Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4338Re: [hreg] Re: Roger Ebert reviews An Inconvenient Truth

Expand Messages
  • Bashir Syed
    Jun 5, 2006
      I have been reading this discussion after returning from China, previous weekend. As a physicist who  spent two years working for Rockwell International Science Center in early seventies incharge of the instrumentation to collect Air Pollution data under an EPA contract. We must understand the Solar Energy which comes from SUN in the form of Electromagentic Waves (light is a part of visible portion of the electromagnetic waves of the electromagnetic waves spectrum) called Photons. The energy of the photons according to deBroglie, the energy of photons is proportional to the frequency of the photons (or inversely proportional to the wavelength of photons) striking matter (solid, liquid, and gas). This energy is transfered to the receiving medium atmosphere and earth. Our atmosphere is composed of many gases (which abosrb energy from these photons) and solid particulate matter (which scatters radiation).  When we look at the Irradiance of incident solar radiation plotted against the wavelength of photons, we find many absorption bands characteristic of various components of our atmosphere (Ozone, water vapor, oxygen, and carbon dioxide). It turns out that in the case of Carbon-dioxide, this absorbed energy appears in the form of Thermal energy or heat which is transfered to other molecules in the air. Thus the larger the number of carbon dioxide molecules are present in the atmosphere the more heat transfer takes place which in turn apears as increase in the temperature of materials in contact with air on earth. Thus the earth warming is a reality and not fiction. The increase of Carbon-dioxide translates into cummulative effect of all molecules which is observed as increased thermal energy. Carbon dioxide has absorption bands in the region of about 1.8 microns  and beyond 2.4 microns  of wavelength ( one micron = 0.000,001 meter). Ozone absorbs photons in the UV range, and any depletion of Ozone translates into transmission of Photons of Ultra-Violet (UV) which interacts with the cells of our skin, and long exposure of UV translates into Carecenoma or Skin Cancer.
      Unless people become aware of this phenomenon based on laws of Physics, which are universal in nature (and do not obey the laws of Oil industry), the scientists are not talking rubbish as often conveyed in the media to confuse citizens/tax-payers.
      There was an article published in "IEEE Spectrum magazine" regarding the RF pollution caused by Cellular Phone Networks, in December 2002 issue pertaining to interaction of radiation emanating from the cell phones with brain, which penetrates to a depth of about three inches inside our skull/brain. As we know that RF energy interacts with cells which contain water molecules. The high frequencies used  by most Cell phones caused transfer of energy in the form of heat to water molecules, causing damage to cells in the brain tissue, which may eventually take the shape of tumors in the brain if a person is not careful about the time spent on the Cell phones (the effects of any kind of radiation are cummulative).
       
      Here is something which will startle you. During the 1991 Gulf War, our government blamed Iraqi troops for setting up the "oil well fires in Kuwait," but the truth is far from this PR job. According to an article "Why Are Data from Kuwait Being Withheld?" [by John Horgan, Scientific American, page 20, July 1991] The  Bush administration in 1991, ordered NOAA to withhold  Satellite data being forwarded to EPA, and later on when this matter was exposed by the media they had the same attitude of coverup using the excuse "the task force is supposed to give information to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia first" before considering it for release to US scientists. I would recommend all to read this one page article in Scientific American in order to learn how politics plays the role to spread disinformation in order to sway public opinion, by the politicians supported by their industrial supporters/constituents.   
       
      Bashir A. Syed
      Member: ASES, ISES, APS, IEEE, UCS, New York Academy of Sciences
      Member of Radiation Safety Committee NASA/JSC (1995-2003).
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:28 AM
      Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Roger Ebert reviews An Inconvenient Truth

      Maybe what I meant to say is carbon is in your every day life -from the tires on the car (are they rubber): or the PC housing, to the packageing of your groceries etc. That is our foundation of consumer products. Does a barrel of oil go for 100 % usage of  gasoline and petrol products? Next time you eat a chocolate bar, think of what is in that chocolate bar. The real treasure thats in  oil is the refined black carbon, the building block of a plastics. Plastics equate to consumption which equals growth. The delimea we face is how to conserve. If you watch PBS, even Chevron advertises that half the worlds energy supply is used up, the problem is how to effectively use the rest. For sure, it is going to be more expensive, and hence under a capitilistic system, the growth of other competing dollar entities are going to shrink. That is not a good thing at all. The city of Houston has not not taken heed to this warning. they are by far the largest user of electricity, yet have not one action plan to make changes. I heard they found some federal money and invested in a wind farm at King Ranch. Maybe they can open an annex buiding next door.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 11:37 PM
      Subject: [hreg] Re: Roger Ebert reviews An Inconvenient Truth

      Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comments, but please note that: 
      (1) "black carbon" is not the basic building block of life; (2)
      carbon is an element that is indeed the building block of life; (3)
      carbon in various molecular forms is "burned" by animals every day
      to form CO2; (4) CO2 is "recycled" by plants that convert it into
      sugars, cellulose, etc. that are then used by animals via #2, as
      well as used for building houses, burning to heat them, etc.; marine
      invertebrates fix a lot of CO2 by incorporation into carbonates,
      which we humans also use in various ways; (5) I haven't read any
      serious scientists proposing that we will exhaust the world's carbon
      supply by burning it up; (6) none of this is to dispute that CO2
      levels are at record highs, but simply to remind HREG readers that
      the chemistry of the carbon cycle is complex and varied because it
      IS the foundation of life--let's try to keep the basic facts
      straight.

      Robert Johnston


      --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Kramer" <onekindr@...> wrote:
      >
      > A geophysicist will argue that we are in a natural warming caused
      by changing sea levels, shift in plates and natural changes in the
      jet stream. Global warming might be a small cause of the natural
      warming trend, and the earth atmosphee can handle any Co2 gases that
      we humans combust. Electricity is suppose to make our life better,
      and if we do not find a sustainable source of electricity, life for
      our children and theirs will revert to prehistoric times. We are
      here for a very short time, we should only borrow from mother
      nature, not take. If we deplete the carbon resources,
      > what is the next generation going to do for the very basic
      building life of all matter-black carbon. Rather than utilizing the
      carbon for the solid production of physical goods, we are burning it
      up in combustion for electricity. Once its gone, its gone. If we do
      not wake up and make some serious changes in our lifestyles, how we
      use the exiting resources, the future does not look so bright the
      children.
      >   ----- Original Message -----
      >   From: Sarah Carriger
      >   To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      >   Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 6:53 PM
      >   Subject: Re: [hreg] Roger Ebert reviews An Inconvenient Truth
      >
      >
      >   I do not understand the comment of where the children are going
      to play.  Same place they played before the turn of the 20th
      century - before oil production became a big business - outside.  If
      fossil fuel is causing global warming, then isn't this a good thing
      that we run out of fossil fuels???  This planet and her inhabitants
      survived just fine without oil and we can do it again.  It appears
      that only when the supply is indeed limited will there be any
      advances in alternative energy production, because at that point
      there will be no choice.
      >
      >
      >   Edward Kramer wrote:
      >     Thanks for the invite, but I would rather conserve my fuel, as
      the round trip from my house is costly and I will do my part to help
      the future. Remeber, there is only 70-80 year supply of fossil fuel
      in the world. Where are the chiildren going to play?
      >
      >
      >
      >   SPONSORED LINKS Renewable energy  Renewable energy resources 
      Renewable energy sources 
      >         Renewable energy system  Renewable energy news  Houston
      texas 
      >
      >
      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------
      >   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >     a..  Visit your group "hreg" on the web.
      >      
      >     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >      hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >      
      >     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
      of Service.
      >
      >
      > -------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------
      >





    • Show all 23 messages in this topic