Global Warming

[silverfish]

Who said that? If they provide a link on an interesting topic, then I'll go there.





It's not worth it for several reasons. 1) IMO you've clearly demonstrate how biased you are. 2) You've made no point, as a law suite proves nothing until the verdict. 3) Failure for NASA to reveal data does not mean NASA is a liar. Again, if you can provide a valid reference, then great.

I've given you a good reference - it would be a simple matter to confirm or deny the fact of this lawsuit by contacting them directly - you are welcome to your opinions, by the way, whether or not I agree with them, which I mostly don't.

[PaulLowrance]

you are welcome to your opinions, by the way, whether or not I agree with them, which I mostly don't.

The main difference here is that most of the information I post is not just my opinion, it's what most scientists are saying. Indeed, you have the right to disagree with the majority of the science community.

And yes, on numerous occasions I've already provided the references that state most scientist believe that humanity is the main cause of global warming.

Paul

[blueplanet]

J Hazard Mater. 2009 Sep 15;168(2-3):591-601. Epub 2009 Mar 18.
Mercury pollution in Asia: a review of the contaminated sites.

Li P, Feng XB, Qiu GL, Shang LH, Li ZG.

State Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang 550002, China. fengxinbin@vip.skleg.cn

This article describes the mercury contaminated sites in Asia. Among the various regions, Asia has become the largest contributor of anthropogenic atmospheric mercury (Hg), responsible for over half of the global emission. Based on different emission source categories, the mercury contaminated sites in Asia were divided into various types, such as Hg pollution from Hg mining, gold mining, chemical industry, metal smelting, coal combustion, metropolitan cities, natural resources and agricultural sources. By the review of a large number of studies, serious Hg pollutions to the local environment were found in the area influenced by chemical industry, mercury mining and gold mining. With the probable effects of a unique combination of climatic (e.g. subtropical climate), environmental (e.g. acid rain), economic (e.g. swift growth) and social factors (e.g. high population density), more effort is still needed to understand the biogeochemistry cycle of Hg and associated health effects in Asia. Safer alternatives and cleaner technologies must be developed and effectively implemented to reduce mercury emission; remedial techniques are also required to restore the historical mercury pollution in Asia.

SOURCE:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345013?ordinalpos=25&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[blueplanet]

Sci Total Environ. 2008 Aug 1;400(1-3):227-37. Epub 2008 Jul 9.
Mercury pollution in Guizhou, southwestern China - an overview.

Feng X, Qiu G.

State Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang, PR China. fengxinbin@vip.skleg.cn

Mercury (Hg) is a global pollutant and poses a worldwide concern due to its high toxicity. Guizhou province is recognized as a heavily Hg-polluted area in China due to both the special geochemical background and human activities. Here an integrated overview of current knowledge on the behavior of Hg in environments, as well as human health risk with respect to Hg contaminations in Guizhou was presented. Two key anthropogenic Hg emission sources in Guizhou were coal combustion and metals smelting, which dominantly contributed to the high levels of Hg in local ecosystems and high fluxes of Hg deposition. The annual Hg emission from anthropogenic sources ranged between 22.6 and 55.5 t, which was about 6.3-10.3% of current total Hg emissions in China. Meanwhile, Hg Hg-enriched soil in the province serves an important natural Hg emission source to the ambient air. The local environment of Hg mining and zinc smelting areas are seriously contaminated with Hg. It is demonstrated that rice growing in Hg Hg-contaminated soil can accumulate methylmercury (MeHg) to a level to pose health threat to local inhabitants whose staple food is rice. Local inhabitants in Hg mining areas are exposed to Hg through inhalation of Hg vapor and consumption of rice with high level of MeHg. Rice intake is indeed the main MeHg exposure pathway to local inhabitants in Hg mining areas in Guizhou, which is contrary to the general point of view that fish and fish products are the main pathway of MeHg exposure to humans.

SOURCE:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18617222?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

[silverfish]

From my prospective, mercury and Cadmium are the only ones that are worrying. In the case of mercury, the half-life of mercury in the central nervous system can be anywhere between 15 years and 30 years. Because of such a long half-life, mercury is bioaccumulative in our bodies and can remain in the nerve tissues forever. Of all the metals that you have mentioned, mercury is only one that can cause direct damage to the nerve tissues.

It is not just the fishes that become the victims of mercury poisoning. Elemental mercury can end up being in our lungs. Unlike inorganic mercury, elemental mercury in the blood stream can reach the brain by way of blood circulation, causing damage to the nerve tissues.

Arsenic is another metal that can produce the similar symptoms of mercury. It can be found in pesticides. But the half-life of arsenic in our bodies is less than 3 hours. This means that at least half of the absorbed arsenic would be excreted out of the body within three hours.

Lead is not as toxic as mercury. And its half-life in blood is approximately 25 days; in soft tissue, about 40 days; and in bone, more than 25 years. Lead is not a potent neurotoxin, but some scientists suggest that lead can cause cognitive decline. If this is the case, then the upcoming climate deal is justified.

Cadmium is very toxic (but not neurologically toxic). Its presence in the human body can raise the serum GGT, which means the body would become more mercury-toxic. Its half-life can be anywhere between 6 and 38 years. But I think we should blame the smokers, not the environment.

I stand to be corrected.

You are missing the flouride component. Flourine is one of the most corrosive and toxic substances known - and flouride is a neurotoxin, read the book 'The Devil's Poison' and others. It damages the brain, creates infertility, cancer, dental flourosis, and contributes to a wide range of degenerative disorders. So why is this poison being added to our water supply? You say we should blame the smokers for cadmium - but tobacco is heavily taxed, isn't it? who benefits from this situation? You are leaving out the cocktail of pesticide residues, SSRIs and oestrogen-causing chemicals like Bisphenol A in plastics which cause infertility in humans and involuntary sex-change in fish. That's damaging the environment, isn't it? just as surfactants are doing, industrial products we use every day are leaching into the already polluted water supply.
       Flouride poisoning is lethal, damages the bones and reproductive system, not just the brain. Arsenic poisoning is also potentially lethal, and there have been recent incidents of both contaminants leaching into the water supply causing horrendous damage.
       You are also leaving out aluminium, one of the metals known to cause alzheimer's disease which damages neurons. This is also found in the water supply and in various food products. We also have toxic barium from chemtrails.