Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SteveTheHero

The Real Reason For Climate Denial

Recommended Posts

"The earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles." - a slogan to suggest that human forced climate change is swamped by natural variation. It is of course nonsense. you've got to look at the motivations of these people to understand why they oppose climate science.

'free' market, and libertarian think tanks alligned to the cult of adam smith and small goverments are having their ideologies debunked by climate science - a rare example of science threatening to destroy an ideology- which implies the need for concerted action to maintain and improve the quality of life. Its about ideology and the resistance to reason.

mankind during industrial revolution period has put more CO2 in the atmosphere than 100,000 years of natural volcanism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mankind during industrial revolution period has put more CO2 in the atmosphere than 100,000 years of natural volcanism!

Links please as i seem to remember a single volcano eruption is able to darken the atmosphere for years.

Why are some of the other planets also warming up

1970's we had talk about golbal cooling from what i remember and why did the earths tempiture rise for 1900 to 1940 and then drop again from 1940 to 1970's or are you saying that Co2 when down in that period.

i'm no expert but i can see a big link between taxes and the enviroment and goverment can pull out all the scientists it wants but if there grants are paid by goverment then i see a little problom listening to what they are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Links please as i seem to remember a single volcano eruption is able to darken the atmosphere for years.

(edited for grammar)

darken the planet with particulates yes, but so can humanity. did do you know sunlight at the earth surface over industrial revolution period is down globally about 10% (and yet warming persists!) in some parts 30% - the recent drives against pollution is probably the reason why certain regions are experiencing quite rapid warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ty-and-climate/

One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) .

7/0.15 = 46 times volcanism - i've read other source, USGS that say 150 times.

and the IPCC does not consider natural variation to be significantly important.

Why are some of the other planets also warming up

there are a rather large number of planetoids in the solar system, the moons of various gas giants for example, some may be heating up, some may be cooling off. and we dont have good minitoring of them all like we do with all our satalites and weather stations here on earth.

also, atmospheric effects are more important than solar variation. venus climate is far hotter than it should be, and thats because of its thick atmosphere. mars' temperature variation is mainly due to a dust storm triggering run away greenhouse effect.

1970's we had talk about golbal cooling from what i remember and why did the earths tempiture rise for 1900 to 1940 and then drop again from 1940 to 1970's or are you saying that Co2 when down in that period.

in the 1970's there was stuff published in the popular press imagining the future, there always is. but today we have the IPCC and global scientific organisation backing said IPCC actually making definate statements. this was not the case in the 1970's when the attitude about the future was, shrug, who knows, maybe, lets research it some more.

well after 30 years, much researching has been done. and they've got back and said things that terrify the libertarian think tanks and adam smith cults - that the world economy is Not best if left entirely alone, that *sometimes* the invisible hand of the market needs a coherent and deliberate brain to guide. acts of world government!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have switched from denial to becoming an environmental campaigner, I get to do the same things as before but just add climate change awareness creation to the end of them. A bit like Glastonbury, most polluting festival in the UK but mix it up and sprinkle a "hint" of awareness on there and it's all green again.

I'm off to fly to the North Pole to do a bit of VT about seals or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mankind during industrial revolution period has put more CO2 in the atmosphere than 100,000 years of natural volcanism!

Is CO2 the only greenhouse gas? What about CH4 and H2O?

What evidence is there to indicate that climate scientists can predict long term weather trends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is CO2 the only greenhouse gas? What about CH4 and H2O?

What evidence is there to indicate that climate scientists can predict long term weather trends?

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.

what matters is changing concentrations.

more CO2 which mixes with static levels of H20 and produces a stronger greenhouse effect.

the absorbtion of the atmosphere has some deep and broad troughs in the CO2/H20 band. there is physical process called 'pressure broadening' where the absorbtion spectra is smeered when two gasses mix. so rather than sharp absorbtion lines, you get a fairly wide absorbtion band which absorbs more energy - since the light from the sun is spread smoothly across all wavelengths.

there is much anti-science properganda about the water vapour. claims that it is ignored, that some how the experts never thought of that haha, or somehow actually witheld that information! bless.

I dont get into conspiracy theories. I regard the anti-climate attitudes as a bit like the x-files social phenomena of the 1990s' UFO government conspiracies. now its greenpeace and governments and scientists the world over trying to pull the wool over everybodies eyes. :blink::rolleyes:

-

as for prediction of weather trends. volcanic eruptions and things like that, give a good test for their models. but mainly its, they say they can predict future climate. they are the experts, we're in no position to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles." - a slogan to suggest that human forced climate change is swamped by natural variation. It is of course nonsense. you've got to look at the motivations of these people to understand why they oppose climate science.

'free' market, and libertarian think tanks alligned to the cult of adam smith and small goverments are having their ideologies debunked by climate science - a rare example of science threatening to destroy an ideology- which implies the need for concerted action to maintain and improve the quality of life. Its about ideology and the resistance to reason.

mankind during industrial revolution period has put more CO2 in the atmosphere than 100,000 years of natural volcanism!

Love the 100,000 years theory you just made up off the top of your head, we are all convinced now..........NOT!!!!.

You are fighting a losing battle, the cats out the bag, its a natural climatic cycle, you would have more luck in trying to convince us its Gods Wrath at us not paying 99p in the pound in taxation that you would in convincing us that Mankind is ruining the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Love the 100,000 years theory you just made up off the top of your head, we are all convinced now..........NOT!!!!.

You are fighting a losing battle, the cats out the bag, its a natural climatic cycle, you would have more luck in trying to convince us its Gods Wrath at us not paying 99p in the pound in taxation that you would in convincing us that Mankind is ruining the planet.

oh no, i am under no illusions whatso ever about convincing die hard conspiracy theorists. i wont waste the effort on that!

there is no convincing of conspiracy theorists, the only way to move forward is to redicule them, and ignore them whilst explaining to the those who have been inocently missinformed on the subject correct attitudes. So long as the greater body of people agree we should be ok.

and normally reason prevails. The only problem here is that there is a little bit of time pressure.

there are natural cycles, but humanity is a new factor. It is the case than mankind out produces volcanism by 100 times. some sources say 130 times. its a little bit up in the air perhaps, needing more study to pin it down, but whatever we're talking orders of magnitude: volcanism is insignificant to mankinds contribution.

100 years of a 100 times volcanism - it was a rough bank of envelope calculation. = 10000 - my appologies, i errored too. 10,000 years of volcanism during industrial revolution period. not 100,000 as i stated.

btw you have to go back to the time of the dinosours to find a time when CO2 levels match todays - or back further for methane.

-

i think i will provide on this forum a sort of climate denial debunking service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the recent drives against pollution is probably the reason why certain regions are experiencing quite rapid warming.

So cutting C02 can make things worse.

there are a rather large number of planetoids in the solar system, the moons of various gas giants for example, some may be heating up, some may be cooling off. and we dont have good minitoring of them all like we do with all our satalites and weather stations here on earth.

Mars is getting warmer and in common with the earth it shares the same sun.

atmospheric effects are more important than solar variation.

The sun produces about 1KWH on each M2 of earth and has cycles and long before man was on the earth it had ice ages

No i don't have all the answers but i do know the worlds media that is controled by masters that pull the strings for Bush/Blair would like us all taxed even more and if by saying fat people fart more than thin people could be used to raise more revenue then i'm sure that they would try that one too.

Remember all them savage dogs in the UK about ten yerars ago, what ever happened and one moment we are being flooded with news about chicken flu and then nothing, do you think all the ducks drown. just two examples of how the public is being palyed.

there is no convincing of conspiracy theorists

It was once a theory that the earth was round it was once a theory that drugs were being smuggled into the USA by the army to pay for a war but Oliver North put paid to that theroy and yet few heads rolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
more CO2 which mixes with static levels of H20 and produces a stronger greenhouse effect.

the absorbtion of the atmosphere has some deep and broad troughs in the CO2/H20 band. there is physical process called 'pressure broadening' where the absorbtion spectra is smeered when two gasses mix. so rather than sharp absorbtion lines, you get a fairly wide absorbtion band which absorbs more energy - since the light from the sun is spread smoothly across all wavelengths.

Thats interesting - could you provide a link to somewhere as evidence?

What about methane?

I dont get into conspiracy theories. -

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I just harbour doubts about the soundness of climate science.

as for prediction of weather trends. volcanic eruptions and things like that, give a good test for their models. but mainly its, they say they can predict future climate. they are the experts, we're in no position to argue.

mmmmmm....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh no, i am under no illusions whatso ever about convincing die hard conspiracy theorists. i wont waste the effort on that!

there is no convincing of conspiracy theorists, the only way to move forward is to redicule them, and ignore them whilst explaining to the those who have been inocently missinformed on the subject correct attitudes. So long as the greater body of people agree we should be ok.

i think i will provide on this forum a sort of climate denial debunking service.

so, anybody who doesn't believe the mainstream pov - you'll call them names?

you just made my ignore/troll list....

btw it's spelt ridicule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a graph of the earth's temperature over the last 200 years or so:

global_temperature.jpg

Aha! says the environmentalist - the temperature started to go up towards the end of the 19th centuary - just when we were having an industrial revolution - it's all caused by man!

Here's another graph showing mankind's carbon dioxide emissions over the same period:

Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png

It's not actually a desperately good fit, is it? About half the temperature change we have observed happened before 1950 but mankind's CO2 emissions were negligable then compared to now. During the post war economic boom when CO2 emissions skyrocketed the global temperature actually fell slightly.

Here's another graph:

Sunspot_Activity.jpg

The red line is sunspot activity, the blue line is the earth's temperature. Notice any simillarities?

IMO global warming is almost entirely a natural phenomenon. It is a pollitical bandwagon which has been jumped on to enable politicians to be seen to be making a difference and to provide an excuse for raising taxes. Once upon a time it was a valid scientific theory which has now largely been descredited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit for acuracy:

solar variation, well the irradiance has not budged more than a fraction of 1% yet ability for the atmosphere to absorb light has increased by 50 times edit: over variation of irradiance.

industrial revolution period was a mix of CO2 output and varying amounts of particulates. the early smoggy period that caused global cooling. this is why claims that CO2 output does not match rises in temperature are bogus

Sunspot_Activity.jpg

from a conspiracy site, global-warming-myths.com - what people will notice is that there is a massive deviation at the begining of the graph. suggests the link is tenuous.

there are many factors driving the climate. nothing explains the modern warming. what the climate conspiracy theorists are doing is trawling up data from the past showing masses of natural variation and forcing from various likely factrs before the industrial revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
solar variation, well the irradiance has not budged more than a fraction of 1% yet ability for the atmosphere to absorb light has increased by 50 times.

industrial revolution period was a mix of CO2 output and varying amounts of particulates. the early smoggy period that caused global cooling. this is why claims that CO2 output does not match rises in temperature are bogus

Sunspot_Activity.jpg

from a conspiracy site, global-warming-myths.com - what people will notice is that there is a massive deviation at the begining of the graph. suggests the link is tenuous.

there are many factors driving the climate. nothing explains the modern warming. what the climate conspiracy theorists are doing is trawling up data from the past showing masses of natural variation and forcing from various likely factrs before the industrial revolution.

Global warming and sunspot activity:

http://www.rawls.org/Global_warming_omitted_var.htm

Correlation between sunspot activity and cloudless skies has been observed for over a century. It is also known that the Little Ice Age coincided with a sunspot minimum. What has been a mystery until recently is the mechanisms by which solar activity might affect climate. In the last decade, scientists have finally begun to solve this riddle. Solar flares generate storms of solar-magnetic flux that partially shield the Earth from cosmic radiation. Evidence suggests that this cosmic radiation promotes cloud formation, either by ionizing the atmosphere, or by affecting the atmosphere’s electrical circuit. Thus high levels of solar wind have the effect of blowing away the cloud cover, giving the Earth a sunburn. Add that solar activity has been very high since the 1940's, and the slight global warming observed since the mid 70's could easily be due to this effect.

None of the global warming alarmists take this effect into account. All of the recent alarmist studies are based on the GCMs (General Circulation Models) employed by the IPCC (the International Panel on Climate Change). These IPCC GCMs have never included the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Back in 1996, at the time of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report, this omission was marginally tenable. Sunspots generate a slight increase in solar luminosity (the relatively cool spots are surrounded by super-hot “faculae”) but this increase in radiance is not enough to create significant global warming. The correlation between sunspots and cloudiness was also known, but since no one had any idea what the causal link might be, they did not built it into their models.

The Little Ice Age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world also experienced heightened volcanic activity[citation needed]. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of SO2 gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching the earth's surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without A Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With so much money to be made in 'eco science' more and more people will be adopting its tenets. Those who question it are derided - much as is happening in this thread. Its marvellous; money, guilt, fear, hope, transformation, leadership. All the things a good, quality religion has. Or at least Organised Religion. Why has it caught on so well in the west? A total lack of any form of organised telling us what to do, except the government. Don't want to pay attention in class? Thats ok, free will and all that. Dont want to save your money - thats ok you cant take it with you. Dont want to go to church - thats ok too its pretty outmoded and generally middle class (and we cant have that can we). Don't want to learn to talk in a way that anyone with an 'education' can understand you? Well hey, thats fine too, pussy assed middle class scum with their 'education' and 'morality'.

FEAR the climate change. Feel guilt for the climate change. Do what we tell you, give us money and worship us for then we may be able to ameliorate your suffering, and bring you to a new level of enlightenment and well being.

Here's a few little questions for you:

1. How much $$s in government subsidies are available for 'Climate research' related scientific activity?

2. How much for Non climate and non military research?

3. How much energy is emmitted from the core of the earth?

4. Given that carbon dioxide is your current bugbear of choice, what was the climate like several millions of years ago before it was all hidden away by the abundant flora/fauna?

5. What was the climate like 65million years ago... how about 14m?

6. Which is more environmentally friendly: a 10 year old diesel with 250k on the clock or a new hybrid with an expected lifespan of under 100k?

7. What gasses may be absobed/released from melting ice, and what is the effect?

8. What gasses may be absobed/released from warming water and what is the effect?

9. What happens to the amount of water in the atmosphere if the temperature of the water increases?

10. What is the effect of increased water vapour in the atmosphere?

Serious questions, would love to know the answers from an itinerant monk like yourself, preaching the vernacular to the unenlightened.

Rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles." - a slogan to suggest that human forced climate change is swamped by natural variation. It is of course nonsense. you've got to look at the motivations of these people to understand why they oppose climate science.

'free' market, and libertarian think tanks alligned to the cult of adam smith and small goverments are having their ideologies debunked by climate science - a rare example of science threatening to destroy an ideology- which implies the need for concerted action to maintain and improve the quality of life. Its about ideology and the resistance to reason.

mankind during industrial revolution period has put more CO2 in the atmosphere than 100,000 years of natural volcanism!

Hey dipstick, if you had done any reading, which you haven't, you would have rightfully concluded that there is actually precious little evidence to suggest humans are responsible for global warming. However, the science to support it being a natural occurence is as strong as King Kong. The global warming debate has been hijacked and if you don't understand why you have no right to waste peoples time with your dim-witted old-new-borrowed-and-blue viewpoints.

I bet you're a big fan of Al Gore and the Black Eyed Piss.

Tip: Read some research papers. Proper ones. Get a real overview and not the preferred government & mainstream media version of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that scientists who come up with answers that point to it not being man made, are subjected to Death threats, and sacked, have their research grants removed, speaks volumes.

Its a scam, and we the British Public wont be joining thank you very much.

I have no doubt that shortly a degree in Global Climate Change will be sold by the Universities alongside Media Studies, Medievil Knitting Practices, and Sports Science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no doubt that shortly a degree in Global Climate Change will be sold by the Universities alongside Media Studies, Medievil Knitting Practices, and Sports Science.

Don't knock medieval kniftting practices... it will come in pretty handy soon enough. Just as long as there's some folk about who have studied medieval sheep minding...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, so our Government is interested in environmental issues, whilst they put pensioners in prison for putting a Kellogs Cornflake box in the wrong wheely bin, they are busy polluting the middle east.

THE REALIZATION OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Note verbale dated 3 July 2000 from the Permanent Mission of Iraq

to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the Office of

the High Commissioner for Human Rights

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Iraq to the United Nations Office at Geneva presents its compliments to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and has the honour to enclose herewith* a document concerning environmental pollution resulting from the use of depleted uranium missiles during the aggression against Iraq.

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Iraq would be grateful if the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights could have this document circulated as an official document of the fifty-second session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights under the agenda item on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.

_______________

* The annex is reproduced either as received in Arabic, or in English only.

Annex

Environmental Pollution Resulting from the Use of Depleted Uranium Missiles

during the Aggression against Iraq

A Study Submitted by the Government of the Republic of Iraq to the Fifty-Second Session

of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

Environmental Pollution Resulting from the Use of Depleted Uranium Missiles

during the Aggression against Iraq

1. In 1991, Iraq was subjected to the greatest aggression witnessed in history in terms of the quality and quantity of the weapons used by the United States and Britain, including the unprecedented use of depleted uranium (DU) in international conflicts, producing serious and direct effects on health and the environment.

2. DU is a heavy and highly toxic element because it is characterized by radioactive and chemical toxicity. It accumulates in the human body and causes various diseases. It also causes large-scale pollution of the environment. Those effects are not limited to the bombed areas; they even extend to the water, soil and air; they may even last for hundreds of years, as indicated by specialized scientific studies and research.

3. According to United States Defense Department documents, the United States used 300 tons of DU in bombing Iraqi forces in the southern sector of the theatre of military operations, while information published by American Greenpeace and the Dutch LARNKA Foundation shows that 700-800 tons of DU were used in bombing Iraqi units during the same period.

4. Malcolm Rifkind, the former British Minister of Defence, admitted in a letter dated 6 December 1994 addressed to the British Member of Parliament Sir David Steel that British forces had used 88 missiles containing DU during the aggression against Iraq and that the United States had used many more. Mr. Rifkind also stated in the same letter that on impact such missiles discharge highly toxic material which constitutes a direct threat to public health.

5. Mr. A.N. King, from the Middle East Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said in response to a query from a humanitarian relief organization that, on the order of the Ministry of Defence, British tanks had used missiles containing DU during the Gulf war.

6. In a letter dated 16 June 1998 addressed to the Security Council (S/1998/517), the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Mr. John Weston, asserted that British tanks had fired 100 DU rounds during the Gulf war.

7. The Foreign Minister of Iraq addressed letters to the United Nations Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council concerning the admission by British officials of the use of DU shells by British and United States forces during their aggression against Iraq (S/1998/430, S/1998/601, A/53/165).

8. In a report published in the 10 April 1995 issue of Le Monde Diplomatique, the author, Mr. William M. Arkin, President of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, stated that United States aircraft had fired 940,000 30-mm shells, each containing 300 grammes of DU.

9. (?)

10. This kind of weapon is prohibited under the terms of the first (1899) and second (1907) Hague Agreements; the first (1925) and second (1949) Geneva agreements; the principles of the Nuremberg Charter of 1945; and international and humanitarian law.

11. The study prepared by UNEP and the Task Force on Environment in the Balkans showed the presence of great potential effects on health and the environment as a result of the use of DU during the Kosovo war of 1999.

12. A specialized group of staff of medical and scientific institutions was formed to conduct medical and scientific research and surveys to investigate the effects on public health and the environment of the use of radioactive weapons by the coalition forces in their aggression against Iraq. Five areas were selected from the Province of the City of Basrah for the conduct of the field studies and site measurement as well as the taking of samples (these areas being Safwan, al-Zubayr, Jebel Sanam, North Rumeilah Field, South Rumeilah Field). The object was to determine the increase in the levels of radioactivity resulting from pollution caused by the remnants and shrapnel of those weapons as well as by the destroyed targets. The study included taking field measures and conducting laboratory tests on samples from the living and non-living environment in these areas (air, soil, surface and underground water, animal and plant biological tissues). Among the samples taken were: 124 measures of air exposure, 124 soil samples, 58 surface and underground water samples, 158 biological samples (plant and animal tissues). These samples were tested in the laboratories of the Radioactive Environment Section of the Iraqi Nuclear Energy Organization, using a high-purity spectroscope (gamma, germanium).

13. Laboratory tests showed the presence of radioactivity in these areas, where there was an increase in the concentration of radioactive nucleides, such as Thorium-234, which reached 65,200 becquerel/kg near armour hit by these weapons. There was also a high concentration of Radium-226 ranged between 36,205 and 995 becquerel/kg in 65 soil samples.

14. Tests on water samples showed an increase in deposits in water channels in the areas of al-Zubayr and Jebel Sanam regarding the isotope Radium-2226. Laboratory tests also confirmed the presence of a concentration of the isotopes Thorium-234 and Radium-226 in some Stipa Capensis and Haloxyion Salicornicom. But some other biological plant samples showed a concentration of Bismuth-214 and Lead-214.

15. With regard to the effect of an increase in radiation on man, there are indications that DU particulates are permanently retained in the lungs upon inhalation; these particulates destroy cells and cause cancers. When ingested via the digestive system, their effect would be much greater as uranium is a toxic radioactive heavy metal. Through the mouth and digested food DU enters the bloodstream and goes to all organs of the body, with most of it concentrated in the kidneys, bones and liver. The kidney is considered as one of the organs most sensitive to DU. In general, there are still some unknowns among the numerous factors needed to determine the danger of exposure to radioactive doses coming from gamma rays in particular.

16. In order to determine the harm from human exposure to radiation, it is essential to determine the radiation dose absorbed by the human body which is the effective dose equivalent resulting from both the external dose and the internal dose. Thus increased exposure to ionized radiation resulting from the use of these weapons would lead to:

(a) Immediate death upon acute exposure to very high doses;

(B) Increase in the incidence of cancer (skin, thyroid, leukaemia, etc.) upon exposure to low doses for extended periods of time (chronic exposure);

© Genetic effects resulting from damage to reproductive cells which in turn leads to genetic mutation;

(d) Birth defects.

17. Equipment and instruments used to measure active radioactivity on site and to take samples

Environmental samples were selected and collected in accordance with the international criteria and specifications adopted for this kind of radiation test. Table 1 lists the equipment used.

[…] was used to determine the sample collection sites. Figure 1 shows the selection sites in the areas of destroyed armour within a circle 10 metres in diameter around the armour. In other areas, underground and surface water samples were collected as well as parts of plant and animal tissue for subsequent laboratory tests. For measuring radioactivity, soil samples were taken from different sites at a 10-15 cm depth. Following is a list of the samples collected and their corresponding measures:

Measure of air exposure 124

Soil samples 124

Surface and underground water samples 58

Biological samples (animal and plant tissues) 158

Samples were also collected and tested in accordance with the recommendations and specifications of IAEA.

18. Natural radiation in the areas studied

The natural level of radiation in the various areas covered by the study was determined on the basis of previous reports and research or of samples taken from the various elements of the environment and tested to determine the natural level. Table 2 shows the levels or concentrations.

19. Results of the laboratory tests and their discussion

Laboratory tests to measure the radiation activity of the field samples of the various elements of the environment were conducted at the Laboratory Department of the Iraqi Atomic Energy Organization. The radiation activity was measured by a gamma spectroscope (high-purity germanium) as the pollution resulting from DU shells is in the form of greater concentrations of U-238 nucleides, the basic component of the shell, especially the nucleides emitting gamma rays. Tables 3 and 4 show the results of these tests.

20. Discussion of results

From the tables of soil test results we can notice an increase in the concentrations of some radioactive mucleides exceeding the natural level in these areas. An increase in the concentration of Th-234 is a clear indication of a high concentration of the isotope U-238. Th-234 and U-238 should be in a state of equilibrium.

We can see in table 2 that the natural concentration level of Radium-238 in the soil of the region is 42 and 24 becquerel/kg compared with a maximum of 65,200 becquerel/kg and a minimum of 1,830 becquerel/kg in the areas adjacent to armour.

21. It was found that the concentration of the isotope U-235 in the isotope U-238 had a weight ratio lower than the normal ratio of 0.7 per cent; the samples tested showed these ratios: 0.2 per cent, 0.3 per cent, 0.3 per cent. The extraction of U-235 from it reduced its weight ratio below the normal level.

22. Sixty-one soil samples indicated an increase in U-235 concentration ranging from 1,079 to 3.2 becquerel/kg near armour, while the detector does not sense the presence of this isotope in the nearby areas of Iraq with natural radiation. It is observed that the soil on which there is damaged armour contains more radioactive material than soils further away; the concentrations fall as one moves further away from those armour sites.

23. In the tests on water and deposit samples collected from water canals, there is an increase in U-238 nucleides in the water deposits in Khawr al-Zubayr, North Rumeilah Field and Jebel Sanam. There is an increase in Radium-226 nucleides.

24. There is a natural concentration of radium deposits ranging between 40 and 30 becquerel/kg compared to 102 becquerel/kg in the water deposits of Khawr al-Zubayr and 90 becquerel/kg in the water deposits of Jebel Sanam.

25. These radioactive nucleides are conveyed from the areas of damaged armour to neighbouring rivers by torrents and water canals.

26. Tests on biological samples also showed (table 4) the presence of high concentrations in some natural plant tissue in the areas such as concentrations of nucleides of the isotope Thorium-234, Radium-226, Bismuth-214 and Lead-214.

27. The samples taken from the proximity of damaged armour were uniquely characterized by concentrations of thorium and radium as in site samples; all the other samples had in common a concentration of bismuth and lead.

28. The concentration of thorium and radium was limited to Haloxyion Salicornicom and Stipa Capensis. Therefore, these values were used to find the coefficient of transfer from soil to plant in the previous studies because these plants constitute more than 60 per cent of the plants of the region.

29. In the remaining plant samples listed in table 4, the concentration of the isotopes Bismuth-214 and Lead-214 was 1-3 times the concentration in RB and TH samples taken from the cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk. Results of tests on tomatoes, cucumbers, melons, onions, garlic, meat and fish also showed an increase in concentration of the isotopes Bismuth-214 and Lead-214 as well as a strong relationship between the increase in concentrations of radioactive isotopes in plants and soils from which those samples were taken. In other words, plants in the vicinity of damaged armour contained radioactive isotopes; those further away did not contain such isotopes.

30. The presence of the element thorium which has a short half-life of 24.1 days indicates the presence of Uranium-238 which is considered the producer, but the concentration of Bismuth-214 and Lead-214, which have very short half-lives, indicates the birth of Bismuth-210, Lead-210, Polonium-210, and before all those Radon-222, for they all constitute a part of the Uranium-238 chain.

31. An epidemiological-clinical and statistical-descriptive study was undertaken on the incidence of cancer among the male military personnel operating in the southern sector of the theatre of operations in the period 1991-1997. The study indicated an increase in the various clinical infections, with the infection of the lymphatic glands, together with leukaemia. Table 5 shows the total of cancer cases distributed according to year of diagnosis and registration for military personnel exposed to the causing agent (depleted uranium).

32. With regard to the civilian population in the country as a whole, diseases and health aspects of all cases registered in the period 1991-1997 were the subject of study. A great increase was noted in cancer, genetic defects, abortions, cataracts, kidney failure, shrinkage of the thyroid gland, and infertility. There was a very high increase in some diseases such as leukaemia, cancer of the lymphatic glands and cancer of the bones among the newborn (early loss of vision among children). There was also an increase in hereditary diseases associated with changes in chromosomes such as hereditary eye diseases (2.5), hereditary syndromes such as mongoloid children (6.60), abnormal increase in the number of organs and changes in their size, shape and location (1.3), reduced head size or total absence of it sometimes, and 14-month retardation in the growth of six-year-olds compared with their peers in the pre-aggression period.

33. Conclusions

- There is radioactive pollution in the areas of Safwan, al-Zubayr, Jebel Sanam, North Rumeilah Field and South Rumeilah Field; air detection measures are much higher than the normal background radiation in these areas prior to the aggression against Iraq, especially inside, outside and around the areas in which there is armour destroyed with DU shells.

- The soil of the areas covered by the study is polluted with uranium isotopes; the increase in concentrations of radioactive nucleides in the areas adjacent to the destroyed armour reached 65,200 becquerel/kg for Thorium-234. It was shown that 61 out of a total of 124 soil samples contained high concentrations of this isotope. The clearest indication of soil pollution with U-238 is the presence of high concentrations of Radium-226 which normally does not exceed 70 becquerel/kg in Iraqi soil; laboratory tests showed a maximum level of 36,205 becquerel/kg and a minimum of 955 becquerel/kg in areas adjacent to destroyed armour. Out of a total of 124 samples from areas of destroyed armour, 65 samples indicated an increase in the concentration of this isotope.

- There is radioactive pollution in the deposits of water canals in the areas of al-Zubayr and Jebel Sanam, involving in particular the isotope Radium-226. This is an indication that the deposits are carried by rain and torrents from the locations of hit armour to nearby rivers and water canals.

- Laboratory tests proved the existence of concentrations of the isotopes Thorium-234 and Radium-226 in some Stipa Capensis and Haloxyion Salicornicom in the areas covered by the study. There is also an increase in the concentrations of Bismuth-214 and Lead-214. The samples which showed concentrations of isotopes of the Uranium-238 chain constituted 37 per cent of the total number of samples collected and tested.

- Radiation activity decreases gradually as we move further away from hit targets, many of which were moved into locations for repair and maintenance or collection and destruction. All these locations have now become a source of radioactive pollution.

In conclusion, the Government of the Republic of Iraq considers the States that used these weapons as having full international legal and humanitarian responsibility for the resulting health and environmental effects, and it reserves its right to claim compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you conspiracy theorists are all so wrong, and yet so, ethusiastic about it!

ecoleft, government plots and all that lol

anyway try not to treat me as the local villain of your fears and paranoia just because i dont share your conspiracies that out there there is an evil plot of scientists, government and green lobby groups against us all! instead, ask honest seeking questions.

i will deal little with conspiracy theory debunking, but false scientifc arguments i will challenge. remember this anti-science attitude you are pushing forward is in direct opposition to the foundations of our civilisation.

right picking some of things you say.

THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS GETTING WARMER

Mars is getting warmer and in common with the earth it shares the same sun.

i've seen this written many times, yet i've responded many times in this forum and others that mars has experienced a coincidental dust storm. dust got into the air. dust absorbs more light from the sun, that caused more heating. which had the ability to raise more dust. and the planet just kept getting warmer. 20 degrees warmer at one point.

the only way this is relevent to greenhouse effect on earth is that it is analogouse to the mechanism of CO2 greenhouse gas heating. it is actually a greenhouse effect. the dust absorbing more energy. that increasing the temperature of the martian atmosphere.

on earth the rising CO2 has in a very similar way caused the atmosphere to be more opaque to the suns light. This absorbtion inevitably causes heating.

so the mars example is something people have got very confused about. and lets face it. the solar system has 30 moons around some gas giants. pick any that backs your crazy point. ignore those that dont! thats not science, thats looking for faces in the clouds. coincidences in a chaotic and rich unverse.

in general the solar system which does not have industrial happenings is indeed likely to be most significantly influenced by the behaviour of the sun. however, in a planet like earth, we are changing the concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere.

--

Absurd example to illustrate your faulty logics.

is the decline of the bee population related to rising global temperatures. you will find that there are some plant and animal life that having dissapeared or increased coincides with temperature varations. perhaps the animals are causing it! or perhaps its just coincidence, or a cause of something else.

--

more on the sun

wiki has some nice graphs:

Solar-cycle-data.png what you see here is nice graph showing some of the suns variation over period of decades.

although you see an exciting(!) (lol) wavy curve. you may also note the scale of the graph, and that if you drew it from zero up to 1.4kw/m^2 it would be practically a straight line! - infact, solar flux variation is to all intents and purposes irrelevent. it just doesnt change. certainly not enough to give any clues on the late 20th century temperature anomoly.

ahhhh, the medieval warm period

i will let Real Climate debunk that.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/

This is one of a number of popular myths regarding temperature variations in past centuries. At hemispheric or global scales, surface temperatures are believed to have followed the "Hockey Stick" pattern, characterized by a long-term cooling trend from the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" (broadly speaking, the 10th-mid 14th centuries) through the "Little Ice Age" (broadly speaking, the mid 15th-19th centuries), followed by a rapid warming during the 20th century that culminates in anomalous late 20th century warmth. The late 20th century warmth, at hemispheric or global scales, appears, from a number of recent peer-reviewed studies, to exceed the peak warmth of the "Medieval Warm Period". Claims that global average temperatures during Medieval times were warmer than present-day are based on a number of false premises that a) confuse past evidence of drought/precipitation with temperature evidence, B) fail to disinguish regional from global-scale temperature variations, and c) use the entire "20th century" to describe "modern" conditions , fail to differentiate between relatively cool early 20th century conditions and the anomalously warm late 20th century conditions.

as this funny character wrote:

Hey dipstick, if you had done any reading, which you haven't, you would have rightfully concluded that there is actually precious little evidence to suggest humans are responsible for global warming. However, the science to support it being a natural occurence is as strong as King Kong. The global warming debate has been hijacked and if you don't understand why you have no right to waste peoples time with your dim-witted old-new-borrowed-and-blue viewpoints.

I bet you're a big fan of Al Gore and the Black Eyed Piss.

this is not what the IPCC says, and before you whine about the IPCC, royal society backs them as does every major scientific body.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6263690.stm

People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science

Sir David Read

Royal Society

Tip: Read some research papers. Proper ones. Get a real overview and not the preferred government & mainstream media version of events.

you dont strike me as a learned type. i doubt any experts on the climate would go round calling people dipstick and such.

you and others have swallowed these popular conspiracy theories hook line and sinker. wake up and smell the cornflakes.

-

lifted from IPCC report

radiativeforcing.jpg

here you can compare the relative importance of various known factors affecting the climate.

for those who are not trained in how to read such graphs, the H shapes represent error margins. the way to intepret the graph is to see the main sorce of variation as the effect mankinds aerosol emisions are having (athropogenic cooling) this is the main source of error that forms the large error margin in total anthropogenic warming - caused by mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

Can you tell me why the last ice age ended? Was that anything to do with man?

You have a lovely graph there of solar variation showing the 11 year period. What you haven't done is shown what the long term trend is or how a particular value deviates from the norm. When you do that you get a graph like this:

Foukal1.jpg

The dotted line is the mean global temperature, the solid line on th first graph is an estimate of variation in solar luminosity and the second shows sunspot activity (source: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xsolar.htm).

Here's another nice graph which shows what you get when you look at long term trends in sunspot activity:

800px-Sunspot_Numbers.png

If the earth was being warmed by the atmoshpere then it would be reasonable to expect the troposphere to be warming up first, no? If that is the case why is the troposphere not warming up faster than the earth's surface?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SteveTheHero

Sunspot_Activity.jpg

thanks for the link to the image

if this is true then it puts paid to any debate about it being man that has created the problom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SteveTheHero

Sunspot_Activity.jpg

thanks for the link to the image

if this is true then it puts paid to any debate about it being man that has created the problom

its like many things, probably correct but of limited value. its a graph that does not display error margins, so how far have they pushed results to favour their line? we are not given this information.

whereas with the IPCC results and graphs they are very specific about the expected value and error margins.

10 years ago and beyond, the error margins, the lack of understanding of the climate was great enough for it to be more or less reasonable to take contrarian lines. this is not the case today. even in the most favourable line from the data presented by IPCC solar variation is worth only 50% of total anthropenic warming if the scientific results were off by the highest amount allowed for by the error margins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 354 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.