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

Nukes--technology as a double edged sword

Expand Messages
  • mike@usinter.net
    And certainly the limitations and benefits of nuke energy are worthy of debate in the context of the problems of other energy resources. My two cents are that
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 28, 2004
      And certainly the limitations and benefits of nuke energy are worthy
      of debate in the context of the problems of other energy resources.
      My two cents are that for better or worse nuke energy is also not a
      sustainable source of energy, and the topic really discussed here, in
      spirit anyway that I hope to focus, is in the context of a living
      earth how do we as human beings live within ourselves and our earth.
      Over time, whether we use nuke energy or not we have to figure out a
      way to live on earth and at the same time power our needs. At
      present it is a difficult enough task for me to attempt to teach what
      I know about large scale electrical forcings, CO2 as a gas exchange
      agent for conductity change, and so on.


      Climate, which is the sum of cloud behaviors, is detemined.

      Like a White Christmas or a summer storm or a spring rain.

      What you are REALLY talking about when you say that weather cannot be
      predicted is that turbulance and viscosity math is not something even
      our best super computers can resolve, and the reason is that water
      vapor, water and ice have differing impacts on how the sun heats
      them, and that changes how they flow relative to one another. Which
      brings us to microphysics and large scale EMFs. And then to gas
      exchange and conductivity and how CO2 is correlated with temperature.

      Why does science and logic desire to figure out how to model climate?
      What is the model for? Because in order to dampen or modulate
      climate, you must model it.

      Which gets to abiogenesis.

      That is how DNA/RNA is ultimately a 'model' of climate. The
      nucleotide parasol sorting impacted conductivites and modulated the
      earth EMF. Without this modulation, the earth EMF is too strong and
      life dies or too weak and all the atmosphere is wisked away by the
      solar winds. So in modeling the best EMF conditions between too much
      field or too little, gaia as a macrobiosphere predated cellular life
      and was able to evolve complexity to deal with entropy on small
      scales even before localized processes began to repair themselves and
      have metabolism like what we think of what life is. DNA in one strand
      wasn't the model solution--the whole of the nucleotides on earth

      Certainly as the sun goes red giant at some point the biosphere will
      be incapable of modulating the electrical and radiative inputs, so in
      that sense there is the death of gaia. But at a fundimental level
      climate is determined to be within a range, mathematically speaking,
      which supports life. The emperical proof of such dampening is life
      itself--having persisted for 4 billion years. Note how I use the
      figure 4 billion and not 3 billion, which evolutionists use in
      discussing cellular life.

      Let me get back to Wojick's point about models, because I think it is
      extremely important theory. The paradox is thus. In order to plan our
      behaviors according to that climate which is the result of human
      activities and do something about it, we have to 'model' climate.
      That's an obvious idea. Yet we cannot 'model' a hurricane five days
      out looking at air pressures and heat gradiants. This, again, goes to
      viscosity and turbulance. Yet, again, climate does not appear to be
      dominated by air pressures and heat gradiants, like, say, on Jupiter
      with the red storm that has stayed, huge and unmoved, for hundreds of
      years. A tropical storm exploids over thousands of miles for a few
      days, like a wink, and then is gone. Why?

      Better, if life has a model of climate and has evolved to modulate or
      dampen it, what is the forcing used? The obvious choice would be
      nucleotides, and as it turns out, this is the correct choice in terms
      of early pre cellular global life. This again gets to a solution for
      a model that is "computed" in a massively parallel sense by the
      nucleotides--much like Crichton discusses in his book 'Prey'. The key
      forcing HAS to be electrical, because in the microphysics of clouds
      in large cumulated scales this is the only way that the viscosity and
      turbulance problem can be DETERMINED!In this context it better be
      mentioned what 'life' is. Rosen talks about life and metabolism and

      But when discussing abiogenesis or the start of cellular life, on
      small scales we come across a HUGE problem of entropy. In other
      words, the chemicals of life left by themselves without life want to
      become disordered with energy distributed evenly. We see in this
      discussion, over and over, points made about energy distributing
      itself throughout the global system, and basic thermodynamics rules
      applied. So how did early life, whether contained in a cell or not,
      deal with the fact that had to continually power itself against
      entropy and repair itself from the damages toward that entropy given
      changing energy inputs? Mmm? That's a huge problem in abiogenesis and
      perhaps the best point that the so called intelligent designer
      creationists make when they say evolutionary theory has a problem
      with improbable complexity.

      How is that relevant here? Because when the fake climate change
      skeptics argues about models, they are arguing that they are too
      complex to be solved, and talking about probabilities, really. What I
      am saying is similar but with a twist. A complex problem can never be
      truly solved in the sense that a perfect representation of the system
      rendered. Indeed, that is what a model IS, a representation, a
      proximation, not the system itself. This gets to the failure of
      reductive science itself, because a model is not a reduction of a
      complex system, but a representation of that system AS A WHOLE! It
      can only PROXIMATE the complexity. So, what I am saying about the
      earth's climate is that the biosphere has evolved as a whole to MODEL
      climate and all it's complexity, and proximately appreciate the
      chaotic inputs, and then dampen it within a range that life survives.
      The early part of this model, via nucleotides in clouds, which were
      sorted and worked like a massively parallel super computer, where,
      with luck multipled, over countless transactions over huge
      timescales, large scale ELECTRICAL conditions on earth were
      PROXIMATELY determined.

      As the nucleotides became more complex, their ability to solve the
      large scale problem enabled them to solve the small scale problem of
      entropy in order to have metabolism and repair somewhat independantly
      of the solution set as a whole. You could even put in the problem of
      quantum mechanics in here, too. That is, you cannot have a determined
      solution on a small quantum scale, right? Yet, we see metabolism and
      repair and even brain specialists are looking at quantum mechanics in
      the way our brains work! I would say that even the way we think is
      determined by 4 billion years of weather and climate and the
      chemistry that resulted.


      A professor of biology I once knew long ago . . .

      What I am talking about is taking, for instance, tax money for Social
      Security and funding an oil war or Star Wars II, a weapon system that
      doesn't work. Industry, like Boeing or Hilliburton, profits, but
      these transfers of wealth are not necessarily good for the economy as
      a whole, or for humanity. Hilliburton merely pays Cheney 30 million
      and they get a 1 billion dollar contract--it is an easy treasonous
      bribory to create in a fascist government. As the Cheney's of
      government move back to industry and then back to goverment, in a
      seemless movement, the goverment is industry. How is it a shock that
      executive branch then tells energy companies--what do you want? Mmm?

      Explain to me how the best policy would only be that which industry
      demands? You DO want the best from your government, don't you? For
      instance, you DO want the TRUTH about climate and its impacts to be
      know so that public policies can be deliniated, NO?

      There is a saying I heard long ago from a biology professor, who
      graduated top of his biology class at Harvard and top of his Harvard
      PhD class. He quoted:

      "Be careful what dreams you clutch. For dreams come true.""Be careful
      what dreams you clutch. For dreams come true."

      That biology professor, when I interviewed him for a college
      newspaper, and asked him for his most loved quote, and then wrote his
      bio as a new professor, did work on fleas. He was sequencing DNA. The
      nuts and bolts of the best science takes brains and is a hard, cold
      road, with little or no travel on it. Concensus, as Michael Crichton
      observed, is not science.

      From those fleas came 'junk DNA'.

      From junk DNA is the remnants of early nucleotide sorting from cloud
      nucleating parasols and EMF gaia--long before there was cellular

      So it goes.

      A fascist is not a conservative . . .

      A conservative would say that our government is a constitutional
      government. Of the people, by the people. A nation of laws. Industry
      respects not science, people or laws--that much is clear, whether it
      is an attempt to regulate locally or globally. The victories are
      little and the price is high. A VP for $30 million. A supertanker
      Condi to get the female black's favor. A Carlyle Group profit sharing
      plan for Anglo heads of state. On it goes.

      As a lawyer, I KNOW that John Daly BLUNDERED for industry. Industry
      asked him a question that industry did not know the answer to. The
      question was answered badly. Not wrongly, but for the ecologists. I
      will ask myself a question that I KNOW the answer to. Look at a
      present sat image, like a Goes image, of cloud cover over the North
      Pacific along the western North American coast. Why are the clouds
      running north to Canada. Why is there a fair weather zone along the
      coast from California to Washington? Mmmm? Don't give me the pressure
      and temperture information--that only tells us 5 days worth of
      weather, and fair weather here in Redding California starts about now
      and runs until the fall---AFTER almost continous rains all winter.
      Why? Why? Why? Mmmmm?

      John Daly said the SOI matters, not CO2. Then that fossil fuels are
      good for industry. But what John Daly didn't know, as he tracked the
      SOI, was that roiling changes in direction of winds impacts gas
      exchanges and induction and hence conductivity, and CO2 AS AN
      ELECTRICAL FORCING was and indeed is changed by human activity . . .
      and the algae blooms and temperature and EMF patterns of the seasons
      cause extreme coupling just off the west coast of the US between
      Pacific Ocean and ionosphere--where summer thunderstorms keep the
      ionosphere relatively positively charged and ice cannot form in
      clouds off the coast without elongating, and therefore the water
      vapor diffuses out to sea.

      There's more, but it's enough to say that the blind leading some
      commitee with self congradualation and self dealing is a road not
      less traveled, but a road to genocide and policy catastrophy.

      One more thing. This isn't JUST about fossil fuels. It is about eco
      systems. Fossil firtilizers, dams, deforestation, cities in deserts,
      pavement over swamps. And, yes, nuke power. Very complex, and stuck
      in a comittee of idiots.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.