Particulate Matter in Outdoor Air Does NOT Cause Death

Particulate Matter in Outdoor Air Does NOT Cause Death

This is the ultimate fact sheet for debunking what has become the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s most potent regulatory weapon — the claim that fine particulate matter (soot and dust called PM2.5) in outdoor air kills people. This sheet will be updated regularly as needed. This will be Version 1 (September 22, 2016). Please let me know if you have comments/suggestions.

<snip>

Transparent science conflicts with EPA’s secret science. The EPA’s claim that PM2.5 causes long-term death is grounded in two long-term epidemiologic studies, commonly referred to as the (1) Harvard Six-Cities Study [17] and the (2) “Pope” study [18]. Both studies are controversial for many methodological reasons. But the methodological controversies cannot be resolved because EPA refuses to release and/or refuses to compel release of the mortality data used in the studies to independent researchers for purposes of re-analysis and replication. For results to be considered to be scientifically credible, they must be capable of being independently replicated. In contrast, a large analysis of the recent daily air quality and daily death data from California for 2007-2010 reports no association between PM2.5 and death. [19] The data from the California study are available upon request from the researchers.

But haven’t EPA’s PM2.5 claims been validated by its independent science advisers? No. The group of independent science advisers formed to review EPA air quality science is the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). In 1996, when the CASAC was actually mostly comprised of independent advisers, CASAC concluded that EPA had not shown that PM2.5caused death. While subsequent CASAC panels have ruled in EPA’s favor, these panels are almost exclusively comprised of researchers who receive hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research grants from EPA — and wind up passing judgment on their own work. These more recent CASAC panels can hardly be considered as independent of EPA. The nature of the PM2.5 science has not changed since 1996 — but composition of EPA’s “independent” panels has. [20]

What about claims that PM2.5 from indoor cooking kill people? The World Health Organization (WHO) claims that smoke from indoor cooking kills more than 4 million people die every year. [21] The studies used to support this claim depend entirely on the EPA’s claim that PM2.5 kills people. So the WHO’s claim is not supportable. While many individual researchers (not EPA-related) have attempted to examine whether indoor cooking increases deaths rates, they have so far not been able to link PM2.5 with death. [22]

Conclusion: PM2.5 does not kill anyone. The EPA’s claims of PM2.5 lethality rank among the most nonsensical, fraudulent and readily disprovable scientific claims ever.

Original Article by Steve Milloy

Nul uren contracten, werkgevers schaam je

Nul uren contracten, werkgevers schaam je

Ik heb een kennis, alleenstaande moeder, die met gemak in de bijstand kon duiken na een langdurige ziekte.

Echte deze vrouw is trots, is iemand die niet afhankelijk wil zijn. Dus zocht ze naar een baan. Vanwege 45+ moest ze genoegen nemen met een uitbuiter die haar een nul uren contract aanbood.

Met veel voldoening nam deze vrouw die baan als call center juf aan. Voor 8 euro en nog wat per uur. Deze baan geeft haar plezier. Maar tegelijkertijd moet ze wel voltijds moeder zijn. Van dat schijntje in haar levensonderhoud voorzien.

Nu stel dat ze ziek zou worden. Dan kan haar werkgever gewoon besluiten haar niet meer op te roepen. Nul uren contract. Heeft ze voor getekend.

Maar wist ze ook dat als diezelfde werkgever haar niet meer oproept binnen de contractsduur ze geen recht heeft op de ziektewet als ze onverhoopt ziek word ofwel geen bijtelling van jaren bij haar WW heeft ingeval van ontslag?

Nee, tuurlijk niet stond niet in haar contract. Staat in de wet. Ze kan als ze ziek wordt lekker het heen en weer krijgen en haar kind ook.

Toch bijstand aanvragern maar dan m oetze eerst ontslag aanvragen of moet haar werkgever (slavendrijver) haar willen ontslaan. Op geldige gronden.

Maar er zijn geen geldige gronden om een zieke werknemer te ontslaan. Dus die vrouw krijgt geen WW. Mag blij zijn als ze bijstand krijgt.

Maar joh, er zijn belangrijkere zaken. Lekker politiek bedrijven over wat iemand ooit eens gezegd heeft en uren over het woord babbelen. Betaald goed, gaaf pensioen en nooit zorgen mocht je ooit eens een weekje de griep krijgen.

Leve Nederland. Wees er maar trots op

U gaat echt dood

U gaat echt dood

De nederland centrische benadering van de zaken valt pas op als je veelvuldig buiten nederland verblijft, de realiteit haalt de bizarre alternatieve wereld dan in.

Laten we eens een kostenplaatje als denkexperiment nemen:

Dus volgens braaf NL is vieze buitenlucht de schuld van enorme sterfte buiten nederland. Goed, nemen we aan. Wat zijn nou de kosten van de gezondsheidszorg waar al die vieze landen geen last van hebben afgezet tegen bevolkingsgroei?

Braaf nederland betaald zich blauw aan een falende zorg die als resultaat heeft dat je als oudere die de luchtvervuiling heeft overleeft 1 niet pyamadag per week krijgt. Mag dan tot je langlevende leven 20 jaar van genieten. Daarna ga je gewoon dood net zoals iedereen. Nederland krimpt en importeert haat en intolerantie in de hoop dat daarmee het land gered wordt.

Dan neem je zo’n vreselijk land dat niet doet aan gezondheidszorg, waar je gewoon dood gaat wanneer het je tijd is, waar je niet in een pisluier ligt omdat die gewoon niet bestaan en je lijden enorm verkort wordt. Kost geen drol, mag je in elke auto rijden die wil zelfs al rijdt het op stookolie. Maar de bevolkingsgroei neemt zo gestaag toe dat je je meest kanslozen exporteert naar…. Nederland.

Ja. Fijn plan. Beperk je eigen levensvrijheid zodat je het onvermijdelijke, gewoon dood gaan, zo lang mogelijk kan uitstellen ongeacht wat dat kost aan beperkte vrijheid/hoge kosten/verlenging van lijden.

Doe lekker aan mantelzorg (of zoals in de meerderheid gewoon niet want te druk) omdat de zorgkosten voor je ouders onbetaalbaar zijn, klop op je schouders want wat een paradijs je toch leeft als je tussen de 25 en 35 bent en toevallig ook nog eens een baan hebt.

Echt, alleen mensen met de toevallig gunstige genen leven het langst, of ze nou 3 pakjes sigaretten per dag roken, liters alcohol drinken of de hele dag fijn stof lurken. En de rest? Die kan met 15 verschillende medicijnen met heel nare bijwerkingen, medicijnen om bijwerkingen te verlichten toch gewoon dood gaan.

Ik zeg: Succes!

 

 

The sealevel rise that didn’t happen


Written by Tom Richard

Coastlines are actually gaining in size in a warming world, confounding climate change claims they would shrink as sea levels rise.  coast

A new study by the Dutch Deltares Research Institute shows the Earth is actually gaining more land than it’s losing, disputing claims that#Climate Change is causing increased sea level rise. The study showed our planet actually gained 107,000 square miles over the past three decades, including 21,000 square miles of coastline. That means continents are gaining in size, and not shrinking.

Conversely, the study showed the Earth had only lost 71,000 square miles of land during this same time period, including 12,500 square miles of shoreline. Some scientists have held that in a warming world, the coastlines would be the first casualties as melting ice sheets poured excess water into the oceans. Even President-Elect #Obama said in 2008 that his winning the election meant the rise of the oceans would now begin to slow. Turns out the oceans didn’t need his help after all.

Completely unexpected

The study’s researchers, led by Gennadii Donchyts, used a tool called the Deltares Aqua Monitor to formulate its conclusions, which were published in Nature Climate Change. The researchers had anticipated the coastlines were already receding only to discover they were gaining in size across the planet. One study author told BBC News they were surprised to find more land than the seas were taking.

Full article

California to vastly augment electricity costs

California to vastly augment electricity costs

In order to comply with millennial desire to replace reality with an alternative reality California subsidizes far out visionary Elon Musk: 

In what is being considered a major win (loss) to those in the field of next-level of energy technologyTesla was awarded a contract to provide thousands of energy storage units to Southern California.

The Southern California Edison energy company contracted out Tesla last week to provide 20-megawatts of energy storage equipment to their power grid. The equipment will be used to stop blackouts should the grid’s main fossil-fuel based energy sources fail. The Tesla Powerpack energy storage units will be installed at a SCE substation in Mira Loma and must be up and running by the end of December.

The amount of equipment being installed is enough to keep 2,500 homes with power for a day, or enoughto charge 1,000 Tesla cars, the company claimed in a blog post.

The cost of the complete energy storage system isn’t clear. As noted by Bloomberg, a 2-megawatt Tesla energy storage system runs around $2.9 million, and contracts that involve more energy than that are negotiated on a per-situation basis.

In late 2015, the Aliso Canyon natural gas reservoir ruptured, causing a major spill of methane gas and forcing over 8,000 local residents out of their homes. Following this incident, the California government has been attempting to expand its energy-storage storage efforts to prevent any potential loss of power during times of high electricity usage.

Last month, California officials green-lighted two other grid energy-storage contracts that would account for 37-megawatts of storage.

This project is one of the most notable happenings on the energy side of Tesla since the company set out to buy SolarCity in August.

If you’re wealthy

dream on

Keep on dreaming

China building 200 GW of coal-fired power


To offset the abundance of ‘renewable'(the concept is in fact a perpetuum mobile) China has no alternative than to install base load power plants.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-coal-idUSKCN0ZT09B

Greenpeace appear shocked that China is continuing to build new coal-fired power capacity.

From Reuters:

China is building another 200 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power capacity despite tough new measures designed to cut the use of fossil fuels and tackle overcapacity, environmental group Greenpeace said on Wednesday.

China’s coal-dominated thermal power sector has continued to expand rapidly amid an unexpectedly sharp slowdown in energy consumption growth, as well as a state-led effort to tackle smog, cut carbon emissions and encourage cleaner forms of electricity.

According to National Energy Administration (NEA) data, China’s total thermal capacity grew 7.8 percent in 2015 to 990 GW, outstripping a 0.5 percent increase in consumption. Another 24 GW went into operation in the first five months of 2016.

Greenpeace said more than 1 trillion yuan ($150 billion) could be “wasted” on new capacity in the next five years, leading to a…

View original post 336 more words

Clexit, Climate accord Exit

Clexit, Climate accord Exit

A new international organization aims to prevent ratification of the costly and dangerous Paris global warming treaty which is being promoted by the EU and the present US administration.

“CLEXIT” (CLimate Exit) was inspired by the Brexit decision of the British people to withdraw from the increasingly dictatorial grasp of the EU bureaucracy.

Without any publicity or serious recruiting, Clexit has attracted over 60 well-informed science, business and economic leaders from 16 countries.

The secretary of Clexit, Mr Viv Forbes from Australia, said that widespread enforcement of the Paris climate treaty would be a global tragedy.

“For the EU and the rest of the Western world, ratification and enforcement of the Paris Treaty (and all the other associated decrees and Agendas) would herald the end of low-cost hydrocarbon transport and electricity, and the exit of their manufacturing, processing and refining industries to countries with low-cost energy.

“For developing countries, the Paris Treaty would deny them the benefits of reliable low-cost hydrocarbon energy, compelling them to rely on biomass heating and costly weather-dependent and unreliable power supplies, thus prolonging and increasing their dependency on international handouts. They will soon resent being told to remain forever in an energy-deprived wind/solar/wood/bicycle economy.

“Perhaps the most insidious feature of the UN climate plan is the “Green Climate Fund”. Under this scheme, selected nations (“The rich”) are marked to pour billions of dollars into a green slush fund. The funds will then be used to bribe other countries (“developing and emerging nations”) into adopting silly green energy policies.

“Naturally some smart politicians and speculators in the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and in the small island nations, understand that they can profit from the Paris Treaty by gaming the rules on things like carbon credits, or milking the green fund for “climate compensation” or “green energy technology”. This will only work for a while, and when the handouts stop, the re-adjustment to reality will be very painful.

“This UN-driven war on carbon energy has already caused massive losses and dislocation of western industry. If allowed to continue as envisaged by the Paris Treaty, this economic recession will become a world-wide depression, and all nations will suffer.

“We must stop this futile waste of community savings; cease the destruction and dislocation of human industry; stop killing rare bats and birds with wind turbine blades and solar/thermal sizzlers; stop pelletising trees and shipping them across the world to feed power stations designed to burn coal; stop converting food to motor vehicle fuel; and stop the clearing of bush and forests for biofuel cultivation and plantations.”

“Carbon dioxide does not control the climate. It is an essential plant food and more carbon dioxide will produce more plant growth and a greener globe.”

PDF version of this summary statement, the founding statement and more reading: http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit.pdf[296 KB]

The initial Clexit Committee and the list of Founding Members:
http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit-members.pdf [158 KB]