires a balance in theoretical and empirical sciences In climate science model-makers are running the show , while progress urgently needs more and better observations .
4 .
Leaders of universities should protect their scientists from political ideologies ; separation of science and politics is a great good The political wish list of the Paris Climate Accord in 2015 has set the climate science agenda for decades .
5 .
Leaders of universities have a moral responsibility to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ models must be distrusted The climate science community ought to be more honest to the public about the severe limitations of their theoretical models .
The Great Charter ends with this imperative recommendation : “ Finally , academic leaders should bear in mind that universities ought to be centers of new ideas and delivery rooms of new talent .
This requires an inspiring research and teaching environment , where new concepts are welcomed and ample room for experimentation is provided .
The filtering out of bad ideas should be done by exposure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to silence creative minds.
“

The climate change debate might be one of the worst cases of academic suppression in history.
We see these days a lot of complaints about threats to academic freedom, but very little action. So it makes a lot of sense that CLINTEL has taken a positive step forward.
CLINTEL has issued the Magna Carta Universitatum 2020. This short document is basically an aspirational code of conduct for freedom of inquiry and speech at universities.
There is some impressive history here. The first Magna Carta Universitatum was issued in 1988 and to date at least 889 universities have signed on to it. CLINTEL notes that it is building directly on this precedent, to fit “the special challenges of today”. It is spot on that CLINTEL’s MCU 2020 is primarily directed to the present university leadership.
The original Magna Carta was in fact the Magna Carta Libertatum or Great Charter of Freedoms. It dates from 1215, showing that protecting freedoms is far from new.
The scope of CLINTEL’s Magna Carta is twofold. The main body is focused on five principles, each of which is stated and then discussed. This content is general in nature, applying to all sciences. But for each principle there is also given a climate science example, indicating that political authority and economic power today are suffocating climate science.
CLINTEL argues in its preamble that universities have become a primary source of prosperity in their region. The higher the scientific level realized, the larger the contribution to prosperity. Universities, therefore, should promote excellence at all times. This means that they should not settle for followership, but aim at leadership in their scientific expertise. And leadership in research and teaching does not follow political and commercial pressure.
Here are the five principles of Magna Carta Universitatum 2020:
1. Sound scientific research is open-minded and is characterized by a wide variety of viewpoints without dogmas and prejudices
Professors that criticize the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis are excommunicated. Students and speakers are shouted down.
2. The complexity of multi-factor, multi-scale systems demands the input from a wide range of scientific fields and disciplines
Knowledge areas that reveal the natural variability of the earth’s climate are ignored.
3. Improved measurement systems are decisive for scientific progress; sound science requires a balance in theoretical and empirical sciences
In climate science model-makers are running the show, while progress urgently needs more and better observations.
4. Leaders of universities should protect their scientists from political ideologies; separation of science and politics is a great good
The political wish list of the Paris Climate Accord in 2015 has set the climate science agenda for decades.
5. Leaders of universities have a moral responsibility to warn society that conclusions from questionable scientific models must be distrusted
The climate science community ought to be more honest to the public about the severe limitations of their theoretical models.
The Great Charter ends with this imperative recommendation:
“Finally, academic leaders should bear in mind that universities ought to be centers of new ideas and delivery rooms of new talent. This requires an inspiring research and teaching environment, where new concepts are welcomed and ample room for experimentation is provided. The filtering out of bad ideas should be done by exposure, argument and observation and not by trying to silence creative minds.“


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-17--A whimsical, satirical, sarcastic, not funny, none of the above ,or all of the above look at settled

A whimsical, satirical, sarcastic, not funny, none of the above ,or all of the above look at settled science

Human induced climate change is to many settled Science .
So 2 questions come to mind 1 ) What is Settled Science ?
2 ) If its settled science , why are we spending so much money researching it ?
When I think of Settled Science I don ’ t think of something that many people far smarter than I , with degrees at levels I can only dream about , would disagree with what has become a “ consensus ” .
If it ’ s a done deal , why are they debating it .
But there are many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent of man caused warming , but their voices are being suppressed .
That does not mean thy are not out there .
I also think , what is truly settled science ?
I have one.. water freezing at 32 is settled science .
There is no debate there , right ?
Upon reflecting on this , I realized how many problems this causes in the world today .
More people die from cold than warm , large areas of the planet are rendered useless for crops for a few months out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any crops at all cause its almost always below freezing .
The amount of money spent on fighting the ravages of winter storms is a huge drain on the economic well being of the planet .
Snow breeds snow and breeds more cold .
It takes more energy to heat a home or business that to cool it .
So given that this is settled science , why are we not fighting to make the freezing temperature lower .
After all it would mean a much more hospitable climate far better for mankind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or drive on icy roads , or have their wind turbines frozen , or solar panels covered with snow and ice ?
Sure we have winter sports , but look at all the people that get hurt doing that .
For their own protection we should change this , Sure t would put alot winter recreation and sport out of commission , but like coal miners when coal was under attack , we can simply retrain them .
Why are we not in a global push to change this settled science so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water freezing at 32 .
Imagine if the freezing point were 15 .
Countless people would live a better life .
Who is going to come to the forefront on this issue ?
So many questions , but so few answers .
So why doesn ’ t man take up this challenge ?
Because we ADAPT .
That is how progress is made .
( or if you are a Rocky 6 fan.. that ’ s how winning is done ) So if the planet is 1 degree warmer for whatever reason , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man ’ s ability to innovate and adapt , that there are practical ways to handle it .
But water freezing at 32 is a huge problem , one we have not solved .
I dream of a world where water freezes at 15 .
Don ’ t get me started on gravity .
Imagine if we could all fly ?
AOC ’ s dream of no vehicles spewing co2 into the air would come true .
Then again since you exhale 100x more Co2 than you inhale , more people flying would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , this is no subject to make light of .
How dare I use the absurd to try to make a point .
Well there are 2 responses , one often quoted by RFK ( that ’ s the problem with being an old democrat , you remember what your heroes said ) Some men see things as they are , and ask why .
I dream of things that never were , and ask why not .
I have heard someone else said that before I heard it from RFK but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first Or this from immortal Sergeant Hulka from the timeless classic , Stripes : “ Lighten up Francis ” While I am at it , binge watching Bill Murray movies is a great way to smile , if you are not smiling at any of this .
For sometimes you have to smile and just remember if you truly have faith , Nature and for me natures God is in control .
I don ’ t think we have to waste time and money on fighting the temperature water freezes at .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other aspect .
Perhaps We will all get our answers at the end of our lives .
From another timeless Bill Murray movie , Caddyshack , after caddying for the Dalai Lama .
“ So we finish the eighteenth and he ’ s gon na stiff me .
And I say , “ Hey , Lama , hey , how about a little something , you know , for the effort , you know.
” And he says , “ Oh , uh , there won ’ t be any money , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deathbed , you will receive total consciousness.
” So I got that goin ’ for me , which is nice.
” Hope you have that going for you too on this matter .

Human induced climate change is to many settled Science. So 2 questions come to mind 1) What is Settled Science? 2) If its settled science, why are we spending so much money researching it?
When I think of Settled Science I don’t think of something that many people far smarter than I, with degrees at levels I can only dream about, would disagree with what has become a “consensus”. If it’s a done deal, why are they debating it. But there are many that don’t agree about the extent of man caused warming, but their voices are being suppressed. That does not mean thy are not out there. I also think,what is truly settled science? I have one.. water freezing at 32 is settled science.
There is no debate there, right?
Upon reflecting on this, I realized how many problems this causes in the world today. More people die from cold than warm, large areas of the planet are rendered useless for crops for a few months out of the year, some can never have any crops at all cause its almost always below freezing. The amount of money spent on fighting the ravages of winter storms is a huge drain on the economic well being of the planet. Snow breeds snow and breeds more cold. It takes more energy to heat a home or business that to cool it. So given that this is settled science, why are we not fighting to make the freezing temperature lower. After all it would mean a much more hospitable climate far better for mankind. Who wants to shovel snow, or drive on icy roads, or have their wind turbines frozen, or solar panels covered with snow and ice? Sure we have winter sports, but look at all the people that get hurt doing that. For their own protection we should change this, Sure t would put alot winter recreation and sport out of commission, but like coal miners when coal was under attack, we can simply retrain them. Why are we not in a global push to change this settled science so that we can control the hideous nature of water freezing at 32. Imagine if the freezing point were 15. Countless people would live a better life.
Who is going to come to the forefront on this issue? So many questions, but so few answers.
So why doesn’t man take up this challenge? Because we ADAPT. That is how progress is made. ( or if you are a Rocky 6 fan.. that’s how winning is done) So if the planet is 1 degree warmer for whatever reason, the change is so gradual relative to man’s ability to innovate and adapt, that there are practical ways to handle it. But water freezing at 32 is a huge problem, one we have not solved. I dream of a world where water freezes at 15.
Don’t get me started on gravity. Imagine if we could all fly? AOC’s dream of no vehicles spewing co2 into the air would come true. Then again since you exhale 100x more Co2 than you inhale, more people flying would cause a problem.
Now some may say, this is no subject to make light of. How dare I use the absurd to try to make a point.
Well there are 2 responses, one often quoted by RFK (that’s the problem with being an old democrat, you remember what your heroes said)
Some men see things as they are,and ask why. I dream of things that never were,and ask why not.
I have heard someone else said that before I heard it from RFK but that’s where I heard it first
Or this from immortal Sergeant Hulka from the timeless classic, Stripes: “Lighten up Francis”
While I am at it, binge watching Bill Murray movies is a great way to smile, if you are not smiling at any of this.
For sometimes you have to smile and just remember if you truly have faith, Nature and for me natures God is in control. I don’t think we have to waste time and money on fighting the temperature water freezes at. The reader can make their own conclusion on the other aspect.
Perhaps We will all get our answers at the end of our lives. From another timeless Bill Murray movie, Caddyshack, after caddying for the Dalai Lama.
“So we finish the eighteenth and he’s gonna stiff me. And I say, “Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know.” And he says, “Oh, uh, there won’t be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.” So I got that goin’ for me, which is nice.”
Hope you have that going for you too on this matter.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-16--Could coal be the answer for billions without energy?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-18--The linear no threshold fraud unveiled

The linear no threshold fraud unveiled

It may surprise you that it took Dr. Joseph Lister more than 50 years in the 19th century to convince surgeons moving from working in a morgue on one side of a hospital corridor to wash their hands before entering a room on the other side of the corridor to help women give birth .
Dr. Ed Calabrese should not feel so exceptional to have spent much of the last 40 years of his career in genetics convincing his peers that the Linear No Threshold model for nuclear radiation damage , makes no sense what ever .
Now by obtaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and panels who have maintained this unfortunate status quo he can prove fraud from almost the beginning .
The bottom line before explaining the details of the fraud is that years of research on as many as 70,000 survivors of the atomic bomb blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their new born children was ignored in favor of dealing only with data arrived by exposing fruit flies ( drosophila ) and mice to radiation .
Calabrese is able to show clear conflict of interest in such a choice in order to maintain funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The National Academy of Science ’ s Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission human genetic study , reported by Neel and Schull in 1956 , showed an absence of genetic damage in offspring of atomic bomb survivors to support of a threshold model .
However , it was not considered for evaluation by the National Academy of Science ’ s Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation Genetics Panel .
The study therefore could not impact the Panel ’ s decision to recommend the linear no threshold dose-response model for risk assessment , now well know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcripts of the Panel meetings , now available , failed to reveal an evaluation of the Neel/Schull study .
Despite its human relevance and ready availability .
Instead they relied entirely on laboratory studies where radiation was applied to common fruit flies and mice .
Correspondence among the panel members now shows that the failure of the genetics panel to consider years of human exposure evidence meticulously attained was due to two things .
First they all exhibited a strong belief that a single molecule of radiation could cause damage to humans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occur .
Second and more despicable is the fact that an excessive degree of self-interest among the panel members dealt with their primary research work being involved with animal studies including the impact of the late Herman J. Muller who had won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1946 for his work on fruit flies .
That work was later shown to be flawed by a co-worker .
Evidence shows that Muller himself tried to block the publication of the Neel/Schull study back in 1956 , when he communicated the following message to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my own approval of the publication of the working paper as part of the WHO report if this attack upon the credibility of extrapolation from animals to man..is to be included.
” They clearly feared that human genetic studies would expose the limitations of extrapolating from animals to humans , particularly using flies .
This would shift research investments and academic grants from animal to human studies .
Ignoring the Neel/Schull atomic bomb study served both the purposes of preserving the LNT policy goal and ensuring continued dominance of the followers of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If the reader finds this to be as absurd and underhanded as it would appear you can be sure scientists studying climate change are experiencing the very same shunning of reason and logic in favor of absurd alarmist claims .
As a result the world has poured money down a drain that could have helped raise the living standards for the poor .
In the case of the inaccurate LNT model patients not able to get potentially helpful radiation treatment have suffered unnecessarily .
Cancer risk assessment was built upon assumptions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutations follow a linear dose response down to a single ionization and that chemical carcinogens , which also act via mutagenic processes should be assessed in the same way as radiation for the purpose of cancer risk assessment .
This has proved disastrous as US EPA adopted it as their policy in 1975 creating a variety of inaccurate alarmist positions regarding chemicals less harmful than advertised .
EPA based its linear foundation for cancer risk assessment on the mouse studies while ignoring by then 30 years of human studies involving radiation exposures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of magnitude delivered at an extraordinary high dose rate .
We are therefore faced with the strange history of how the world came to adopt the Linear No Threshold based cancer risk assessment .
Those in the position of power implemented an ends justified the means philosophy and would even commit scientific misconduct to ensure the adoption of the LNT .
It is one that envelops the universal common denominators of money , power and influence .
The findings now nearly 50 years later have consistently continued to contradict a linear dose response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adoption of the LNT occurred during a perfect storm consisting of heightened societal fear of nuclear confrontation and continuing nuclear fallout from atmospheric testing .
This history should represent a profound embarrassment to the United States National Academy of Science , regulatory agencies world wide , and especially US EPA and the risk assessment community .
Those whose founding principles were so ideologically determined and accepted with little if any critical reflection .
It is time this all changes .
The Linear No Threshold model dealing with nuclear radiation needs to be placed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete 12 page article titled “ The Muller-Neel Dispute and the Fate of Cancer Risk Assessment ” by Edward J. Calabrese appears in Environmental Research .

It may surprise you that it took Dr. Joseph Lister more than 50 years in the 19th century to convince surgeons moving from working in a morgue on one side of a hospital corridor to wash their hands before entering a room on the other side of the corridor to help women give birth.
Dr. Ed Calabrese should not feel so exceptional to have spent much of the last 40 years of his career in genetics convincing his peers that the Linear No Threshold model for nuclear radiation damage, makes no sense what ever. Now by obtaining decades of correspondence from the numerous committees and panels who have maintained this unfortunate status quo he can prove fraud from almost the beginning. The bottom line before explaining the details of the fraud is that years of research on as many as 70,000 survivors of the atomic bomb blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their new born children was ignored in favor of dealing only with data arrived by exposing fruit flies (drosophila) and mice to radiation.
Calabrese is able to show clear conflict of interest in such a choice in order to maintain funding for animal studies rather than human studies. The National Academy of Science’s Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission human genetic study, reported by Neel and Schull in 1956, showed an absence of genetic damage in offspring of atomic bomb survivors to support of a threshold model. However, it was not considered for evaluation by the National Academy of Science’s Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation Genetics Panel. The study therefore could not impact the Panel’s decision to recommend the linear no threshold dose-response model for risk assessment, now well know as the LNT model.
Summaries and transcripts of the Panel meetings, now available, failed to reveal an evaluation of the Neel/Schull study. Despite its human relevance and ready availability. Instead they relied entirely on laboratory studies where radiation was applied to common fruit flies and mice.
Correspondence among the panel members now shows that the failure of the genetics panel to consider years of human exposure evidence meticulously attained was due to two things. First they all exhibited a strong belief that a single molecule of radiation could cause damage to humans, thus no threshold where damage would not occur. Second and more despicable is the fact that an excessive degree of self-interest among the panel members dealt with their primary research work being involved with animal studies including the impact of the late Herman J. Muller who had won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1946 for his work on fruit flies. That work was later shown to be flawed by a co-worker. Evidence shows that Muller himself tried to block the publication of the Neel/Schull study back in 1956, when he communicated the following message to Neel : “I cannot indicate my own approval of the publication of the working paper as part of the WHO report if this attack upon the credibility of extrapolation from animals to man..is to be included.”
They clearly feared that human genetic studies would expose the limitations of extrapolating from animals to humans, particularly using flies. This would shift research investments and academic grants from animal to human studies. Ignoring the Neel/Schull atomic bomb study served both the purposes of preserving the LNT policy goal and ensuring continued dominance of the followers of the Muller dependance on fruit flies and mice.
If the reader finds this to be as absurd and underhanded as it would appear you can be sure scientists studying climate change are experiencing the very same shunning of reason and logic in favor of absurd alarmist claims. As a result the world has poured money down a drain that could have helped raise the living standards for the poor.
In the case of the inaccurate LNT model patients not able to get potentially helpful radiation treatment have suffered unnecessarily.
Cancer risk assessment was built upon assumptions that Carcinogens are Mutagens, that radiation induced mutations follow a linear dose response down to a single ionization and that chemical carcinogens, which also act via mutagenic processes should be assessed in the same way as radiation for the purpose of cancer risk assessment. This has proved disastrous as US EPA adopted it as their policy in 1975 creating a variety of inaccurate alarmist positions regarding chemicals less harmful than advertised.
EPA based its linear foundation for cancer risk assessment on the mouse studies while ignoring by then 30 years of human studies involving radiation exposures that exceeded back ground levels by many orders of magnitude delivered at an extraordinary high dose rate.
We are therefore faced with the strange history of how the world came to adopt the Linear No Threshold based cancer risk assessment. Those in the position of power implemented an ends justified the means philosophy and would even commit scientific misconduct to ensure the adoption of the LNT. It is one that envelops the universal common denominators of money, power and influence.
The findings now nearly 50 years later have consistently continued to contradict a linear dose response, supporting a threshold response. The adoption of the LNT occurred during a perfect storm consisting of heightened societal fear of nuclear confrontation and continuing nuclear fallout from atmospheric testing.
This history should represent a profound embarrassment to the United States National Academy of Science, regulatory agencies world wide, and especially US EPA and the risk assessment community. Those whose founding principles were so ideologically determined and accepted with little if any critical reflection. It is time this all changes. The Linear No Threshold model dealing with nuclear radiation needs to be placed in the dustbin of history.
The complete 12 page article titled “The Muller-Neel Dispute and the Fate of Cancer Risk Assessment” by Edward J. Calabrese appears in Environmental Research.