tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374918652024-03-07T13:11:06.223-05:00Thou and Thou OnlyRiches we heed not, nor man's empty praise.<br><br>
This blog belongs to the family of JunkMale, a Christian and Georgia Tech alumnus. Target demographics might include conservative Christian, healthy-eating, homeschooling, interracial families, and others who do not call this world "home." Where homemade is usually better than store-bought. For more info, click the "About" link below.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-28510808071856279042009-04-10T07:25:00.000-04:002009-04-10T07:25:18.422-04:00Environmental Randomnimity<b><u>Unintentionally Low Carbon Footprint</u></b><br /><br />...we have one. It's unintentional because we do a lot of the "environmentally friendly" things because it benefits us, as <a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2007/03/selfish-materialist-discusses-energy.html">I've discussed here before</a>. We cook from scratch as much as possible because it's generally healthier and cheaper. We compost because, well, it all ends up becoming free compost. (never mind that composting itself probably produces the oft-maligned "greenhouse gases.") We garden because it's fun, rewarding, and good for our health. Our main car, which is not a hybrid, is very fuel efficient (a couple of tanks ago, I got 41 miles per gallon!) and it saves us money. We are a one income couple because we feel that the benefits of Harmony staying home far outweigh the benefits of having more money at the cost of having busier lives.<br /><br /><b><u>Much Easier to be an Enviro-Radical Food Snob These Days</u></b><br /><br />(The following are mostly unresearched thoughts.) <br /><br />It seems to me that it is much easier for some slightly concerned person to be an enviro-radical food snob (ERFS) these days, because it only slightly inconveniences. For clarification, I'll define ERFS as a person who seeks to make an environmental or political statement by buying organic foods whenever possible. (In the interest of full honesty, we are probably food snobs to an extent, although definitely not enviro-radical; generally, we eat what's put before us without raising questions of conscience.) I'd imagine that if you were an ERFS back in the day and had a craving for chocolate* or Doritos, you'd either have to make it yourself or do without. Which brings me to my point.<br /><br />It is much easier to be an ERFS in this day and age, where the organic grocery stores have their own versions of pretty much everything you'd find in a regular grocery store. Processed cereals, granola bars, chips, frozen dinners, you name it and they probably have it somewhere.** Aside from having to part with more money, the typical busy two income couple could switch from conventional to organic with microscopic effort.<br /><br />I wonder how many contemporary ERFSs would "fall away" from their convictions if convenient organic foods all of a sudden disappeared. You want cookies or cake? Gotta make it yourself. You want a quick and easy dinner but don't want to cook? The food snob part of you must go into hiding so you can head to McDonald's or Applebee's or wherever.<br /><br />* - <em>Chocolate? Hardly the environmentally friendly food for U.S. residents, if you're concerned about food miles. The biggest source of cacao is Africa and Central/South America. Say bye to bananas too. And off-season produce.</em><br /><br />** - <em>never mind the fact that those items share the following things with their conventional brethren: are just as processed, probably require the same amount of infrastructure and logistics (a.k.a. petroleum) to get to the shelves, and probably have the same packaging materials.</em>JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-35196667519156476102008-06-10T07:33:00.000-04:002008-12-09T17:09:43.684-05:00Wonders of CO2, and Weird GardenerA couple of environmental-type links for you today:<br /><br /><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_avUUQxpy30o/SE5kn4qsjEI/AAAAAAAAApc/4Hcb94xvR5A/s200/co2good.jpg" border="0" alt="Image from FinancialPost.com"id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5210212455303384130" />Some readers of this blog would be very interested in this article from the Financial Post, titled "<a href="http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586" title="Financial Post - In Praise of CO2" target="new">In Praise of CO<sub>2</sub></a>." Not surprisingly, the article talks about the good that increased carbon dioxide levels are doing, mainly for plant growth. If you remember your basic biology, humans breath in air, process the oxygen, and out comes air with more CO<sub>2</sub> in it. Plants, on the other hand, take in CO<sub>2</sub>, light, and water. Out come sugars and oxygen. I think the actual process is more complicated than that, but that's the gist. <br /><br />So...maybe I'm just too much of a botanical simpleton, but wouldn't reducing CO<sub>2</sub> levels be bad for plants?<br /><center><hr width="80%"/></center><br /><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_avUUQxpy30o/SE5kdjUGglI/AAAAAAAAApU/tCa6xcQkbsk/s200/spawn_of_satan.jpg" border="0" alt="Stock.Xchng image- Spawn of Satan"id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5210212277772780114" />The other article is a New York Times article titled "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/garden/05animals.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1" title="New York Times - Peter Rabbit Must Die" target="new1">Peter Rabbit Must Die</a>." It's about gardeners who are ruthless towards pest animals who think that the garden is a free salad bar. This time, it's not the subject of the article that I want to highlight. (In fact, I am pretty <a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2007/06/varmint-update.html" title="Thou and Thou Only - Varmint Update" target="new2">ruthless towards pest animals in our garden</a>) It's one of the nutcases that is mentioned in it. The article first mentions some artist/illustrator guy who had moved to rural Pennsylvania. Woodchucks were invading his garden, and none of the "humane" methods (a.k.a. methods that don't work) were working. So here's what followed next:<br /><br /><blockquote>Finally, the artist decided he would have to shoot the animals. First, though, he went to each hole and made an announcement.<br /><br />“I said: ‘I intend to kill you. You have 24 hours to get out,’ ” he recalls. “I wanted to give them fair warning. I said, ‘If I were you, I would find another place to live.’ I also promised them I would not take a shot unless I knew it would be fatal.” <br /><br />He is making this into a funny story, he says, but when he killed his first woodchuck he “literally felt sick.”<br /><br />“I went outside and knelt down to it and said a little prayer to whatever the powers that be that when my turn comes, I will do it as gracefully and uncomplainingly.”</blockquote><br />^_~ <br /><br />...?<br /><br />Is this guy joking? Do I just lack a sense of humor? What a weirdo. As if the woodchucks can understand English. Then he kneels to it and says a prayer. What a weirdo, twice over. I bet this guy owns or has owned a beret, has "Free Tibet" stickers all over his car, and will vote Obama for president. <br /><br /><em>Disclaimer before our resident leftist(s?) posts angry comment: owning a beret is not morally wrong, nor is wanting to free Tibet. The tongue is in the cheek ;*) See?</em>JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-82905270167231320292008-04-22T08:04:00.003-04:002008-05-14T06:49:42.938-04:00Ridiculous Article: "Might Our Religion Be Killing Us?"From the USA Today's Opinions section: <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/might-our-relig.html" target="newwindow" title="USA Today - Might Our Religion Be Killing Us?">"Might Our Religion Be Killing Us?"</a> For those that don't feel like reading, I'll attempt to give you an objective summary. I got this from <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1134" target="newwindwop" title="AlbertMohler.com - Are Children Threatening the Earth?">Al Mohler's blog</a>. (While I am not Baptist like Al, I do agree with much of his social commentary.) <br /><br />Oliver "Buzz" Thomas writes about how religions that promote large families could be hastening the destruction of the planet. He says that for each additional person, the planet Earth (and by extension, us) pays a big price. "There are simply too many people for the planet to sustain," he says. End objective summary.<br /><br />I'm not quite sure I have much useful to say about this article, but I did want to post some of my favorite portions of it. Perhaps you will have something useful to say.<br /><center><hr width="70%"/></center><br /><blockquote>We could be the ones who get blamed for destroying [civilization]. <br /><br />Here's why. The hundreds of scientists who make up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned recently that the environmental crisis is more dire than originally believed. We might have reached a tipping point. <u><b>Even if we stop producing harmful greenhouse gases immediately, temperatures could continue to rise and ocean levels along with them for the next 1,000 years.</b></u> How much? The IPPC [sic] says by as much as 11 degrees this century with a corresponding rise in ocean levels of nearly 2 feet. </blockquote><br />Wait, hold on a second. So if we were to somehow completely stop all emissions of greenhouse gases, temperatures and ocean levels would still rise? I must be missing something here...doesn't that mean that the planet is going to do what it's going to do, and we can't do much to stop it?<br /><center><hr width="70%"/></center><br /><blockquote>For each additional human, planet Earth (and the rest of us) pays a price. The world knows where this is all headed. <b><u>In fact, we even devote an <i>entire</i> day — Earth Day, which we'll mark Tuesday — to promote awareness.</u></b></blockquote> (bold and underline emphasis mine, italics were included in the original article)<br /><br />Is he being sarcastic? Perhaps this is faulty reasoning on my part, but if he were really that concerned, shouldn't he think we should devote more than a day? He speaks of a day as if it's a long period of time. It's a long period of time for a mayfly. <br /><center><hr width="70%"/></center><br /><blockquote>I recognize that religious organizations tend to be conservative institutions. <b><u>Their continued resistance to equal rights for women and gays is a good example.</u></b> A woman may be president of Harvard or speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, but in the largest religious organization on the planet, women still can't get ordained as parish priests. It's even worse for gays and lesbians.<br /><br />All this is to say that religion often comes late to the party — sometimes kicking and screaming, as did most Southern churches on slavery and civil rights. Only this time, we can't afford it. Not when the fate of the planet might hang in the balance. <br /></blockquote><br />Sometimes it is good that religion comes late to the party. In fact, sometimes religion should not attend the party at all, depending on what it's about and who's putting it on. Of course the church was wrong to turn a blind eye to (or condone) slavery and segregation. But the church should <i>not</i> seek to be a replica of society, only replete with crosses and Bibles. Women should not be denied the opportunity to be in high positions in secular society. However, I am talking about Christian churches. The Bible does not condone a woman to have authority over a man. It does not mean unequal rights; it means complementary roles. A woman is to submit to her husband, and a husband is to sacrifice for his wife. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that is what the Bible says.<br /><br />This last quote says to me that Thomas does not really see himself as an alien and stranger in this world. He wishes for religious people to conform themselves to the "tolerant" and "diverse" society which we are a part. But, as Romans 12:2 says, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."<br /><center><hr width="70%"/></center><br /><blockquote>Here's the thing. We need visionary religious and political leaders to start thinking about these problems if we are to have any chance of solving them. Not decades from now, when coastal cities could be flooding and Southern states struggling to secure enough fresh water.<br /><br /><b><u>There's little doubt that the human species has the ability to survive what lies ahead.</u></b> There is considerable doubt, however, as to whether we have the ability to rise above our personal and tribal interests to earnestly seek the common good.<br /></blockquote><br />So why did he write this column then? If temperatures and ocean levels are going to go up even without man's help (first quote), and if we are going to survive anyways (last quote), why spend so much time wringing his hands about the impending end of civilization? Just to feel like he's doing something?<br /><center><hr width="70%"/></center><br />Perhaps I have missed the point of the article? Read it yourself if you have spare moments; there's more good stuff that I didn't quote here. Perhaps he's just saying we need to live considerately of our global neighbors? What do you think? Have I missed the point? Or has he missed the proverbial boat?JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-76095513220385380602008-04-02T07:52:00.003-04:002008-05-14T06:29:48.779-04:00Closer Look at Local Foods and Recycling<a href="http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2008/03/environmentally-friendly.html" target="newwindow2">Headmistress</a>, in the comments in the <a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2008/03/recollections-of-environmentalist-kool.html" target="newwindow3">latest post regarding environmentalism</a>, asks for our thoughts regarding April's Reader's Digest article on <a href="http://www.rd.com/special-reports/the-environment/conserve-your-energy/article54447-2.html" target="newwindow">easy ways to go green.</a><br /><br />One portion to which Headmistress refers mentions how buying locally grown foods might not be as good for the environment as one might think. Here is what Reader's Digest says about that:<br /><blockquote>If you want to support local farmers and love fresh food, fine, but don't assume you're helping the planet. Foods from farther away may be grown and shipped so much more efficiently (and cheaply) that they produce fewer greenhouse gases. "There are lots of good reasons to eat local," says David Victor, director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University. "But energy savings don't top the list, because local production often requires more trips than mechanized food production."</blockquote><br />I would've liked to have seen some numbers, being the science minded person that I am, but this is Reader's Digest, not Popular Science ;)<br /><br />This revelation is fine with me. <div class="pullquote">We hardly ever consider buying local foods because of environmental reasons. Why do we grow vegetables in our garden? Because it's fun, rewarding, and convenient.</div>When we buy local foods, our chief factors include freshness, taste, and price. Supporting the local farmers is also a secondary factor. We hardly ever consider buying local foods because of environmental reasons. Why do we grow vegetables in our garden? Among other things, because it's fun, rewarding, and convenient, although not without its share of disappointments from time to time (goodbye Chinese Giant bell peppers). It's a hobby that provides us with exercise and healthy food. It also gives us reason to re-use vegetable scraps, yard waste, and cardboard as compost.<br /><br />Something that I've not seen mentioned in articles about local food is the distance that you yourself drive to get these local goods. There is a popular grocery store in the Atlanta area. This store carries lots of organic and/or locally grown produce. This store also has a big parking lot, and lots of cars fill up that parking lot. I'm not one to be too concerned about carbon emissions, but I wonder how much gas the patrons could have saved if they just went to the grocery store closest to them? We, for instance, have a Publix within walking distance, and a Kroger within 5 minutes driving distance. It would take us about 20-25 minutes (without traffic delays) to get to this other grocery store. Luckily for us, we also have at least one big produce stand within a 10 minutes drive.<br /><br /><center><hr width="85%"></center><br />The article also mentions how certain items might not be worth recycling:<br /><blockquote>While it can make economic sense to recycle aluminum and paper, towns frequently lose money recycling glass and plastics because they're expensive to collect and aren't worth much. Go ahead and recycle plastic if it gives you pleasure -- you can feel virtuous about the energy savings. But there are easier and cheaper ways to reduce greenhouse emissions.</blockquote><br />This is something I've wondered about before. How much more energy does it take to recycle? How much pollution does a recycling plant belch out? Is recycling cost-effective? Maybe we aren't really being as resource-friendly as we thought, since we hardly <i>ever</i> drink soda, and thus hardly ever have aluminum to recycle. Most of our recycling items are paper and plastics. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling" target="newwindow">Wikipedia's article on recycling </a>has both advocacy and criticism, as I would expect from an encyclopedic article.<br /><br />(It is interesting to note that John Tierney, who wrote this Reader's Digest article, also wrote a New York Times article that is cited in the Wikipedia entry above. His 1996 NYT article is titled "<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DF1339F933A05755C0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1" target="newwindow4">Recycling is Garbage</a>." I'm assuming it's the same John Tierney, although I could be wrong.)<br /><br />I don't know who to trust on this issue. At least with other controversial issues such as canine raw diets, I directly observe the results and evidence that it is beneficial and healthful. With recycling, I think it's hard for an average citizen to observe beneficial or harmful results. I think we'll stick with recycling, although maybe it's government elementary school brainwashing that's controlling me ;)<br /><br />Again, my chief reasons for recycling do not include "helping the environment." I'd say my chief reason is conserving resources, which I hope it actually does. I hate to see things wasted, which means I halfway freak out whenever we go out to eat. <a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2007/02/wasting-food.html" target="newwindow5">Have you seen how much food people waste??</a>JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-83563586619127276982008-03-25T12:23:00.002-04:002008-05-14T06:49:42.939-04:00Recollections of Environmentalist Kool Aid in Elementary SchoolLast night, Harmony and I were reminiscing about the environmentalist Kool Aid we drank in our elementary days.<br /><br /><span style="width: 200px; float: right; text-align: center; border-top: 1px solid #000066; border-bottom: 1px solid #000066; background: #DEDED9; padding: 10px; margin: 5px 0 5px 5px;">People are misguided in thinking that they wield authority over the earth's processes.</span>Both of us remember feeling quite worried that in a couple of decades, the earth would be quite uninhabitable, what with the evil corporations dumping their garbage into the oceans. We'd hear about how 50 acres of rainforest are destroyed in the time it takes you to raise your hand to ask to use the restroom. Undoubtedly, some evil corporation killed 60 baby seals so you could watch TV when you got home. Mwahaha, the evil corporate CEO probably even dined on live baby seals too! Both of us remember feeling hesitant about eating canned tuna because, supposedly, dolphins died in the process of catching the tuna. But the chief sin of all: not cutting your six pack holders before throwing them away!<br /><br />What is interesting is that neither of us remember hearing much about global warming. Back then, the cool thing to be worried about was ozone layer depletion. We'd tell our moms to use pump hairsprays instead of aerosols. I believe styrofoam was also bad, but I'm not sure why. Somewhere along the way, the fad switched to global warming fears.<br /><br />What would be the consequences of ozone layer depletion? Ozone helps block ultraviolet radiation. Perhaps we'd see a rise in cancer incidences with ozone depletion. Or perhaps we wouldn't. Perhaps increased exposure to UV rays could be good for you. After all, it's not as if ultraviolet radiation is some evil sentient being set on causing harm to everyone in the universe. UV light can be used to sterilize surfaces, disinfect drinking water, and can be used in treatment of skin conditions. I am not saying that ozone depletion would lead to worldwide clean water wherever you go, or no more skin diseases; I'm just saying that one should not jump to a knee-jerk reaction about UV this or that. Not all radiation is bad; in fact, I would say that we benefit from radiation much more than we are harmed by it. Perhaps more on that subject in a later post.<br /><br />I believe that the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do, and that people are a bit misguided to think that they wield such authority over the earth's processes. The planet is an immensely complex and chaotic system. You'd be foolish to say that action A will lead to result B, 100%, every single time. One forgets that action A is also influenced by factors C through Z and beyond. Attempting to establish causality between action A (say, driving cars) and result B (say, global warming) is educated guesswork at best, demagoguery at worst. My point is that since the earth is such a complex system, it's virtually impossible to establish firmly (or even halfway firmly) that humans are or aren't the cause of meteorological trends. So what should we do? Go on with life. You by yourself cannot have much effect at all on the earth's processes.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-39508128414338490392007-09-17T07:35:00.000-04:002008-05-14T06:49:42.942-04:00Obligatory Seasons PostSince I've seen weather-change posts on a number of other blogs, I figured I'd chime in with my 2 Republic credits.<br /><br />Harmony and I are thrilled that it's finally starting to cool down a bit here in Georgia. It could just be a cold front, as the weather did appear to change overnight, but we're hoping it's a real season change. We are puzzled at people who like summer and apparently like to sweat and get dirty and smelly (maybe I misunderstand those people). Unless they're Asian, in which case they get sweaty and dirty, but not smelly unless they are left to ferment for a few days. It's nice never having to worry about deodorant :D Anyways, I suppose that people who like summer and hot weather are correspondingly puzzled at us too.<br /><br />I think one of the big reasons I like cold weather is because I grew up in Florida. It was always hot, and so cold weather was like a treat to me. Anything lower than 50 degrees qualified as freezing Arctic sub-zero temperatures (and still does, for me). To this day, I still think it's cool (in more than one way) to be able to see my breath condense on chilly days. There's just something I love about being inside a warm house knowing that it's cold outside. However, this might all be different if I grew up in frigid Arctic climates. <br /><br />There's also a very good thermodynamic reason why I like cold weather. It is much easier to warm your body up, rather than cool it down. As long as you feed your body, your body is constantly generating heat. Anyone can harvest the already created heat energy by putting on more clothes. If that doesn't work, get moving and start burning some calories, which will generate more heat. It is much easier to control your own temperature when the weather is cold and you have sufficient clothing.<br /><br />Contrast all that with when it's hot. If your air conditioning goes out, there are only so many items that you can remove from your body. It's not like you can start taking off dermal layers. You are doomed to a life of hot sweat, whereas in cold weather, you just put on tons of clothes and eventually you will be fine. Assuming you have the clothes to put on. I can imagine that if I were a homeless person, I would hate winters.<br /><br />Speaking of which, another reason why I like cold weather is because women are more likely to cover up more skin! Being that they are women and thus have less muscle mass than men, women are much more likely to feel colder than the average man, and thus will wear more clothes. Hooray for cold weather!<br /><br />As you will remember from freshman physics class, heat is what is created and moved around, not cold. If anything feels cold, it is because it lacks heat and is consequently drawing heat from the surrounding environment in order to achieve equilibrium. You cannot create "cold." <br /><br />I should also mention that I like rain. Put the two together and you get cold rainy weather, which Harmony and I also love. When everyone else is complaining about "yucky" weather, Harmony and I are silently thinking about what a beautiful day it is. Ironically, it seems that whenever I <i>don't</i> want it to rain (like if I have outdoor plans), it rains, or threatens to rain.<br /><br />If you really really like hot weather, please post your well-thought-out reasons. I keep an open mind, but still maintain that there's only so much you can do to beat hard scientific reason.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-1374126327120134342007-04-30T13:30:00.000-04:002008-05-14T06:49:42.943-04:00Science and Global Warming: Part 1In my <a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-ignorance-concerning-climate-change.html">previous blog post</a>, I indicated that I had an interest in learning more about the science behind the debate. Here, for your perusal, is the first topic I tackled.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><b>Debate #1 - Global Warming will or will not lead to a greater instance of insect-borne diseases</b></span><br /><br />*World Health Organization (quoted from a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/372219.stm">BBC article</a>):<br /><blockquote>"The World Health Organisation (WHO) says global warming could lead to a major increase in insect-borne diseases in Britain and Europe. It has called for urgent government action to prepare for the spread of diseases like malaria and encephalitis. The average temperature in Europe has increased by 0.8C during the past century and the average global temperature could rise by another 3.5C by the year 2100.... This would be accompanied by changes in rainfall patterns, greater precipitation and humidity in the atmosphere, and many new areas of floodwater. This in turn could lead to an increase in disease-carrying pests such as ticks, mosquitoes and rats, which live in warmer climates and whose breeding-grounds are often in damp areas."<br /></blockquote><br />*Professor Paul Reiter, Dept of Medical Entymology, Pasteur Institute, Paris<br />(transcribed by me from "<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle">The Great Global Warming Swindle</a>", at appx 55 min into the program... please excuse any typos or inaccuracies)<br /><blockquote>"Mosquitoes are not specifically tropical. Most people will realize that in temperate regions there are mosquitoes. In fact, mosquitoes are extremely abundant in the Arctic. The most devastating epidemic of malaria was in the Soviet Union in the 1920's. There was something like 13 million cases a year, and something like 600,000 deaths - a tremendous catastrophe that reached up to the Arctic Circle. Archangel had 30,000 cases and about 10,000 deaths. So it's not a tropical disease. Yet these people in the global warming fraternity invent the idea that malaria will move northward."</blockquote>The following questions are raised from this debate:<br />1) Are malaria and encephalitis warm-climate diseases?<br />2) Do rats, mosquitoes and ticks currently live in cold climates in sufficient numbers to create outbreaks of disease?<br /><br />First, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria">malaria</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalitis">encephalitis</a>:<br />These days, malaria does tend to be a tropical/subtropical disease. However, before the use of insecticides, malaria was found in virtually every country in the world. King Louis XIV and Charles II both were struck with malaria. There was indeed an epidemic of malaria in Russia as far north as <a href="http://www.ships.ru/pics/ports/map_archangel.jpg">Archangel</a>, which is a port on the Arctic Sea. Mosquitoes are found everywhere -- although they hibernate for part of the year in colder climates. This may be one part of the argument which is founded. In temperatures under ~50F, the female mosquitoes go into hibernation. If the climate change was sufficient enough to raise winter temperatures that high, there would be mosquitoes all year round. This might explain the difficulty in eradicating the disease in tropical locations. I would say that there is a possibility of regions where there are already incidences of malaria to have increased (perhaps even epidemic) numbers of cases, depending on the actual rise in temperature. Countries where the disease has already been eradicated are already using insecticides to prevent the re-introduction of the disease -- their problem, I would imagine, would be finding new ways to kill resistant mosquitoes, not dealing with epidemics.<br /><br />Prior to today, I knew next to nothing about encephalitis. The disease is often a complication to another disease, such as rabies, syphilis, toxoplasma, or bacterial meningitis. Rabies is transmitted by the bite of a mammal (rodents, such as rats, are rarely infected). Bacterial meningitis is not transmitted through insects or rodents. Syphilis is an STD. Toxoplasma is often contracted through contact with house cat feces, and is not very easy to catch. Only sensitive individuals, such as pregnant women, the very young or elderly, and those already sick would be likely to contract encephalitis through this method. There is one form of encephalitis that is transmitted through ticks, known as Tick Borne Encephalitis (TBE). This form is most common in Europe and Asia, with the death rate somewhere around 1% of all cases. Encephalitis epidemics are pretty rare. There was an outbreak of a rare form of encephalitis (known as 'sleeping sickness', not to be confused with the disease with the same name transmitted via tse-tse fly) which was perhaps caused by diplococcus bacterium, or perhaps infected individuals who were weak from the Spanish Flu outbreak which occurred in the same general time frame. I found no link between this outbreak and the TBE variant of the disease. I do not see how an increase in temperature would hasten the spread of encephalitis.<br /><br />Conclusion: Encephalitis is NOT a warm-weather disease. Malaria might possibly have an easier time spreading in a climate that rarely dips below 50F, but has historically appeared in extremely cold climates.<br /><br />Rats, mosquitoes, and ticks:<br />I already learned that mosquitoes do live in the arctic, so they are not exclusively warm-weather insects. However, in a warmer climate they would have much more time available to reproduce. So how do they live up North? Answer: <a href="http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-mosquito.htm">swarms</a>. No wonder the outbreak in Archangel was so bad! Rats live almost everywhere on earth. Good luck getting rid of them, even if the world were to go into another Ice Age. I'm having a hard time finding information on where ticks live, but from the best I can tell, their habitat is generally in the eastern coast of Africa, North America, the Eurasian Steppe, India, and the Mediterranean. Typical tropical areas such as Central and South America, Central Africa, and Southeast Asia are conspicuously absent from the <a href="http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/001-613/map27.gif">maps</a> I was able to <a href="http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/001-613/map26.gif">find</a>. This does not mean that they do not live in tropical areas, just that they were not on those maps. It does, however, mean that ticks live in non-tropical regions all over the world.<br /><br />Conclusion: rats, mosquitoes, and ticks do not exclusively live in tropical areas. They are all present in sufficient numbers in non-tropical areas to be causing troubles already.<br /><br />Based on the evidence I found, I would tend to agree with Dr Reiter rather than the WHO. I think he might have oversimplified a few things, but then again I am not the Professor of Medical Entymology.<br /><br />And for your further enjoyment, here is more from the documentary (continuing on after the original quote at the top of the page):<br />According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "mosquito species that transmit malaria do not usually survive where the mean winter temperature dips below 16-18C." Professor Reiter responds, "I was horrified to read the second and the third assessment reports, because there was so much misinformation without any kind of recourse, or virtually without mention of the scientific literature -- the truly scientific literature, literature by specialists in those fields." He further states, "When I resigned from the IPCC, I thought that was the end of it. But when I saw the final draft, my name was still there, so I asked for it to be removed. Well, they told me that I had contributed, so it would remain there. So I said, 'No, I haven't contributed, because they haven't listened to anything I've said.' So in the end it was quite a battle, but finally I threatened legal action against them and they removed my name. And I think this happens a great deal. Those people who are specialists but don't agree with the polemic and resign -- there have been a number that I know of -- they are simply put on the author list and become part of this '2500 of the world's top scientists'."Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-15662784505846357262007-04-30T10:59:00.000-04:002008-05-14T06:49:42.944-04:00My Ignorance Concerning Climate ChangeI am tired of my lack of knowledge on how climate works. I hear one side saying that man is causing global warming, and the other saying that this is bad science. The 'man' side says that the 'sun' side is in the pockets of the oil companies. The 'sun' side says that the 'man' side is full of communists who want to take down capitalism. So who do you believe? The problem is that I know next to nothing about climatology. So whatever I believe is going to be based not on my knowledge of the scientific workings of the atmosphere, sun, climate, pollution, etc, but on <span style="font-style: italic;">what someone else tells me</span>. Something tells me that the majority of other earthlings subject to this debate are in the same boat as I am.<br /><br />But I don't like being ignorant. Ergo, I have decided to visit the local library for books on climatology, meteorology, weather, etc. I want to learn enough about the subject so that I can make an *informed* decision, rather than taking someone else's word at face value.<br /><br />There are a few subjects that interest me more than others. I watched a fascinating video called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (which I would recommend everyone watch) in which they threw around a whole lot of scientific terms that seemed very credible to me -- but that I want to know more about. One scientist mentioned that a basis for the study of severe weather is that the greater delta T (that is, the change in temperature) between the poles and the equator, the greater the chance for severe weather. This does not readily mesh with traditional global warming propaganda (for lack of a better term), which has made the public believe that if the Earth warms, there will be more hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc. If the scientist's claim was correct, it would mean that unless the temperature at the equator was rising at a greater rate than that at the poles, the incidence of severe weather would remain largely the same as it has generally been. And, without having studied the subject myself, there seems to be no reason why global warming would effect the equatorial regions of the Earth more than the poles.<br /><br />But the truth is that I have no idea if that particular scientist (or any others, from either camp) was making a valid claim, and I'm tired of being part of the uninformed masses.<br /><br />If you, too, would like to learn more about how the Earth's weather and climate works, you can find information about meteorology in section 551 at your library. Looking through 533 (on gases -- for information on atmosphere) might also be useful. 508 (natural history) might contain some good information about Ice Ages and possibly something about the Medieval Warm Period. If you want to know more about how the sun works, try 523 (Specific celestial bodies & phenomena). Be sure to browse all of the 550s (Earth Sciences) just in case another interesting title catches your eye.<br /><br />Oh, and if you want to know more about the global warming debate/problem, be sure to also check out 363 - Other Social Problems and Services.<br /><br />Depending on my continued interest in this subject, there might be more posts on the science behind weather/climate/global warming to come.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-48721407998760728752007-03-16T07:17:00.000-04:002008-05-14T06:49:42.946-04:00Can't Get Something For Nothing(this has the label of "pop-culture" because I believe global warming is a popular culture thing)<br /><br />Environmentally crazed lefties (socialists are what they really are) don't seem to understand that you cannot get something for nothing. In this case, "something" is energy. <br /><br />Currently our industrial society is geared around using fossil fuels. Fossils, as you should know, take a LONG time to make. Fossil fuels, by extension, are made naturally over a very long period of time. The commercial and industrial infrastructure is already in place to support mass use of fossil fuels. But the socialists/communists don't like using fossil fuels because they *claim* that it contributes to global warming. Bunch of bunk, if you ask me. <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warming">Watch this video</a> and it will cure you of your global warming mental illness. For the rational and logical among us, this presentation seems scientifically sound. However, it is more than 1 hour long. EDIT: Here's a link to a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258993,00.html">Fox News article</a> that talks about this documentary.<br /><br />(BTW, in that video, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace calls the global warming environmentalists "anti-human" and communistic)<br /><br />So the socialists want us to stop using fossil fuels and start looking to alternative energy. Alternative like what? Solar and wind power? "Yes, of course, Mother Nature would be most pleased if you just powered your house with solar energy." In the documentary, they showed a clinic in Africa that had no power source but two solar panels. With those, you could power either the refrigerator, or the lights. Not both. Hey that's great...either you can see, or you can have vaccines that won't go bad. In order to power a modest African village, you'd probably need a solar panel the size of Montana. The socialists wouldn't like that because that would take up a lot of space and wouldn't be pleasing to environmental eyes. It would "disturb" the natural flora and fauna. Same thing with wind. You can't expect to power your house with one little out-of-the-way turbine. But we can't set up large scale wind farms because it supports "heavy industries" and disturbs natural flora and fauna. Wind and solar would require a lot of space. Space and time are in a continuum, and so if time = money, then are space and money and time all tied together? Who knows...<br /><br />What then? How to please the socialistis? Hydroelectric power? You don't think that would disturb the aquatic ecosystem at all? At least birds can fly over wind farms. Fish can't "swim over" hydroelectric dams. <br /><br />We're running low on options...maybe the best option we have is nuclear power. Personally, I think the main cost here is risk. Although I haven't rigorously researched it, I believe that nuclear power is the most efficient energy we currently use. Everyone knows the equation E = mc^2. It is the heart of nuclear power. The amount of energy we can get from the most miniscule amounts of uranium is astounding. Any amount of anything multipled by 90000000000000000 is a lot. The downside here is high level radioactive waste. But at least it wouldn't contribute to global warming, right? (In the words of Paul, I am out of my mind to talk like this)<br /><br />If you want someone to blame in all of the supposed energy woes, I suppose you have no one to blame but God. When God created the universe, I imagine He set forth innate properties of matter and energy. One of those is the principle of conservation of energy, which means that energy can neither be created or nor destroyed, only converted between different forms. So you see, it took me all that time to demonstrate that you cannot get something for nothing. If you were to try, you might be fighting God.<br /><br />(Note: energy generation is a topic of benthic proportions. I acknowledge that I only scratched the surface on a lot of these, and probably left out many details.)JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-23680096031109327522007-03-14T07:11:00.000-04:002008-05-14T06:49:42.946-04:00Winter Back ThenI've been looking at various stuff over on <a href="http://www.localharvest.org" target = "newwindow">Local Harvest</a>, to see if there's anything conveniently located near us. As it turns out, there is a produce stand not 5 minutes from our house, which is great, considering spring/summer are coming up.<br /><br />Having been a city boy for all of my life, I admit I have been totally ignorant to how little food can be cultivated during winter time. At that website, you can see what is available during winter/autumn/spring/summer, and stuff grown during winter time is scant. <br /><br />Currently, I really like winter time. The colder months are my favorite part of the year. I guess a lot of that is because I grew up in Florida, where it was a treat to be able to see my breath condensing. But if I'd lived back when the U.S. population was largely a bunch of farmers, I probably wouldn't have liked it much. After, one must get pretty tired of beans and turnips all winters. Fall would be spent preparing for winter, drying out said beans and whatnot. I suppose if you were lucky or rich, you might have some smoked meat set aside for very special occasions.<br /><br />Now we have freezers and refrigerators. We have grocery stores like Kroger and Publix to provide produce and meat throughout the winter. My "crunchiness" only extends as far as it's convenient for me, honestly. Sure we'll visit the produce stands and buy organic if possible, but I'm not so high and crunchy that I won't ever go inside chain grocery stores and buy conventional foodstuffs. Forget that; I'm hungry, it's available, and I like some variety in my diet, so why not? If not for nationwide grocery stores, I might not like winter so much. My lamentations over hard, orange colored tomatoes in wintertime sound whiny when compared to what people must've had to go through in the old days. That said, I can't wait till tomatoes are plentiful, red, and juicy again.<br /><br />Of course, if I am totally mistaken on some of these musings, feel free to cure me of my ignorance. I know very little of farm life.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-29664342864692437922007-03-05T09:13:00.000-05:002008-05-14T06:49:42.947-04:00The Selfish Materialist Discusses Energy ConsumptionI honestly don't really care that big cars use more gas and supposedly contribute to "global climate change." The reason I do not want an SUV is because they use more gas. And who pays for this gas, but me. Most, if not all, the lightbulbs in our house are of the compact fluorescent variety. We use them because they save *us* money. Search your feelings, you <strong>know</strong> this to be true. If I go on a house weatherizing craze, it's because it will save ME energy costs. We drive very conservatively in our Honda sedans not because we care about global warming, but because it'll cost us less in the end. If all these money-saving methods also happen to reduce the stress on natural resources, that's good too.<br /><br />Yes folks, it's true: JunkMale is energy-conscious not for the environment, but for the reduced hit on his own wallet. Less money doled out for energy costs means more money to kill off that pesky consolidated student loan. That selfish materialist just wants to provide for his family in the most efficient manner possible. That darn selfish and materialistic JunkMale just wants to make his money stretch as far as it can.<br /><br />Granted, I do not approve of careless destruction and waste of the environment's resources, and of course there's nothing wrong with conserving resources. But as I recall, the earth is here for us to use and inhabit, albeit <u>responsibly</u>. My environmental conservation position only goes as far as my position for humane treatment of food animals; treat them alright and let them roam free until you conk them out and hack them up for me to eat. Mmm meat..<br /><br />In an entirely unrelated note, I see that many people who have SUVs really don't *need* them in any way. What is an SUV good for? Well...hauling stuff around, I suppose, although you'd be hard-pressed to find someone hauling around plywood and dirt in his precious Cadillac Escalade. Most of the SUV owners I've known had absolutely no need for high road clearance and bigger payload. You are, of course, entirely within your rights to have an SUV. Don't feel guilty, especially if you actually need one and can afford it. Do feel guilty if you don't need one and can't afford it, but still have one anyways.<br /><br />In another slightly less unrelated note, I conjecture that if you are one of those people that are crazy about environmental conservation, you should not drive a luxury hybrid SUV. You could do much better about your fuel usage if you bought even just a pure combustion engine Honda Civic. It is not rare feat for Civics (and other small cars) to get 40 miles per gallon. Hybrid SUVs seem to average about lower 30's. Hybrid small cars will obviously do much better than that. I wonder what Mr. Gore drives? I'll bet it's not a Civic hybrid. He probably takes his private jet to go to the CVS on the corner.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com0