+Micheal Beers Hahaha come on. That’s like saying this documentary only talked bad about AIDS, so it’s not credible.

SupermanBatman AlextheGreatSep 1, 2015

+Micheal Beers Really? Here’s more
First of all the USGS has linked fracking to a 500x rise in earthquakes (Mag 3-5)
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.The study, titled “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” was conducted by a team of 16 researchers from institutions including Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and is making headlines because it finally and definitively shows that natural gas production and development can make natural gas worse than other fossil fuels for the climate.Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.The study, titled “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” was conducted by a team of 16 researchers from institutions including Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and is making headlines because it finally and definitively shows that natural gas production and development can make natural gas worse than other fossil fuels for the climate.The research, which was reported in The Washington Post, Bloomberg and The New York Times, was funded by a foundation created by the late George P. Mitchell, the wildcatter who first successfully drilled shale gas, so it would be hard to dismiss it as the work of environmentalists hell-bent on discrediting the oil and gas industry.The debate over the natural gas industry’s climate change effects has raged for several years, ever since researchers from Cornell University stunned policy-makers and environmentalists by warning that if enough methane seeps out between the gas well and the burner, relying on natural gas could be even more dangerous for the climate than burning coal.Natural gas is mostly comprised of methane, an extraordinarily powerful greenhouse gas, which traps heat 86 times more effectively than carbon dioxide during the two decades after it enters the atmosphere, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so even small leaks can have major climate impacts.The team of researchers echoed many of the findings of the Cornell researchers and described how the federal government’s official estimate proved far too low.“Atmospheric tests covering the entire country indicate emissions around 50 percent more than EPAestimates,” said Adam Brandt, the lead author of the new report and an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University. “And that’s a moderate estimate.”The new paper drew some praise from Dr. Robert Howarth, one of the Cornell scientists.“This study is one of many that confirms that EPA has been underestimating the extent of methane leakage from the natural gas industry, and substantially so,” Dr. Howarth wrote, adding that the estimates for methane leaks in his 2011 paper and the new report are “in excellent agreement.”In November, research led by Harvard University found that the leaks from the natural gas industry have been especially under-estimated. That study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, reported that methane emissions from fossil fuel extraction and oil refineries in some regions are nearly five times higher than previous estimates, and was one of the 200 included in Thursday’s Science study.EPA Estimes Far Off-TargetSo how did the EPA miss the mark by such a high margin?The EPA’s estimate depends in large part on calculations — take the amount of methane released by an average cow, and multiply it by the number of cattle nationwide. Make a similar guess for how much methane leaks from an average gas well. But this leaves out a broad variety of sources — leaking abandoned natural gas wells, broken valves and the like.Their numbers never jibed with findings from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy, which approached the problem by taking measurements of methane and other gas levels from research flights and the tops of telecommunications towers.But while these types of measurements show how much methane is in the atmosphere, they don’t explain where that methane came from. So it was still difficult to figure out how much of that methane originated from the oil and gas industry.At times, EPA researchers went to oil and gas drilling sites to take measurements. But they relied on driller’s voluntary participation. For instance, one EPA study requested cooperation from 30 gas companies so they could measure emissions, but only six companies allowed the EPA on site.“It’s impossible to take direct measurements of emissions from sources without site access,” said Garvin Heath, a senior scientist with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and a co-author of the new analysis in a press release. “Self-selection bias may be contributing to why inventories suggest emission levels that are systematically lower than what we sense in the atmosphere.” (DeSmog has previously reported on the problem of industry-selected well sites in similar research funded by the Environmental Defense Fund.)Worse than Coal?There was, however, one important point that the news coverage so far missed and that deserves attention — a crucial point that could undermine entirely the notion that natural gas can serve as a“bridge fuel” to help the nation transition away from other, dirtier fossil fuels.In their press release, the team of researchers compared the climate effects of different fuels, like diesel and coal, against those of natural gas.They found that powering trucks or busses with natural gas made things worse.“Switching from diesel to natural gas, that’s not a good policy from a climate perspective” explained the study’s lead author, Adam R. Brandt, an assistant professor in the Department of Energy Resources at Stanford, calling into question a policy backed by President Obama in his recent State of the Union address.The researchers also described the effects of switching from coal to natural gas for electricity — concluding that coal is worse for the climate in some cases. “Even though the gas system is almost certainly leakier than previously thought, generating electricity by burning gas rather than coal still reduces the total greenhouse effect over 100 years, the new analysis shows,” the team wrote in a press release.But they failed to address the climate impacts of natural gas over a shorter period — the decades when the effects of methane are at their most potent.“What is strange about this paper is how they interpret methane emissions: they only look at electricity, and they only consider the global warming potential of methane at the 100-year time frame,” said Dr. Howarth. Howarth’s 2011 Cornell study reviewed all uses of gas, noting that electricity is only roughly 30% of use in the US, and describing both a 20- and a 100-year time frame.The choice of time-frame is vital because methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, so impact shifts over time. “The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from last fall – their first update on the global situation since 2007 – clearly states that looking only at the 100 year time frame is arbitrary, and one should also consider shorter time frames, including a 10-year time frame,” Dr. Howarth pointed out.Another paper,published in Science in 2012, explains why it’s so important to look at the shorter time frames.Unless methane is controlled, the planet will warm by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius over the next 17 to 35 years, and that’s even if carbon dioxide emissions are controlled. That kind of a temperature rise could potentially shift the climate of our planet into runaway feedback of further global warming.“[B]y only looking at the 100 year time frame and only looking at electricity production, this new paper is biasing the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions between natural gas and coal in favor of natural gas being low,” said Dr. Howarth, “and by a huge amount, three to four to perhaps five fold.”Dr. Howarth’s colleague, Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, raised a similar complaint.“Once again, there is a stubborn use of the 100-year impact of methane on global warming, a factor about 30 times that of CO2,” Dr. Ingraffea told Climate Central, adding that there is no scientific justification to use the 100-year time window.“That is a policy decision, perhaps based on faulty understanding of the climate change situation in which we find ourselves, perhaps based on wishful thinking,” he said.For its part, the oil and gas industry seems very aware of the policy implications of this major new research and is already pushing back against any increased oversight of its operations.“Given that producers are voluntarily reducing methane emissions,” Carlton Carroll, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, told The New York Times in an interview about the new study, “additional regulations are not necessary.”https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.htmlhttp://www.ernstversusencana.ca/high-us-methane-emissions-blamed-on-leaks-harvard-fracking-study-show-fossil-fuel-industry-methane-leaks-far-higher-than-official-estimates-rings-methane-alarm-bells-in-australiahttp://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198392-study-natural-gas-may-not-be-bridge-fuel-to-combat-climatehttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/10/14/flaws-university-texas-methane-study-draw-criticism-scientistshttp://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198392-study-natural-gas-may-not-be-bridge-fuel-to-combat-climatehttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6065/183.abstracthttp://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150128/methane-leaks-gas-pipelines-far-exceed-official-estimates-harvard-study-findsMethane is leaking from natural gas infrastructure in Boston and the surrounding region at rates two to three times higher than government estimates, scientists at Harvard University and other institutions found.Published in the journalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last week, the researchers’ paper is the first peer-reviewed study that quantifies emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from natural gas installations in urban areas—including pipelines, storage terminals and power plants. The amount of methane lost over a year in the study area is worth $90 million, the authors wrote.The research, which was supported by federal and private funding, is part of an ongoing effort to assess methane emissions during natural gas production, transportation and consumption. The answers are crucial to understanding how the current shale gas boom contributes to climate change. Earlier this month, the White House issued the first national regulations to curb methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.”I think it’s fair to get some solutions in place now,” said Rob Jackson, a Stanford University professor of environmental earth system science who was involved in the Boston study. Even if scientists don’t yet know where all the emissions are coming from, he said, it’s “perfectly reasonable” to start tackling known emission sources.http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/21/1416261112.full.pdf+html?sid=3818ddcf-7d73-46af-8d4e-e8d718ff679chttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/22/3582904/methane-leaks-climate-benefit-fracking/Share5,852Tweet695Satellite observations of huge oil and gas basins in East Texas and North Dakota confirm staggering 9 and 10 percent leakage rates of heat-trapping methane. “In conclusion,” researchers write, “at the current methane loss rates, a net climate benefit on all time frames owing to tapping unconventional resources in the analyzed tight formations is unlikely.”In short, fracking speeds up human-caused climate change, thanks to methane leaks alone. Remember, natural gas is mostly methane, (CH4), a super-potent greenhouse gas, which traps 86 times as much heat as CO2 over a 20-year period. So even small leaks in the natural gas production and delivery system can have a large climate impact — enough to gut the entire benefit of switching from coal-fired power to gas.Back in February, we reported that the climate will likely be ruined already well past most of our lifespans by the time natural gas has a net climate benefit. That was based on a study in Science called “Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems” reviewing more than 200 earlier studies. It concluded that natural gas leakage rates were about 5.4 percent.The new study used satellites to look at actual “methane emissions for two of the fastest growing production regions in the United States, the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations,” between the periods 2006–2008 and 2009–2011. They found leakages rates of 10.1 percent and 9.1 percent respectively!http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000265/full
Read more (323 lines)

criticaldragon1177
September 13, 2015 at 11:09 am — Reply
Sorry, that didn’t work correctly, I meant to embed that video, and it just put a bunch of link to Comedy Central instead.

I’ll post a link, instead.

Daily Show Debunks Baseless Fears About GMO Potatoes
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/316417_Daily_Show_Debunks_Baseless_Fe
alexthegreatest
September 13, 2015 at 11:36 am
I’ve read some of your other posts and it seems like we agree on a lot.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/316416_Alien_Supercivilizations_Absen

I do believe that there is life elsewhere in the galaxy but that we dont have the means to detect them. Think about what kind of technology we are using to detect them and how little the chances are that another species would evolve like us or be at a similar level of technology as us- they could be so advanced that we’d never be able to detect them and might not even be organic. They might be able to make use of Kip Thorne level tech (traversable wormholes) and might be invisible to us (we’re only 0.7 on the Kardashev scale.) We’re only at the beginning of our journey of trying to understand how the universe works and we dont even know how many “universes” there might be. We cant come to any premature conclusions about alien life.

I am also a passionate supporter of clean energy. At the same time, I oppose fracking. Emerging science shows it to be worse for the environment than coal (5% methane leaks) and there has been a 500x increase in earthquakes across the heartland. It is banned here in NY and I see more regulations popping up in other states.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.
alexthegreatest
September 13, 2015 at 11:40 am
Oops the end of my reply got cut off, I meant to say I support nuclear energy over any fossil fuel.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.The study, titled “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” was conducted by a team of 16 researchers from institutions including Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and is making headlines because it finally and definitively shows that natural gas production and development can make natural gas worse than other fossil fuels for the climate.Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.The study, titled “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” was conducted by a team of 16 researchers from institutions including Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and is making headlines because it finally and definitively shows that natural gas production and development can make natural gas worse than other fossil fuels for the climate.The research, which was reported in The Washington Post, Bloomberg and The New York Times, was funded by a foundation created by the late George P. Mitchell, the wildcatter who first successfully drilled shale gas, so it would be hard to dismiss it as the work of environmentalists hell-bent on discrediting the oil and gas industry.The debate over the natural gas industry’s climate change effects has raged for several years, ever since researchers from Cornell University stunned policy-makers and environmentalists by warning that if enough methane seeps out between the gas well and the burner, relying on natural gas could be even more dangerous for the climate than burning coal.Natural gas is mostly comprised of methane, an extraordinarily powerful greenhouse gas, which traps heat 86 times more effectively than carbon dioxide during the two decades after it enters the atmosphere, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so even small leaks can have major climate impacts.The team of researchers echoed many of the findings of the Cornell researchers and described how the federal government’s official estimate proved far too low.“Atmospheric tests covering the entire country indicate emissions around 50 percent more than EPAestimates,” said Adam Brandt, the lead author of the new report and an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University. “And that’s a moderate estimate.”The new paper drew some praise from Dr. Robert Howarth, one of the Cornell scientists.“This study is one of many that confirms that EPA has been underestimating the extent of methane leakage from the natural gas industry, and substantially so,” Dr. Howarth wrote, adding that the estimates for methane leaks in his 2011 paper and the new report are “in excellent agreement.”In November, research led by Harvard University found that the leaks from the natural gas industry have been especially under-estimated. That study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, reported that methane emissions from fossil fuel extraction and oil refineries in some regions are nearly five times higher than previous estimates, and was one of the 200 included in Thursday’s Science study.EPA Estimes Far Off-TargetSo how did the EPA miss the mark by such a high margin?The EPA’s estimate depends in large part on calculations — take the amount of methane released by an average cow, and multiply it by the number of cattle nationwide. Make a similar guess for how much methane leaks from an average gas well. But this leaves out a broad variety of sources — leaking abandoned natural gas wells, broken valves and the like.Their numbers never jibed with findings from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy, which approached the problem by taking measurements of methane and other gas levels from research flights and the tops of telecommunications towers.But while these types of measurements show how much methane is in the atmosphere, they don’t explain where that methane came from. So it was still difficult to figure out how much of that methane originated from the oil and gas industry.At times, EPA researchers went to oil and gas drilling sites to take measurements. But they relied on driller’s voluntary participation. For instance, one EPA study requested cooperation from 30 gas companies so they could measure emissions, but only six companies allowed the EPA on site.“It’s impossible to take direct measurements of emissions from sources without site access,” said Garvin Heath, a senior scientist with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and a co-author of the new analysis in a press release. “Self-selection bias may be contributing to why inventories suggest emission levels that are systematically lower than what we sense in the atmosphere.” (DeSmog has previously reported on the problem of industry-selected well sites in similar research funded by the Environmental Defense Fund.)Worse than Coal?There was, however, one important point that the news coverage so far missed and that deserves attention — a crucial point that could undermine entirely the notion that natural gas can serve as a“bridge fuel” to help the nation transition away from other, dirtier fossil fuels.In their press release, the team of researchers compared the climate effects of different fuels, like diesel and coal, against those of natural gas.They found that powering trucks or busses with natural gas made things worse.“Switching from diesel to natural gas, that’s not a good policy from a climate perspective” explained the study’s lead author, Adam R. Brandt, an assistant professor in the Department of Energy Resources at Stanford, calling into question a policy backed by President Obama in his recent State of the Union address.The researchers also described the effects of switching from coal to natural gas for electricity — concluding that coal is worse for the climate in some cases. “Even though the gas system is almost certainly leakier than previously thought, generating electricity by burning gas rather than coal still reduces the total greenhouse effect over 100 years, the new analysis shows,” the team wrote in a press release.But they failed to address the climate impacts of natural gas over a shorter period — the decades when the effects of methane are at their most potent.“What is strange about this paper is how they interpret methane emissions: they only look at electricity, and they only consider the global warming potential of methane at the 100-year time frame,” said Dr. Howarth. Howarth’s 2011 Cornell study reviewed all uses of gas, noting that electricity is only roughly 30% of use in the US, and describing both a 20- and a 100-year time frame.The choice of time-frame is vital because methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, so impact shifts over time. “The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from last fall – their first update on the global situation since 2007 – clearly states that looking only at the 100 year time frame is arbitrary, and one should also consider shorter time frames, including a 10-year time frame,” Dr. Howarth pointed out.Another paper,published in Science in 2012, explains why it’s so important to look at the shorter time frames.Unless methane is controlled, the planet will warm by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius over the next 17 to 35 years, and that’s even if carbon dioxide emissions are controlled. That kind of a temperature rise could potentially shift the climate of our planet into runaway feedback of further global warming.“[B]y only looking at the 100 year time frame and only looking at electricity production, this new paper is biasing the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions between natural gas and coal in favor of natural gas being low,” said Dr. Howarth, “and by a huge amount, three to four to perhaps five fold.”Dr. Howarth’s colleague, Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, raised a similar complaint.“Once again, there is a stubborn use of the 100-year impact of methane on global warming, a factor about 30 times that of CO2,” Dr. Ingraffea told Climate Central, adding that there is no scientific justification to use the 100-year time window.“That is a policy decision, perhaps based on faulty understanding of the climate change situation in which we find ourselves, perhaps based on wishful thinking,” he said.For its part, the oil and gas industry seems very aware of the policy implications of this major new research and is already pushing back against any increased oversight of its operations.“Given that producers are voluntarily reducing methane emissions,” Carlton Carroll, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, told The New York Times in an interview about the new study, “additional regulations are not necessary.”

https://traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?p=PC3Myv6tN1e1_YhFtmvUIZJP6qH7eOhw6_Ez3gJ5IAmtzJliBfQajZ7xzyyanmFtBTcLLuX4zXjFPp7gg8fBskrBB1nXCwPsAJx4h9tONu98Wcix_kBlSENpDO_ctNrBikudbZNjJH_LvQLVkYLuH8ocV8QqNFK-QlW7ZF4LuEP0tvG7vx98qIdfGYOi6900akgo0m8m74qdtzXUmUwaE14UWyCJi25i3Y9XC7jgt2_ai2R4wn1E1K6Io2XzGs75AMPG_qwkQT_GZsI7p40S2ef58GxdDbnGzpJxrRx6gxZrJBxytYzTEAYtMRYtOpmGl8k6YpvgtYpSEGdMvBJT4YnpQsUmGj3Ka5PAFyETqD5nrckfUXIM8WLp2DfStSTFDBhF6aOWiMfxByY905Qd0VUgMrG9D2w7ETRABpCiUxxKAL7kmJyz53xMAxklL0WPhhidt6wEoJi0NYTSx6AB5kMOueSGTAIj5GvY9QvofODSQ09HORCVUn97b2tVy6cT-pywqhh_lNtko_SfbDFTVw&c=b68eaba2&v=3

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28159-black-holes-may-be-brick-walls-that-bounce-information-back-out/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28160-can-red-wine-and-chocolate-really-stave-off-alzheimers-disease/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18396-stay-young-on-red-wine-drugs-think-again

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028185-300-red-wines-heart-health-chemical-unlocked-at-last

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18396-stay-young-on-red-wine-drugs-think-again

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18396-stay-young-on-red-wine-drugs-think-again

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4085-red-wine-chemical-extends-life-ndash-in-yeast

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16143-has-universal-ageing-mechanism-been-found

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14253-wine-chemical-improves-health-but-not-longevity

https://traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?p=PC3Myv6tN1e1_YhFtmvUIZJP6qH7eOhw6_Ez3gJ5IAk28st3bTTDbZyCzenr6xr1UqFK9VRrFcx49pzzTnBtw-pkWLDn-BASnoIxQT1jLiwOhcMGPGdNZ6HL9q7-XXSuuKtOO2DO0RcP2OAMvM25S1mFYXRZ94iiCXhAhoA-PVNbKi2Al4cVxsaW7wG6lhyyjCvlRNsypK2wDxvHGbKY912gHZBjWsh6ojnvfeApcC6aREtKWoQxR4flPngWk_aI1v7cc32eA6ZU5vj23AwqY5ZRzk6-ZGMF8gP2CSMKC00x6fk5AgsesNCv89HooCBqOuObvOgKTPEl2DqsazwAFgY4flkXgl6OYfIICgAxCeon1Z6LY__xvv5RC2cOSlAZaFCc7c6e7iYPjD3oshNj5KVstA7yTfKXYPAxMSVo4CJh2oDwZX3AEMJemb2QhDytT6_2VRfsyd5zrGQwiRwPtzcJ-04O2Z-W6RfWEpDHanC1vSoF9VFpdTD0eBLl2JFX&c=22cba341&v=3

https://traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?p=CL8JIUR_SmnCrlQbacVI9RxAZqvTrtMChuqB3WI5SWmknAcJweFKVSEqRyjct_FC_Kguivc36c-Y1essXJM858NiaI6zUOlm2XCZ4gJ3FrcbbIjNDB1A7t6zUTQ6QlVHAJcp2EywOvqke_Xi1H7bbUyCHZEyoK9Vw8iT4DlSPoMLDBaoD5_fVEL_AOYglSooWqGFt51FJJ_pjSPxhO8FUH0s0d7DRRkSUroi1zUeKvy3HaE3G2Jfo1CE-yUG2fsRcghLQ4Ds5uw37sOhd0Edg85-PuQeFF6_hv-UFQRfpswL13d_qnuq2kPlnAf-i_GoqVUNcwhPj-uv4LGBtz1baknW-ibVSEI7B6_AKLh1p2QNdy_jhUe6GJG-o4Aooj4REPG2KokgRlFw4kOLEQIGmUNeVy7Hv_VV0m8Zwexi7UQ_GN-6o01XSme_HfRAtk5ihT3NpGEDkRMjnGh6RJehUPw2Ig7h23IaWy-D9MBJi4-YAnVFjyRGM8PNT8fFhfgO24lLoKTG_QnoNfNg-ns_Mg&c=56faf992&v=3

https://traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?p=TKSYsiGzcbaJ_JwImKHzFKGgtSXGOUaSK8THd_WZormjsfGeoj5kQHA9rRS5d5z5Ncpp-8tV9z2i1hel5spHwdmvRLLz21NvdbMLp82x3_KX7HGzf-OIDG9GbaGVf8qGNR6lJlH9vizzuAtXWsXzU4f_7TP3-hopYCuXg1o9wvTBbqrywBoeG50imzdd2ysfsNorm-XbEHDAWKFlFV18CNe82TXd__oPPeOYQrhhzTyv6XqgO0_WvhsmrH5Vwujkm45iK1Lff2lRwgyXmFY3peaKFInn-AzHG1DZ7mtc2j9mWs5ohd3VQZRNDh6srIsr5RGRfqIzXfx_pwwwA32HCZHdq-dmMfpNcFur1IRdkJJ_2PI0AB-aSWn5-bp8PDsjcSPz5Mx4aUhG5ntN4FyLj1aRyL36hPexWl8fPhNlEunI7w_DO1yKUH8rg-NtCgosl8p6UbFPP07_kIwsZ2jgYDzkyG8sAigXJ3zB75OhnTziKZOvAuymsxZbzRgMu2oVJZGjyEYfMt90FYIvxoafhQ&c=ecba9b97&v=3

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730333-700-the-sahara-desert-has-a-giant-eye-and-its-staring-out-to-space/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730333-700-the-sahara-desert-has-a-giant-eye-and-its-staring-out-to-space/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730380-900-autumns-science-books-weigh-up-humanitys-future-options/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28159-black-holes-may-be-brick-walls-that-bounce-information-back-out/

http://thedailybanter.com/author/tommychristopher/

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/09/bernie-sanders-ridiculous-charge-against-obama/
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/08/banter-m-issue-14-life-death-and-tv-news-cornel-wests-danger-to-bernie-sanders-and-how-alex-jones-exploits-his-audience/

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/barack-obama-2012-campaign-data-100133
Welcome to Disqus! Discover more great discussions just like this one. We’re a lot more than comments.Get Started
Dismiss ×
Comments
Community
Avatar
1
Recommend 1
Sort by Best
Join the discussion…

Avatar
ForsettiJustice • a minute ago
President Obama has done more for progressive politics than any president since FDR, but emoprogs can’t help but bitch he didn’t give them the unicorns they felt they deserved. They are the reason the adage, “The perfect is the enemy of the good” was coined.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Vivelevin • 15 minutes ago
That President Obama was up against a recalcitrant Congress is an understatement. Nonetheless, I don’t see Bernie’s comment or criticism in the same light as you do. Bernie has said repeatedly that no President can do everything alone and he is already preparing his supporters by telling us that once he is elected, it will be only through our continual active participation that things will get changed, accomplished, etc. I take this to mean that when Progressives run for Congress, we will elect them, in order to get people into office who will not be bought, just like Bernie cannot be bought.

I believe Bernie will be talking to the American people a lot when he is President and I also believe he will get good people around him who aren’t Wall Street/Banking crooks.

Regarding Dr. Cornell West, I think a lot of Blacks know who he is and respect him…I am not sure if Bernie solicited his endorsement or if it came first from Dr. West. In any case, I would never dis Dr. West re the endorsement because he has his finger on the pulse when it comes to how Blacks are living in America and he believes Sanders is the one who will make a huge change for the better for improving conditions for African Americans.

Your smug dismissal of Sanders’ long-term record as an activist for civil rights, is really a low blow. He has every right to be proud of his record and to mention it as a testament to his core beliefs that racism must end…structural or otherwise.

I guess you are a Hillary supporter and can’t help yourself. Well, I am not, and I can’t help but stand up for Bernie Sanders who, in my view, is authentic and with a very clean record on his positions, never one to engage in double-speak. If Blacks think they’re best bet is with Hillary, they are sadly misinformed and not paying attention. She’d thrown them a bone, that’s about it. Same old, same old.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher cant help but be biased, dont worry it’s being taken care of.
× We are unable to post your comment because you have been blocked by The Daily Banter. Find out more.
Attach
Post as TheGreatAlex
Avatar
Grimcrotch • 23 minutes ago
west was one of obamas biggest supporters until it became blatantly obvious he fit right in to the wall street pocket. and west was supporting bernie a month ago. arent you a little late to the bandwagon.

but with that aside, apparently its a lost concept to you that someone who is speaking up about correcting the overall good, instead of just for one race or another specifically, can do so well. you dont seem to understand that this is america, there are not supposed to be separate things for one race or another; you read but dont understand the EQUAL RIGHTS thing. that doesnt mean separate but equal, that doesnt mean kiss your ass cuz youre black n been held down by the man.

he has already addressed the blm thing, theres no need to go over that again. what it comes down to is this; his plan is to make this country work for everyone, including the poor, mid class, and, believe it or not, wall street too. dont like it, dont vote, or vote for someone else. he would tell you the same thing.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
sealiagh Grimcrotch • 20 minutes ago
Is it Sarah Palin’s speechwriter?

After a long summer spent feuding with #BlackLivesMatter and alienating Obama coalition voters, Senator Bernie Sanders appeared to be going in the right direction with black voters. He released a pretty decent racial justice platform, stopped telling people how his 1960s-era activism gave him a lifetime hood pass, and hasn’t openly pined for white voters in months. None of this appears to have translated in the polls, though, as Sanders’ support remains overwhelmingly white, so Bernie made some moves this week.
First, he decided that drafting Dr. Cornell West as his most prominent black surrogate would somehow be a good idea, which would have worked if Sanders had a flux capacitor and a DeLorean set to 2007. Here in the present, Cornell West is about as appealing to black voters as a Rand Paul lecture on black party identification. West has been among the most unhinged of Obama critics.
Then, Sanders made an inane charge against President Obama part of his stump. Repeating a claim he’s made several times, Sanders took to MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes to explain that he won’t repeat Obama’s “biggest political mistake”:

I happen to have a lot of respect and affection for Barack Obama. Biggest political mistake that he made is after his brilliant campaign in 2008, he basically said to the millions of people who supported him, thanks for getting me elected, I will take it from here. I will not make that mistake. If I`m elected president, trust me, we`ll be directly involved and working with millions of people who will tell the billionaire class their day is over, they`re not going to get it all. They`re going to start paying their fair share off taxes. We are going to create millions of jobs. We are going to raise the minimum wage. Wall Street will pay a tax on speculation whether they like it or not because millions of people now will be involved in the political process.
Forget, for a moment, the political wisdom of insulting the guy whose supporters you desperately need, or the fact that President Obama actually created eleventy-billion jobs since taking office, and just pay attention to the factual claim Sanders is making.
You can make a lot of arguments against President Obama and his ability to enact his agenda, but I’ve got several hundred emails from OFA that say failing to directly engage millions of voters isn’t one of them. In fact, this president has made unprecedented strides in direct outreach to the public, which the press never stops complaining about. Of all the criticisms you could make against President Obama, this is the most baseless one possible.
If anything, the knock against Obama has been that he didn’t play the inside game very well, but the truth is that his biggest political mistake was being black. Sanders is at least correct that he’s unlikely to duplicate that one.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/08/white-house-support-for-joe-biden-presidential-bid-is-not-news/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/12/politics/bernie-sanders-african-american-black-lives-matter/

http://thedailybanter.com/2011/05/cornell-west-needs-to-substantiate-his-claims-about-obama/

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/barack-obama-2012-campaign-data-100133

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/06/this-interview-shows-why-bernie-sanders-is-losing-african-american-support/

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/08/banter-m-issue-14-life-death-and-tv-news-cornel-wests-danger-to-bernie-sanders-and-how-alex-jones-exploits-his-audience/

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_obama_deception_why_cornel_west_went_ballistic_20110516/

http://www.mixrevolution.com/dailybanter2/tdb/2011/05/joan-walsh-savages-cornel-west.html

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_obama_deception_why_cornel_west_went_ballistic_20110516/

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/why-i-didnt-interview-cornel-west/

http://coffeeoperaglitterfluff.blogspot.com/

http://teenskepchick.org/author/elisheba/

http://teenskepchick.org/author/elisheba/

http://teenskepchick.org/2015/09/10/reality-checks-southern-women-new-species-of-homo-sapiens-and-the-magellanic-clouds/#comment-3061

No Comment
Alex Kent Kalel Reynolds
September 13, 2015 at 4:10 pm — Reply
The Magellanic Clouds are gorgeous- did you know they contain the largest stars that have ever been discovered? Look up R136a and the Doradus Nebula!

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Alex Kent Kalel Reynolds
September 13, 2015 at 4:11 pm — Reply
I find the new human discovery fascinating too- one minor point though- Elephants also grieve and bury their dead and return to the grave sites year after year

http://teenskepchick.org/2015/09/08/reality-checks-a-bigger-stonehenge-blackmailing-ashley-madison-users-cholera-in-tanzania-and/#comment-3062
the bigger stonehenge (superhenge) has been there for 4,000 years underground but we just discovered it!

http://coffeeoperaglitterfluff.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-non-exhaustive-list-of-things-which.html?showComment=1442175392263#c3677115020645201848
http://coffeeoperaglitterfluff.blogspot.com/2015/09/friday-fabulosity-way-things-should.html#comment-form

A novel sentiment, and one that I share. But I fear that this kind of “global harmony” will only occur after our first contact with “alien” sentient species. And then we will suddenly realize how much we have in common with the rest of humanity. It’s a sad commentary that discovering sentient life so different from us is what it will take for humans to bond as one and I hope we dont treat that “alien” sentient species the way we’ve historically treated people who are supposedly so different from us. But I fear we will 😦

A novel sentiment, and one that I share. But I fear that this kind of “global harmony” will only occur after our first contact with “alien” sentient species. And then we will suddenly realize how much we have in common with the rest of humanity. It’s a sad commentary that discovering sentient life so different from us is what it will take for humans to bond as one and I hope we dont treat that “alien” sentient species the way we’ve historically treated people who are supposedly so different from us. But I fear we will 😦
https://www.blogger.com/profile/08130066889672989798
http://books.scientificamerican.com/sa-ebooks/books/eat-move-think-living-healthy//
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-new-human-species-emerges-from-heap-of-fossils/

morigu@gmail.com

morigu@gmail.com
http://tzcoffee.blogspot.com/

morigu@gmail.com
http://coffeeoperaglitterfluff.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-non-exhaustive-list-of-things-which.html#comment-form

How about men telling women what to do? That should be at the top of the list 😉
Elephants also display cognition and ritually bury their dead and return to the grave sites year after year. They have even been seen to shed tears in moments of sadness. This semi-religious distinguishing between humans and other animals has got to stop- humans aren’t that special!
\
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-new-human-species-emerges-from-heap-of-fossils/
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/2011/05/19/cornel_west
http://thedailybanter.com/2011/05/joan-walsh-savages-cornel-west/
Facebook
Twitter
FILED TO: Uncategorized
Cover of “Brother West: Living and Loving…
Cornel West’s tirade against Obama has irked much of the liberal media, largely it seems because West framed much of his critique in terms of race. Writes Joan Walsh of Salon.com:
The most tragic thing, to me, about West’s meltdown was the way he tried to frame it as a universalist defense of poor and working-class people — who in fact haven’t gotten enough help or attention from this too-close-to-Wall Street administration — but then somehow descends into personal attacks on the president as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.” If that wasn’t bad enough, West claims Obama’s problem is that he is afraid of “free black men” due to his white ancestry and years in the Ivy League…..
Give Brother West credit for consistency: On MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” Tuesday night, he repeated his criticism that Obama is too close to “upper-middle-class white brothers and Jewish brothers.”
Oh no, the Jews again. Haven’t we been here before?
It has become fashionable in middle class intellectual circles to pretend that skin color and racial background doesn’t matter any more in America, and anyone who brings it up is living either a racist or living in a time warp. West is not allowed to bring up race when it comes to Obama because it isn’t polite to do so, and liberal intellectuals are not comfortable with the idea that race still defines much of American politics.
While it is fine for Walsh to dismiss West’s attack on Obama because she doesn’t like listening to racial politics, the reality is that the Princeton professor speaks on behalf of a significant segment of black America dismayed at Obama’s seamless integration into the institutions responsible for structural poverty and racial discrimination.
Personally, I still like to believe that Obama has a long game up his sleeve, that his ability to mingle with “upper-middle-class white brothers and Jewish brothers” is a tactic to mask subtle shifts in government policy that will result in substantive change somewhere down the line. Whether this turns out to be true or not remains to be seen, but West is right to criticize Obama because so far we have not seen much of the change he based his campaign on. There have been victories, no doubt, but for many languishing in poverty, joblessness and crippling debt, the long game seems awfully slow.
We can pretend that “upper-middle-class white brothers and Jewish brothers” are not massively overrepresented in government, and that policy isn’t framed largely in their interests, but you only need to look at the statistics to see how much race still matters in America.
As an upper middle-class-white, Jewish brother, I can attest that life isn’t so bad for me and my kind. And until I’ve lived as a poor black man, I will refrain from dismissing the racially tinged lens through which Cornel West still sees America.
To Steve Skolsky, Fuji Repair Department

As per our email and phone conversations (516-837-3032) and the images I posted on dpreview.com, the camera outputs pictures with interference patterns at M size DR 200 and 400 1/4,000 sec to 1/2,500 sec shutter priority mode shutter speeds at all zoom ranges (focal lengths.) You said the camera needs to be replaced because of a sensor problem found by the Fuji engineers who examined the photos I sent and put on the site.

There is also an autofocus grinding noise during long shutter speeds (1/4 sec) during shutter half and full press.

Please send me new replacement camera with new warranty before September 25th. (I need it that day!) After talking to other HS50 owners, it seems that the batch starting with serial 4FA and later are best so please send me one with the latest serial you can find. The one I am sending back starts with 4EA.

Please perform the full battery of tests on the new replacement camera. Please make sure of the following: So no stuck or dead pixels even at long (1 sec) exposures and even at high ISO, pristine EVF/LCD with no ghosting or flaring, no scratches or marks or dust or mold/mildew inside the lens or body or on the sensor. Can autofocus without noise at 1/4 sec shutter speeds and slower even when 30 or more pictures are taken in sequence at full zoom with 58mm IR filter. Also please test that it can do IR manual white balance at full zoom on green leaves or grass. Test for no sensor malfunction at M size DR 200 and 400 1/4000 sec to 1/2500 sec shutter speeds in shutter priority mode. Please make sure no one has owned the camera before (no pictures taken when inserting new camera card) and not damaged box or opened box or marks on the camera. First pic should be DSCF.0001.JPG in folder 100_Fuji. Also make sure no air comes out or gets sucked in EVF or other areas when zooming.

Please make sure the hand grip is secure on all sides with new glue. Test and realign lens assembly and test all camera functions, buttons and dials. Call me at 516-837-3032 or email me at mudhameed936@yahoo.com for more info.
alexthegreatest
September 13, 2015 at 11:24 am — Reply
Thanks. I agree. Here is where I separate from the antiGMO crowd. An analogy: I find some/many of Bill Gates business practices reprehensible, but that does not make me shun computers. As a matter of fact that motivates me even more to build them and to use UNIX based operating systems on them.

Same with GMO, if one opposes Monsanto because of their past with AO and PCBs and the massive coverups they tried while simultaneously paying out millions without taking responsibility, learn more about GMO and support other companies, ones with better environmental records. Trust me they are out there and they use GMO to further humanity and the environment rather than corporate greed. In short, dont throw out the baby with the bath water (sorry for the cliche.)
alexthegreatest
September 13, 2015 at 6:57 am — Reply
While the “fear babe” is an ignorant piece of filth, let’s not forget that biotechnology would be MUCH more accepted if corrupt companies like Monsanto and Bayer were removed from the equation, with their horrible environmental records. I very much support the smaller, “open source” companies that will in the next few years bring us crops that do not require any pesticides at all (not even Monsanto’s cash cow Glyphosate either- great news for the environment) AND a new vaccine on the horizon that will be a “one off” flu shot- that is, take it once and you never need to take another flu shot again. The replacement for antibiotics is also about to come to market- it’s an immune system boosting drug that removes all the issues we’ve been having with antibiotics. Just like how new research has shown how harmful fracking is for the environment (5% methane leaks and 500x rise in earthquakes, so it’s banned here in NY), research has shown what pesticides from Monsanto and Bayer have done to the environment (rise of superweeds, CCD and monarch butterfly die-off), so it’s high time that bio-engineering delivered us produce that does not require any pesticides and thus removes us from the tether to corrupt big business.

Leave a reply

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.

Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.

Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

BTW if you want to see the kind of astroturfing the administration was up to and what was done about it, just look up HBGary. Talk about a widespread discrediting campaign run by a company that was exposed for all the world to see.Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

BTW if you want to see the kind of astroturfing the administration was up to and what was done about it, just look up HBGary. Talk about a widespread discrediting campaign run by a company that was exposed for all the world to see.

So you are guilty of the very things you accuse the government of. What does that make you?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat Ceoltoir • a minute ago
Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

BTW if you want to see the kind of astroturfing the administration was up to and what was done about it, just look up HBGary. Talk about a widespread discrediting campaign run by a company that was exposed for all the world to see.
1 • Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat Ceoltoir • 3 minutes ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Daily Banter.
Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014… how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
1 • Edit•Share ›
Avatar
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat Ceoltoir • 4 minutes ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Daily Banter.
Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014… how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

https://www.sciencemag.org/con….
1 • Edit•Share ›
Avatar
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat Ceoltoir • 9 minutes ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Daily Banter.
Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014… how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

https://www.sciencemag.org/con….

btw the site can try that again, I have lots of other tricks handy
1 • Edit•Share ›
Avatar
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Ceoltoir Guest • 5 days ago
Bullshit, President Obama actually laid out reforms for the NSA months before Snowden defected. It was the release of that information, frequently in a misleading manner, that blew up the whole process. As for the reforms, that was blocked by Senate Republicans. Better luck next time chump.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat Ceoltoir • 5 minutes ago
If that’s truly the case, why were Mark Klein’s concerns never addressed? He was the whistleblower who exposed the telecoms during the Bush era and we launched a lawsuit against them. We tried it the other way- it didn’t work. These constitutional violations had been going on for YEARS, way before Obama, and even before the so-called “Patriot Act” (which were reprehensible themselves.)

So you are guilty of the very things you accuse the government of. What does that make you?
• Reply•Share ›

Avatar
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat Ceoltoir • 2 minutes ago
Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

BTW if you want to see the kind of astroturfing the administration was up to and what was done about it, just look up HBGary. Talk about a widespread discrediting campaign run by a company that was exposed for all the world to see.
1 • Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat Ceoltoir • 4 minutes ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Daily Banter.
Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014… how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
1 • Edit•Share ›
Avatar
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat Ceoltoir • 5 minutes ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Daily Banter.
Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014… how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

https://www.sciencemag.org/con….
1 • Edit•Share ›
Avatar
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat Ceoltoir • 10 minutes ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Daily Banter.
Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014… how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

https://www.sciencemag.org/con….

btw the site can try that again, I have lots of other tricks handy
1 • Edit•Share ›
Avatar
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Ceoltoir Guest • 5 days ago
Bullshit, President Obama actually laid out reforms for the NSA months before Snowden defected. It was the release of that information, frequently in a misleading manner, that blew up the whole process. As for the reforms, that was blocked by Senate Republicans. Better luck next time chump.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat Ceoltoir • 6 minutes ago
If that’s truly the case, why were Mark Klein’s concerns never addressed? He was the whistleblower who exposed the telecoms during the Bush era and we launched a lawsuit against them. We tried it the other way- it didn’t work. These constitutional violations had been going on for YEARS, way before Obama, and even before the so-called “Patriot Act” (which were reprehensible themselves.)

Wrong, The difference is I dont hide anything. I’ve been an activist for over a decade, proudly exposing Monsanto’s knowledge of PCB contamination, Merck’s Vioxx “research”, WalMart’s support of sweat shops in third world countries, Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins hospital and the “research” they did in Guatemala, and the methane leaks associated with fracking as well as the huge increase in earthquakes resulting from them across the heartland. I’ll post just one of the items from the above list to show you my research is legit. But they are all now widely known and have been talked about on popular news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.

btw the site can try that again, I have lots of other tricks handy

If that’s truly the case, why were Mark Klein’s concerns never addressed? He was the whistleblower who exposed the telecoms during the Bush era and we launched a lawsuit against them. We tried it the other way- it didn’t work. These constitutional violations had been going on for YEARS, way before Obama, and even before the so-called “Patriot Act” (which were reprehensible themselves.)

I do believe that there is life elsewhere in the galaxy but that we dont have the means to detect them. Think about what kind of technology we are using to detect them and how little the chances are that another species would evolve like us or be at a similar level of technology as us- they could be so advanced that we’d never be able to detect them and might not even be organic. They might be able to make use of Kip Thorne level tech (traversable wormholes) and might be invisible to us (we’re only 0.7 on the Kardashev scale.) We’re only at the beginning of our journey of trying to understand how the universe works and we dont even know how many “universes” there might be. We cant come to any premature conclusions about alien life.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/316416_Alien_Supercivilizations_Absen

criticaldragon1177
September 10, 2015 at 1:14 am — Reply
Kavin Senapathy,

I really want to read this. I suspect one of the things that has lead to fear of biotechnology, is that some people on the left have a sort of reflexive desire to attack anything they associate with big bossiness, much as many on the right constantly feel the need to attack anything they associate with big government.
alexthegreatest
September 13, 2015 at 7:02 am — Reply
When it comes to companies like Monsanto and Bayer and their backers in government, they have every right to question it. Not fear them- attack them, and expose them. GMO is awesome and will be even more awesome in the future when companies like Monsanto are removed from the equation since we will no longer require their pesticides. Monsanto stock is already tanking and I believe in a few decades that company will no longer exist. Open source GMO are the wave of the future just like nuclear is the wave of the future and corrupt fossil fuel companies are being removed from the equation with the research showing that natural gas is just as bad as coal is for climate change (5% methane leaks.) That plus the 500x rise in earthquakes across the heartland are why fracking is banned here.
criticaldragon1177
September 13, 2015 at 11:06 am — Reply
Alexthegreatest,

Didn’t say you didn’t have a right to question them. You should, but at the same time, some people seem to just attack anything GMO, in spite of a lack of evidence that they’re harmful. Here’s just one example.

The Daily Show with Jon StewartGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive
criticaldragon1177
September 13, 2015 at 11:09 am — Reply
Sorry, that didn’t work correctly, I meant to embed that video, and it just put a bunch of link to Comedy Central instead.

I’ll post a link, instead.

Daily Show Debunks Baseless Fears About GMO Potatoes
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/316417_Daily_Show_Debunks_Baseless_Fe
alexthegreatest
September 13, 2015 at 11:36 am
I’ve read some of your other posts and it seems like we agree on a lot.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/316416_Alien_Supercivilizations_Absen

I do believe that there is life elsewhere in the galaxy but that we dont have the means to detect them. Think about what kind of technology we are using to detect them and how little the chances are that another species would evolve like us or be at a similar level of technology as us- they could be so advanced that we’d never be able to detect them and might not even be organic. They might be able to make use of Kip Thorne level tech (traversable wormholes) and might be invisible to us (we’re only 0.7 on the Kardashev scale.) We’re only at the beginning of our journey of trying to understand how the universe works and we dont even know how many “universes” there might be. We cant come to any premature conclusions about alien life.

I am also a passionate supporter of clean energy. At the same time, I oppose fracking. Emerging science shows it to be worse for the environment than coal (5% methane leaks) and there has been a 500x increase in earthquakes across the heartland. It is banned here in NY and I see more regulations popping up in other states.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.
alexthegreatest
September 13, 2015 at 11:24 am — Reply
Thanks. I agree. Here is where I separate from the antiGMO crowd. An analogy: I find some/many of Bill Gates business practices reprehensible, but that does not make me shun computers. As a matter of fact that motivates me even more to build them and to use UNIX based operating systems on them.

Same with GMO, if one opposes Monsanto because of their past with AO and PCBs and the massive coverups they tried while simultaneously paying out millions without taking responsibility, learn more about GMO and support other companies, ones with better environmental records. Trust me they are out there and they use GMO to further humanity and the environment rather than corporate greed. In short, dont throw out the baby with the bath water (sorry for the cliche.)
alexthegreatest
September 13, 2015 at 6:57 am — Reply
While the “fear babe” is an ignorant piece of filth, let’s not forget that biotechnology would be MUCH more accepted if corrupt companies like Monsanto and Bayer were removed from the equation, with their horrible environmental records. I very much support the smaller, “open source” companies that will in the next few years bring us crops that do not require any pesticides at all (not even Monsanto’s cash cow Glyphosate either- great news for the environment) AND a new vaccine on the horizon that will be a “one off” flu shot- that is, take it once and you never need to take another flu shot again. The replacement for antibiotics is also about to come to market- it’s an immune system boosting drug that removes all the issues we’ve been having with antibiotics. Just like how new research has shown how harmful fracking is for the environment (5% methane leaks and 500x rise in earthquakes, so it’s banned here in NY), research has shown what pesticides from Monsanto and Bayer have done to the environment (rise of superweeds, CCD and monarch butterfly die-off), so it’s high time that bio-engineering delivered us produce that does not require any pesticides and thus removes us from the tether to corrupt big business.

Leave a reply
Logged in as alexthegreatest. Log out?
http://thedailybanter.com/author/tommychristopher/

https://disqus.com/by/craig_moffitt/discussions/
Thanks. I agree. Here is where I separate from the antiGMO crowd. An analogy: I find some/many of Bill Gates business practices reprehensible, but that does not make me shun computers. As a matter of fact that motivates me even more to build them and to use UNIX based operating systems on them.

Same with GMO, if one opposes Monsanto because of their past with AO and PCBs and the massive coverups they tried while simultaneously paying out millions without taking responsibility, learn more about GMO and support other companies, ones with better environmental records. Trust me they are out there and they use GMO to further humanity and the environment rather than corporate greed. In short, dont throw out the baby with the bath water (sorry for the cliche.)

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/07/07/anti-gmo-activist-roseanne-barr-goes-off-the-deep-end/

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/12/20/why-rachel-parent-is-wrong-about-genetically-modified-foods/

http://t.co/4NNnhokYKG
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/316416_Alien_Supercivilizations_Absen

That may be all good and true, but the observational bias is undeniable – they went looking for a benefit, didn’t find it, and blamed the supplements. The experiment of pills v placebo forgot a control group who took nothing; that weakens the result.
Personal experience doesn’t support the harm side, but lines up with a big shrug on mostly nothing. Except … switching off from multi, C, B, D, E (note: singly, at different times in the day) and 48 hours later I had a self-induced whopper of a cold (no contact, I’d been a hermit the whole time). The only change was withdrawal from the supps. I’d gone years without a cold, and since the withdrawal there’s two or three rounds a year.
As with other tests that draw blanks, try target-subject testing to see if some people get some benefit from some supps. Do that before you tell the world to switch off pronto for more healthy, wealthy, and wise.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
tuned December 17, 2013, 12:59 PM
Key words and tricky phrase meant to be skipped over:
“This message is especially aimed at people who have no signs of nutritional deficiency”.
The whole reason for the multivitamin is that we often do NOT get ALL the vitamins and minerals we need every day. It is well known the dietary habits run towards junk food and obesity.
Even a generally good diet may have some notable deficiency.
A multivitamin is a great cheap form of insurance to aid the diet, that’s all.
It also does not address the fact that some people can not eat a “balanced diet” due to allergies or other health problems.
One multivitamin a day will not hurt you.
ANY vitamin/mineral deficiency is LIKELY to end up weakening your health.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
singing flea December 17, 2013, 1:24 PM
This study is flawed. Only by monitoring vitamin use by people eating the exact same diet can any reasonable comparison be made.
I got a laugh the other day when a nurse suggested I scan every bar code on the food I eat and use a software program to monitor my calorie intake in order to loose weight. The problem is I explained, is that 90% of the food I eat doesn’t have a bar code. I eat mostly fresh fruits and vegetables and fresh fish. After all, I live in Hawaii and these are available year round so why eat dead food? The point is vitamin supplements don’t replace natural vitamins and the rest of the stuff one eats is too complex to make blanket assumptions about a groups habits.
One last note, the participants in the study are all doctors, and one would think their choice of foods was already better then most. The study needs to be done of poor people who can’t afford the best quality food.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
SpoonmanWoS Owl905 December 17, 2013, 1:52 PM
“The experiment of pills v placebo forgot a control group who took nothing; that weakens the result.”
Just as you forgot to read the whole article. The studies did use control groups, dimwit. The rest of your useless anecdotal evidence is useless. Ironic that you complain about the scientists not using a control, yet you trot out your own, biased and uncontrolled anecdotes as evidence. You really are a prime example of the kind of sloppy thinking that dominates the Internet these days. Please take a class in critical thinking before posting anymore comments.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
eclipx December 17, 2013, 2:39 PM
This study, or at least its presentation, will send the entire population the wrong message. I heard this on the radio today and the radio hosts were touting it constantly, like they were trying to save their audience from wasting money. Anytime your body is deficient in something, it causes health problems. Ex: lack of Iodine, which stimulates your thyroid to produce the right amount of chemicals your body needs, causes gout, depression, sexual dysfunction, and a host of other health problems. I can understand the need to verify that individuals receiving the proper amount of vitamins and minerals in their daily diet don’t need to take multivitamins for improved health, but the way this was presented to the world makes it sound like multivitamins are a complete crock (however some brands have horribly balanced doses which can cause problems). Because of the impact this study is going to have, two studies should have been performed side-by-side… a study of individuals who don’t receive proper nutrition on a daily basis, and another study of individuals who do receive proper nutrition on a daily basis. I don’t normally eat correctly, which I am currently (but slowly) changing, and, after supplementing vitamins that I am still discovering are missing from my diet, each supplementation improves some part of my health. Sometimes it takes a while, at least a month for Iodine deficiency to improve, but the results are solid none-the-less.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multivitamins-are-a-waste-of-money-doctors-say/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/fracking-to-free-natural-gas-10-02-28/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chemicals-found-in-drinking-water-from-natural-gas-drilling

rappin pappyYesterday 8:15 AM

+Micheal Beers HTTPS://PENNSYLVANIAALLIANCEFORCLEANWATERANDAIR.WORDPRESS.COM/THE-LIST ,THIS IS A LIST OR PARTIAL LIST BECAUSE OF TRADE LAW SECRETS AND GAG ORDERS ON FAMILIES AND THEIR DOCTORS TO SILENCE THEM,CHEMICAL WARFARE ON OUR CITIZENS FOR GAS PROFITS,LOOK AT THIS LIST,SHARE IT AND TELL ALL THOSE TO SHARE AND MAKE AWARE BEFORE IT HAPPENS IN YOUR COMMUNITIES!
Show less

Simran JohalYesterday 3:58 PM

+Micheal Beers It did, about the numbered economic boost the US would experience, and this pompous notion of them being ‘energy independent’- which is also limited. The only thing that wasn’t mention fracking process is not long at all, however I find it amazing how much environmental damage can be done in that amount of time. There you go- pros noted, happy now?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/string-theory-predicts-a-time-before-the-big-bang/

TheColouredEuropeanObserver November 20, 2014, 4:34 PM
“Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense—that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. ”
Really? Which cosmologists were that then? Names please.
The ONLY answer, and the scientific answer to the question would be of course: We don’t know. There could have been something, but it’s impossible to know what. Unless we find something that definitely is older than 15 billion years, we can’t tell at all.
HOW scientific is this American, actually? 😉
Report as Abuse | Link to This
TheColouredEuropeanObserver TheColouredEuropeanObserver November 20, 2014, 4:35 PM
PS. this article is silly and promotes magical thinking.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
And Then What? November 20, 2014, 6:51 PM
If the BB was an explosion of Pure Energy State giving birth to Matter as we define it, then to speak of Time before the BB is nonsense, unless we assume that the Pure Energy State that preceded the BB was the result of a collapse of a previous Matter/Energy State in which Time had ruled the Matter component of that state as it does in our Universe. If you mean that Time plays a role in the Evolution of an Eternal Space-Time comprised solely of Energy then this too would seem to be nonsense at least according to my understanding of the Concept of Time, but hey I don’t profess to know everything although I may give that erroneous impression at times.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
RickWilliams1960 November 20, 2014, 11:20 PM
Of course there was a time before the Big Bang. There was a universe with four dimensions of space, and it died a heat death, dropped an energy level into three-space, and BOOM – Big Bang. No big deal. The universe evolves the same way a cooling atom does. It’s a beautiful symmetry between the biggest and the smallest.
You’re welcome.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Chris Miller TheColouredEuropeanObserver November 27, 2014, 9:05 AM
Will Stephen Hawking do for you? Read Chapter 8 of ‘A Brief history of Time’.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
verdai November 29, 2014, 5:28 PM
Right, the amorphous energy of space. amour, amor,
Report as Abuse | Link to This
fbdunn January 22, 2015, 11:10 PM
I hesitated a long while on this post. i wanted to be positive.
Although String Theory is going nowhere at present; this article the latest of an endless chain of untested and untestable hypotheses. My own view is all this work be useful once certain flaws are rectified.
For disparate reasons, gravity in some form has to predate Big Bang. All of spacetime is implicitly curved and all energy proceeds along geodesics.
Another insight is the laws of physics (and nature in general) are ’emergent’ rather fundamental; a their form can and will change at significant ‘Phase Transitions’.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
magneticnorth50 June 25, 2015, 10:23 AM
I don’t know . Learn how to say -I don’t know . Beyond 3 planck segments after the metaphoric Big Bang , there is no testability , no empirical evidence , no falsifiable theory , no information whatsoever . We just don’t know , and most likely never will . IF the Acceleration we are observing reaches speeds close to the speed of light , then events beyond that ability of photons to reach us will be the limit of the observable Universe , thus the limit of time we can assign to it .
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Bjrjmorris June 29, 2015, 3:29 PM
A good read, tests my limits of my minds conceivably to grasp concepts of such vastness and smallness at the same time. But never the less interesting .
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Steve926 RickWilliams1960 July 2, 2015, 4:55 AM
That’s where my money would go but I have a nagging feeling that it just kicks the can down the road. Before the four dimensions there were five, and before that six and so on. So what is the original or maximum number of dimensions? What happened to the previous dimensions? How does the Big Chill affect residual matter like black holes? Is there a correlation between the number of dimensions and a life span of the universe?

Dr. Scott March 15, 2013, 3:41 PM
headline sub Text should probably read “entangled photons,” not “entangled photos.” Dew knot trussed spill chick too fined awl you’re airs.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Stumpzian Farber March 15, 2013, 5:25 PM
This is uncomfortably close to my theory of time travel via information. http://youtu.be/vRyaevquIX8
Report as Abuse | Link to This
duncanrod March 15, 2013, 5:35 PM
Who doesn’t love quantum entanglement? Cool stuff. Very exciting.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
duncanrod March 15, 2013, 5:35 PM
Who doesn’t love quantum entanglement? Cool stuff. Very exciting.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
jtdwyer Dr. Scott March 15, 2013, 5:49 PM
But “entangled photos” are much more to the point, since most encrypted digital transmissions will likely be pay-per-view videos…
Report as Abuse | Link to This
johnb123 March 15, 2013, 6:03 PM
Makes you wonder if the reason we’re not hearing anything from other civilizations, we’re not listening with the right technology.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
leif.sterner March 16, 2013, 1:16 AM
Hmm, I get it this way.
Imagine a new weather satellite in geostationary orbit.
Encrypted images (“photos” made of entangled photons 😉
are transmitted in two radio beams that can actually be rather wide and potentially detected over almost halve the earth.
But if someone else than the intended recipient would tap this information the entanglement would get screwed up.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Handin23 March 16, 2013, 5:02 AM
I thought quantum entanglement couldn’t be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. Eg. Einstein and Rosens’ EPR paradox.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
thevillagegeek March 16, 2013, 12:58 PM
Aren’t “entangled photos” what tends to get politicians and troubled Hollywood actors in trouble?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Dr. Strangelove Handin23 March 19, 2013, 1:21 AM
I believe you can transmit information instantaneously (definitely faster than light) thru quantum teleportation. But it doesn’t make much sense if you’re just communicating over short distances on earth. Light speed is more than enough.
For light-year distances, the problem is how to decode the quantum signals to transform them into meaningful information. You need a common code (like a Morse code) that transmitter and receiver both understand. They have to communicate to share this common code. But that’s exactly the problem. They can’t communicate because they’re light-years apart!!
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Dr. Strangelove Handin23 March 19, 2013, 1:26 AM
Quantum teleportation experiments have already invalidated the EPR paradox. Instantaneous transmission of signals is possible.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
13inches March 19, 2013, 3:58 PM
The entangled photons are too scattered to be useful on earth – so the photons are generated by a device in satellites in space to avoid scattering – and then the photons are beamed back to earth – how do the photons NOT get scattered when they are beamed back to earth ?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
gavin3050 March 19, 2013, 4:54 PM
To Dr Strangelove & others:
On Earth I (& nearby) if entanglement is better than encrypted photons to have UNBREAKABLE encryption, entanglement is faster, perhaps instantaneous, communication: perhaps even “entangled” (double or triple) real people seen as interactive “actors” over infinite distances over Universe(s).
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Gaspar_Ramsey jtdwyer March 20, 2013, 9:51 PM
Are you suggesting entangled porn?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
jack.123 March 22, 2013, 2:35 AM
johnb123-I have for some time been saying in comments that we should be looking at starlight for signals.We would of course be looking for coherent wave function drops using a two slit experiment.I have described just such a device in detail in many comments.The source star wouldn’t be the star where another civilization lives,but instead a star that is the same distance away from them as it is to us.Because the star would be the same source there is likelihood that entangled photons would be arriving in both our solar systems.Most likely the receiver/transmitter would have to be in orbit otherwise there would be to much background noise to receive a clear signal.What I am talking about is a real time conversation.Once a signal is found,we would need to decipher it.Chances are that it would have a leader code in something like binary code.this first part of the message would probably be a string of prime numbers,then we would see the language of math to to follow.Once we get that far then each number would be give a name and so forth with the information between is becoming more and more complicated till we could establish a dialog.It at some point that we could see video stream from one another.They would have to be at the same level of development as us,or be ahead of us to have the resources to accomplish the science needed.Who knows what we can learn.If they centuries ahead they might be generous and help us solve many problems.If they are way ahead of us they might be cautious about an exchange of information.What ever happens it will be a very exciting time for both our species.We must be careful as well that we don’t get bad information.The deciphering and data much be keep separated from any outside link where our computer systems would be compromised.As I am sure they will be taking the same steps.Who knows there may a whole network of star systems communicating across the galaxy.Imagine all the science,literature,and music of many species that we may encounter.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
sunspot jack.123 March 22, 2013, 5:41 PM
“Imagine all the science,literature,and music of many species that we may encounter.”
It would be naive to assume that all races would want us to know about them, and to know about us. In fact, it’s easy to imagine a race of psycho-zenophobes (religious zealots?) who want to rid the galaxy of all new-born races like earth for fear of being infected with dangerous ideas. The easiest way to eliminate us is to share dangerous technology, like giving a baby a gun. BANG! Earth is gone.
Even if a race were altruistically motivated to send us new technology, we must determine protocols to safely use it. We can’t just ignore it, but who will decide how to use it safely? That’s the horns of the dilemma. Looks like we better solve it quick.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
JohnCervini March 23, 2013, 12:06 AM
I can envision a system where digital transmission of information could be sent across light years in an instant. First the sender and receiver would need to share trillions upon trillions of entangled photons. The sender and receiver pre-designate 1/3 of their photons for sending, 1/3 for receiving, the last 1/3 for data encoding. To initiate a message, the sender would associate a ‘data’ photon with one of his ‘send’ photons. Remember the ‘send’ photon is already entangled with the receivers ‘receive’ photon. Because of entanglement, the ‘receive’ photon would assume the quantum state of the send photon (this is from the article). The receiver photon will have a up or down spin; up would indicate ‘1’ and down would indicate ‘0’. The 1’s and 0’s could then be used to send standard data streams.
Of course the structure or ‘language’ of the data streams would need to be predetermined. And the initial distribution of the entangled photons would need to be done when the sender and receiver are relatively close.
Communicating to Mars by conventional radio takes Approximately 3 minutes, 13 seconds, so quantum communication wouldn’t be absolutely necessary. Quantum communication would only be needed when the distances are extreme, meaning the sender and receiver would probably never meet again, but could still communicate.
What is interesting, is you would expect if a space traveler left earth and somehow attained 75% light speed, Einstein says he would age relatively slower, and would out last several generations of earthlings back home. But if the traveler and the earth used quantum communications they would be communicating in real time. So how then could they be aging at different rates?
It seems to conflict at this point, meaning perhaps quantum communication is not possible at all.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
GRSGodwin March 24, 2013, 8:19 PM
So I have a question: If two entangled particles or sub particles are separated and one is sent to Mars, the other stays on Earth. Could use of changes or vibration in one make an immediate same change on the other over that distance?? If so surely a way of instant communication would be apparent?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
verdai April 9, 2013, 3:36 PM
I just want the original original.
what can these copies be thinking? who cares? What can the originals be thinking?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Quinn the Eskimo leif.sterner April 15, 2013, 1:00 AM
“halve the earth.” Ooooooo, I hope not.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Quinn the Eskimo April 15, 2013, 1:01 AM
I got quantum entangled once. Woke up in the middle of a 4 year hitch in the Air Force. Time Warped. Won’t do that again.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
gavin3050 June 17, 2013, 7:05 PM
My comment is: That, 1)Communication at infinite speed (not dependent on light speed) over infinite distances, is NOT forbidden by any relativity theory, & 2)Nothing of physical mass has to be teleported but 3)Whatever any viewer can sense, wherever the viewer is, whatever the transmitter is programmed to sense, wherever the transmitter is (instantaneously).
The physics is possible. Some engineering needs to be improved.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
tomwoller June 24, 2013, 2:19 PM
The greatest quantum computer there is is the brain. It is a receiver. It has the ability to receive any information desired through the Mid-Brain, that has access to a specific frequencies that are also known as Anti-Matter, that every scientists struggles to create or detect. Just the intent and focus of the mind receives any information anywhere, so that mind is entangled with any particles or information desired, even if it is encoded, the information is reveiled just by the intent of desiring to know. So there is no encryption to a great mind, because consciousness transcends languages. Mind-to-Mind communication doesn´t have language barriers or code-barriers. So forget about this idea. And you gotta know: Technology is only as big as the mind that created it, not greater.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
tomwoller June 24, 2013, 2:19 PM
The greatest quantum computer there is is the brain. It is a receiver. It has the ability to receive any information desired through the Mid-Brain, that has access to a specific frequencies that are also known as Anti-Matter, that every scientists struggles to create or detect. Just the intent and focus of the mind receives any information anywhere, so that mind is entangled with any particles or information desired, even if it is encoded, the information is reveiled just by the intent of desiring to know. So there is no encryption to a great mind, because consciousness transcends languages. Mind-to-Mind communication doesn´t have language barriers or code-barriers. So forget about this idea. And you gotta know: Technology is only as big as the mind that created it, not greater.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/highly-contagious-antibiotic-resistant-food-poisoning-establishes-u-s-presence/

The kinds of bacteria that can cause food poisoning lurk all around us. These germs can be especially easy to pick up when traveling internationally as well as in places, such as children’s day cares, which are hard to keep clean. The infections usually clear up on their own but sometimes require hospitalizations and hefty doses of antibiotics to expunge. Unfortunately, the bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to treatment.

The latest bad news came in April when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an outbreak of Shigella sonnei that has become resistant to ciprofloxacin—one of the last remaining medications in pill form that can kill the germ. Since then a Scientific American investigation shows the worrisome strain is still circulating in the U.S. a year after it first emerged.

Shigella bacteria typically cause about 500,000 diarrheal illnesses and 40 deaths in the U.S. every year. Children who are malnourished and people with compromised immune systems are particularly at risk of developing severe cases. Symptoms include diarrhea that is sometimes bloody, fever and abdominal pain, and typically last about a week.

The bacteria occur naturally in the U.S. but, heretofore, people typically caught ciprofloxacin-resistant strains while traveling internationally. In the current outbreak, however, many people who became sick had not recently been out of the country, which proves that the multidrug-resistant bug has now established a firm domestic presence.

The CDC has confirmed 275 cases of ciprofloxacin-resistant shigella across the country from May 2014 to May 2015, according to data obtained exclusively by Scientific American (see chart below). Although these figures appear small, they almost certainly represent but a tiny fraction of the true number of ciprofloxacin-resistant cases. Shigella infections are supposed to be reported to the CDC but a lot of people who get sick do not go to the doctor. And those who do are sometimes not tested for the presence of shigella, let alone drug resistance.

Vulnerable populations are some of the hardest hit in this outbreak, including cases linked to a day care center, homeless people in San Francisco and HIV-positive individuals in Philadelphia. As few as 10 shigella germs can cause an infection—making the bacteria virtually undetectable as it quickly spreads in contaminated food and water or from person to person.

Other drugs that the pathogen has overcome in the past include ampicillin, streptomycin and tetracycline. Anna Bowen, a medical officer in the CDC’s Waterborne Diseases Prevention Branch and lead author of the April study, says the CDC has identified some cases in this outbreak that were resistant to all of the oral treatment options currently available. The next line of defense is a broader-spectrum, more expensive antibiotic that must be administered via injection or an intravenous line.

Whereas labs can test for ciprofloxacin resistance, there are currently no standardized tests to identify if a shigella infection is resistant to azithromycin, which is the go-to drug for children. (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ciprofloxacin only for adults.) “Almost no clinical labs are doing this sort of testing,” Bowen says, “and so patients are being treated kind of blindly since the providers don’t know if azithromycin is an appropriate choice or not.”

SEE ALSO:
Energy & Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Evolution: New Clues about the Evolution of Dogs | Mind & Brain: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Space: The Errors of Albert | Technology: Introducing the First Vehicle Powered by Evaporation | More Science: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
Lag time in reporting is another issue. San Francisco, for example, is tracking nearly two times the number of cases that the CDC counts as confirmed for the city—228 cases versus 119. Cora Hoover, director of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention for the San Francisco Department of Public Health, says they have slightly different case definitions because as the city agency on the ground investigating this outbreak they want assurance all possible patients are identified; also it takes so long to confirm a case. Public health officials normally follow up with each patient, and lab tests can take weeks.

It can take around a month to confirm a case of shigellosis is both antibiotic-resistant and part of the same outbreak, though it varies. Generally, once a doctor identifies a shigella infection, he or she reports it to the city or state public health agency and sends a stool sample to the lab to confirm the diagnosis. The lab grows or “cultures” the bacteria and reports its findings back to the doctor and agency in about a week. The health agency then reports the case to the CDC, which tests a selection of cases for antibiotic resistance via the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System and its national laboratory network, PulseNet. Results from PulseNet’s genetic testing of sample cases can be complete within a couple of weeks.

By the time the full picture of a single case is confirmed, the patient is usually better. Caroline Johnson, director of the Division of Disease Control at Public Health for the City of Philadelphia, says her division usually suspects that a case is part of an outbreak but does not know for sure until the full results are in.

Peter Gerner-Smidt, chief of the CDC’s Enteric Diseases Laboratory Branch and PulseNet, says labs will gradually move away from having to culture bacteria to identify them. As genetic testing becomes cheaper and more accessible, state labs will eventually be able to get that information by determining the whole DNA sequence of each sample. This approach will hopefully reveal antibiotic-resistance more quickly, he says, but it will likely take years before these tests are widely used.

Because of the increasing threat of multidrug-resistant shigella, the CDC and other health agencies recommend doctors only prescribe antibiotics for severe cases. Shigellosis can actually clear up on its own with proper hydration and rest. Prevention is therefore the best weapon for controlling resistant shigella, Bowen says, particularly because the U.S. cannot regulate antibiotic overuse in other countries, but it still affects patients here.

“Problems with antibiotic resistance anywhere are problems with antibiotic resistance everywhere,” she says. “There are no borders when it comes to antibiotic resistance, and we have all got to be vigilant.”

The numbers in this chart do not fully represent the shigellosis burden in the U.S. because not all cases are reported. The weekly case totals in this graphic were calculated by subtracting the previous week’s cumulative total from the current week’s cumulative total as reported in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These cumulative totals can fluctuate up or down based on new information.
Rights & Permissions

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-solve-the-problem-of-antibiotic-resistance/

Editor’s note: This is the last of a series of interviews with leading scientists, produced in conjunction with the World Economic Forum on the occasion of last week’s conference in Davos, Switzerland; interviews for the WEF by Katia Moskvitch.

Antibiotics have saved millions of lives—but their misuse and overuse is making them less effective as bacteria develop resistance. Despite scientists’ warnings, antibiotic prescriptions in many countries continue to soar.

Venki Ramakrishnan, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist based at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology at the University of Cambridge, tells us about the importance of gaining a better understanding of the use and misuse of these wonder drugs.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

The world seems to be running out of antibiotics. In middle of the 20th century more than 20 new classes of antibiotics were marketed; since the 1960s only two new classes have reached the market. Why is that the case?
It’s not entirely clear. Because of the effort to make penicillin during World War II, and its success, there was a strong motivation to look for other antibiotics. So in the ’40s and ’50s there were lots of new antibiotics that were being discovered.

But then it became a law of diminishing returns for the number of new compounds that could be effective. Being able to kill bacteria is not enough; you have to be able to make an antibiotic cheaply, and it has to be safe. So the number of really new compounds diminished and a lot of drug companies were modifying known antibiotics, trying to make them better and more effective.

There have been recent reports of a breakthrough—a new antibiotic that “kills pathogens without detectable resistance.” What do you think of this advance?
Indeed, there was a very interesting report on an antibiotic from a soil bacterium that does represent a new class. Many bacteria cannot be cultured but the researchers used a clever trick to obtain a reasonable amount of this bacterium and isolate a new class of antibiotics from it. How useful it will be in humans still remains to be seen, because it has to go through the clinical trials.

The other issue is resistance. In the paper they claim that this antibiotic, because of the way it acts, is unlikely to lead to resistance. But people have said this about many different things before, and eventually resistance seems to develop. I would be a little cautious to say that no resistance will ever develop to anything, because natural selection is very powerful and has a way of defeating even the most powerful tools. Still, it seems very promising.

Researchers are now waging a war against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What exactly is being done?
There are several aspects to the problem of antibiotic resistance. It’s very important to have highly specific targets, which kill the particular bacterium that’s causing the disease rather than using a spectrum of antibiotics that should only be used as a last resort when you don’t know what the disease is caused by and you don’t have time.

But there’s a larger problem—the problem of resistance is also due to an abuse of antibiotics. Many people will go to a doctor and demand an antibiotic when they have a cold or a flu, for which these antibacterial compounds are useless. In many countries it is possible to buy antibiotics over the counter. Often, if people are poor, they will not take the full dose—all of that leads to resistance.

In countries like India people will give you antibiotics prophylactically, as a way to prevent infection. This should only be done in very extreme cases because it’s again spreading resistance.

So is the problem limited mostly to the developing world?
Not at all—in addition to also prescribing antibiotics for the flu the West, agriculture uses antibiotics in feed to fatten up the cattle—that’s an abuse of antibiotics. This leads to the spread of resistant strains, rendering current antibiotics useless if resistance spreads too much.

SEE ALSO:
Energy & Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Evolution: New Clues about the Evolution of Dogs | Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind & Brain: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Space: The Errors of Albert | Technology: Introducing the First Vehicle Powered by Evaporation
We need better diagnostics, to allow us to very quickly diagnose a bacterium that is causing a particular disease, to then treat it specifically with a narrow spectrum of antibiotics. And finally, there’s a whole issue of better public hygiene.

People now move all over the world, so if resistance emerges in one place it can very quickly spread to other places. So it needs a concerted attack—it is a broad social problem.

Are you confident we can win this war against resistant bacteria?
I am an optimist. I think that when things get serious, people have a habit of responding. And I’m hoping that people don’t wait for a big crisis to respond because then a lot of people will die before things will get corrected and improve.

I would prefer that governments in a worldwide agreement establish certain guidelines for antibiotics use—for public health, for hygiene, for use of antibiotics in the animal industry; and also will promote science—get better diagnostics, better understanding of how bacteria cause disease and for the development of new antibiotics.

What would a world without antibiotics look like?
I don’t think there ever will be a world without antibiotics. In a worst-case scenario, if resistant strains emerge to all known antibiotics, there will be large epidemics until new antibiotics are found. It won’t be like returning to the dark ages because now we have a huge amount of knowledge about how bacteria work, about molecular biology, genetics, microbiology and about how to make antibiotics. But we have to be proactive.

Are there any alternatives to antibiotics?
Antibiotics should be used as a last resort. Apart from general preventive measures like public health and hygiene, vaccines can be of enormous benefit. If we can develop good vaccines for many serious diseases, that would be wonderful. However, vaccine development is a difficult enterprise and it can take a long time in any given case. Sometimes it has failed despite many years of work.

Bacteriophages—naturally occurring viruses that attack specific bacteria—have sometimes been mentioned as possible tools. Although they were discovered in the early 20th century, their clinical use has so far been limited to some efforts in Russia, [the Republic of] Georgia and Poland. This is partly because they are large biological agents, and delivering the phage to the appropriate target is not as straightforward as administering a small-molecule antibiotic. Phages and bacteria can also mutate, rendering them ineffective. However, it is possible that future research may pave the way for greater use of phages to treat bacterial infections.

Are governments and the public beginning to understand the problem with resistant bacteria and do something about it?
I think so. Of course, when resistance becomes a huge problem and starts affecting the middle class and the rich, there will be an outcry. But I think things are already changing. In India, for instance, I see a lot of opinions for stricter regulations of antibiotics and for their better use. But India has a huge problem of providing proper sanitation and public health, and that’s a big problem to be tackled.

It’s a multipronged approach. Measures like public health and hygiene will take a long time.

Do you think the production of drugs should be funded by governments or by private companies, as it is mostly the case today?
I personally believe that for certain things the private enterprise model is not going to work. It costs a huge amount of money to develop a new drug. But when you develop a new antibiotic, one of the first things you’re told is only to use it against resistant strains as a last resort. And that itself limits the number of patients who can take this medicine—and that limits your income.

If it’s a good antibiotic, the patient will be cured in a week or two—whereas ideally if you want to make a lot of money from a drug, it should be something the patient has to take all of their life. So antibiotics by their nature are not going to be the same class of moneymaker.

So I think that governments really need to get involved in the development of new antibiotics. They have to think of this as something generally good for society, the same reason that governments fund education, roads, police, defense and so on. This is one case where governments need to act.

Related articles:

The viruses that spread antibiotic resistance
The Crisis of Antibiotic Resistance
The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance

greenhome123 January 30, 2015, 7:40 PM
I’m glad that he mentioned the problem of antibiotic abuse in livestock. But, there is another antibiotic abuse going on in food production. It is called RoundUp weed killer aka glyphosate. Monsanto has patent on Roundup herbicide for use as an antibiotic because it is so effective at killing bacteria. I am curious if overuse of Roundup could cause strains of bacteria to emerge that are not only resistant to Roundup, but also to other antibiotics being used for humans?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
lycophidion February 2, 2015, 10:21 PM
Please forgive any repeats of this note, as I tried earlier, but it didn’t seem to post. Please use this version, as the previous one(s) were beset by autocorrect errors.
I believe that emerging knowledge of the microbiome and the integral nature of microbial communities in human organisms (with some even designating individual multicellular organisms as holobionts) challenges our entire medical model, with its emphasis on the reductionist, tertiary (magic bullet) responses beloved of (and profitable to) Big Pharma. The juggernaut of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains is one consequence of this paradigm (in the same way that pesticides have long been known to disrupt ecological interactions, not simply selecting for resistant strains, but eliminating pest predators, parasites and competitors). The looming paradigm shift indicated by recent research in the human microbiome indicates the lines of a more holistic and far-sighted approach to pathogens (without denying the need for some, appropriate antibiotic use).
Report as Abuse | Link to This
krill_pill_q.d. greenhome123 February 4, 2015, 6:34 PM
not sure if you’re serious, but roundup is a herbicide, not antibiotic.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
nori641 February 27, 2015, 3:50 AM
Thanks for members opinions but if we find antibiotic have no resistance from some pathogens today
tomorrow will come new pathogens resist this antibiotic and so on . All times pathogens are at offensive side and
scientists are at defensive side and the result is more patients suffering and more profits gained by drug companies . So this not solution for this problem BUT there is one solution that finish most diseases from its roots . what is it : CHANGING FOOD PRODUCTION. Governments are powerless to change food due
to high influence of big food companies so it is the people responsibility only.
Nori641
Report as Abuse | Link to This
gmarmot June 3, 2015, 7:52 PM
One thing the author states is that antibiotics are available over the counter in “many countries”. After 6 years of travel to 21 third world countries, I would say that antibiotics are available over the counter without a doctors prescription in MOST third world countries (at least that’s what I’ve seen in Central/South America and Asia from northern China to Indonesia and west to Nepal/India). Even more developed countries such as Thailand state that a prescription is required, but in reality, it usually is not.
Report as Abuse | Link to This

http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/antibiotic-resistance-bacteria-in-depth/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/resistance-antibiotic-defeating-drugs-combat-worrisome-germs/
There are so many news stories about antibiotic resistance these days that you may be tempted to ignore them all just to preserve your sanity. But there is a kind of hierarchy of danger when it comes to figuring out which stories are most deserving of your attention.

Anytime you hear that a particular bacterium has become resistant to a “drug of last resort,” that is bad. Drugs of last resort—such as vancomycin for Staphylococcus infections—are usually the last line of safe, dependable defense for certain kinds of infections. Drug companies can try to come up with new medications to replace the outpaced meds, but that takes time and does not bring in a lot of money, so we are fast running out of drugs of last resort.

Another category of bad news to pay attention to is when serious antibiotic resistance has developed in the so-called Gram-negative bacteria. (All bacteria are divided into two groups: Gram-positive and Gram-negative based on how they react to a stain invented by a Danish bacteriologist named Hans Christian Joachim Gram.) As Maryn McKenna explains in “The Enemy Within,” antibiotic resistance in the gram-negative bacteria is particularly worrisome because Gram-negative germs are more likely than Gram-positive ones to share the genes responsible for drug resistance across species. Her story is doubly alarming because it provides a detailed look at how resistance has developed in the U.S. against drugs of last resort (really bad) in Gram-negative bacteria (really, really bad).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/antibiotic-resistance-bacteria-in-depth/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-challenge-of-antibiotic-resista/

Andragogue August 22, 2015, 12:02 AM
Extra special dimension? How about extra-spatial dimension>
Report as Abuse | Link to This
IndiSci Andragogue August 22, 2015, 2:59 AM
Second to that.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
IndiSci August 22, 2015, 3:19 AM
This is for a magnetic field, one may now think of experimental set up for a similar device that may do the same for an electric filed, then one would be able to send light (which is a electromagnetic wave) from one place another without any physical connection, like you would not need optical fibers for communications!!! Thought we already can mostly communicate wirelessly, however we are still restricted by the bandwidth of the signals that we use for transmission on earth. Such a problem may be resolved by such electromagnetic worm-whole device.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
DavidSims August 22, 2015, 11:23 AM
If I blow air through a straw, thus concealing the flow of air from an outside observer, did I make a wormhole?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
MNDLBRT August 23, 2015, 7:45 PM
Philadelphia Experiment?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
be rational IndiSci August 24, 2015, 3:13 PM
IndiSci – This so-called wormhole does use a physical medium to transfer the magnetic field, 2 spheres and a cylindrical coil. the device does hide (cloak) the magnetic field, and the degradation of the magnetic field is less than it would have been without the device (∼1/d^1.5 vs ∼1/d^3). As stated in the article, this device could be useful in some applications such as MRI. The comparison DavidSims made to blowing through a straw is good, except that I believe there is less loss with the straw. Also, don’t get any illusions about instantaneous travel.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Terry1570 MNDLBRT August 26, 2015, 2:08 AM
hahahhaahahahaha, that is an ace reply.
However on a serious note, you have me thinking there…..
Report as Abuse | Link to This
drhugh August 26, 2015, 10:35 AM
If we look sufficiently far forward to the potential future of humanity, where we might conceivably learn how to codify the human body as data, it MIGHT be possible to send the data through such a wormhole as electromagnetic radiation and use the code to reconstruct a traveller far, far away ….sufficiently far away that the two existing personae need never cause a legal conundrum by the fact that we have duplicated the original person.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
HouseLD August 26, 2015, 1:24 PM
Whew! While this so-called “Magnetic Wormhole” is interesting in what it implies realistically, I have an issue with how preliminary research is written about for layman consumption. I don’t think it does science any favor by presenting it in such wimsical ways at to give credence to magic or fantasy–especially when what is known already (factual) does not in any practical way imply differently. Speculation is not a healthy virtue of science. What is wrong with just presenting the facts and the science that support them in a manner that laypersons are both entertained and informed? I’m just asking. I enjoyed it anyway.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
DrDaystrom August 26, 2015, 3:40 PM
Interesting…Now all we need is to be able to create a virtual magnetic disk (as a levitating medium attached to a craft or form) which can project a magnetic ‘skin’ around a structure, then propel that structure through the magnetic wormhole.
Where would it go? And how fast? What medium or technique could be used to create a virtual magnetic disk that is both collimated (sort of), and coherent, yet self-contained in any shape we like (disk, in this case.)
Maybe a practical application of spook-action-at-a-distance, to create virtual magnetic forms based on a real form. Hmm…
Report as Abuse | Link to This
agillard August 26, 2015, 6:15 PM
Come on … “wormhole” ? This is nothing more than a “shielded wire” that extends the apparent end of the magnetic field out to the actual end of the shielding structure.
Where is the scientific review of truth and consistency for this headline ?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
1001000111000 August 27, 2015, 8:04 AM
“Of what use is a new born babe?”, quipped Ben Franklin to an uninspired comment by someone standing next to him upon seeing a balloon in Paris for the first time (circa 1793). This new born babe of science can be our ticket to interstellar space travel. Forget the messiness of beaming (tearing down a life form and re-constructing it anew at its destination–sorry Brian Greene) when we can use a wormhole and arrive intact without making an exact replica of ourselves. The linear thinking that we can achieve the speed of light and beyond is fast becoming dated given the vastness of our universe, and why should it not be? If space & time can be changed with a wormhole of our own creation then that could propel us to a type one civilization (we are dabbling at type 0.5 at present–per Dr. Kaku) in a hurry. I hope this research stays seriously funded so our species can indeed go “where no man has gone before”.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
kebil DrDaystrom August 27, 2015, 3:50 PM
It would just go to the other end of the tube you have constructed. These discovery does not imply that we can magically travel by folding space, but that magnetism can travel through a tube without be detected outside of the tube. It would be a great way to smuggle illegal magnetic fields across the border, however the magnetism will still only go where the tube goes.
By the way, what is a “virtual magnetic disk”. Is it made of virtual particles, and thus only lasts for very, very short periods of time? And what is magnetic “skin”. I can envision a skin made up of magnets, the construction of which is very obvious. You ideas sound very interesting
Report as Abuse | Link to This
kebil DavidSims August 27, 2015, 3:55 PM
That was my exact same thought. My conclusion – this is a “wormhole in the sense that it allows magnetism to flow through a tube just like a worms travel dirt without being able to be seen from above ground. I guess you could call this a magnetic earth-worm hole, instead of an Einstein-Rosen wormhole. Maybe we need to distinguish between “conventional” and “relativistic” wormholes
Report as Abuse | Link to This
DrDaystrom kebil August 27, 2015, 10:25 PM
All just crazy ideas, napkin sketches, and wild hypotheses, but here goes…
A virtual magnetic disk would be a projected (see below) self-contained field of magnetic energy that creates sufficient a magnetic field to power a craft (for electro-magnetic propulsion).
Since such a disk would have to be extremely powerful, it would, of course, be of a danger to humans. To circumvent that danger, the electro-magnetic field that gives this virtual disk (or, if you will this ‘projected self-contained magnetic field) would be generated from inside the vessel from an array of powerful electro-magnetic generator (engines), which then would stream the energies outside the vessel where the self-contained field would manifest. Containing it and keeping it coherent would be another problem, but not insurmountable, I suppose…
(Another reason for using a ‘virtual’ magnetic disk is that using a real electro-magnet disk of sufficient power for such uses would not only be dangerous to humans, it would more than likely be much too big to lug around on the bottom of a ship.)
If such a system could be constructed, an almost unlimited source of malleable electro-magnetic power/em field(s) could hypothetically be produced safely outside of the vessel, enough to also project an electro-magnetic field of force around the vessel, with skin-tight tolerances, essentially giving said vessel all of the properties of an (electro) magnet without magnetizing it. (This, of course, would call for a system to protect the inside of the vessel from the huge magnetic fields created by such a system.)
Theoretically it could then do all of the things that powerful magnets can do like approximate the properties an anti-gravity system.
Being able to project such a virtual electro-magnetic system remotely could have a number of uses in propulsion, and maybe even teleportation (as in the electro-magnetic force being temporarily used to supplant the strong interaction/nuclear force to rip atoms apart, hold them together (electro) magnetically in a stream or lineated field, and allowing them to re-assemble themselves remotely. (Here, I choose to assume the each atom knows what other atom it supposed to be paired with because of the magnetic markers that have temporarily supplanted the atomic force that originally held them together!)
Stopping now because I ran out of napkins to sketch on!
Report as Abuse | Link to This
mtspaceevolved 1001000111000 August 28, 2015, 3:57 AM
Fully agree that BEAMING is an overly complex, archaic way to look at space travel. WAVE ACOUSTIC TRAVEL…aka…SURF SPACE ON A WAVE OF DEEP BASS DROPPIN and pop out where the subwoofer frequency fades! only know a bit of the math but theoretically if you surfed out on the wave that is the kind you feel in your spine from a block away it’d be a pretty quick calcuable non messy skill that can be practiced in labs on earth….dig the use of ‘linear thinking’ inRe going faster than light. my friend made going faster than light simple by with physics of jumping forward from hood of car going 60mph for an instant i would be going faster than 60mph aka propel yourself from object going almost light speed and you might lap it BUT REALLY, there are way cooler ways to use the force(s)
Report as Abuse | Link to This

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/magnetic-wormhole-created-in-lab/

http://www.livescience.com/25338-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

http://www.livescience.com/34052-unsolved-mysteries-physics.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/metacognition-is-the-forgotten-secret-to-success/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mindfulness-can-improve-your-attention-health/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psychologists-identify-best-ways-to-study/

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=f98103bcb8f74b0883eedcdd194caab4%7E1441302964350%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1441302964350%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAJ1RTWvcMBD9K_Ehp67M6NvaXtpLoJdSCDn0ZLTyuFZjW0bS7lIo-u2VNyW9BALVNzPz3rwZTTlv9_zzPXuo63q9tsl5XLMfvbMLxnqurQtLddqYvZuxvqZwJTmQFOYLkjwh2WI4zbiQMBJbsScfaiiJmHzKdnU7phBpuJam01JR3lEQUpsy_Uf2AZPDdaiJ0p5wCnNw9pwySed48ZcQE5lsFWbnjBEHknIVUm0hLmHFtGvhsuOlaEoL07KAVgLpSUo3GmMYMqGs1VrDKKgauHg_oJTkM34ZjkoYwTVIyTgIJSQD2ddKNut_rNUtBK0OLnTtgKCaK16gTlooGFncc9_2L0T9G0Qf_hH1bxKx8isQN53jivH2JQdxgBaOdX-iAB-PcPj9t43EL9veFR9WMs4hvMZzgB3ycr2iCuNdeXpsntaqbrh7zDZjaiRVzcMcop3vvtn43EigjYBWMwmma4jmrQZ9s9JKRJuv34txwAcrlXVWSTpa3Q125KjRdSctnSu1lpa1TLVUsJJ-Okrs5oF2UEY7Jyy38e5__AF5lZ221QIAAA

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=311c6e719570019734b20c8d2c97d2d2%7E1441302964350%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1441302964350%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAI1RPW_cMAz9K_GQKSeD1IdlX5d0CdClKBBk6GTIshyrsS1DUnIoUOi3l3cp0iVAoi8KIvn4qDfnvF-Lr9f8jtbpdKqT9W7LfvLWrC7SudU2rOQ0MXu7OLrN4cRyYCksL47l2bE9hmFxKwsTM5Q7-EChLLrkUzabPecUhh0KoRAk54IrpXWnyvzp6sMSHsnsIWUyq89sc88xZGdnNsWwsuQfN7OkM7HBzebFh3guK1QrStGIhWtVQDfS4aCUnbqu447LxhitNUwSm1HIjwNKST67b-OxkZ0UGpTiAmQjFQfVE-ndEA9yS4nkEFKjaCVq0YgCNGVBoL7tU1_3r0D9O0A3_4H6d4F4-R2YnZ_j5uLl9w_yADUcad8iwJcjHP7804v5dSclkg8bm5YQ3uIFwDnl1bxlFS7a8nBfPWzEbry6zya7VClsqrslRLNc_TDxqVKAlYRacwVdWzEtag368ooEhNX3n6WzIEajGmNNo3Ayuh3NJJx2th20srZQLzWveVOj5CX9ssjM7gFbKBPp6MplfKjHX-D7b-fAAgAA

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=69ad39bf721ab33b548f7cec4512f023%7E1441302964350%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1441302964350%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAIVRS2_cIBD-K_EhpyzW8Bgwm0t7idRLVSnKoScLY7ymyxrL0K4qVfz2kt02zSFVeIv5HgMz57ze8o-37KGO8_ncJuvdkv3krTm5ra5La-OpBs2WvQ2unuZ4JjmSFMMPR_LsyLrFIbgTiRMxlTv4WKFkc8mnbBb7zClESuCSowZEJbVGJrDMr92HGI_p__5TOvwF1X11W4qLCcQv2YXgD-7q82zFseOlKEoLpUxhASWFowOinbTWzDEhjVFKwSSoHLl4H1BK8tl9GvdSaMFVfQLjIKRABtjXRFfjD0sNowTNEajuUEulkSIrUDsWyoEXe-zb_qrUv6F090-pf0uJFlZ-RmLn79vitsuv78SOtrCv8wMFuN_D7tefOhF_WmsFko8LmUKML3gOAJVy3V5YhfGuPD02T0tNb7x5zCa71CCVzUOImwk3X8x2bGpCjYBWMQTdNUTxVoG63NIqRJvPX4u2wEeD0lgjkU5GdaOZuFPOdoNCawutLNYy2VLBSvpmKTGrB9pBmUxIrlzauxX5DTnO8QO4AgAA

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antibiotic-resistance-will-kill-300-million-people-by-2050/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-faster-way-to-diagnose-antibiotic-resistance/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drug-resistant-stomach-bug-gains-a-foothold-in-the-u-s/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/sick-ants-seek-out-medicinal-food/

http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/scientists-to-bacteria-resistance-i-13-09-25/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drug-resistant-stomach-bug-gains-a-foothold-in-the-u-s/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/super-superbugs-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria-may-be-deadlier/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/antibiotic-resistance-bacteria-in-depth/

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=d32431a4a98af2d7f027187e05cf82e7%7E1441303274285%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1441303274285%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAI1Ry27cIBT9lXiRVQeLN2a6aTeRuqkqRVl0ZWF8PUPDGAuYjiJVfHtvJlW6iZTwuBfu43DQOda63Yqvt_wO1-Vy6YsPsNawBO9OkNGuvU8nTLpcg4-Ap3LeIJOrnc6HQhzWTyFhmmQooVQMkMn5iv2OnNwTmYDM4OYYIGN_I1xZLhgf-DBoruig7dCOH2YyxXRAt6VS0dUjEJ_B1fAbSAwLIJ-ZXCBGfDasz5VNqEG0Zhhr3KhGjZbAJqX8Yq3lwKV2zhhDF8n0LOT7Ba2VUOHbvNfSSmGoUlxQqaXiVI1Id3PhsGJaSoYJIQ0Tg2RGaNEoTtYYtar5x7EfX4DGN4A-_Qca3wTi7SkRfzznFeXYcpp2ckd7usf9hVH6eU93f_6pRsJpQ21KSCtZYkqv9ULR55YX99rVuBjaw333sCK7-ea-ugqlU0x3dzFlF29-uPzYKco6SXuDCtqhI0b0hpprlCEQ677_bAaM0WDVYjiXXuLNi9mBdYLLxWnb8C8977numeSt_PKMuC1QZmVbXCzQruNdPf4CZckaE8YCAAA

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-solve-the-problem-of-antibiotic-resistance/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spooky-quantum-entanglement/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/video/quantum-entanglement-takes-a-road-t2013-03-15/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacetime-is-not-necessarily-continuous/

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=788553e76fdab5f2cd98139c793cb156%7E1441303427196%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1441303427196%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAJ1RTW_bMAz9K_Whp0UG9W1nl-1SYJdhQNHDToFi04lWRTIseVmAQb99TDN0lwIFpm_wkY-P4rGU-V5-vhcPtM7nc5sHj7H4yQ_uhAudsR3SiUC3FD8EvL4In_NlOCaysHFZD5mlqWBkB_-TzpKYjwVDwKGsLoQLG312-4Aj2ZnbZ4wDUgQ7USYXmA8hYs7EXFnHO20NqF5IYzrVSYB6_B-NoeBCCSOuC6VYMM8pZsxsSmu86RhTwDwQUWb4a06ZvEl5Wdx6cleH4ejDeExpvAqTupO1Ws6rsLqCNQr5Xuth6vteoFDGOWstTIqbUar3HWrNvuCXcWtUr6QFrYUEZZQWoHdU1uz8IRKsFCdAKstlp7iVRlagKSqHXtfhedfubkS7N4g-_CPavUkk6iVRnesScWHzkvYbtYEWtrQ_cYCPW9j8_vunzJ9m-sXsU2RTSOnVnzp0Dbldr1FVyK4-PTZPkdSNd4_FFcyN5qZ5CIk6cvfNLc-NBt4oaK3Q0HcNs7K1YF-snIh48_V7hd6AQCcEWtEB0kuN3BCIIxi1x0q1tKIVpuVK1Pxj4MzNHrjs6-RCxvoy3u3HHyKy–4IAwAA

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=680b39ad3fb5ffac974a303407c43b55%7E1441303427196%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1441303427196%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAIVSyW7bMBD9leiQU01huJvupb0E6KUoEOTQk0FJI4s1LQoiXcNAwW_vJGnTHFKEy3Awy-MjHqdSllv5-Vbc0bpcLm3uA84ljKH3J1zJzm2fTpT0awl9xEeP8ku-9lOiCBvW8yGzNBac2SH8JFsSC3PBGLEvZx_jlQ0h-y7iQHHmu4xzj9TBTnSTjyzEOGPOhFy5tsJsgXPg0jqtHJg6vabYpXTM_yc55sPfosf3TFcWMisTsgVn8vLkF2IRwxEp6sszZpV6K2u1nFfOhdUVrFHIO6370TknUCjjvbUWRsXNINX7BbXmUPDLsDPKKWlBayFBGaUF6D2RXnw4zJTWBpzUwN1WO0MP5lpUoKkrlyBrf9y3-2ek_RtIH_4h7d9C4lXUa2L9dF5nXNmypm6jNryFHe1PHODjDja__gjLwmlZSYaQZjbGlF7qJQBQy_Px0lWF3NaH–ZhJnrDzX3xBXOjuWnuYlp9vPnm12NDhBoFrRUa3LZhVrYW7FOUJCb79XsFZ0CgFwKt2AKSpwZuKIkDGNVh5dQlWmFarkTNP3rO_BLof7g6-pixPo13FfkNQ4l5wOkCAAA

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=f61620ab438a7e5055a9dad9a4ca3cf0%7E1441303427196%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1441303427196%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAJ1RS2sbMRD-K9lDTrWW0XvXvbSXQC-lEHLoyWi1Wlu1LC2SXGMo-u0dJyW9BALRYyTmm_nmdah1vedf79kDnsvl0hfrXax-8dacXEYZe5tOCJpcvQ3u9kN8LVd7SKghcz7vC0lLdZHs_W-UNREfqwvB2Xo2IVzJ7IuZgptRT8xUXLQOPcgJI5lAfAjRlYLMjQxMas6pGoSWlGoGgrfDB3Kcs4_HW0wypXQk9ZxjwTRyvZKLqS4TNDORLCkTQ-rB53JDUg7zLQ0uB96aprQxLRtoJRydpLTLOI7MMaGM0VrDIqiauXjfoLXiq_s2b5UYBdcgJeMglJAM5A6LWI3fR4SFoAhwoSkfBNVc8Qa4eaMwymaPu373QrR7g-jTf6Ldm0SsXROxB2wF1r_mNG3EBnrY4v1CAT5vYfPnXweJP60ZZ-IT9iik9GrPAW4uL8-rV2N8aE-P3VPE7Oa7x4otLp2kqnsIKZtw98PkYyeBdgJ6zSSMQ0c07zXoZy1FItp9_9lgVMCcYcxpNoDDn5ipQtDNoMTkGtbSs56pngrWyi9LiVk9UD62xYTi2vN6dx5_AS3pk0D2AgAA

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=788553e76fdab5f2cd98139c793cb156%7E1441303427196%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1441303427196%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAJ1RTW_bMAz9K_Whp0UG9W1nl-1SYJdhQNHDToFi04lWRTIseVmAQb99TDN0lwIFpm_wkY-P4rGU-V5-vhcPtM7nc5sHj7H4yQ_uhAudsR3SiUC3FD8EvL4In_NlOCaysHFZD5mlqWBkB_-TzpKYjwVDwKGsLoQLG312-4Aj2ZnbZ4wDUgQ7USYXmA8hYs7EXFnHO20NqF5IYzrVSYB6_B-NoeBCCSOuC6VYMM8pZsxsSmu86RhTwDwQUWb4a06ZvEl5Wdx6cleH4ejDeExpvAqTupO1Ws6rsLqCNQr5Xuth6vteoFDGOWstTIqbUar3HWrNvuCXcWtUr6QFrYUEZZQWoHdU1uz8IRKsFCdAKstlp7iVRlagKSqHXtfhedfubkS7N4g-_CPavUkk6iVRnesScWHzkvYbtYEWtrQ_cYCPW9j8_vunzJ9m-sXsU2RTSOnVnzp0Dbldr1FVyK4-PTZPkdSNd4_FFcyN5qZ5CIk6cvfNLc-NBt4oaK3Q0HcNs7K1YF-snIh48_V7hd6AQCcEWtEB0kuN3BCIIxi1x0q1tKIVpuVK1Pxj4MzNHrjs6-RCxvoy3u3HHyKy–4IAwAA

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=389847e13afa2cc933e09cc6fc106975%7E1441303427196%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1441303427196%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAJ1RTWvcMBD9K_Ehp0Zm9GXZ20t7CfRSCiGHnhZZHq_V1VrGkrssFP32zm5KegkEoo-RmDfz9EYz5bzcy6_34pHW-Xyuk_M4Zz96Z0-4kp1rF08E2jV7F_B6I3xJFzdF8rBh3Q6JxTHjzA7-N9kcmZ8zhoAubzaECxt8sn3AgfzM9glnh5TBTvSSDcyHMGNKxFy0MFq0je6EFkoDF1KW6QMST5Ee34JdWT4jZj8fmItbGNgUyeQJ2REvV6H9lm5o2hZce6rkqkLqVpZiOC8kp4BpFPJeazd2XSdQqMZaYwyMijeDVO8HlJJ8xm_DrlGdkga0FhJUo7QAvaciFusPM8FKUcEgleGyVdzIRha4TQ6dLu64r_cvRPs3iD79J9q_SSTKJTI3beuMK1vW2D-oB6hhR_sLB_i8g4c__36Q-dOyUkt8nNkYYnyNlwDXlJfjNasI2Zbnp-p5JnXD3VO2GVOleVM9hrjacPfDrseK2lkpqI3Q0LUVM7I2YG5eTkS8-v6zQNeAQCsEGtEC0k0NvCEQB2hUj4VqqUUtmporUdIvx5ldPHDZldGGhOU23u3HX4Exp6L1AgAA

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/most-adults-heart-age-exceeds-their-actual-age-u-s-cdc/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stephen-hawking-hasn-t-solved-the-black-hole-paradox-just-yet/?WT.mc_id=SA_SPC_20150903

Stephen Hawking Hasn’t Solved the Black Hole Paradox Just Yet
The mystery of black holes and information loss is too thorny for a quick resolution

By Clara Moskowitz | August 27, 2015 | Véalo en español
Stephen Hawking and Gerard ‘t Hooft
Cambridge University physicist Stephen Hawking confers with Gerard ‘t Hooft of Utrecht University at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

KTH/Håkan Lindgren
The physics world is abuzz this week with news that Stephen Hawking has solved the famous black hole information paradox—and that he has even discovered “a way to escape from a black hole.” The giddy announcements are somewhat premature, however—this paradox looks like it has staying power.

Hawking, a physicist at the University of Cambridge, first uncovered the conundrum in the 1970s when he predicted that black holes—supposedly inescapable gravitational pits—actually leak light, called Hawking radiation. Over time a black hole can theoretically emit so much radiation that it completely evaporates. That outcome, however, presents a problem because it seems to suggest that black holes destroy information—a definite nonstarter according to the theory of quantum mechanics.

A paradox

Black holes, like everything else, should preserve a quantum mechanical record of their formation. A black hole may arise, for example, from the death of a large star that has run out of fuel for nuclear fusion and collapsed under its own gravity. According to quantum mechanics, the black hole should store the information about the star that gave birth to it as well as any matter that has fallen in since. But if the black hole someday evaporates, it would seem that information would be destroyed.

Physicists have tried to find a way for the information to escape the black hole’s demise via the Hawking radiation. The problem with this scenario, however, is that black holes appear to have no way to impart information to this radiation. Black holes, in fact, are very simple objects according to the theory of general relativity, which first predicted their existence. They have only three properties: mass, charge and angular momentum; other than those quantities, they have no characteristics, no other details—in physicists’ vernacular, they have “no hair.”

Hawking unveiled a potential “answer” to the information-loss paradox—a way to give black holes hair—during a presentation given at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm on August 25: “I propose that the information is stored not in the interior of the black hole as one might expect but on its boundary, the event horizon,” he said. The event horizon is the theoretical border of a black hole, a spherical “point of no return” for incoming matter. Hawking further suggested that the information resides in so-called “supertranslations” on the event horizon, which are imprints that would cause a shift in the position or the timing of the particles that are emitted via Hawking radiation. These supertranslations would be formed by the particles of the dead star and any other matter that fell into the black hole when they first crossed the event horizon. Hawking admitted that the information would not be readily retrievable but maintained that it at least would not be destroyed, thereby resolving the paradox. “The information about the ingoing particles is returned but in a chaotically useless form,” he said. “For all practical purposes the information is lost.”

A “greater state of confusion”

Most physicists say it is too early to know whether Hawking’s idea is a real step forward. His presentation was brief; he and two collaborators—Cambridge physicist Malcolm Perry and Andrew Strominger of Harvard University—plan to publish a paper in coming months detailing their idea further. “I think [the idea] has promise,” says Sabine Hossenfelder, a physicist at the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics who attended the talk. “But so far it is not a full solution.”

SEE ALSO:
Energy & Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Evolution: New Clues about the Evolution of Dogs | Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind & Brain: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Technology: Introducing the First Vehicle Powered by Evaporation | More Science: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
Hawking described the basics behind his idea that supertranslations can encode information. “That may be,” Hossenfelder adds, “but it is somewhat unclear right now how this happens and how efficiently it happens. Also, the mechanism they have to store information actually allows them to store too much information!”

And supertranslations are hardly the only solution on the table. In recent years physicists have come up with a host of ideas to solve—or further complicate—the information-loss paradox. “To be completely honest I must say that [the paradox] is in an even bigger confusion now than it has ever been before,” observes physicist Ulf Danielsson of Sweden’s Uppsala University, who was in attendance for the presentation. “With Hawking saying that he has solved the information paradox, to me that means now there’s another ingredient that is coming in, and the question is: Will this actually resolve anything or just leave us in an even greater state of confusion? I’m not really sure.”

Larger mysteries

Whatever happens to Hawking’s scenario, the topic will continue to be a hot-button issue in physics. The question is not just an arcane consideration about black holes—it is deeply tied to larger mysteries about the nature and origin of the universe. And to answer the question physicists will probably need not just a better understanding of black holes but a full theory of quantum gravity—a theory that has so far been missing.

Black holes are perplexing objects in part because they invoke two different theories of nature—quantum mechanics, which governs the subatomic world, and general relativity, which describes gravity and reigns on large cosmic scales. Yet the two theories are fundamentally incompatible. What physicists need is a way to describe gravity according to quantum rules. By invoking both quantum mechanics and relativity, the information-loss paradox “gives us a chance to focus what we know and what we don’t know and to try to work out the implications of different hypotheses about quantum gravity,” says physicist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario.

Smolin and Hossenfelder recently collaborated on a review paper that summarized all the various possible solutions to the information-loss puzzle and concluded that they mostly fall into six categories, each taking a different tack to resolve the apparent paradox. One possibility is that information really is destroyed—perhaps that prohibition of quantum mechanics is wrong. Another is that inside a black hole a new region of spacetime forms a sort of baby universe, in which information is preserved. Other solutions involve theoretical objects called “white holes”—the opposite of black holes, in which the flow of time is reversed and nothing can fall in, only out (information included). Then there is the chance that black holes never quite evaporate—they only shrink down to incredibly small sizes, thereby preserving the information. Or perhaps information is somehow copied from inside a black hole to outside, so that when the black hole is destroyed the outside copy remains. And finally there are proposals in which information is encoded on a black hole’s horizon in various ways—Hawking’s idea falls into this category. “I think the real situation is unfortunately that we have a puzzle and we have several ways out and we just don’t know enough,” Smolin says. “It might even be that in nature there are different kinds of black holes and some resolve the puzzle in one way and others resolve it in another.”

However the solution turns out, it may affect not just black holes but also a theoretically related event—the big bang. The small, dense state of black holes is very similar to the presumed situation of our universe at its birth, and many of the same physical considerations apply. In both cases the mathematics currently predict a “singularity”—a point of spacetime that is infinitely dense and infinitely small. Some physicists say these infinities are proof that the equations are wrong whereas others maintain that the singularity is a physical reality. If the resolution of the information-loss paradox comes from a quantum theory of gravity that eliminates the singularity, it could imply a different origin for our universe. “Is there still a first moment of time,” Smolin asks, “or does the singularity get eliminated and turn into a bounce so that there was an era of the universe before the big bang?”

Rights & Permissions
Share this Article:

Comments

eskuriad August 27, 2015, 9:19 AM
“What physicists need is a way to describe gravity according to quantum rules” why are we so stubborn to realize gravity is not from a space-time fabric? Gravity is an electromagnetic force between matter and dark matter, we just don’t understand dark matter yet. Gravitation calculations contain too many fudge factors and measurements are too inconsistent, just as when astronomers tried to calculate orbits with the earth as the center. Once we understand dark matter and dark energy it should become a clear link between macro forces and quantum forces. Black holes will also become much less of a mystery. And time is not a dimension, just a measurement of decay.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
nevkid August 27, 2015, 10:50 AM
You have a area of extreme conditions. Couldn’t information be preserved but broken into small pieces that each represent a portion of the information. Not lost this way but broken down to smaller parts, that put together represent the information that goes in. This is a area that extreme conditions exist and the fabric of space is changed in ways we don’t understand. A particle can pop into being and pop out of our dimension. Dark matter as I understand it collects in the center of Galaxies and that is where the Black Holes are. Is it just broken down matter that is distributed to different dimensions?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Michaele August 27, 2015, 12:31 PM
A possible, and simple, resolution to the black hole paradox has been found. Like Stephen Hawking, it’s not peer reviewed. Unlike Stephen Hawking it’s not for lack of trying. http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0036
Report as Abuse | Link to This
rufusgwarren August 27, 2015, 3:42 PM
Hence, no conundrum!
Report as Abuse | Link to This
rufusgwarren August 27, 2015, 3:42 PM
Infinite density is an idea not a fact! What are the boundary conditions of a particle of charge? Knowing that mass is a relative aspect of matter to the local and distant fields. Mass is a response to the massive number fields produced by +&-. Try a 4D space using the same unit for each axis, say mapped to lambda or 1/nu, i.e. c = Lambda Nu, a truth. Limits? Best to throw away present units and start over then map backward into our misunderstood reality. What will, probably be defined is an ever changing universe, possibly cyclic, whatever that is.
So saying the center charge has greater mass than the rotating charge is probably a hangover from what we think gravity is and is not relevant. So simply show that anti-matter simply has different rota-tors, you can visualize the oscillations when mixed. Plenty of heat to be lost before stabilization with same charge of rotators.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
rufusgwarren August 27, 2015, 4:22 PM
Before any new theories, first verify what is known. Universal constants, do they need adjustment as a function of space-time. It would probably be insane to think GR is relevant, or that any theory which has an assumption of “the Easter eggs are hidden and dark” makes any sense. There are some really dumb smart people saying $hit that makes sense only within a mind that loves magic. Oh, by the way, gravity is not an independent force of nature, its a result of superimposed EM fields, nothing we don’t already know. Further more in order for galaxies to form independently, what would be the relative motion of the centers?
Or if the universe is infinite, how would the boundary conditions relative to any massive body appear. Questions that might make better sense.
However, the jury is out until we first make realistic measurements!
Report as Abuse | Link to This
1001000111000 eskuriad August 27, 2015, 4:31 PM
Excellent and insightful comment. Did not see that one coming. Thank you!
Report as Abuse | Link to This
BigLew August 27, 2015, 4:36 PM
This seems to be nothing more than a refinement of Leonard Susskind’s discoveries as defined in his GREAT book: “The Black Hole War” (2007)? In that book Leonard describes (in layman’s terms) his journey to the mathematical proof that the area (amount) of quantum information that can be contained in a black hole is equal to the surface area of the black hole’s event horizon?
As an aside – Hawking and Susskind had a bet about black hole information loss (Hawking saying information was lost and Susskind saying it wasn’t), and after the publication of Susskind’s book mentioned above Hawking admitted defeat and paid the bet off.
BTW – Susskind’s discoveries have since been further developed, leading to the formulation of the stunning and eerie Holographic Principle. Read up on THAT if you want your mind blown…
Report as Abuse | Link to This
1001000111000 August 27, 2015, 4:38 PM
What’s nu? Why c over lambda of course…..sorry couldn’t resist.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
christinaak August 27, 2015, 4:40 PM
The contemporary view on the structure of ‘black holes’ is based on General Relativity which is not adequate to the task of describing the interior structure of them (hence the irrationally predicted singularity). If ‘black holes’ have a discrete structure, then they will have a finite density and a potentially measurable volume. Additionally, this suggests that new physics will have to be found to explain this structure since contemporary gauge theory will not be adequate to the task either. If all of this is true, then it may be that information is preserved within the structure of black holes and not lost. It also may mean that ‘black holes’ do not evaporate either. Perhaps the information preserved influences the evolution of an ensuing cosmic expansion cycle in an analogous manner to the way information is passed on from generation to generation in biological organisms. An ‘Evolutionary Cyclic Model’ best explains the low entropy universe and complexity of our current universe (including the fine-tuning of cosmic parameters).
Report as Abuse | Link to This
David Illig eskuriad August 27, 2015, 5:05 PM
Wow, why all this research and discussion and argument when YOU already have the answer!?
Report as Abuse | Link to This
rufusgwarren August 27, 2015, 7:14 PM
With nothing, I mean nothing, no fields, no matter, no particles, nothing. Mathematically and logically we only begin with a tautology, “nothing may exist within a theory defined by what exist. ” Can be better spoken, what is, is. Consider a field of nothing, define nothing as equal to zero within this mathematical real space-time. Allow any point to exist as only a + or a -, I don’t know what it is, it just has to add to 0 and look like 0. give each point and attribute within-this 4D Space, call it E. Give each + or – point a name e+, e-, or simply, +/- 1. No units. E at any point removed is simply defined as proportional to 1/r^2, actually 1 distributed over the surface of the sphere where the 1 exist, so 1 divided by the surface area. The real fun is defining how these points may overlay within the space-time we visualize. Can a + overlay a + = 2+, or … Or does there exist boundary conditions. Total elastic? Mirror images fall in love! Hence there rush together. Protons at what speed? Response? Self assemblies as evidence for humans to respond intelligently, “I think; therefore, I am and the way I think, just happens to be the way the world is.” Stable calculable configurations from Coulomb! Far field a simple summation. Black Holes would have no field at an infinite density. Boundary conditions? 1/r^2 at any point in time! +/-1. Simple! When it began, who cares?
A paradox is disproof of a theory, a reason to disregard and better define it with logic not guesses. Simplify, not complicate based upon a bad theory.
Any group response, is definable. The only information required are initial conditions. Calculable.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
rufusgwarren David Illig August 27, 2015, 7:18 PM
Trying to fine those that can hear.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
edladysmith August 27, 2015, 8:55 PM
So, door #2 then. There, all solved.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
BoraCilek August 28, 2015, 1:45 PM
Mr Hawking is trying to clean up the mess he had created almost 40 years ago, when he postulated Hawking Radiation.. The problem lies within the misconception of the Black Hole Event Horizon, which is based on a misinterpretation of General Relativity, which in turn was mistakenly founded upon a weird model called “curvature of space”. And yes, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity fall apart creating a universe full of paradoxes.. Thanks Mr Einstein !..
Report as Abuse | Link to This
carlitos1327 August 28, 2015, 3:26 PM
I must suggest that this latest postulation further “muddies” the waters of the black hole information paradox. I’m afraid that we don’t know and maybe can never determine whether black holes ever release information back into the universe.
I feel more comfortable with the notions of dark energy and the cosmological constant than I do with the various accounts of “if” or “how” information is conserved via black holes.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
KaleMeis August 28, 2015, 4:36 PM
My personal hypothesis refers to another theory, the multiverse theory. I think that these black holes do not actually destroy what they come into contact with, but if they are actually tunnels to adjacent universes, then, rather then destroyed, the object get diffused into the other universe, this other universe sends back radiation the same mass as what was received, to make room in a sense.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
cghood August 28, 2015, 5:30 PM
It is my understanding that the idea of a black hole originated with the singularity in the Schwarzschild metric. Singularities reside not in nature, but in our mathematical descriptions of nature. Singularities are to be avoided, not cherished. Therefore, the whole concept is misguided. The big bang theory suffers from the same defect.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
magneticnorth50 August 28, 2015, 9:54 PM
So , in other words , The Black Hole War has not been resolved nor the paradox solved .
Report as Abuse | Link to This
eltodesukane September 1, 2015, 2:10 PM
“I propose that the information is stored not in the interior of the black hole as one might expect but on its boundary, the event horizon,..”
This should not be a surprise.
From our point of view as an observer, it takes an infinite amount of time for a particle falling on a black hole to cross the event horizon. Since the big bang, not a single particle has ever cross the event horizon of any black hole in the whole universe. Matter just get closer and closer to the event horizon, and freezes there, as time slows down to a still at the event horizon.
So “the information is stored not in the interior of the black hole”, since nothing can get there in the whole lifetime of the universe.
Report as Abuse | Link to This

tuff that falls into a black hole is gone forever, right? Not so, says Stephen Hawking.

“If you feel you are in a black hole, don’t give up,” he told an audience at a public lecture in Stockholm, Sweden, yesterday. He was speaking in advance of a scientific talk today at the Hawking Radiation Conference being held at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. “There’s a way out.”

You probably know that black holes are stars that have collapsed under their own gravity, producing gravitational forces so strong that even light can’t escape. Anything that falls inside is thought to be ripped apart by the massive gravity, never to been seen or heard from again.

What you may not know is that physicists have been arguing for 40 years about what happens to the information about the physical state of those objects once they fall in. Quantum mechanics says that this information cannot be destroyed, but general relativity says it must be – that’s why this argument is known as the information paradox.

Now Hawking says this information never makes it inside the black hole in the first place. “I propose that the information is stored not in the interior of the black hole as one might expect, but on its boundary, the event horizon,” he said today.

The event horizon is the sphere around a black hole from inside which nothing can escape its clutches. Hawking is suggesting that the information about particles passing through is translated into a kind of hologram – a 2D description of a 3D object – that sits on the surface of the event horizon. “The idea is the super translations are a hologram of the ingoing particles,” he said. “Thus they contain all the information that would otherwise be lost.”

So how does that help something escape from the black hole? In the 1970s Hawking introduced the concept of Hawking radiation – photons emitted by black holes due to quantum fluctuations. Originally he said that this radiation carried no information from inside the black hole, but in 2004 changed his mind and said it could be possible for information to get out.

Just how that works is still a mystery, but Hawking now thinks he’s cracked it. His new theory is that Hawking radiation can pick up some of the information stored on the event horizon as it is emitted, providing a way for it to get out. But don’t expect to get a message from within, he said. “The information about ingoing particles is returned, but in a chaotic and useless form. This resolves the information paradox. For all practical purposes, the information is lost.”

Last year Hawking made headlines for saying “there are no black holes” – although what he actually meant was a little more complicated, as he proposed replacing the event horizon with a related concept, an apparent horizon. This new idea is compatible with his previous one, which wasn’t really news to theoretical physicists, says Sabine Hossenfelder of the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics in Stockholm, who attending Hawking’s lecture.

“He is saying that the information is there twice already from the very beginning, so it’s never destroyed in the black hole to begin with,” she says. “At least that’s what I understood.”

More details are expected later today when one of Hawking’s collaborators Malcom Perry expands on the idea, and Hawking and his colleagues say they will publish a paper on the work next month, but it’s clear he is gunning for the idea that black holes are inescapable. It’s even possible information could get out into parallel universes, he told the audience yesterday.

“The message of this lecture is that black holes ain’t as black as they are painted. They are not the eternal prisons they were once thought,” he said. “Things can get out of a black hole both on the outside and possibly come out in another universe.”
Both he and Smolin suggest that there was a universe before the current one, as well as other universes created inside black holes, our universe may be one of these also, and cyclic, with a series of big bounces ongoing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkRDmJpthXg&feature=youtu.be

http://skepchick.org/2015/09/chrissie-hynde-says-dont-wear-heels-if-you-dont-wanna-get-raped/#comment-190660

I would support Bernie over Hilary any day. Bernie sees the big picture, Hilary’s main interests ARE special interests and lobbying groups. She wont even say she’s against the Keystone pipeline. Bernie trumps Hilary on honesty and the polls reflect that.

I would support Bernie over Hilary any day. Bernie sees the big picture, Hilary’s main interests ARE special interests and lobbying groups. She wont even say she’s against the Keystone pipeline. Bernie trumps Hilary on honesty and the polls reflect that.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/super-superbugs-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria-may-be-deadlier/

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria may be tougher superbugs than previously thought: Not only are these bacteria harder to treat, they appear to be “fitter” in general, meaning they survive better in the host and cause more deadly infections, a new study suggests.

The findings go against the prevailing view in medicine that when bacteria acquire resistance to drugs, they become less “fit” in some way, for example, they spread less easily. Although scientists have assumed this is true, evidence supporting this view is limited, the researchers said.

In the new study, the researchers examined the effect of genes on antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, bacteria that cause lung infections.

They found that mice infected with antibiotic-resistant strains of P. aeruginosa were more likely to die (without any type of treatment) during the study period than mice infected with P. aeruginosa strains that did not have antibiotic resistance. [6 Superbugs to Watch Out For]

The antibiotic-resistant strains were also better able to kill certain immune cells (the body’s defenses against bacteria and other pathogens).

“A potentially overlooked consequence of the acquisition of antimicrobial resistance could be enhanced fitness and virulence of pathogens,” wrote the researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston in today’s (July 22) issue of the journal Science Translational Medicine. The finding “raises a serious concern that drug-resistant strains might be better fit to cause serious, more difficult to treat infections, beyond just the issues raised by the complexity of antibiotic treatment,” they said.

The researchers also had similar findings for two other strains of bacteria: Acinetobacter baumannii, which causes infections in people in hospitals, and Vibrio cholera, which causes the diarrheal disease cholera. For example, V. cholera bacteria with certain genes for antibiotic resistance were better able to grow in the gastrointestinal tracts of rabbits than bacteria without these genes.

“Our results show that efforts to confront the worldwide increase in antibiotic resistance might be exacerbated by fitness advantages that enhance virulence in drug-resistant microbes,” the researchers wrote.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/antibiotic-resistance-bacteria-in-depth/

The findings also “emphasize the necessity to effectively control the emergence of antibiotic-resistantpathogens as well as the development of alternative approaches to prevent and treat infections,” they wrote.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease specialist and a senior associate at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Center for Health Security, said the new findings were not completely surprising. That’s because mutations that allow bacteria to resist certain antibiotics can have other effects as well, including boosting the bacteria’s ability to survive. “It’s not just a simple trade-off,” between genes for antibiotic resistance and pathogen fitness, said Adalja, who was not involved in the study.

Adalja also noted that researchers have discovered bacteria in caves that are resistant to many antibiotics, even though these bacteria have never had contact with humans, or been exposed to antibiotic drugs. Bacteria likely evolved to have these resistance genes a long time ago, to defend themselves against other bacteria, or help them survive in other ways, Adalja said.

“Antibiotics resistance isn’t just something that happened after the discovery of penicillin,” Adalja said.

The findings show that there may always be some level of antibiotic resistance, even if doctors improve the way they use antibiotics. “There may be limits to what antibiotic stewardship can do,” Adalja said.

This means stopping antibiotic resistance will require more than just judicious use of antibiotic, Adalja said. Researchers need to develop treatments and prevention methods that work in ways that are different from antibiotics, such as drugs that target certain bacterial toxins, or new vaccines, Adalja said.

This is bad, but did you read what the US was doing in foreign prisons! They were raping and sodomozing people! So when Bernie Sanders said that ISIS is a direct creation of the horrors America did in these wars, you know exactly what he means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Authorization_from_Ricardo_Sanchez

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Nama

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_121#Detainee_abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Green

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Six

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Garz%C3%B3n#Guantanamo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response

I especially love all the wikileaks cables exposing everything- I saved all of them 🙂 going to republish them on my websites.
SupermanBatman AlextheGreat <superman.batman.alexthegreat@gmail.com>
1:54 AM (4 hours ago)

to 4DWorldx
These contractors have got to go

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taguba_Report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fay_Report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Corporation#Legal_Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CACI#Controversies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-3_Communications

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730354-600-possible-new-particle-hints-that-universe-may-not-be-left-handed/

PHYSICS may be shifting to the right. Tantalising signals at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, hint at a new particle that could end 50 years of thinking that nature discriminates between left and right-handed particles.

Like your hands, some fundamental particles are different from their mirror images, and so have an intrinsic handedness or “chirality”. But some particles only seem to come in one of the two handedness options, leading to what’s called “left-right symmetry breaking”.

In particular, W bosons, which carry the weak nuclear force, are supposed to come only in left-handed varieties. The debris from smashing protons at the LHC has revealed evidence of unexpected right-handed bosons.

After finding the Higgs boson in 2012, the collider shut down for upgrades, allowing collisions to resume at higher energies earlier this year. At two of the LHC’s experiments, the latest results appear to contain four novel signals. Together, they could hint at a W-boson-like particle, the W’, with a mass of about 2 teraelectronvolts. If confirmed, it would be the first boson discovered since the Higgs.

The find could reveal how to extend the successful but frustratingly incomplete standard model of particle physics, in ways that could explain the nature of dark matter and why there is so little antimatter in the universe.

The strongest signal is an excess of particles seen by the ATLAS experiment (arxiv.org/abs/1506.00962), at a statistical significance of 3.4 sigma. This falls short of the 5 sigma regarded as proof of existence (see “Particle-spotting at the LHC“), but physicists are intrigued because three other unexpected signals at the independent CMS experiment could point to the same thing.

“The big question is whether there might be some connection between these,” says Bogdan Dobrescu at Fermilab in Chicago. In a paper posted online last month, Dobrescu and Zhen Liu, also at Fermilab, showed how the signals could fit naturally into modified versions of left-right symmetric models (arxiv.org/abs/1507.01923). They restore left-right symmetry by introducing a suite of exotic particles, of which this possible W’ particle is one.

Another way to fit the right-handed W’ into a bigger theory was proposed last week by Bhupal Dev at the University of Manchester, UK, and Rabindra Mohapatra at the University of Maryland. They invoke just a few novel particles, then restore left-right symmetry by giving just one of them special properties (arxiv.org/abs/1508.02277).

Some theorists have proposed that these exotic particles instead hint that the Higgs boson is not fundamental particle. Instead, it could be a composite, and some of its constituents would account for the observed signals.

“In my opinion, the most plausible explanation is in the context of composite Higgs models,” says Adam Falkowskiat CERN. “If this scenario is true, that would mean there are new symmetries and new forces just around the corner.”

The next step is for the existence of the right-handed W’ boson to be confirmed or ruled out. Dobrescu says that should be possible by October this year. But testing the broader theories could take a couple of years.

Other LHC anomalies have disappeared once more data became available. That could happen again, but Raymond Volkas at the University of Melbourne, Australia, says this one is more interesting.

“The fact that the data hint at a very sensible and well-motivated standard model extension that has been studied for decades perhaps is reason to take this one a bit more seriously,” he says.

Stuff that falls into a black hole is gone forever, right? Not so, says Stephen Hawking.

“If you feel you are in a black hole, don’t give up,” he told an audience at a public lecture in Stockholm, Sweden, yesterday. He was speaking in advance of a scientific talk today at the Hawking Radiation Conference being held at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. “There’s a way out.”

You probably know that black holes are stars that have collapsed under their own gravity, producing gravitational forces so strong that even light can’t escape. Anything that falls inside is thought to be ripped apart by the massive gravity, never to been seen or heard from again.

What you may not know is that physicists have been arguing for 40 years about what happens to the information about the physical state of those objects once they fall in. Quantum mechanics says that this information cannot be destroyed, but general relativity says it must be – that’s why this argument is known as the information paradox.

Now Hawking says this information never makes it inside the black hole in the first place. “I propose that the information is stored not in the interior of the black hole as one might expect, but on its boundary, the event horizon,” he said today.

The event horizon is the sphere around a black hole from inside which nothing can escape its clutches. Hawking is suggesting that the information about particles passing through is translated into a kind of hologram – a 2D description of a 3D object – that sits on the surface of the event horizon. “The idea is the super translations are a hologram of the ingoing particles,” he said. “Thus they contain all the information that would otherwise be lost.”

So how does that help something escape from the black hole? In the 1970s Hawking introduced the concept of Hawking radiation – photons emitted by black holes due to quantum fluctuations. Originally he said that this radiation carried no information from inside the black hole, but in 2004 changed his mind and said it could be possible for information to get out.

Just how that works is still a mystery, but Hawking now thinks he’s cracked it. His new theory is that Hawking radiation can pick up some of the information stored on the event horizon as it is emitted, providing a way for it to get out. But don’t expect to get a message from within, he said. “The information about ingoing particles is returned, but in a chaotic and useless form. This resolves the information paradox. For all practical purposes, the information is lost.”

Last year Hawking made headlines for saying “there are no black holes” – although what he actually meant was a little more complicated, as he proposed replacing the event horizon with a related concept, an apparent horizon. This new idea is compatible with his previous one, which wasn’t really news to theoretical physicists, says Sabine Hossenfelder of the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics in Stockholm, who attending Hawking’s lecture.

“He is saying that the information is there twice already from the very beginning, so it’s never destroyed in the black hole to begin with,” she says. “At least that’s what I understood.”

More details are expected later today when one of Hawking’s collaborators Malcom Perry expands on the idea, and Hawking and his colleagues say they will publish a paper on the work next month, but it’s clear he is gunning for the idea that black holes are inescapable. It’s even possible information could get out into parallel universes, he told the audience yesterday.

“The message of this lecture is that black holes ain’t as black as they are painted. They are not the eternal prisons they were once thought,” he said. “Things can get out of a black hole both on the outside and possibly come out in another universe.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stephen-hawking-hasn-t-solved-the-black-hole-paradox-just-yet/?WT.mc_id=SA_SPC_20150903

The physics world is abuzz this week with news that Stephen Hawking has solved the famous black hole information paradox—and that he has even discovered “a way to escape from a black hole.” The giddy announcements are somewhat premature, however—this paradox looks like it has staying power.

Hawking, a physicist at the University of Cambridge, first uncovered the conundrum in the 1970s when he predicted that black holes—supposedly inescapable gravitational pits—actually leak light, called Hawking radiation. Over time a black hole can theoretically emit so much radiation that it completely evaporates. That outcome, however, presents a problem because it seems to suggest that black holes destroy information—a definite nonstarter according to the theory of quantum mechanics.

A paradox

Black holes, like everything else, should preserve a quantum mechanical record of their formation. A black hole may arise, for example, from the death of a large star that has run out of fuel for nuclear fusion and collapsed under its own gravity. According to quantum mechanics, the black hole should store the information about the star that gave birth to it as well as any matter that has fallen in since. But if the black hole someday evaporates, it would seem that information would be destroyed.

Physicists have tried to find a way for the information to escape the black hole’s demise via the Hawking radiation. The problem with this scenario, however, is that black holes appear to have no way to impart information to this radiation. Black holes, in fact, are very simple objects according to the theory of general relativity, which first predicted their existence. They have only three properties: mass, charge and angular momentum; other than those quantities, they have no characteristics, no other details—in physicists’ vernacular, they have “no hair.”

Hawking unveiled a potential “answer” to the information-loss paradox—a way to give black holes hair—during a presentation given at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm on August 25: “I propose that the information is stored not in the interior of the black hole as one might expect but on its boundary, the event horizon,” he said. The event horizon is the theoretical border of a black hole, a spherical “point of no return” for incoming matter. Hawking further suggested that the information resides in so-called “supertranslations” on the event horizon, which are imprints that would cause a shift in the position or the timing of the particles that are emitted via Hawking radiation. These supertranslations would be formed by the particles of the dead star and any other matter that fell into the black hole when they first crossed the event horizon. Hawking admitted that the information would not be readily retrievable but maintained that it at least would not be destroyed, thereby resolving the paradox. “The information about the ingoing particles is returned but in a chaotically useless form,” he said. “For all practical purposes the information is lost.”

A “greater state of confusion”

Most physicists say it is too early to know whether Hawking’s idea is a real step forward. His presentation was brief; he and two collaborators—Cambridge physicist Malcolm Perry and Andrew Strominger of Harvard University—plan to publish a paper in coming months detailing their idea further. “I think [the idea] has promise,” says Sabine Hossenfelder, a physicist at the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics who attended the talk. “But so far it is not a full solution.”

SEE ALSO:
Energy & Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Evolution: New Clues about the Evolution of Dogs | Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind & Brain: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Technology: Introducing the First Vehicle Powered by Evaporation | More Science: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
Hawking described the basics behind his idea that supertranslations can encode information. “That may be,” Hossenfelder adds, “but it is somewhat unclear right now how this happens and how efficiently it happens. Also, the mechanism they have to store information actually allows them to store too much information!”

And supertranslations are hardly the only solution on the table. In recent years physicists have come up with a host of ideas to solve—or further complicate—the information-loss paradox. “To be completely honest I must say that [the paradox] is in an even bigger confusion now than it has ever been before,” observes physicist Ulf Danielsson of Sweden’s Uppsala University, who was in attendance for the presentation. “With Hawking saying that he has solved the information paradox, to me that means now there’s another ingredient that is coming in, and the question is: Will this actually resolve anything or just leave us in an even greater state of confusion? I’m not really sure.”

Larger mysteries

Whatever happens to Hawking’s scenario, the topic will continue to be a hot-button issue in physics. The question is not just an arcane consideration about black holes—it is deeply tied to larger mysteries about the nature and origin of the universe. And to answer the question physicists will probably need not just a better understanding of black holes but a full theory of quantum gravity—a theory that has so far been missing.

Black holes are perplexing objects in part because they invoke two different theories of nature—quantum mechanics, which governs the subatomic world, and general relativity, which describes gravity and reigns on large cosmic scales. Yet the two theories are fundamentally incompatible. What physicists need is a way to describe gravity according to quantum rules. By invoking both quantum mechanics and relativity, the information-loss paradox “gives us a chance to focus what we know and what we don’t know and to try to work out the implications of different hypotheses about quantum gravity,” says physicist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario.

Smolin and Hossenfelder recently collaborated on a review paper that summarized all the various possible solutions to the information-loss puzzle and concluded that they mostly fall into six categories, each taking a different tack to resolve the apparent paradox. One possibility is that information really is destroyed—perhaps that prohibition of quantum mechanics is wrong. Another is that inside a black hole a new region of spacetime forms a sort of baby universe, in which information is preserved. Other solutions involve theoretical objects called “white holes”—the opposite of black holes, in which the flow of time is reversed and nothing can fall in, only out (information included). Then there is the chance that black holes never quite evaporate—they only shrink down to incredibly small sizes, thereby preserving the information. Or perhaps information is somehow copied from inside a black hole to outside, so that when the black hole is destroyed the outside copy remains. And finally there are proposals in which information is encoded on a black hole’s horizon in various ways—Hawking’s idea falls into this category. “I think the real situation is unfortunately that we have a puzzle and we have several ways out and we just don’t know enough,” Smolin says. “It might even be that in nature there are different kinds of black holes and some resolve the puzzle in one way and others resolve it in another.”

However the solution turns out, it may affect not just black holes but also a theoretically related event—the big bang. The small, dense state of black holes is very similar to the presumed situation of our universe at its birth, and many of the same physical considerations apply. In both cases the mathematics currently predict a “singularity”—a point of spacetime that is infinitely dense and infinitely small. Some physicists say these infinities are proof that the equations are wrong whereas others maintain that the singularity is a physical reality. If the resolution of the information-loss paradox comes from a quantum theory of gravity that eliminates the singularity, it could imply a different origin for our universe. “Is there still a first moment of time,” Smolin asks, “or does the singularity get eliminated and turn into a bounce so that there was an era of the universe before the big bang?”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28090-stephen-hawking-says-he-has-a-way-to-escape-from-a-black-hole/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-surprise-source-of-life-s-code/

Genes, like people, have families — lineages that stretch back through time, all the way to a founding member. That ancestor multiplied and spread, morphing a bit with each new iteration.

For most of the last 40 years, scientists thought that this was the primary way new genes were born — they simply arose from copies of existing genes. The old version went on doing its job, and the new copy became free to evolve novel functions.

Certain genes, however, seem to defy that origin story. They have no known relatives, and they bear no resemblance to any other gene. They’re the molecular equivalent of a mysterious beast discovered in the depths of a remote rainforest, a biological enigma seemingly unrelated to anything else on earth.

The mystery of where these orphan genes came from has puzzled scientists for decades. But in the past few years, a once-heretical explanation has quickly gained momentum — that many of these orphans arose out of so-called junk DNA, or non-coding DNA, the mysterious stretches of DNA between genes. “Genetic function somehow springs into existence,” said David Begun, a biologist at the University of California, Davis.

This metamorphosis was once considered to be impossible, but a growing number of examples in organisms ranging from yeast and flies to mice and humans has convinced most of the field that these de novo genes exist. Some scientists say they may even be common. Just last month, research presented at the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution in Vienna identified 600 potentially new human genes. “The existence of de novo genes was supposed to be a rare thing,” said Mar Albà, an evolutionary biologist at the Hospital del Mar Research Institute in Barcelona, who presented the research. “But people have started seeing it more and more.”

Researchers are beginning to understand that de novo genes seem to make up a significant part of the genome, yet scientists have little idea of how many there are or what they do. What’s more, mutations in these genes can trigger catastrophic failures. “It seems like these novel genes are often the most important ones,” said Erich Bornberg-Bauer, a bioinformatician at the University of Münster in Germany.

New genes appear to burst into existence at various points along the evolutionary history of the mouse lineage (red line). The surge around 800 million years ago corresponds to the time when earth emerged from its “snowball” phase, when the planet was almost completely frozen. The very recent peak represents newly born genes, many of which will subsequently be lost. If all genes arose via duplication, they all would have been generated soon after the origins of life, roughly 3.8 billion years ago (green line).
Olena Shmahalo/Quanta Magazine; source: Tautz and Domazet-Lošo, Nature Reviews Genetics, 2011.
The orphan chase
The standard gene duplication model explains many of the thousands of known gene families, but it has limitations. It implies that most gene innovation would have occurred very early in life’s history. According to this model, the earliest biological molecules 3.5 billion years ago would have created a set of genetic building blocks. Each new iteration of life would then be limited to tweaking those building blocks.

Yet if life’s toolkit is so limited, how could evolution generate the vast menagerie we see on Earth today? “If new parts only come from old parts, we would not be able to explain fundamental changes in development,” Bornberg-Bauer said.

The first evidence that a strict duplication model might not suffice came in the 1990s, when DNA sequencing technologies took hold. Researchers analyzing the yeast genome found that a third of the organism’s genes had no similarity to known genes in other organisms. At the time, many scientists assumed that these orphans belonged to families that just hadn’t been discovered yet. But that assumption hasn’t proven true. Over the last decade, scientists sequenced DNA from thousands of diverse organisms, yet many orphan genes still defy classification. Their origins remain a mystery.

In 2006, Begun found some of the first evidence that genes could indeed pop into existence from noncoding DNA. He compared gene sequences from the standard laboratory fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, with other closely related fruit fly species. The different flies share the vast majority of their genomes. But Begun and collaborators found several genes that were present in only one or two species and not others, suggesting that these genes weren’t the progeny of existing ancestors. Begun proposed instead that random sequences of junk DNA in the fruit fly genome could mutate into functioning genes.

Yet creating a gene from a random DNA sequence appears as likely as dumping a jar of Scrabble tiles onto the floor and expecting the letters to spell out a coherent sentence. The junk DNA must accumulate mutations that allow it to be read by the cell or converted into RNA, as well as regulatory components that signify when and where the gene should be active. And like a sentence, the gene must have a beginning and an end — short codes that signal its start and end.

In addition, the RNA or protein produced by the gene must be useful. Newly born genes could prove toxic, producing harmful proteins like those that clump together in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. “Proteins have a strong tendency to misfold and cause havoc,” said Joanna Masel, a biologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “It’s hard to see how to get a new protein out of random sequence when you expect random sequences to cause so much trouble.” Masel is studying ways that evolution might work around this problem.

Another challenge for Begun’s hypothesis was that it’s very difficult to distinguish a true de novo gene from one that has changed drastically from its ancestors. (The difficulty of identifying true de novo genes remains a source of contention in the field.)

SEE ALSO:
Energy & Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Evolution: New Clues about the Evolution of Dogs | Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind & Brain: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Space: The Errors of Albert | Technology: Introducing the First Vehicle Powered by Evaporation
Ten years ago, Diethard Tautz, a biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, was one of many researchers who were skeptical of Begun’s idea. Tautz had found alternative explanations for orphan genes. Some mystery genes had evolved very quickly, rendering their ancestry unrecognizable. Other genes were created by reshuffling fragments of existing genes.

Then his team came across the Pldi gene, which they named after the German soccer player Lukas Podolski. The sequence is present in mice, rats and humans. In the latter two species, it remains silent, which means it’s not converted into RNA or protein. The DNA is active or transcribed into RNA only in mice, where it appears to be important — mice without it have slower sperm and smaller testicles.

The researchers were able to trace the series of mutations that converted the silent piece of noncoding DNA into an active gene. That work showed that the new gene is truly de novo and ruled out the alternative — that it belonged to an existing gene family and simply evolved beyond recognition. “That’s when I thought, OK, it must be possible,” Tautz said.

A wave of new genes
Scientists have now catalogued a number of clear examples of de novo genes: A gene in yeast that determines whether it will reproduce sexually or asexually, a gene in flies and other two-winged insects that became essential for flight, and some genes found only in humans whose function remains tantalizingly unclear.

At the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution conference last month, Albà and collaborators identified hundreds of putative de novo genes in humans and chimps — ten-fold more than previous studies — using powerful new techniques for analyzing RNA. Of the 600 human-specific genes that Albà’s team found, 80 percent are entirely new, having never been identified before.

Unfortunately, deciphering the function of de novo genes is far more difficult than identifying them. But at least some of them aren’t doing the genetic equivalent of twiddling their thumbs. Evidence suggests that a portion of de novo genes quickly become essential. About 20 percent of new genes in fruit flies appear to be required for survival. And many others show signs of natural selection, evidence that they are doing something useful for the organism.

In humans, at least one de novo gene is active in the brain, leading some scientists to speculate such genes may have helped drive the brain’s evolution. Others are linked to cancer when mutated, suggesting they have an important function in the cell. “The fact that being misregulated can have such devastating consequences implies that the normal function is important or powerful,” said Aoife McLysaght, a geneticist at Trinity College in Dublin who identified the first human de novo genes.

Promiscuous proteins
De novo genes are also part of a larger shift, a change in our conception of what proteins look like and how they work. De novo genes are often short, and they produce small proteins. Rather than folding into a precise structure — the conventional notion of how a protein behaves — de novo proteins have a more disordered architecture. That makes them a bit floppy, allowing the protein to bind to a broader array of molecules. In biochemistry parlance, these young proteins are promiscuous.

Scientists don’t yet know a lot about how these shorter proteins behave, largely because standard screening technologies tend to ignore them. Most methods for detecting genes and their corresponding proteins pick out long sequences with some similarity to existing genes. “It’s easy to miss these,” Begun said.

That’s starting to change. As scientists recognize the importance of shorter proteins, they are implementing new gene discovery technologies. As a result, the number of de novo genes might explode. “We don’t know what things shorter genes do,” Masel said. “We have a lot to learn about their role in biology.”

Scientists also want to understand how de novo genes get incorporated into the complex network of reactions that drive the cell, a particularly puzzling problem. It’s as if a bicycle spontaneously grew a new part and rapidly incorporated it into its machinery, even though the bike was working fine without it. “The question is fascinating but completely unknown,” Begun said.

A human-specific gene called ESRG illustrates this mystery particularly well. Some of the sequence is found in monkeys and other primates. But it is only active in humans, where it is essential for maintaining the earliest embryonic stem cells. And yet monkeys and chimps are perfectly good at making embryonic stem cells without it. “It’s a human-specific gene performing a function that must predate the gene, because other organisms have these stem cells as well,” McLysaght said.

“How does novel gene become functional? How does it get incorporated into actual cellular processes?” McLysaght said. “To me, that’s the most important question at the moment.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/suspected-hormone-changing-chemical-found-in-air-near-factories/

s concerns mount over people’s exposure to the plasticizer bisphenol A in everyday products, it’s also contaminating the air near manufacturing plants: U.S. companies emitted about 26 tons of the hormone-disrupting compound in 2013.

Although research is sparse, experts warn that airborne BPA could be a potentially dangerous route of exposure for some people. Of the 72 factories reporting BPA emissions, the largest sources are in Ohio, Indiana and Texas, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxics Release Inventory.

No one has measured what people in nearby communities are exposed to. But the exposures are likely to be localized and smaller than other sources of BPA.

BPA breaks down quickly in the environment. But it also can attach to particles that infiltrate lungs, said Bruce Blumberg, a University of California, Irvine, biology professor.

“Inhalation of compounds is a big exposure route that most people do not usually consider for BPA,” he said.

BPA, used to make polycarbonate plastic, food can linings and some paper receipts, is found in almost all people tested. Low doses can alter hormones, according to animal tests, and exposure has been linked to a wide range of health effects in people, including infertility, cardiovascular disease, obesity and cancer.

In the only study of its kind, Japanese researchers reported that BPA was ubiquitous in the atmosphere worldwide. They suspected the emissions came from the manufacturing and burning of plastics.

In the United States, chemical manufacturing accounted for 54 percent of the BPA air emissions, while metal manufacturing and metal fabricating accounted for 21 and 20 percent, respectively, according to the EPA database. In addition, U.S. companies in 2013 reported releasing 3,313 pounds of BPA to surface waters, the EPA database shows.

The amount of BPA emitted into the air has been dropping in recent years. Although the number of companies reporting BPA emissions has remained about the same over the past decade, in 2013 the total tons declined 41 percent from 2012 and almost 66 percent from 10 years ago.

Kathryn St. John, a spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, said the data don’t reflect what people in surrounding communities might be exposed to. Factors such as the proximity of people to the plants and whether the emissions are continuous or intermittent are important when determining people’s exposures.

St. John added that there is “no evidence that inhalation exposures are of concern.” Studies have not provided any information on what happens to BPA if inhaled, such as whether it is absorbed in the lungs and if absorbed, whether it is metabolized.

But Wade Welshons, an associate professor at the University of Missouri who studies endocrine-disrupting compounds, said airborne BPA could be absorbed through the lungs as well as the skin.

Both and inhalation and skin absorption “would deliver more BPA to the blood than an oral exposure,” he said.

SEE ALSO:
Evolution: New Clues about the Evolution of Dogs | Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind & Brain: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Space: The Errors of Albert | Technology: Introducing the First Vehicle Powered by Evaporation | More Science: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
Blumberg and Welshons said since these routes would bypass metabolizing organs such as the intestines and liver, airborne exposures may be more dangerous than food exposures.

“The liver is a great organ for metabolizing substances, lungs are for absorbing, not for metabolizing,” Welshons said.

No one has investigated the potential health effects of inhaling BPA. Regulatory agencies only consider oral doses when analyzing potential effects, Blumberg said.

Several communities with the biggest BPA emitters are also home to large volumes of other toxics from industrial plants.

Deer Park, Texas, had 4,100 pounds of BPA and 2.8 million pounds of other air toxics in 2013, while Defiance, Ohio, had 6,600 pounds of BPA and 387,454 pounds of others, according to the industry reports filed with the EPA. Freeport, Texas, home to a Dow Chemical plant, had 905 pounds of reported BPA air emissions last year and an additional 1.74 million pounds of other toxics.

Compared with exposure from consumer products such as polycarbonate plastic and food cans, there has been little concern about airborne BPA. “But this lower concern level is based on relatively little data,” said Laura Vandenberg, an assistant professor of environmental health at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who studies health effects of BPA. “This is something I would say is not discussed in-depth on our field but it should be.”

There isn’t a lot of research on what happens to BPA when it’s released into the air. BPA degrades fairly quickly, but it also can attach to dust particles, Vandenberg said.

Researchers tested for BPA in the dust of homes, dorms and labs at and around Murray State University and the University at Albany in 2011. They estimated that, while diet is the still the major exposure route, people’s BPA exposures through dust are about the same as the low concentrations that cause health problems in lab animals. It’s not clear how the BPA got into the dust; it could have been from indoor sources.

Sudan Loganathan, who led the study while a student at Murray State University, said the estimated daily exposure for people through dust was low compared with food exposure. But, she added, “when you look at the average dust intake for adults and then infants, this is more of a concern for infants. They are on the floor, and there’s more hand-to-mouth contact.”

Blumberg said air quality monitoring should expand to test for BPA.

“There are a lot of people studying inhalation exposure with things like particulate pollution, ozone and other major components of exhaust, but not much at all when it comes to chemical exposure like BPA,” Blumberg said. “That’s a big open area right now.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-teleportation-in-space-explored-as-message-encryption-solution/

ISNS) — Scientists are pushing to create a space-based quantum communications network that could enable impossible-to-monitor transmissions.

In doing so, they might make it possible for someone named Scotty to really teleport some information into space.

It would be enough “to spook” Albert Einstein, said Thomas Jennewein of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, one of the top researchers in the field.

The encryption research could have immediate practical implications. The process would make use of entangled photons, what Einstein–who resisted the consequences of quantum theory until his death –called “spooky action at a distance.”

“If we can use correlations between entangled photons to establish a quantum key, it could be used for secure communications,” said Jennewein.

Einstein and two colleagues theorized in 1935 that if you had two quantum systems that interacted, such as two atoms in a molecule, and then separated them, they would remain entangled, meaning their properties would be inextricably linked. Measuring one atom would instantly produce a change in the other no matter how far apart they were.

Einstein believed that there was a universal speed limit: nothing could travel faster than light so he thought such communication—”spooky action”—would be impossible.

But in 1972, a group of U.S. scientists showed that is exactly what happens, at least over the short distances of their laboratory experiment.

Decades before, another physics giant, Werner Heisenberg, proposed in his famous uncertainty principle that merely observing a particle or otherwise disturbing it changes its properties, and–according to quantum theory–so instantly would that of its entangled twin.

Common encryption involves using keys, series of numbers, and letters that code and decode messages. The sender has one key that encrypts the message; the person receiving the message has another which decodes it.

Scientists can envision sending beams of quantum signals from one place to another to produce encryption keys, but there is a problem.

SEE ALSO:
Energy & Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Evolution: New Clues about the Evolution of Dogs | Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind & Brain: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Space: The Errors of Albert | More Science: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
Quantum communications signals have not been able to travel very far on Earth. The current record is 89 miles set in the Canary Islands by Jennewein and a team, then of the University of Vienna. The problem is transmission loss or scattering in the atmosphere.

Even using fiber-optic cables is not the answer, according to Joshua Bienfang, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, another expert in the field. The chances of a single photon traveling safely more than around 250 miles in a fiber-optic cable is slim, he said.

That’s why Jennewein and other researchers are looking to space, where the beams would not scatter in the vacuum. His lab, among others, now has produced a design for such satellites that would test that out.

Jennewein describes a system in which a device in a satellite creates entangled photon pairs and simultaneously transmits one of each pair to two ground stations in beams of millions of photons, all in entangled quantum states. That means both stations should have the same key.

The two stations would compare them. If the transmissions were not intercepted or modified by an eavesdropper, the two keys should be identical. The sender can then send a conventionally encrypted message secure in the knowledge no one is listening.

But, if there is any alteration in the keys, which would happen if anyone intercepted the key message, Heisenberg’s theory would strike, and the photons would be altered. The two parties would know if there was an eavesdropper and either resend the keys or try another system.

Several corporations and government research facilities around the world are working on similar satellite systems.

“Moreover, long-distance ‘quantum teleportation’ experiments could be conducted–the first baby steps towards realizing the famous Star Trek ‘Beam me up, Scotty’ command may be only a few years away,” Jennewein wrote in the magazine “Physics World.” In quantum teleportation, actual objects themselves are not beamed up. Instead, their information—encoded in a quantum state—would vanish from a particle on Earth and then reappear in a particle in space.

The scheme would require three photons, Jennewein said. One, the input photon, to be teleported, and two others, entangled and separated.

“The input photon is correlated with one of the entangled ones, and thereby its quantum state is fully transferred onto the other entangled photon, which can be at a distance,” Jennewein said. “The final photon is the new ‘original,’ and the initial photons completely lose their information.”

An additional benefit of developing a quantum satellite system is that it would enable physicists to test quantum theory over much greater distances.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-entanglement-creates-new-state-of-matter1/

Physicists have used a quantum connection Albert Einstein called “spooky action at a distance” to link 500,000 atoms together so that their fates were entwined. The atoms were connected via “entanglement,” which means an action performed on one atom will reverberate on any atom entangled with it, even if the particles are far apart. The huge cloud of entangled atoms is the first “macroscopic spin singlet,” a new state of matter that was predicted but never before realized.

Entanglement is a consequence of the strange probabilistic rules of quantum mechanics and seems to permit an eerie instantaneous connection over long distances that defies the laws of our macroscopic world (hence Einstein’s “spooky” remark). A spin singlet is one form of entanglement where multiple particles’ spins—their intrinsic angular momentum—add up to 0, meaning the system has zero total angular momentum.

The experimenters worked with rubidium atoms, which have a constant spin value of 1. (All particles have an unchanging spin value, a quantum characteristic that is always given in numbers without units.) The only way for a group of these atoms to have spins that add up to zero—the requirement for a spin singlet—is if the direction of their spins cancel one another out. And once two or more atoms are entangled in a spin singlet, their spins will always equal zero. That means that, bizarrely, if the direction of one atom’s spin is altered, its entangled fellows will change their spins accordingly, and instantaneously, to preserve the sum of zero total spin.

Entangling such a large group of atoms in this way was no easy feat. First, the researchers cooled the atoms to 20 millionths of a kelvin—a frigid temperature necessary to keep the atoms almost perfectly still; any collisions between them would disturb their spins. Then, to determine the atoms’ total spin, the researchers performed what is called a quantum nondemolition measurement—a passive means of learning about a quantum system that avoids altering its state. (This is necessary because active measurements of quantum systems tend to disturb their subjects, irrevocably changing the very thing being measured.)

To make the nondemolition measurement, the scientists sent a pulse of about 100 million photons (particles of light) through the cloud of atoms. These photons had energies that were precisely calculated so that they would not excite the atoms but rather would pass through. The photons themselves, however, were affected by the encounter. The atoms’ spins acted as magnets to rotate the polarization, or orientation, of the light. By measuring how much the photons’ polarization had changed after passing through the cloud, the researchers could determine the total spin of the cloud’s atoms.

Although the measurement didn’t change the spin state of the particles, it did have the effect of entangling many of them with one another. The researchers assume the atoms started out with spins pointing in random directions. In some cases, however, the measurement showed that their total added up to zero. When that happened, the measurement “locked in” that net zero result, in a way, ensuring that subsequent measurements would continue to find that the total spin equaled zero. “The measurement itself has somehow created the singlet state,” says Naeimeh Behbood of The Institute of Photonic Sciences in Barcelona. “It has created an entangled state from a state without entanglement. How it does this is a deep mystery of quantum mechanics.”

The total experiment involved a cloud of about one million rubidium atoms, but the passive measurements could not quantify exactly how many of these atoms became entangled. For the system’s total spin to equal zero, however, the quantum limits of the measurement guarantee that at least half of them—500,000 atoms—were entangled. That is still a record number for a spin singlet, and the first time that whole atoms have been entangled into one macroscopic system with net zero spin. (Previous experiments have done this to photons.) The study was published August 25 inPhysical Review Letters. “I find it a remarkable result both for fundamental and applied research,” says physicist Marco Koschorreck of the University of Bonn, who was not involved in the study. Because the entangled atoms’ spins are very sensitive to magnetic manipulation, he says, the macroscopic spin singlet could be used to sense magnetic fields.

In the near future the researchers would like to better understand the new state of matter they created. For example, because they only know the total spin of their cloud, they do not know how individual atoms contribute to it. “For example, which atoms are entangled?” Behbood asks. “Is it nearest neighbors [pairs of atoms right next to one another] or the most distant atoms—or is it random? Do the atoms form singlets in pairs or in larger groups?” Such questions could help the scientists better understand how quantum nondemolition produces entanglement and how to manipulate it for practical purposes. The more we understand entanglement, the less “spooky” it becomes.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-spookiness-passes-toughest-test-yet/

It’s a bad day both for Albert Einstein and for hackers. The most rigorous test of quantum theory ever carried out has confirmed that the ‘spooky action at a distance’ that the German physicist famously hated — in which manipulating one object instantaneously seems to affect another, far away one — is an inherent part of the quantum world.

The experiment, performed in the Netherlands, could be the final nail in the coffin for models of the atomic world that are more intuitive than standard quantum mechanics, say some physicists. It could also enable quantum engineers to develop a new suite of ultrasecure cryptographic devices.

“From a fundamental point of view, this is truly history-making,” says Nicolas Gisin, a quantum physicist at the University of Geneva in Switzerland.

Einstein’s annoyance
In quantum mechanics, objects can be in multiple states simultaneously: for example, an atom can be in two places, or spin in opposite directions, at once. Measuring an object forces it to snap into a well-defined state. Furthermore, the properties of different objects can become ‘entangled’, meaning that their states are linked: when a property of one such object is measured, the properties of all its entangled twins become set, too.

This idea galled Einstein because it seemed that this ghostly influence would be transmitted instantaneously between even vastly separated but entangled particles — implying that it could contravene the universal rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. He proposed that quantum particles do have set properties before they are measured, called hidden variables. And even though those variable cannot be access, he suggested that they pre-program entangled particles to behave in correlated ways.

In the 1960s, Irish physicist John Bell proposed a test that could discriminate between Einstein’s hidden variables and the spooky interpretation of quantum mechanics. He calculated that hidden variables can explain correlations only up to some maximum limit. If that level is exceeded, then Einstein’s model must be wrong.

The first Bell test was carried out in 1981, by Alain Aspect’s team at the Institute of Optics in Palaiseau, France. Many more have been performed since, always coming down on the side of spookiness — but each of those experiments has had loopholes that meant that physicists have never been able to fully close the door on Einstein’s view. Experiments that use entangled photons are prone to the ‘detection loophole’: not all photons produced in the experiment are detected, and sometimes as many as 80% are lost. Experimenters therefore have to assume that the properties of the photons they capture are representative of the entire set.

To get around the detection loophole, physicists often use particles that are easier to keep track of than photons, such as atoms. But it is tough to separate distant atoms apart without destroying their entanglement. This opens the ‘communication loophole’: if the entangled atoms are too close together, then, in principle, measurements made on one could affect the other without violating the speed-of-light limit.

Entanglement swapping
In the latest paper, which was submitted to the arXiv preprint repository on August 24 and has not yet been peer reviewed, a team led by Ronald Hanson of Delft University of Technology reports the first Bell experiment that closes both the detection and the communication loopholes. The team used a cunning technique called entanglement swapping to combine the benefits of using both light and matter. The researchers started with two unentangled electrons sitting in diamond crystals held in different labs on the Delft campus, 1.3 kilometers apart. Each electron was individually entangled with a photon, and both of those photons were then zipped to a third location. There, the two photons were entangled with each other — and this caused both their partner electrons to become entangled, too.

SEE ALSO:
Energy & Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Evolution: New Clues about the Evolution of Dogs | Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind & Brain: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Space: The Errors of Albert | Technology: Introducing the First Vehicle Powered by Evaporation
This did not work every time. In total, the team managed to generate 245 entangled pairs of electrons over the course of nine days. The team’s measurements exceeded Bell’s bound, once again supporting the standard quantum view. Moreover, the experiment closed both loopholes at once: because the electrons were easy to monitor, the detection loophole was not an issue, and they were separated far enough apart to close the communication loophole, too.

“It is a truly ingenious and beautiful experiment,” says Anton Zeilinger, a physicist at the Vienna Centre for Quantum Science and Technology.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next few years we see one of the authors of this paper, along with some of the older experiments, Aspect’s and others, named on a Nobel prize,” says Matthew Leifer, a quantum physicist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo for Theoretical Physics, Ontario. “It’s that exciting.”

A loophole-free Bell test also has crucial implications for quantum cryptography, says Leifer. Companies already sell systems that use quantum mechanics to block eavesdroppers. The systems produce entangled pairs of photons, sending one photon in each pair to the first user and the other photon to the second user. The two users then turn these photons into a cryptographic key that only they know. Because observing a quantum system disrupts its properties, if someone tries to eavesdrop on this process it will produce a noticeable effect, setting off an alarm.

The final chink
But loopholes, and the detection loophole in particular, leave the door open to sophisticated eavesdroppers. Through this loophole, malicious companies could sell devices that fool users into thinking that they are getting quantum-entangled particles, while they are instead being given keys that the company can use to spy on them. In 1991, quantum physicist Artur Ekert observed that integrating a Bell test into the cryptographic system also would ensure that the system uses a genuine quantum process. For this to be valid, however, the Bell test must be free of any loopholes that a hacker could exploit. The Delft experiment “is the final proof that quantum cryptography can be unconditionally secure”, Zeilinger says.

In practice, however, the entanglement-swapping idea will be hard to implement. The team took more than week to generate a few hundred entangled electron pairs, whereas generating a quantum key would require thousands of bits to be processed per minute, points out Gisin, who is a co-founder of the quantum cryptographic company ID Quantique in Geneva.

Zeilinger also notes that there remains one last, somewhat philosophical loophole, first identified by Bell himself: the possibility that hidden variables could somehow manipulate the experimenters’ choices of what properties to measure, tricking them into thinking quantum theory is correct.

Leifer is less troubled by this ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’, however. “It could be that there is some kind of superdeterminism, so that the choice of measurement settings was determined at the Big Bang,” he says. “We can never prove that is not the case, so I think it’s fair to say that most physicists don’t worry too much about this.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antipsychotic-drugs-often-given-to-intellectually-disabled-in-absence-of-mental-illness/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150902

Antipsychotic drugs are widely used to blunt aggressive behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities who have no history of mental illness, a UK survey of medical records finds, even though the medicines may not have a calming effect. The finding is worrisome because antipsychotic drugs can cause severe side effects such as obesity or diabetes.

Psychiatry researcher Rory Sheehan and colleagues at University College London studied data from 33,016 people with intellectual disabilities from general-care practices in the United Kingdom over a period of up to 15 years. The researchers found that 71% of 9,135 people who were treated with antipsychotics had never been diagnosed with a severe mental illness, and that the drugs were more likely to be prescribed to those who displayed problematic behaviours.

“We suspected that this would be the case, but we didn’t know the true extent,” Sheehan says.

“We should be worried because the rates are high,” says James Harris, a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. But he adds that it is hard to determine whether treatment with antipsychotics is appropriate without knowing what other forms of treatment were available to people in the study. It is possible that medication was the only option available or that it was used to dampen a person’s behaviour enough that they could participate in therapy or other types of treatment.

SEE ALSO:
Energy & Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Evolution: New Clues about the Evolution of Dogs | Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Space: The Errors of Albert | Technology: Introducing the First Vehicle Powered by Evaporation | More Science: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
Placebo effect
Evidence suggests that the drugs are not effective at treating aggressive and disruptive behaviour, says psychiatrist Peter Tyrer of Imperial College London. In 2008, he and several colleagues gave haloperidol (Haldol), risperidone (Risperdal) or a placebo to people who had intellectual disabilities but no mental illness, and exhibited aggressive behaviour. The drugs were no better at reducing behavioural problems than the placebo. Because the placebo reduced aggressive behaviour by 79%, Tyrer notes, it may be that antipsychotics are so prevalent simply because they seem to have an effect and can be administered by untrained caregivers in an emergency. “It’s impossible to do a psychological intervention at two in the morning,” Tyrer says.

The popularity of antipsychotics could also be related to their marketing. In 2013, global health-care company Johnson & Johnson paid more than US$2.2 billion to settle a lawsuit charging that it had improperly marketed risperidone, which had been approved for use in schizophrenia, to treat behaviour problems in children, adults with mental disabilities and elderly people with dementia.

Microsoft backports privacy-invading Windows 10 features to Windows 7, 8
Microsoft is back-porting its telemetry-gathering software to Windows 7 and 8. When users ask for new features, this usually isn’t what they have in mind.

http://mailing.enews.extremetech.com/t/1444499/40055729/6400828/66/?e5e2987d=MTQ0NDQ5OQ%3d%3d&e5e2987d=MTQ0NDQ5OQ%3d%3d&c73c8e04=ZXh0cmVtZXRlY2g%3d&4f415564=NDAwNTU3Mjk%3d&x=c8ab0a8c
Just do a search on the Phlegm, the Irish sellout ‘documentary’ maker. He’s worked for oil companies, mining companies,…the bastard would sell his nieces into prostitution to get ahead..
Show less

cupera1Jun 27, 2015

+sortedtales wrong group, that was ACORN was the organization that was helping set up brothels for underage sex slaves.

sortedtalesAug 6, 2015

+cupera1
You fucking idiot. ACORN was doing nothing of the sort. That was taken completely out of context. Acorn was getting a full confession and in n o way “helping to set up brothels for underage sex workers”. You have the reasoning abilities of a retarded toddler.
Show less

Stuart WilkinsonSep 8, 2015

The filmmaker works for oil and gas… an opinion that’s paid for is not an opinion at all

cupera1Sep 8, 2015

+Stuart Wilkinson

So science you don’t like is dirty oil money. But science that agrees with your political ideology (because those are such great bedfellows) is A-OK despite its funding coming from the powerful green lobby, the Nazi Collaborator and the Coal King, and government grants that make it clear which way they’d prefer the slant. Gotcha.
Show less

Stuart WilkinsonYesterday 4:31 AM

I don’t think I said that in my post, you seem to have drawn some wild conclusions about my political ideaology from very little information… this is obviously an emotional issue for you.

Stuart WilkinsonYesterday 4:38 AM

If fracking can be shown to be safe I’m all for it. I’d like to see a transparent study which looks at an area before and after fracking. I think there is guy from Yale who is looking into doing this. Would you not agree that it is sensible to take precautions?
Show less

SupermanBatman AlextheGreat11:11 AM

It’s not safe, the latest scientific research has proven exactly the opposite and states are moving to restrict it- and it’s banned here in New York. The fossil fuel industry is just as corrupt as the tobacco industry and Monsanto/Bayer, that’s okay because they’ve finally been exposed. Nuclear is the only way, as “Natural” Gas is worse than coal (methane emissions are the reason).
Read more

SupermanBatman AlextheGreat11:12 AM

The guys at Cornell and Harvard already published numerous studies in Science showing how disruptive fracking is and how bad Natural Gas is, it’s not a matter to be disputed anymore. That’s why fracking is banned in my state.

SupermanBatman AlextheGreat11:16 AM
1
Edit

First of all the USGS has linked fracking to a 500x rise in earthquakes (Mag 3-5)

It’s not safe, the latest scientific research has proven exactly the opposite and states are moving to restrict it- and it’s banned here in New York. The fossil fuel industry is just as corrupt as the tobacco industry and Monsanto/Bayer, that’s okay because they’ve finally been exposed. Nuclear is the only way, as “Natural” Gas is worse than coal (methane emissions are the reason).

EPA: Chemicals Found in Wyoming Drinking Water Might Be from Natural Gas Drilling
Federal environment officials investigating drinking water contamination have found that at least three water wells contain a chemical used in the natural gas drilling process of hydraulic fracturing
By Abrahm Lustgarten and ProPublica | August 26, 2009
louis meeks contaminated water

© Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica
Federal environment officials investigating drinking water contamination near the ranching town of Pavillion, Wyo., have found that at least three water wells contain a chemical used in the natural gas drilling process of hydraulic fracturing. Scientists also found traces of other contaminants, including oil, gas or metals, in 11 of 39 wells tested there since March.

The study, which is being conducted under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, is the first time the EPA has undertaken its own water analysis in response to complaints of contamination in drilling areas, and it could be pivotal in the national debate over the role of natural gas in America’s energy policy.

Abundant gas reserves are being aggressively developed in 31 states, including New York and Pennsylvania. Congress is mulling a bill that aims to protect those water resources from hydraulic fracturing, the process in which fluids and sand are injected under high pressure to break up rock and release gas. But the industry says environmental regulation is unnecessary because it is impossible for fracturing fluids to reach underground water supplies and no such case has ever been proven.

Scientists in Wyoming will continue testing this fall to determine the level of chemicals in the water and exactly where they came from. If they find that the contamination did result from drilling, the placid plains arching up to the Wind River Range would become the first site where fracturing fluids have been scientifically linked to groundwater contamination.

In interviews with ProPublica and at a public meeting this month in Pavillion’s community hall, officials spoke cautiously about their preliminary findings. They were careful to say they’re investigating a broad array of sources for the contamination, including agricultural activity. They said the contaminant causing the most concern – a compound called 2-butoxyethanol, known as 2-BE – can be found in some common household cleaners, not just in fracturing fluids.

But those same EPA officials also said they had found no pesticides – a signature of agricultural contamination – and no indication that any industry or activity besides drilling could be to blame. Other than farming, there is no industry in the immediate area.

In Pavillion, a town of about 160 people in the heart of the Wind River Indian Reservation, the gas wells are crowded close together in an ecologically vivid area packed with large wetlands and home to 10 threatened or endangered species. Beneath the ground, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the earth is a complex system of folded crusts containing at least 30 water-bearing aquifer layers.

EPA officials told residents that some of the substances found in their water may have been poured down a sink drain. But according to EPA investigation documents, most of the water wells were flushed three times before they were tested in order to rid them of anything that wasn’t flowing through the aquifer itself. That means the contaminants found in Pavillion would have had to work their way from a sink not only into the well but deep into the aquifer at significant concentrations in order to be detected. An independent drinking water expert with decades of experience in central Wyoming, Doyle Ward, dismissed such an explanations as “less than a one in a million” chance.

Some of the EPA’s most cautious scientists are beginning to agree.

“It starts to finger-point stronger and stronger to the source being somehow related to the gas development, including, but not necessarily conclusively, hydraulic fracturing itself,” said Nathan Wiser, an EPA scientist and hydraulic fracturing expert who oversees enforcement for the underground injection control program under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the Rocky Mountain region. The investigation “could certainly have a focusing effect on a lot of folks in the Pavillion area as a nexus between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination.”

The Superfund investigation follows a series of complaints by residents in the Pavillion area, some stemming back 15 years, that their water wells turned sour and reeked of fuel vapors shortly after drilling took place nearby. Several of those residents shared their stories with ProPublica, while other information was found through court and local records. Several years ago, one resident’s animals went blind and died after drinking from a well. In two current cases, a resident’s well water shows small pooling oil slicks on the surface, and a woman is coping with a mysterious nervous system disorder: Her family blames arsenic and metals found in her water. In two of those cases, the Canadian drilling company EnCana, which bought most of the area’s wells after they were drilled and assumed liability for them, is either supplying fresh drinking water to the residents or has purchased the land. In the third case, a drilling company bought by EnCana, Tom Brown Inc., had previously reached an out-of-court settlement to provide water filtering.

Though the drilling companies have repeatedly compensated residents with the worst cases of contamination, they have not acknowledged any fault in causing the pollution. An EnCana spokesman, Doug Hock, told ProPublica the company wants “to better understand the science and the source of the compounds” found in the water near Pavillion before he would speculate on whether the company was responsible.

Precise details about the nature and cause of the contamination, as well as the extent of the plume running in the aquifer beneath this region 150 miles east of Jackson Hole, have been difficult for scientists to collect. That’s in part because the identity of the chemicals used by the gas industry for drilling and fracturing are protected as trade secrets, and because the EPA, based on an exemption passed under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, does not have authority to investigate the fracturing process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Using the Superfund program gave the agency extra authority to investigate the Pavillion reports, including the right to subpoena the secret information if it needs to. It also unlocked funding to pay for the research.

SEE ALSO:
Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Tech: Helmet Sensors Reveal the Real Impact of Head Injuries | The Sciences: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
EPA officials have repeatedly said that disclosure of the fluids used in fracking – something that would be required if the bill being debated in Congress were passed – would enable them to investigate contamination incidents faster, more conclusively and for less money. The current study, which is expected to end next spring, has already cost $130,000.

About 65 people, many in jeans, boots and 10-gallon hats, filled Pavillion’s community hall on Aug. 11 to hear the EPA’s findings. They were told that a range of contaminants, including arsenic, copper, vanadium and methane gas were found in the water. Many of these substances are found in various fluids used at drilling sites.

Of particular concern were compounds called adamantanes, a natural hydrocarbon found in gas that can be used to fingerprint its origin, and 2-BE, listed as a common fracturing fluid in the EPA’s 2004 research report on hydraulic fracturing. That compound, which EPA scientists in Wyoming said they identified with 97 percent certainty, was suspected by some environmental groups in a 2004 drilling-related contamination case in Colorado, also involving EnCana.

EPA investigators explained that because they had no idea what to test for, they were relegated to an exhaustive process of scanning water samples for spikes in unidentified compounds and then running those compounds like fingerprints through a criminal database for matches against a vast library of unregulated and understudied substances. That is how they found the adamantanes and 2-BE.

An EnCana representative told the crowd that the company was as concerned about the contamination as the residents were, and pledged to help the EPA in its investigation.

Some people seemed confounded by what they were hearing.

“How in god’s name can the oil industry dump sh*t in our drinking water and not tell us what it is?” shouted Alan Hofer, who lives near the center of the sites being investigated by the EPA.

“If they’d tell us what they were using then you could go out and test for things and it would make it a lot easier, right?” asked Jim Van Dorn, who represents Wyoming Rural Water, a nonprofit that advises utilities and private well owners on water management.

“Exactly,” said Luke Chavez, the EPA’s chief Superfund investigator on the project. “That’s our idea too.”

Now that the EPA has found a chemical used in fracturing fluids in Pavillion’s drinking water, Chavez said the next step in the research is to ask EnCana for a list of the chemicals it uses and then do more sampling using that list. (An EnCana spokesman told ProPublica the company will supply any information that the EPA requires.) The EPA is also working with area health departments, a toxicologist and a representative from the Centers for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to assess health risks, he said.

Depending on what they find, the investigation in Wyoming could have broad implications. Before hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005, the EPA assessed the process and concluded it did not pose a threat to drinking water. That study, however, did not involve field research or water testing and has been criticized as incomplete. This spring, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson called some of the contamination reports “startling” and told members of Congress that it is time to take another look. The Pavillion investigation, according to Chavez, is just that.

“If there is a problem, maybe we don’t have the tools, or the laws, to deal with it,” Chavez said. “That’s one of the things that could come out of this process.”

Abrahm Lustgarten is an investigative reporter for ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces journalism in the public interest.

Share this Article:

Comments

rita mcconnell August 26, 2009, 8:39 PM
I would expect SciAm to know that the information in this story comes from a news release from Earthwatch, and not from any direct statements from EPA. In fact, the news release claims in its headline that EPA has confirmed such contamination, and then in the first sentence says that EPA is conducting a study. Kind of like saying someone is guilty before they are proven innocent — backwards. I would also expect SciAm to know that this area of Colorado has experienced many contamination episodes from this chemical not related to drilling, but to other industrial contamination in the area. In fact, this substance is so common, EPA may never be able to determine where its actually come from.
SciAm is really hurting its credibility as a scientific source by continually reprinting and reposting the work of Mr. Lustgarden, who is not a scientist. His continual efforts to confuse the already confusing world of natural gas extraction become more desperate with each installment, as his reporting is debunked by more knowledgeable people. Please stop tarnishing your reputation .
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Jokunen August 26, 2009, 9:39 PM
I would suggest a way to track the fracturing fluids involvement in water contamination. Just mandate that any fracturing fluid must be ‘painted’ with artificial substances, for example some radionuclides, in low, but detectable quantities. Now if any are found in water or in other wrong places, then it’s clear where did they come from.
On the other hand I think that indirect evidence can be enough too when there is no other reason for changes in water. As an example if I would dig an 100 foot deep hole in my lot and would need to pump out a lot of water to keep it empty of rising water, I bet anybody would blame me for the drying well of a neighbor. If something going into ground or coming out of it in one lot does appear in the lot next to it, it should be no rocket science to ask and verify whether that activity is the culprit. Of course, it will not help if they don’t reveal what they are using. But then they should take the burden when scientists have to use more expensive means to find out what those substances are.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Abrahm Lustgarten September 3, 2009, 11:12 AM
This article was based on entirely original news reporting. I am the author, and am an investigative reporter who has been covering this issue in depths for the past 18 months. In the course of that reporting I have made several trips to Wyoming and other similarly affected areas, interviewing most of the people directly involved. I was present at the EPAs meeting on August 11 in Pavillion, WY, and followed up on that meeting with private conversations with officials from Wyomings Department of Environmental Quality and numerous Environmental Protection Agency officials both in Denver and in Washington, DC.
It should also be noted that Rita McConnell is employed as a contractor for EXCO Resources, a Dallas-based energy company involved in natural gas exploration in Pennsylvania, one of the states in which my reporting has documented extensive methane water contamination related to drilling.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
qc September 7, 2009, 10:53 PM
I would have to say that Rita has made it an art form to distort facts which is unfortunate…I have seen her postings in numerous places….the bottomline is the “cat is out of the bag” and it is getting increasingly harder for big gas corps to cover up their dirty secrets…critical mass will hit sooner than later and the real truth about how dirty natural gas really is will be common knowledge.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
qc September 7, 2009, 10:53 PM
I would have to say that Rita has made it an art form to distort facts which is unfortunate…I have seen her postings in numerous places….the bottomline is the “cat is out of the bag” and it is getting increasingly harder for big gas corps to cover up their dirty secrets…critical mass will hit sooner than later and the real truth about how dirty natural gas really is will be common knowledge.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
qc September 7, 2009, 10:54 PM
I would have to say that Rita has made it an art form to distort facts which is unfortunate…I have seen her postings in numerous places….the bottomline is the “cat is out of the bag” and it is getting increasingly harder for big gas corps to cover up their dirty secrets…critical mass will hit sooner than later and the real truth about how dirty natural gas really is will be common knowledge.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
da bahstid August 11, 2011, 2:43 PM
Isn’t it a fantastic thing when a journalist seeks to make clear the means by which he ascertained his information. It demonstrates true journalistic integrity, something we just don’t have enough of these days.
Naturally, this Rita person was not going to reveal her obvious conflict of interest when she posted her politically-slanting information. It is a sad thing that the scientific community has to fight through this garbage in the process of broadening mankind’s understanding of reality. What will Rita and Co try next I wonder.
And while I’m at it, what an ironically vindicating thing to learn that the environmental groups Rita seeks to whimsically portray as…whatever it is she’s hoping they’ll look like…are more closely following actual science than industry. As if that was a surprise really.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
awlbidnz September 6, 2011, 9:55 AM
How far apart are the fresh water aquifer & the formation that was frac’d? Has anyone tested the casing integrity of the oil/gas wells?
If the formations are within a couple of hundred feet of each other, I suspect science could link the incidence to frac communication. If they are more than 1,000′ apart then it is physically impossible for that to have occurred.
The most likely case of fresh water contamination is from either surface polution or failure of the steel casing & cement that was supposed to be properly set to isolate the fresh water from the wellbores.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AlextheGreatest September 13, 2015, 7:36 AM
Rita wouldn’t know science if someone hit her in the head with it.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-for-person-to-person-transmission-of-alzheimer-s-pathology/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=7eb5e5ce362a4077e803f0614f3e1425%7E1442144415280%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1442144415280%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAJ1RTW8cIQz9K51DTl1G5tPD9tJeKlWqeoly6GnEAJOhuwsjhmgaqeK3l02q9BIpUgAb5Gc_G3spZb3hX27Y13b2fe83G3wsYQ7WXHxuOvY2XRpocgn27Nur2cicjT2FeE8mT1yKnuyhLOmhkHBZjS1XZDfF5-ZeyUABUTfNBDIQqAZel3ckLuHiiYmOlMWTsodIVpONS7_pNQ2XjbYipZWhrIBKeDpJaWetNfNMKGMQEWZBlePibYdat1D8N3dUQguOICXjIJSQDOTYilxNuI8NFoI2gAukfBAUueIV2haVgpbVnsZ-fCYaXyH6-J9ofJWI1cdE7PKQo89kzWk6iAPt4djkMwX4dITDn38duvY–20Lqc3nnNKLPweAFvJ8vURVxod6d9vdxVad-3Bb2ry2TlLVfX-MU07p1EmgnYBeSRxAdQR5r5A9WSmVinc_flYUnEo08zA5ht7NGpxxRqMTWgqGqraP9KxnsqdM1-2XpcSsAaiCOpvz5uvTenMYfwHPPjkcqAIAAA

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=6024a8b2c1e7eae591f64d270eef30cc%7E1442144415280%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1442144415280%7E711%7E10%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E10%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAJ1RS2vcMBD-K_Uhp67M6DGStb0kl0Kh9BJy6GnRynKsrm0ZWcsSKPrtnd2U9BIIVG_m8X2fZsZS1jv5cCe-0rpcLu3mY1hKHKJ3c8h0Lq1PMzldLtFPgV5kY0N2_hSXZ3YMrE9LYJdYxnQuLM6r8-XqubgSMoVXzgE7KTpttdFCca3q-B-0ZQxsO-c1x-0Kv-Z0nMLM0sBKSmw–5EVNxHKlVMSY62Gc2IXBisYrQI_IvrBWiuCUNo5YwwMpKeX6uOAWrdYwrd-r5VV0gCikKC0QgF4INWri88LuVGDlQjcdkj_tchRVKCpK5cgqz8d2sMr0uEdpM__kA7vIfEq6ktifjznJeRbEXZqx1vY077nAF_2sPv9t2jXZuSwbTFRw6aU3uIFAlDK6_WWVYXs6tNj87SQvP7TY6EGbg1y3Xx_WY45pVNDahoFrUbTgW6Yka024mblHLVsfvysRkmOxg3dsRcm9IOF3vXOml5ZVMJQGShLtAJbLmzdfnnO3BqBa6iDm7ZQb-PDdvwBzZPt4rkCAAA

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wastewater-sediment-natural-gas-mckeesport-sewage/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=natural-gas-vehicle-company-fuelmak-2009-04-09

Fracking Can Be Done Safely, but Will It Be?
Fracking for natural gas doesn’t have to be an environmental disaster, says a new report
By David Biello | May 17, 2013
Sustainability » ProPublica 15 Email Print
With Natural Gas Drilling Boom, Pennsylvania Faces Flood of Wastewater
A spate of water contamination problems in Pennsylvania have been linked to new natural gas drilling in the state
By Joaquin Sapien and ProPublica | October 5, 2009
McKeesport-Marcellus-Shale-Monongahela-wastewater-TDS-drilling

CREDIT: PROPUBLICA/JOAQUIN SAPIEN
Workers at a steel mill and a power plant were the first to notice something strange about the Monongahela River last summer. The water that U.S. Steel and Allegheny Energy used to power their plants contained so much salty sediment that it was corroding their machinery. Nearby residents saw something odd, too. Dishwashers were malfunctioning, and plates were coming out with spots that couldn’t easily be rinsed off.

Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection soon identified the likely cause and came up with a quick fix. The Monongahela, a drinking water source for 350,000 people, had apparently been contaminated by chemically tainted wastewater from the state’s growing natural gas industry. So the DEP reduced the amount of drilling wastewater that was being discharged into the river and unlocked dams upstream to dilute the contamination.

But questions raised by the incident on the Monongahela haven’t gone away.

In August, contamination levels in the river spiked again, and the DEP still doesn’t know exactly why. And this month the DEP began investigating whether drilling wastewater contributed to the death of 10,000 fish on a 33-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek, which winds through West Virginia and feeds into the Monongahela. A spate of other water contamination problems have also been linked to gas drilling in Pennsylvania, including methane leaks that have affected drinking water in at least seven counties.

2011: 19 million gallons, per day

Pennsylvania is at the forefront of the nation’s gas drilling boom, with at least 4,000 new oil and gas wells drilled here last year alone, more than in any other state except Texas. This rapid expansion has forced state regulators to confront a problem that has been overlooked as gas drilling accelerates nationwide: How will the industry dispose of the enormous amount of wastewater it produces?

Oil and gas wells disgorge about 9 million gallons of wastewater a day in Pennsylvania, according to industry estimates used by the DEP. By 2011 that figure is expected to rise to at least 19 million gallons, enough to fill almost 29 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day. That’s more than all the state’s waterways, combined, can safely absorb, DEP officials say.

“I don’t know that even our [water] program people had any idea about the volumes of water that would be used,” said Dana Aunkst, who heads the DEP’s water program.

Much of the wastewater is the byproduct of a drilling process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which pumps at least a million gallons of water per well deep into the earth to break layers of rock and release gas. When the water is sucked back out, it contains natural toxins dredged up during drilling, including cadmium and benzene, which both carry cancer risks. It can also contain small amounts of chemicals added to enhance drilling.

But DEP officials say one of the most worrisome contaminants in the wastewater is a gritty substance called Total Dissolved Solids, or TDS, a mixture of salt and other minerals that lie deep underground. Drilling wastewater contains so much TDS that it can be five times as salty as sea water.

Large quantities of TDS can clog machinery and affect the color, taste and odor of drinking water – precisely the problems reported along the Monongahela. While TDS isn’t considered particularly harmful to people, it can damage freshwater streams, which is what happened when TDS levels spiked in Dunkard Creek this month. West Virginia’s DEP is investigating whether TDS-laden wastewater from a coal mine near the creek could be to blame. It is also investigating reports that wastewater from natural gas wells may have been illegally dumped into the stream.

Gas drilling companies currently dispose of their wastewater in Pennsylvania’s municipal sewage plants, which then discharge it into rivers and streams. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns against this form of treatment, because the plants aren’t equipped to remove TDS or any of the chemicals the water may contain. Of even more concern, TDS can disrupt the plants’ treatment of ordinary sewage, including human waste.

A lack of capacity

When U.S. Steel and Allegheny Energy complained about the Monongahela’s water in 2008, the DEP found almost twice as much TDS as the agency considers safe. DEP officials blamed some of the problem on the river’s low flow last summer and on abandoned mines that have leaked TDS into the river for decades. What apparently tipped the balance, however, was the drilling wastewater that nine sewage plants were discharging into the river.

Steve Rhodes, president of the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association, an industry trade group, argues that most of the TDS came from abandoned mines, not from drilling wastewater. A study prepared for a different trade group came to the same conclusion.

Rhodes also says Pennsylvania’s waterways “are not anywhere near” their capacity to handle TDS and that the DEP’s estimate of how much wastewater the industry produces is “completely exaggerated.”

DEP chief John Hanger is confident his agency can control the wastewater problem. In April drilling companies began temporarily trucking their wastewater to other states or to sewage treatment plants in other parts of Pennsylvania: the idea is to dilute it by spreading it among more rivers. Hanger said a more permanent solution will begin on Jan. 1, 2011, when he has promised that new regulations will be in place requiring that the wastewater be treated by plants capable of removing TDS.

But an examination of public records, visits to sewage treatment plants, and extensive interviews with state officials by ProPublica reveal flaws in the DEP’s plans.

Currently, no plant in Pennsylvania has the technology to remove TDS, and it’s unlikely that new plants capable of doing so can be built by 2011. The company whose bid is furthest along in the permitting process says its plant won’t be ready until at least 2013. And at its peak that plant would be able to treat only 400,000 gallons of wastewater a day. The DEP would need 50 plants that size to process all the wastewater expected by 2011.

In the meantime, the DEP is allowing municipal sewage plants to continue taking drilling wastewater, even though none of them can remove TDS. “That’s not what these municipal plants are designed to handle – the DEP is inviting legal problems as well as environmental problems,” said Bruce Baizel, a senior attorney for the Oil and Gas Accountability Project, a Colorado-based nonprofit that focuses on the environmental impact of natural gas drilling.

As the DEP’s responsibilities continue to grow, its operating budget could be slashed: The state legislature’s latest draft of Pennsylvania’s 2010 budget calls for a 25 percent cut in DEP funding.

Caught off guard

Hanger says Pennsylvania’s extensive experience with oil drilling – the first oil well in the country was drilled here in 1859—has prepared it to quickly deal with gas drilling problems.

But ProPublica found that the DEP was caught off guard by the amount of wastewater the industry would produce when drilling began in the Marcellus Shale, a deeply buried layer of rock that some analysts say holds enough gas to meet the nation’s natural gas needs for more than 20 years.

When energy prices spiked in 2008, drillers flocked to Pennsylvania, bringing sorely needed revenue and jobs. A recent Pennsylvania State University study touted the benefits drilling brought last year: 29,000 jobs and $240 million in state and local taxes.

Even the industry’s wastewater promised profits.

“Cha-ching!” is how Francis Geletko, financial director for the sewage plant in Clairton, described his first thought when he learned that drillers would pay five cents a gallon to get their wastewater processed at his plant. The 1960s-era facility is in such desperate need of modernization that workers still use shovels to remove solid waste from its traps and filters. Many of the state’s plants are similarly outdated: A recent report commissioned by Gov. Ed Rendell concluded that Pennsylvania needs to spend $100 billion over the next 20 years to maintain its aging sewage plants and pipelines.

Plant operators say the DEP didn’t initially offer them much guidance about processing the water, a complaint the DEP doesn’t dispute.

Ed Golanka, who manages a sewage plant in Charleroi, said that when he checked with the DEP nobody told him that state and federal laws required his plant to get an amendment to its permit before accepting industrial wastewater. The amendment would require expensive modifications that Charleroi couldn’t afford, he said.

“At the time it was a new subject for all of us,” Golanka said. “There was a limited amount of conversation [with the DEP] until the issue with TDS last summer.”

Aunkst, the DEP’s director of water standards, said he didn’t know the plants along the Monongahela were accepting the water until the spring of 2008, when people complained about long lines of trucks idling at sewage treatment plants. But the agency was so short-staffed that it didn’t respond to the complaints immediately. Aunkst said many DEP regulators had left for more lucrative jobs with drilling companies.

“As the industry was ramping up, we were ramping down,” he said. “In order for us to really catch these people we have to almost have an inspector coincidentally there on the day that these trucks pull up, because we have so many facilities and so few staff.”

The DEP is supposed to inspect the plants once a year, but ProPublica found that most inspections are triggered by pollution violations or equipment failures.

A review of inspection records at the DEP’s Pittsburgh office showed that only three of the nine plants along the Monongahela were inspected in the year before Allegheny Energy and U.S. Steel complained. One plant hadn’t been inspected in five years. DEP officials warned that those records may not have been complete, because inspection reports aren’t filed electronically and pages from the files may have been sitting on an employee’s desk during the two days when ProPublica was there in March.

Inspections occur even less frequently at sites where wells are drilled. According to minutes taken at an October 2008 meeting of DEP officials, the agency has so few inspectors that they visit gas wells only once every 10 years.

After Aunkst heard about the trucks, he wrote a letter to all the state’s sewage plants, reminding them that they couldn’t take the wastewater without a special permit.

But before he sent it, TDS levels in the Monongahela skyrocketed, causing U.S. Steel and Allegheny Energy to complain. The chain of events made Aunkst remember two other peculiar incidents: Two creeks had been sucked dry, and DEP inspectors suspected that drilling companies had withdrawn the water to fracture nearby wells.

“We were trying to scramble, to put it bluntly, to get our act together to figure out how we were going to address these withdrawals as well as the disposal issues,” Aunkst said.

The DEP did two things to quickly lower the Monongahela’s TDS level. It unlocked [18] dams upriver to flush out some of the TDS. And it ordered nearby sewage treatment plants to reduce the amount of drilling wastewater they accepted to just 1 percent of the total amount of water that flowed through their plants each day.

The cut shocked the industry. Trucking water to distant sites is far more expensive than treating it locally, and some drillers threatened to take their rigs to other states if they couldn’t dispose of their water in Pennsylvania.

“Basically, it shuts us down,” Lou D’Amico, executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania, told a local newspaper. “We can’t generate fluids we can’t dispose of.”

The DEP issued a news release assuring the public that the TDS was “not considered a major human health risk… But under the circumstances, if consumers have concerns, DEP recommends consumers use bottled water for drinking and preparing food until the exceedance is eliminated.”

Some sewage plant operators were so alarmed that they stopped taking any wastewater at all.

But by January, the uproar had subsided. TDS levels in the Monongahela were back to normal and plant operators began accepting the wastewater again, although in smaller quantities.

“We didn’t want to be the ones to stop the economy from growing in this area, and we felt that we were helping the country become energy independent,” said Joe Rost, chief engineer at a sewage plant in McKeesport, 14 miles south of Pittsburgh.

Setting goals

Federal guidelines specifically recommend against sending drilling wastewater to ordinary sewage plants, as Pennsylvania is doing now, because it might damage the plants and taint drinking water supplies. But the EPA approved Pennsylvania’s plan, because the DEP promised to have more aggressive regulations in place by 2011.

“Every time you set an aggressive goal generally you have a transition period to get there,” said Jon Capacasa, the EPA’s top mid-Atlantic water pollution enforcer.

To keep the water safe until then, the DEP has promised to add more TDS monitors along the Monongahela, although they haven’t been installed yet. And before the DEP allows a sewage plant to accept drilling wastewater, the agency will assess the current TDS level in the stream where the water will be discharged, to make sure it can handle the additional load.

The DEP also has promised to tighten TDS discharge standards by 2011, so that all drilling wastewater will be treated in plants capable of removing TDS. The agency has streamlined the permitting process for companies that want to build the new plants. But when ProPublica interviewed spokesmen for eight of the 17 plants that have been proposed, all of them said it will be impossible to begin operating by the 2011 deadline.

A spokesman for Larson Design Group, whose application is furthest along in the process, expects that after it gets its permit it will need at least 40 months to build the plant and begin operating.

Temporary lull

Drilling has slowed in Pennsylvania this year, because natural gas prices have dipped to about a third of what they were at the peak of the boom last summer. But the lull will almost certainly be temporary. The DEP expects to issue permits for approximately 700 wells in the Marcellus Shale in 2009, up from 450 in 2008.

“Companies are willing to get these permits now because they know that competition is going to heat up,” said Raoul LeBlanc, a senior financial consultant at PFC Energy, which provides financial and political advice to energy companies and governments. “When prices rise they will want to be the first to drill more wells.”

Congress is preparing for the expansion, too. A group of Democratic legislators have introduced a bill that would allow the federal government to regulate the hydraulic fracturing drilling process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill prompted an immediate backlash from the oil and gas industry, which says state agencies like the DEP are doing a good job of regulating drilling.

Even if the bill is passed, however, it won’t directly address Pennsylvania’s most pressing drilling-related problem: protecting the state’s water supply against the coming onslaught of wastewater.

SEE ALSO:
Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Tech: Helmet Sensors Reveal the Real Impact of Head Injuries | The Sciences: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
Joaquin Sapien is an investigative reporter for ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces journalism in the public interest.

Share this Article:

Comments

Michael Sebetich October 5, 2009, 9:06 PM
This is another example of money trumping clean water. We know that the water source for mining the Marcellus Shale natural gas will have to be clean surface or well water, and that the consumption of the source water will deplete the streams and wells. At the same time we know that the polluted water recovered from the drilling will have to be disposed of in clean streams and possibly ground water. Clearly, the result will be the destruction of stream ecosystems and possibly pollution of clean ground water. One needs no college degree to reach this conclusion. A similar scenario occurred in Pennsylvania with the coal industry which polluted more stream miles than any other state, and we are still paying the ecological price. Now, here we go all over again, and this time it could be worse. This type of natural gas mining will always result in destroyed ecosystems, and we will be paying the ecological cost ourselves, and will leave this sorry legacy to our children and their children. They will ask what we were thinking. And we will say it’s all about money. How dumb can we be?
Michael J. Sebetich
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
JamesDavis October 6, 2009, 8:07 AM
Talk about the blind and stupid leading the blind and stupid. Again greed triumphs and human life is sacrificed on the front line. If the people of these communities do not rise up and get this disaster under control, these drilling companys are going to destroy you…community by community. You are acting like sheep being led to the slaughter by these stupid ignorant SOBs’. Do something to stop this mass chemical genocide before it is too late. Don’t let greed plant you and your children in these empty gas and coal graves. Your life is worth a lot more than the couple of dollars these thoughtless people are stuffing in the politicans’ pockets.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
galaxy_man October 6, 2009, 10:28 AM
What a familiar cycle. Greedy business causes giant environmental / health risk, agencies notice and wag their fingers, greedy business comforts everyone with long term plans to fix the problem, everyone calms down, and it’s business as usual. Except NOTHING EVER CHANGES.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Coal October 7, 2009, 1:13 PM
Y’all are right! We need to stop natural gas drilling NOW!
Keep the status-quo!
(brought to you by the Coal Miners for Mountain Top Removal).
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
CellBioProf October 20, 2009, 11:55 AM
For those who think that this is simply a matter of spots on dishes, I suggest you read the letter to the editor I submitted to our local newspaper:
The identity of many of the chemicals used in gas extraction from Marcellus shale have not been disclosed by the drilling companies. Of those that have been reported, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (www.endocrinedisruption.org) states that 73% are known to be damaging to human health. Of the damaging chemicals, 95% affect the respiratory system – and remember that Washington County and Allegheny County (PA) already are among the 35 counties in the entire United States with the lowest (worst) air quality.
Furthermore, 44% of the potentially harmful chemicals are endocrine disruptors that effect development and reproduction. Think bis-phenol A and hard plastic water bottles; think lowered sperm counts in males (hence increased difficulty in conceiving children) and increasingly early puberty in boys and girls; think about the mounting evidence for a connection between endocrine disruptors and autism.
Other of these chemicals affect the brain and nervous system, the heart, the liver, and the immune system. Approximately 30% are known to contribute to the development of cancer. Most of the effects are long-term and the extent of damage to human health wont be apparent for years or even decades after gas drilling has stopped.
The gas company will clean all of the chemicals out of the water they use? They regularly dump enormous amounts of dissolved salt and other dissolved solids into the Monongahela River as brine water from fracturing operations. Thats not counting the leaks and spills such as the one that wiped out fish and other wildlife in Cross Creek Park in May.
Not near the drilling operation? Dont breathe a sigh of relief 45% of the chemicals known to harm humans are volatile. Theyll get into the air and blow over everyones property, well or no well.
And that $40/month which is a realistic estimate for the payment youll get for the gas they extract from under your property? Better think about saving it for future medical bills.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
TaraL November 11, 2009, 2:12 PM
I am very afraid of what will happen to our water. We have a well! Where are we to get water from once the well is contaminated? They tell us that they will bring a truck of water to us once we prove that they caused the problem. We can not afford to keep paying some company to test our water, and that is what the drilling companies count on. How can we stop them? We can’t! There are too many people with large properties ready to be paid! Then that leaves the rest of us, the people with an acre or two. We are bullied into signing the papers. I have been told by a representative from a drilling company that if I don’t sign, they will drill under my land anyway, and we would never be able to prove it. He also said that if I don’t sign and my water is contaminated, it would take years and years of lawyer fees and stress to get compensation. But if we sign, at least they will provide some kind of solution once we prove that the water wasn’t contaminated prior to the drilling, or greater than six a month period. DEP? They state that they really have no say in what is underneath the ground, so therefore….we are screwed. Everyone caves in to the “all-mighty dollar”. Our land wont be worth a dollar without water. I’ll bet the taxes will increase because of the drilling though! They all have their hand stretched out for the money. How do we stop the drilling?
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
TaraL November 11, 2009, 2:31 PM
As for getting politicians involved, that’s a joke. They are too worried as to where they can profit from our losses. They are ready to spend that money! They don’t care what happens to our land and water! Where are we to go? We can’t afford to just walk away and buy another home, like they can. I have a mortgage and taxes to pay, children and animals to feed. Will my horses get sick or die because they are eating the grass? Will we end up getting some kind of cancer from bathing in the water? No one can answer these questions honestly, but they still keep drilling anyway. When I start asking about such things, the people who will benefit ask me why I want to stand in the way of progress! Bullies!!! Pennsylvania
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
lknd24 Soccerdad February 22, 2010, 2:58 PM
I have also read that traces of radioactive contaminants come back with this water. Spotty glowing dishes.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Deborah March 26, 2010, 9:21 PM
If the gas drilling companies were required to decontaminate their waste water the real price for gas would be less competative and renewable sources of CLEAN energy would be more cost effective. We need to develop more suppliers of these truly green technologies yesterday! In the future there will be wars over water…..the future is sooner than you think.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Bops TaraL June 11, 2010, 9:55 PM
TaraL,
I’m sorry about your problem.
I know that you can’t trust other people…when it comes down to greed and money.
You have to help yourself somehow!
Is there a college near by that tests water or can help you?
Can you test the water for some chemicals yourself?
Have you learned as much as you can about the problems and what you can do to protect yourself?
There’s got to be some way to work this out.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
NoLeafClover June 25, 2010, 2:59 AM
How much DAMAGE has to be caused before we realize that NATURAL GAS DRILLING is harmful. I feel betrayed and discouraged to be AMERICAN!!!
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
chine_tintin_zyk28@gmail.com Deborah June 28, 2010, 10:11 PM
i said my problem is about the canal sucking to how to sove that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Jillian_Duncan July 6, 2010, 10:05 PM
I can’t believe this is happening in our country these gas companies should be charged with a crime. It is unamerican what these people are doing and the it needs to be stopped. Josh Fox’s Gasland was a real eye opener and people need to listen. This is awful and needs to end.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Sar1944 Soccerdad October 11, 2010, 12:14 PM
So how long can you survive in the middle of the ocean with the only water to drink is the salt water from the ocean??????????????????
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
WINKER CellBioProf April 10, 2011, 6:07 AM
CellBioProf, you wrote that people are getting is 40 dollars a month, are you for real??? Here in Texas people are getting thousands of dollars for a sighn on bounus and hundreds of dollars a month in royalty payments depending on how much land they have. ATTENTION to the people of the keystone state, you are sitting on a goal mind!!!! dont sighn on the dotted line until you talk to an attorney , one that you and some other home owners have picked out and tell haliburton, shell , phillips66, devon energy to show you the money. People here that have ranches in north west area of Fort Worth have made big money here. these companies have plenty of money to spend!!!!
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This

Flickr / Penn State Outreach
More on this Topic
Fracking to Free Natural Gas?
What the Frack? Natural Gas from Subterranean Shale Promises U.S. Energy Independence–With Environmental Costs [Slide Show]
What the Frack? Natural Gas from Subterranean Shale Promises U.S. Energy Independence–With Environmental Costs [Slide Show]
Out of sight (and smell), natural gas slowly bubbled up into Norma Fiorentino’s private water well near the town of Dimock in northeastern Pennsylvania—in the heart of the new fracking boom in the U.S. Then, on New Year’s Day 2009, when a mechanical pump flicked on and provided the spark, Fiorentino’s backyard exploded. She and many others blame the blast on fracking—the colloquial name for the natural gas drilling process that combines horizontal drilling and the fracturing of shale deep underground with high-pressure water to create a path for gas to flow back up the well.

The fracking revolution has freed up previously inaccessible natural gas in shale formations like the Marcellus, which underlies states from New York down to West Virginia and has been heavily tapped in Pennsylvania. On May 16 the U.S. Department of Interior released its new guidelines for such fracking on public lands. And a new review article funded by the National Science Foundation and published in Science on May 16 examines what fracking may be doing to the water supply. “This is an industry that’s in its infancy, so we don’t really know a lot of things,” explains environmental engineer Radisav Vidic of the University of Pittsburgh, who led this review. “Is it or isn’t it bad for the environment? Is New York State right to ban fracking, and is Pennsylvania stupid for [allowing it]?”

According to the review, the answer is no. “There is no irrefutable impact of this industry on surface or groundwater quality in Pennsylvania,” Vidic says.

That’s not to say there haven’t been problems. That’s because there are many ways for things to go wrong with a natural gas well during the fracking process. A new well—or the 100,000 or so existing but forgotten wells—can allow natural gas from either the Marcellus or shallower deposits to migrate up and out of the rock and into water or basements. Leaking methane, in addition to being a potential safety hazard, is also a potent greenhouse gas that exacerbates climate change, although that environmental impact was not examined in this study.

The key environmental safety factor is the casing, the industry term for the sheath of cement that surrounds a newly drilled well. If improperly made, gas can migrate along the outside of this sheath. The gas can also itself leave cracks in the sheath if it is poorly made, freeing yet more gas. According to citation records from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), from 2008 to 2013, 6,466 wells were issued 219 violation notices for well construction problems, suggesting that such problems afflict roughly 3 percent of all wells. The DEP is “not seeing any evidence for groundwater contamination from methane leaks,” Vidic adds, noting that government and industry are working on better ways to ensure cement integrity in fracked wells. But problems persist. For example, a test well drilled this past October near Owego, N.Y., continues to leak.

At the same time, wells in New York State where there has been no fracking show similar concentrations of methane to those in Pennsylvania where fracking is abundant. Northeastern Pennsylvania—where Dimock is located—seems to be a hotspot for such methane contamination, even compared with other parts of the same state. “These formations in northeastern Pennsylvania are, for whatever reason, more problematic,” Vidic says, adding that in the future a more precise understanding of the constituents in natural gas from various regions may allow accurate identification of where any contamination comes from, whether the Marcellus or shallower coal seams. “But there’s no irrefutable, sustained evidence of contamination going on continuously, so [the gas industry] must be doing something right.”

One reason there is no such irrefutable evidence is because of a lack of publicly available baseline data for the condition of groundwater prior to any drilling and fracking. That data is collected, often by the gas companies themselves, but not shared due to privacy issues. (For example, it may affect the potential sale value of property found to have existing contamination.) And Pennsylvania also lacks good groundwater monitoring because it is not required by law. “If we forced Pennsylvania to enact that rule, that would be a good outcome,” Vidic says.

A study in 2011 found levels of methane contamination were higher closer to fracking among 60 wells tested, although Vidic suggests that the levels were close to the background levels published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Not all experts share that interpretation—or the generally rosy outlook of the new Science review. “I don’t agree that the levels we found were similar to background levels found by USGS,” argues environmental scientist Robert Jackson of Duke University, who lead that study and was not involved with this one. “This review is a mixed bag. Its call for additional monitoring makes perfect sense. Its dismissal of all environmental concerns doesn’t.”

Another particular concern is the potential for the fracking fluid itself to contaminate water. The exact fracking fluid cocktail is kept secret, although it can range over some 750 secret ingredients, such as coffee grounds or methanol. Each well requires some 7.5 million to 26.5 million liters of water for the fracking operation itself. Such tainted water has been found outside the Marcellus shale zone deep underground, although still more than a kilometer beneath groundwater supplies. And shallow wells fracked in other regions, such as West Virginia and Wyoming, have contaminated the groundwater. But as of yet, fracking fluid has not yet fouled Pennsylvania’s groundwater. “I’ll take my chances on winning the lottery over the chances of frack fluid in the groundwater,” Vidic says, noting that water from specific formations could also be tracked like the gas itself.

Another potential environmental problem comes from all the wastewater that flows back up the well and has to be properly disposed of. At present, Marcellus shale wells are mostly absorbing the water pumped in to them. But at some point in future, all of these wells will begin to produce water that carries toxic and even radioactive contaminants leached from the surrounding rock along with lots and lots of salt. That is already happening; contamination seems to be showing up in the state’s rivers, streams and other waterways, according to the review. And if Pennsylvania were to decide to deal with such water by evaporating it, Vidic notes, they will have to figure out how to get rid of the 10 million metric tons of sodium chloride left over. “The entire U.S. uses maybe 15 million tons for de-icing,” he adds, “and you can’t put it in a landfill because it will just dissolve.”

Other states use disposal wells to dump the water back down deep underground where it came from, but that’s not an option in Pennsylvania due to the underlying geology and regulations. As a result, drillers and gas companies in the state increasingly reuse the water in new wells. In fact, in the first six months of 2012 they achieved a reuse rate of 90 percent. “The best thing to do with wastewater is to recycle or reuse it,” Duke’s Jackson says. “Industry deserves credit for increasingly doing this.” But that won’t last forever.

Ultimately, the question becomes: What will be the long-term legacy of these wells? After all, the now-moribund coal industry left the Keystone State a toxic legacy it is still coping with today. Although some provisions have been put in place to deal with future abandoned wells, there is not enough money set aside to deal with these future liabilities. “Do we leave them or plug them up, and what are the potential impacts?” Vidic asks. “Now’s the time to think about who’s going to pay for it when the wells have run their course.”

SEE ALSO:
Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Tech: Helmet Sensors Reveal the Real Impact of Head Injuries | The Sciences: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
Rights & Permissions
Share this Article:

Comments

Traveler 007 May 17, 2013, 8:38 AM
Fracking is done safely now
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sault Traveler 007 May 17, 2013, 10:54 AM
No, it’s not. This was just one study conducted in Penn. and its conclusions are disputed by others in the field. And even then, “contamination seems to be showing up in the state’s rivers, streams and other waterways, according to the review.” So no, it is not “done safely now” and giving fracking special exemptions from the Clean Air Act and the Clean Drinking Water Act was an incredibly dumb idea. If it was so safe, why does fracking get to play by different rules than everybody else? Why did we let them drill 100,000 wells without determining the environmental and health impacts first? Why are we so eager to offload contamination and the burdens of dealing with it onto the people living in fracking areas in a mad rush to grab some profit?
The scary thing is, to prevent contamination, the well casings will have to stay intact basically FOREVER. And there are thousands of old, abandoned wells that were drilled to get at the same gas the frackers are going after as well. After you frack, gas and contaminated water can creep along these old wells too and enter groundwater sources. And guess what, the property above this contamination is basically a Superfund site now and there is no practical way to clean up the groundwater. The fracking companies don’t care about “privacy”, they just don’t want to deal with the lawsuits that will spring up due to their gas and contamination destroying other people’s property values.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
voice May 17, 2013, 11:50 AM
In addition to the concerns discussed in this article, I do not believe the earthquake issue has been adequately addressed. The NRC and EPA do not regulate the proximity of fracking operations to nuclear and toxic chemical facilities. Who will be accountable if fracking disturbs a fault line or in any other way causes a catastrophic accident at another hazardous facility?
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sault Shoshin May 17, 2013, 12:55 PM
Your anecdote proves NOTHING. How do YOU know there was never a problem on all these wells you supposedly fracked? Did you personally monitor each and every well from the time it was fracked until now? Did you take groundwater and air samples before and after fracking to see the difference? How in the world can you know if your well casings will last forever or that gas and contaminated fluids won’t migrate through other abandoned wells going into the same formation?
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
M Tucker May 17, 2013, 2:14 PM
I have one little quibble with this article:
“Out of sight (and smell)”
Natural gas is always “out of smell” because it is odorless. What you smell when you turn on the gas at home is added for safety.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
bongobimbo May 17, 2013, 3:26 PM
Get these apologists out of sight. Fracturing the earth will NEVER, can NEVER, be safe.insulting
I seed Soshin is doing his usual insulting apologetics again! Like Oz, pay no attention to the wizards who hide behind curtains of nondisclosure.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
FracMaster May 17, 2013, 4:00 PM
Yes this is new about 60 years new. I went on my first frac job 30+ years ago.
After the frac job the pressure in the wellbore is less than the formation therefore any leakes are from the formation into the wellbore not the other way.
There are some real problems saying that the water sands were contaminated by fracing. The case in Wyoming, the EPA could not find any contamination until they drilled into the source rock. Remember Drake’s oil well in Pennsylvania was less than 70 ft deep.
“dump the water back down deep underground” The places where the water is injected is in formations that have water that is many millions of years old. The contaminated water is usually better than what is already there.
Just more fear mongering by people who dont know anything.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup May 17, 2013, 4:37 PM
This is why GRANT science should be discounted. Fracking has been around since the 50s or 60s there is not a single proven case of any issues that were not there prior to fracking . . Silly Humans that want the population to be reduced by 2/3 are the E=GREEN pushers of the false conclusions and just plain old slimming.
They have sued and lost, they have appealed to EPA and lost, they tried to force the EPA to shut down fracking even on private owned land using air and Endangered Species like lizards, spiders, bats, birds, foxes and rats. It is all just smoke and anti increased standard of living except for them in the high rises of the SUPER CITIES where they can only exist due to farmers, and coal/nuclear power plants – oh that is correct they still burn heating oil. What fakes, what phonies, what hypocrites.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup sault May 17, 2013, 4:39 PM
Silly conclusion of false facts – WHAT ARE STREET, PARKING LOTS AND HIGHWAYS MADE OF? What happens when it rains on them – they erode and end up in rivers and lakes . . yes they are made of OIL . .
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
greenhome123 May 17, 2013, 4:42 PM
These mother fracking frackers don’t give a frack about the environment or the ground water. They are too fracking cheap and incompetent to ever frack safely. If you trust these frackers to dump contaminated fracking water into a deep hole in the ground “safely” then you need to get your fracking head examined. I wish these polluting frack holes could be launched into outer-space so they can go play hide and go frack themselves on another planet.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
kthmanng May 17, 2013, 4:53 PM
“…no irrefutable impact of this industry on surface or groundwater quality in Pennsylvania” — I’m only left to wonder which energy company paid for this preposterous pseudo-scientific “article.” The independent evidence contradicting this assertion is overwhelming and it’s mind-boggling that anyone would have the temerity to suggest otherwise.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
shroomer May 17, 2013, 4:55 PM
Scientific FACTS ,Unlike Public Opinion ,are not FOR SALE to the Highest bidder !! Pumping toxic waste into the ground to squeeze out another Nickel’s worth of greed juice is TOTALLY WRONG !! for people, animals the PLANET !! Anything is better for everyone except the Greedy Corporation in Control NOW ! When ‘they’ can control , package and sell the air we breath , ‘THEY’ WILL . More Poison = more disease = more drugs = MORE PROFIT !!! Ignorant Neanderthals Hunting and Gathering sustenance were unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions , We have NO such Excuse !!
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
coco8543 May 17, 2013, 11:02 PM
Long term implications of FRAC ing are unknowable at this time and it scares me that the industrial standards and laws that hide exactly what “frac ing” fluids are made of. I can only hope members of Congress will fully open up their eyes and do in depth research of this. Then maybe we can end or at a minimum slow this down until further research by accredited sources can take place.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup May 18, 2013, 8:18 AM
NEWS RELEASE TO E=GREEN
The Science is on the side of fracking . . it is safe and produce a cheap energy source to drive the American economy to recovery. All of the posts above are EMOTION not facts – statements of opinions – not research – statements to create doubt in the uninformed – like 60 + years experience is not proof of the systems safety.
Do any of you folks have: cars, heat your homes, travel in jets, a profession [job], children, – probably live in a high-rise with elevators and have your pollution exported to other areas or even nations. PHOOEY huh?
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sault Profitsup May 18, 2013, 2:23 PM
They are only made of oil because we don’t incorporate the costs of pollution into the price charged for oil, making it artificially cheap. And your claim that fracking causes no harm is glaringly false:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-linked-water-contamination-federal-agency
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup sault May 18, 2013, 2:43 PM
Your article source is here – not to far left huh??? can we say extreme . . Salon etc . . ? Science yes- fictional science . . EPA report is suspect at best even the article said it was not and could not be expanded to other areas . .
ProPublica has partnered with more than 90 different news organizations, including 60 Minutes, ABC World News, Business Week, CNN, Frontline, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, The Washington Post, Huffington Post, MSN Money, MSNBC.com, Politico, Reader’s Digest, Salon.com, Slate, This American Life, and NPR, among many others.
Find some real facts and science – wells have been fracked for 60 years and the EPA/E=GREENS have spent hundreds of millions trying to prove the technique as dangerous. Like always just attack and make up wild statements to instill fear and hate . . bad policy and bad results will be created.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Wayne Williamson May 19, 2013, 12:44 PM
Just one further thought on fracking, Florida’s aquifer/springs, come from the states north of us. If I remember correctly, I takes thousands of years for the water to make it here. My question is will the pumping of waste into the vacancy left by fracking polute Floridas’ water?
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup Wayne Williamson May 19, 2013, 12:58 PM
WATER SOURCES are never two miles down. that water is heavily mineralised even the depth of Geo thermal waters are so contaminated that they eat steel at the surface. Some are so acidic that they consume the flesh of what ever falls in them. Guess all of you want to close down Yellow stone and declare it a ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD ZONE?
Find some science – you all just make up what ever boogieman you think will sell your bad medicine . .
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Sway21 May 19, 2013, 1:54 PM
First a quibble with the article. It refers to cement as well casing, when a cementatious mixture is what the steel well casing is grouted with in the annular space between bore hole and the actual steel casing itself.
Recycling of frac’ing fluids, not drilling fluids, has become a growth industry because of not only the vast quantities of water needed but the presence of contaminants in those fluids. The contaminants of concern are not those added during the frac’ing process but those brought up from the shale strata itself. (Deep well injection for disposal of such contaminates has been used for over half a century in a wide variety of industrial fields, from chemical to pharmaceutical production.) Drilling fluids aren’t generally recycled in any quantity because they are consumed during the drilling process by becoming the initial grout which seals the borehole.
In the vast majority of states the law requires that abandoned wells be sealed and done so by a specific process using specified materials, the end result of which is, within the casing, a more secure seal than the original strata provided. The grout around the casing, which is put in place during the original drilling, seals between the casing and the borehole and is a well understood process used in all forms of rotary drilling over the last century.
Frac’ing itself is hardly a new procedure and has been done for well over a half century on even water wells drilled in shale formations. Of course, those water wells are at least a couple of thousand feet shallower than natural gas and oil wells. (And were migration a factor, we’d have already been drilling for oil and gas at those water well levels, wouldn’t we?) Present day frac’ing is a result of combining what we’ve learned about horizontal, or slant, drilling with frac’ing water and oil wells. There are conventionally developed oil wells on islands in San Pedro/LA harbor which extract oil from five miles offshore and they’ve been operating safely for decades.
Most of the water wells which have been reported to be contaminated with methane have been shown to have been contaminated before the gas drilling even took place. Chances are, if you live in Dimock, PA, you’ve got methane in your water, from your water well. And have since the well was drilled, and every well before it, going back as far as we can tell.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Sway21 Sway21 May 19, 2013, 1:54 PM
Legitimate environmental concerns get overshadowed when certain activists take the position that any technological advancement in oil and gas extraction which increases the readily available supply of each must, by definition, be a hazard to the environment. Protesting an industry does not constitute a refutation of a technology, and it seems that the principle argument against frac’ing is that it is a procedure conducted by the oil and gas industry, and we’re all supposed to know what that means.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sault Profitsup May 19, 2013, 2:12 PM
Keep your blatant political screeds that have no factual basis off of these boards. If you don’t like how the Scientific Method works or how to conduct proper scientific discussions, don’t go posting your garbage on the SCIENTIFIC American website…
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sault centromere May 19, 2013, 2:24 PM
Do you even know what an anecdote is?
And why do I have to repeat myself to people so often? How can fracking be safe when this is happening?
“But at some point in future, all of these wells will begin to produce water that carries toxic and even radioactive contaminants leached from the surrounding rock along with lots and lots of salt. That is already happening; contamination seems to be showing up in the state’s rivers, streams and other waterways, according to the review.”
“And shallow wells fracked in other regions, such as West Virginia and Wyoming, have contaminated the groundwater.”
You can’t just dismiss these reports with a waive of the hand.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup sault May 19, 2013, 3:00 PM
Sir I am well aware of the Scientific method as having been involved with Chemistry for 60 years. You are political for you try to use a hypothesis as a PROOF – there has been no peer review of any of the E=GREEN statements – like AGW – how can there be peer review when the data sets used in the computer modeling program are not disclosed?
If you can not review the hypothesis methods and duplicate the results [conclusion] then you have nothing scientific but you have made a purely political statement that you can not back up with facts.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
SigmaEyes May 19, 2013, 6:29 PM
I live in PA. Since fracking came to PA, I was awakened by the first earthquake I ever experienced. We are the furtherest distance from a tectonic plate boundary of just about anywhere on Earth. Because of the geology in PA, earthquakes travel more efficiently here (rock).
Many toxic substances are disposed of in deep wells. But the exemption from the regulations that oil and gas enjoys means their disposal wells are not similar. And it has been found, that the toxic materials that are supposed to be disposed of under the regulations are sometimes diverted to the wells used to dispose of fracking waste. There have been convictions in court for this.
I am pleased that PA does not allow fracking waste water to be injected in our state. But much is shipped over the border to OH and injected there.
Confidentially be dammed, fracking recipes need to be disclosed before dumping / injecting, not after as is the new direction of federal regulations. The IRS can keep confidential information from competitors, so the EPA can keep recipes confidential. This is a false pretense in the argument. The real issue is traceability of contaminants and the ability to prove in court the cause and effect relationships.
Out west is the largest drinking water aquifer in our nation. There are 10’s of 1,000’s of fracking and disposal wells there. When contaminations leach up to the aquifer, we will not be able to determine it until the damage is widespread and we are unable to do anything about it except abandon it’s use. This will create a national crisis of water and food. We continue to draw water off the top of this aquifer, and tell ourselves we are monitoring it and it is safe. In risk management, it is the %age of risk times the cost of consequence. At this aquifer, no matter what you argue the risk is, the consequence is so high that fracking must be stopped.
Fracking has been done for decades and started with oil wells that went dry, and then dynamite was used to restore production. This is why so many workers claim it is both safe and proven. But now the sheer number of wells poses risks that did not exist over the previous 60 years. Also, more is known now then then; and the cocktails are different.
Fracking cannot be proven safe at the scale it is now being conducted. We cannot stop fracking until it is somehow proved safe. We need common sense, science, prudence, balance, and the removal of buying legislative votes, to progress in our own best interest. We will only get that to some degree.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
SigmaEyes May 19, 2013, 6:51 PM
The article lists some ingredients such as coffee grounds. This implies something innocuous and a main component. The initial recipe contaminates, and the ones picked up underground, can be removed (except radiation??), under current technologies and at current scale. It is not done because of cost.
The price of natural gas has fallen from $9/unit to $3/unit because of the increased production. There is cost room to decontaminate disposal water rather than injecting it. This would also decrease the burden that fracking creates and provide more potable water for communities. Injection of fracking waste seems dumb to me in a age of water shortages in CA (1/3 our population) and recycling awareness / knowledge.
The fall in natural gas prices has hurt the pace of solar and other renewables; yet it has not held down the price of gasoline, oil, or crude. I guess that has to do with transportation vs electrical production. So I support using natural gas for tractor trailer trucks for this reason. Lower gas prices would mean slower moves to EV’s. In a perfect world, I would take a different position, as I oppose fossil fuels; but to be pragmatic, the benefits to fracking should include transportation (I still rely on fossil fuels).
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup May 19, 2013, 7:29 PM
Pure POLITICAL Sierra Club rhetoric – Share with all some facts – not just blanket indictments of misinformation – You all find some little bit of truth and try to apply it to global system that you have no idea of how they work or do not work. The largest earth quake in the US are here . . how close are they to Penn?
48 States
Maps of the Largest Earthquakes in the United States
Location Date Time UTC Magnitude Damage
Photos Isoseismal
Map
1. Cascadia subduction zone 1700 01 26 UTC ˜9
2. Fort Tejon, California 1857 01 09 16:24 UTC 7.9
3. San Francisco, California 1906 04 18 13:12 UTC 7.8
4. Imperial Valley, California 1892 02 24 07:20 UTC 7.8
5. New Madrid, Missouri 1811 12 16 08:15 UTC 7.7
6. New Madrid, Missouri 1812 02 07 09:45 UTC 7.7
7. New Madrid, Missouri 1812 01 23 15:00 UTC 7.5
8. Owens Valley, California 1872 03 26 10:30 UTC 7.4
9. Landers, California 1992 06 28 11:57 UTC 7.3
10. Hebgen Lake, Montana 1959 08 18 06:37 UTC 7.3
11. Kern County, California 1952 07 21 11:52 UTC 7.3
12. West of Eureka, California 1922 01 31 13:17 UTC 7.3
13. Charleston, South Carolina 1886 09 01 02:51 UTC 7.3
14. California – Oregon Coast 1873 11 23 05:00 UTC 7.3
15. N Cascades, Washington 1872 12 15 05:40 UTC 7.3
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sault Profitsup May 19, 2013, 9:02 PM
Classic red herring your reeled in there! NOBODY thinks fracking causes the largest earthquakes. It’s the dramatic uptick in magnitude 3, 4, or even 5 earthquakes experienced in some areas. Do you really think this approach is going to fool anybody?
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
SigmaEyes Profitsup May 19, 2013, 9:45 PM
This was the first earthquake in our area in my lifetime that could be felt. It awoke me. There was a previous one since the fracking boom, but few claimed to have felt it. There was another that was stronger, but that goes back to the 17 or 1800’s. This part of PA does not get earthquakes for hundred year periods, and much longer. But now people out in western PA are reporting several, if not many, as Sault has stated, in the magnitudes of 3’s and 4’s. But they are closer to fracking. (thank you again, Sault~ I like reading your comments)
There are fault lines here, as there are most anywhere. But we are very very far from subduction zones or plate interactions. This area is rock. So here quakes are transmitted farther. The one I felt, however was centered only ten or twenty miles from my residence.
I have no relationship to Sierra Club. I have stated facts as I know them, and clearly point to opinion by phrases such as, “I believe” or “I think.” There were news reports with research on quakes, faults, and history in this area. You are free to research what you will. I read many of them. My opinions are based on what I remember from them. I am not terribly uninformed about a quake that struck so close to my home.
I do not have authority to make indictments. These are comments, and I offer my opinions and thoughts to contribute my 3 cents worth. I do not believe I offered any misinformation, and you have not identified any.
There is something called projection. When you accuse others of being political, or mis-informative, or misusing data, it might very well be that you would do well to consider your own words or actions. You may be projecting your own tactics onto others.
In the interests of honesty, I am politically active and oriented to some degree. We all should be.
I did not cite cause and effect. The fact that unusual frequencies of quakes are reported in Al, or around that large aquifer, or in PA seems to create a pattern with fracking that I presume would show statistical significance. I have neither the data or the interest in doing the calculations because it would not change a thing. I think current data could show significance, and I believe current trends will show correlation at some point.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sault Sway21 May 19, 2013, 10:50 PM
There is still no way you can be sure the cement in the borehole won’t eventually develop fractures where gas and contamination can migrate to permeable strata. Or that the rock will never shift in a way that will crush the steel and cement encasing the borehole. And given that we knew hardly anything about the ways gas and contamination can move around underground decades ago when a lot of older abandoned wells were drilled, there is no way you can safely claim that these wells pose no threat when the strata they go through are fracked later on. And considering that regulators have done horrible jobs in keeping pollution from spreading even when they DID know the dangers involved, you cannot claim that every single abandoned well is completely safe.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
SigmaEyes May 19, 2013, 11:29 PM
I read a story about drilled wells in TN. A federal inspector was doing a field inspection, and all looked OK. But this inspector, without a word of explanation, grabbed a shovel and started digging about five or ten feet from the drill head and equipment. Then he moved to another spot close to the head and began again. And again. When asked what he was doing, he did not explain.
After several digs, he struck a horizontal pipe. There was no legitimate reason for the pipe. He dug it out and it led to the well head. It seems the driller had tapped the head to bleed the evidence of a leaking casing off underground to a discharge far enough away that the inspector would never find it.
This inspector had formerly worked for a different driller, and learned of the practice. Therefore, the inspector knew what to look for. But this was the first inspector who did. This was not an unusual industry practice prior to an inspection. In fact, it had been going on for decades.
I do not have first hand knowledge of this story. It was on TV back when news legally had to be news, accurate and factual, not speculative. Commentary and pundits had to be separated from news by law back then.
My point is that I’m absolutely certain that some drillers are trustful. But when a whole industry is tainted, you better hold onto scrutiny for a very long time!
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Dr. Strangelove May 20, 2013, 8:45 AM
Professional geologists and geophysicists I talked to (not connected with shale gas fracking) aren’t concerned with the risks. They say the risk is exaggerated in the media. The problems are due to poor well design and engineering. And this is not unique to shale gas fracking. They are common to oil, gas and geothermal wells.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sault Dr. Strangelove May 20, 2013, 11:55 AM
And the fracking companies think they can get away with shoddy drilling and wastewater disposal practices because there aren’t nearly enough regulators to adequately observe the 1000’s of wells being drilled. While the special exemptions they get from the Clean Air Act and Clean Drinking Water Act along with the utter lack of transparency in drilling operations and the risks involved give them a free pass to take risks with people’s health and property around their drilling operations.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
greenhome123 May 20, 2013, 12:48 PM
Just because no one immediately drops dead as a result of fracking doesn’t mean it is safe. And, just because it has been done for 60 years doesn’t mean it is safe either. That is like saying my grandma smoked cigarettes for 60 years and she is still alive, so cigarettes are not bad for your health. It may take 100 years or longer for the toxic hydraulic fracturing fluid chemicals to make their way into our groundwater. No chemicals should be allowed to be injected into the ground that are not in compliance with the US Safe Drinking Water Act.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Dr. Strangelove sault May 20, 2013, 10:02 PM
It’s a problem of regulation and implementation by government and companies. If there are reckless drivers, should we ban cars as a public hazard? IMO no but strictly enforce regulations and punish violators.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
dalbert May 20, 2013, 10:57 PM
I quickly scrolled through the comments. I don’t think anyone mentioned that we can’t keep burning natural gas much longer anyway. It’s a fossil fuel, so it adds to CO2 in the atmosphere. According to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2012, at the rate we are building fossil fuel energy infrastructure now, we will have built enough in less than a decade to take us beyond 2 degrees C of warming. This assumes we will use this fossil fuel infrastructure to the end of its life (usually the most economical choice). It’s time to start the transition to clean renewable energy, and leave the fossil fuels in the ground.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Dr. Strangelove dalbert May 21, 2013, 11:15 AM
US shale gas can probably last 100 yrs of domestic use. True or false, not everybody believe in 2C warming. That governments aren’t doing enough to regulate CO2 emission means they don’t believe AGW is catastrophic. That voters don’t elect environmentalists shows they don’t care either. It seems the consensus is only among scientists. And there are also dissenters.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup SigmaEyes May 21, 2013, 1:06 PM
Are you not trying to prove a negative . . ? As for earthquake in your life time does not even indicate any trend or causation . . There are fault zones that are miles deep . . one such unknown deep fault caused a very damaging Northridge Quake in California. You do not have to be in a subduction zone as the underground magma can push up the rock and create inland cracks and earthquakes. Keep in mind that all Continents are floating islands that are moving on the molten earth core.
Not one single case of water contamination was from DEEP injected water . . the few were from surface contamination and accidents. Pointing to a few accidents and trying to expand that is pure speculation. Like the E=GREEN myth of PEAK OIL – they were preaching it for over 10 years – we now have greater fossil fuel reserves identified than at any time in History.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup Profitsup May 21, 2013, 2:21 PM
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
rknight101 May 22, 2013, 10:29 AM
No, fracking can not be done “safely” :
Chemical and Biological Risk Assessment for Natural Gas Extraction in New York
Ronald E. Bishop, Ph.D., CHO
Chemistry & Biochemistry Department
State University of New York, College at Oneonta
Sustainable Otsego
March 28, 2011
Summary:
Over the last decade, operators in the natural gas industry have developed highly sophisticated methods and materials for the exploration and production of methane from unconventional reservoirs. In spite of the technological advances made to date, these activities pose significant chemical and biological hazards to human health and ecosystem stability. If future impacts may be inferred from recent historical performance, then:
• Approximately two percent of shale gas well projects in New York will pollute local ground-water over the short term…
• More than one of every six shale gas wells will leak fluids to surrounding rocks and to the surface over the next century.
• Each gas well pad, with its associated access road and pipeline, will generate a sediment discharge of approximately eight tons per year…
• Construction of access roads and pipelines will fragment field and forest habitats, …
• Some chemicals in ubiquitous use for shale gas exploration and production, or consistently present in process wastes, constitute human health and environmental hazards when present at extremely low concentrations…
• Exposures of gas field workers and neighbors to toxic chemicals and noxious bacteria are exacerbated by certain common practices, … These methods, along with the intensive use of diesel-fueled equipment, will degrade air quality and may cause a recently described “down-winder’s syndrome” in humans, livestock and crops.
• State officials have not effectively managed oil and gas exploration and production in New York, evidenced by thousands of undocumented or improperly abandoned wells and numerous incidents of soil and water contamination…
Overall, proceeding with any new projects to extract methane from unconventional reservoirs by current practices in New York State is highly likely to degrade air, surface water and ground-water quality, to harm humans, and to negatively impact aquatic and forest ecosystems. Mitigation measures can partially reduce, but not eliminate, the anticipated harm.
http://www.sustainableotsego.org/Risk%20Assessment%20Natural%20Gas%20Extraction-1.htm
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup rknight101 May 22, 2013, 10:44 AM
Pure E=GREEN GRANT SCIENCE – if his numbers were even in the proper order of magnitude there would be hundreds if not thousands of damage examples. However there have been thousands and thousands of fracked well over the last 60 years and they have found not one valid example. Only a limited number of accidents and one well head failure.
This is at best a straw man argument and the straw man is down.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
peacehere May 22, 2013, 1:45 PM
It is totally beyond me and will be so in the future, that big energy companies do not put all their energy, money and geniality in the finding and exploitation of new tecnologies of generating energy, and let go of the whole idea of wanting to have oil and gas. If it is a matter of money, please think again.
It is beyond me that anyone would even want to take the risk of creating a tremendous environmental hazard, however infinitesimal that risk might be. Apart from fracking it is simply ridiculous to keep using fossil energy, while there is so much free energy all around us with solar energy and tidal energy, and as some say, free energy (you’ll find a way to make us pay, don’t worry!).
This is spaceship Earth and all of us, including plants and animals, depend on abundant clean water, clean air and nutritious food.
Don’t do statistics, don’t take any chance and enjoy this marvellous place in space!
So, Shell and Envron and other multinationals, please do us all a favour, do your research, come up with the solution and find something that makes us want to pay for quite happily. You DO have the resources, both in money and people. And we will sing your praise for a long time to come.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup peacehere May 22, 2013, 2:19 PM
Solar technology is maybe 30 years out . . to be cost efficient – Germany, Spain and Italy proved that all current solar systems cost four or more times what gas turbines or Nuclear or coal. Yes even the environmental costs for solar are greater than the other systems.
Wind turbines do not produce power 24/7/365 so like solar each much have a 100% base load system standing by so that even further increases the cost for solar and wind power.
There is no such thing as free energy . . wave motion or tidal power are systems that try to exist in a very corrosive salt water environment . . the maintenance costs are huge and the useful life of the system will be short.
So, the choice is quite simple – Nuclear or Fossil fuels unless you are far off the grid.Other systems can be a temporary source of some amount of electric power but no back up means down time will be frequent.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Dr. Strangelove peacehere May 23, 2013, 1:34 AM
Yes it is for money. Companies exist for profit. Fossil fuels are cheap. Companies just give what consumers want. Consumers want cheap energy. CEOs want huge bonuses. Stockholders want high share prices and dividends. Everybody happy. Who cares about spaceship Earth? That’s the sad truth.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
rknight101 Profitsup May 23, 2013, 2:22 AM
You spew a lot of industry SMOG without facts to back it up.
Cite one non-Big Oil sponsored study to back up your ridiculous claims.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup rknight101 May 23, 2013, 5:22 PM
Is a oil company paying for a study any different than your E=GREEN groups like Sierra Club and Earth Defense paying for the research? How about the EPA which is populated with political E=GREEN employees that are not Scientists buying research – if you like just Google the studies that have received a PROOF after a full peer review . . OIL is a natural product . . all life is based on CARBON except some creatures that exist in deep ocean volcanic vents which produce very hot sulfur water – those life forms are sulfur based.
Nasty snarkey remarks will not win the debate – facts and scientific proofs win arguments. Give some a try you might learn a few things.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup Dr. Strangelove May 23, 2013, 5:25 PM
The Earth is self curing . . all things that were here a billion years ago are still here. The life forms change but the law of energy never changes – for you can not create or destroy energy – you can only change its form.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
greenhome123 May 23, 2013, 5:30 PM
Burning fossil fuels pleases God, similar to how God likes it when people sacrifice animals for him. Solar and Wind Energy are the work of the devil because they result in less fossil fuels being burnt, which really pisses God off.. There are evil forces out there, aka the EPA, who are trying to prevent people from expressing their religious freedom of burning fossil fuels in the name of the lord 🙂
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup greenhome123 May 23, 2013, 5:33 PM
That is the single most silly post I have ever read . . you are proof that the E=GREENS are uneducated bullies that majored in social minority studies. Get a JOB.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup May 23, 2013, 5:56 PM
You might want to read this white paper . . Humm?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/20/ice_sheets_more_stable_than_thought/
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
karl May 28, 2013, 8:10 PM
Like the other fracking (BSG type) it can be done safely but few will feel encouraged to do it.
As I understood fracking means cracking the gas containing stone to make it release the gas, and then collect the gas like other processes, how on earth (or caprica) can that be done safely, if you use enough energy to crack the gas rich stones, how do you prevent the same energy to crack nearby stone that holds the gas there?
as a Galactica fan I found a lot of double entrendre sentences in the article, but that only for conosieurs.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup karl May 29, 2013, 8:39 AM
Deep earth quakes crack stone and ever rise to the surface – for they are called volcanoes and they have not ruined the earth. They follow all tectonic plates and encircle the earth. Oh no run and tell the E=GREEN leader – SIERRA CLUB AGAINST VOLCANOES.LOL
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
eco-steve June 2, 2013, 4:13 PM
When the costs of depollution are included in the costs of production, fracking will be a far less attractive proposition.
All underground extraction sites are susceptible to geological relaxation. When you take things out of the ground you change the local gravitational forces which redistribute the tensions in existing fracture patterns, creating leaks. Inevitable, which is why burying highly radioactive wastes is not an option….
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Profitsup eco-steve June 2, 2013, 4:29 PM
The GIANT E=GREEN LIES = cost to clean up damage that can not be proven even occurred. Use the EPA and the Endangered species acts to sue multiple times by the Sierra Club, then the next group and then the next group.
After they have delayed the projects for decades in many cases – like the Nuclear Power plants – after they make the project financial capital being wasted on Lawyers and study after study the E=GREEN then say it is just to expensive to build.This is used to delay – kill highway projects – power plants [even solar plants].
They will not even address the real objective of their organizations. One of the groups head Scientist a few years ago said their goal was to REDUCE THEE GLOBAL POPULATION BY 2/3 so it could be sustainable in their definition.
If the public at large knew what these EXTREMIST desire they would not give them one penny.It is now coming out that they are just not truthful and have caused more damage to the ecology on a global basis by chasing heavy industries out of America and Europe to the third world where they emit ten times the pollution that was being produced before the E=GREEN so called improvements.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Frackingisbad FracMaster June 2, 2013, 4:49 PM
“”dump the water back down deep underground” The places where the water is injected is in formations that have water that is many millions of years old. The contaminated water is usually better than what is already there.”
Yes, take water from the watershed and contaminate it and put it back into the earth with more worst water. Its a great idea! Its not like no one in this world has any problems with trying to find clean drinking water while here we are taking it for granted and wasting it.
You might as well waste the sand with it too while your doing that, using the topsoil that is now becoming too expensive for small farmers to buy, the people who raise our food.
Please explain why this different method of extracting oil is the future and oil will last for many many future generations with no apparent limit, creating ‘no problems’ on the way(*couch* *cough* economic impacts: less economic diversity, lower levels of educational attainment, more income inequality between households, less ability to attract investment. Along with wear on roads paid by taxes we pay, water and air pollution[silica dust=silicosis], small risks of earthquakes in areas where just 1 minor earthquake can cause soil liquification and destroyed the whole town[Ex: my hometown])
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
zelskid Traveler 007 December 27, 2013, 11:56 AM
That is b#ll sh#t
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
zelskid December 27, 2013, 2:17 PM
Please join us on Face Book Group: No Fracking Way. Best source of fracking info.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
zelskid Traveler 007 December 27, 2013, 2:18 PM
What a crock
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AlextheGreatest September 13, 2015, 7:45 AM
Profits up science down and frackmaster wouldnt know science if it hit them in their senile old heads
Clearly fossil fuels are to blame for the senility of those two old fossils 🙂
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-fracking-be-done-without-impacting-water/?nocache=1#postcomment

Obama Has Done More for Clean Energy Than You Think
The Great Recession enabled bold steps to seed a clean-energy revolution

By David Biello | September 8, 2015
agua-caliente-solar-farm
AGUA CALIENTE: This big solar project in Arizona is just one of the large clean power plants enabled by the Energy Department’s Loan Program Office.

Courtesy of NRG
More on this Topic
A Historical Tour of the Clean Energy Future
A Historical Tour of the Clean Energy Future
How Far Does Obama’s Clean Power Plan Go in Slowing Climate Change?
How Far Does Obama’s Clean Power Plan Go in Slowing Climate Change?
400 PPM: What’s Next for a Warming Planet
400 PPM: What’s Next for a Warming Planet
How Solyndra’s Failure Promises a Brighter Future for Solar Power
How Solyndra’s Failure Promises a Brighter Future for Solar Power
A blue-black field of 5.2 million solar panels tilted toward the Arizona sun might just be the Hoover Dam project of the Great Recession. The Agua Caliente Solar Power Project hosts nearly 300 megawatts of silicon photovoltaics (PV) that turn sunshine into electricity. That made the Yuma County facility the largest working solar farm in the world when it opened in April 2014. But when it comes to mega–energy projects, Agua Caliente has competition, including four of the world’s largest solar-power plants to use the sun’s heat and one of the largest wind farms on the planet. And its all thanks to billions in loans from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office (LPO).

The most important thing the Obama administration has done to combat climate change may not end up being raised fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks or even its Clean Power Plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The most important thing may turn out to be the loans that enabled large power facilities that run on sunshine or Earth’s heat to break ground out west, wind farms to be built from coast to coast and construction of the nation’s first brewery for biofuels not made from food—as well as a host of other advanced manufacturing energy projects.

The loan program got its start a full decade ago with the Energy Policy Act of 2005—legislation that aimed to provide incentives to produce energy in the U.S., whether by drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico or building new power plants. Only companies with established credit histories, however, like utility giant Southern Co., could take advantage of the loan program created by that bill. Companies behind new, alternative energy projects, like electric-carmaker Tesla Motors, typically did not have the benefit of such track records, however. As a result, almost no one applied for a loan.

So in 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to deal with the economic fallout of the Great Recession, the loan program got new terms. Most importantly, the federal government agreed to take more of the financial risk for renewable energy projects. The result was a stampede of applications. “There were hundreds of applications and 15 people working as hard as they possibly could when I got there,” recalls Jonathan Silver, who became head of the LPO in 2009 and is now a managing director at Tax Equity Advisors and a clean-energy investor and consultant. “We were building this car as we drove it, which is not easy.”

The loan program still required innovative technology, defined as “new or significantly improved technologies as compared with commercial technologies” (with commercial defined as used in three or more other projects over more than five years), but suddenly had a lot more money, specifically some $16 billion to loan before September 2011 on top of the $56 billion already available. The program also had the full expertise of the Energy Department to evaluate projects and help new technologies overcome the hurdles to commercialization, often dubbed the “valley of death” by those in the finance and tech industries. Those innovations range from the basic layout of solar farms of more than 100 megawatts to storing sunshine in molten salts and using lens to concentrate it and improve photovoltaic efficiency.

Between March 2009 and August 2010, when the window closed for new applications, the loan program received hundreds of submissions. By September 2011, the $16 billion had been loaned to various renewable energy projects. An additional $16 billion in loans, guarantees or commitments have been made since then, including $8 billion to help build the nation’s first new nuclear reactors in more than 30 years in Georgia.

The biggest challenge the loan program faced may not have been public criticism of failed deals like Solyndra, Fisker Automotive and Beacon Power or technology letdowns such as the Ivanpah solar-thermal power plant producing less electricity than expected. Rather, the biggest challenge came from within the Obama administration itself, particularly the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which stood athwart greater ambition. For example, one deal, dubbed SolarStrong, would have loaned $344 million to put solar panels on housing on military bases across the country. But OMB axed the deal because budget rules require it to assume that the Department of Defense might not have the appropriations to repay the loan in future decades. “At which point, all you can do is go home and have a scotch,” Silver recalls.

“Military appropriations are not considered permanent appropriations,” explains Peter Davidson, who oversaw the LPO from 2013 to June of this year. “It’s the environment we have to work in, we try and do what we can.”

In the end, the LPO’s successes helped kill off some of its own portfolio of projects. Building utility-scale solar photovoltaic plants like Agua Caliente and Antelope Valley helped render obsolete solar thermal power plants like Ivanpah and Solana as silicon technology improved dramatically and costs dropped whereas the price of steel and glass remained relatively high. Large photovoltaic installations also helped make solar panels so cheap that it drove companies like Solyndra—whose business model relied on PV remaining expensive—into bankruptcy. “We were simply financing the best deals available,” Silver says, noting that the program could not independently seek out good projects. “The single thing that bound all these applications together was not their size or technology or geography or financing structure. The single thing that bound them together is that they applied.”

SEE ALSO:
Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Tech: Helmet Sensors Reveal the Real Impact of Head Injuries | The Sciences: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
That also means the loan program may have taken too little risk. The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments to the U.S Treasury to date. At least $5 billion more is expected over the next few decades as loans are paid back. That compares with $780 million in losses to date, the bulk of which is accounted for by the $535 million loaned to Solyndra. And more money could be made if the program were to ever sell its group of loans rather than managing them for the next few decades.

Already, Tesla has repaid its $465-million loan nine years early, thanks to the innovative financing terms devised in its deal, part of $3.5 billion in loans that have already been repaid. Such advanced vehicle loans, for projects like Ford’s EcoBoost engine, will help achieve the Obama administration’s higher fuel-efficiency standard. Combined, these fuel-efficiency technologies are expected to help save some 600 million metric tons of CO2 per year compared with existing vehicles. Elsewhere, 1366 Technologies, another loan recipient, may yet make silicon photovoltaics even cheaper with its new, less wasteful manufacturing technique. And wind turbines produce electricity at a price that is now competitive with burning fossil fuels.

Private banks have followed where the LPO first tread, building 17 additional photovoltaic power plants larger than 100 megawatts. “Since September 2011 more than 1,700 megawatts of solar [PV] projects have been built,” Davidson notes. “There is not one dime of federal financing in any of those projects. That, for us, is a success.” And the solar-thermal technology in use at facilities like Crescent Dunes is also being built worldwide, in countries like Chile and South Africa.

But much more is needed to accomplish an energy transition that would see U.S. greenhouse gas pollution drop by 80 percent in the next 35 years. That’s why some would like to see the loan program turned into a kind of permanent green development bank, although that is unlikely to happen in the current political environment. That’s even though the LPO is a bipartisan achievement, launched under Republican Pres. George W. Bush and accelerated and amplified by the Democratic administration of Barack Obama. “Let’s take the profits back and turn it into an evergreen fund,” Silver suggests.

Regardless, the success of the loan program with Recovery Act money encouraged the Obama administration to reopen solicitations for loan applications in 2013: $8 billion for “advanced fossil projects,” including coal, gas and oil, especially employing technology to capture and store CO2; $4 billion for renewable and energy-efficiency projects; and $12 billion for advanced nuclear projects, including any efforts to build the first so-called small modular reactors in the U.S.

All told, there is still $40 billion waiting to be used in the loan program, including the money in its Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program for electric cars, better batteries, more efficient engines and the like. Still a large portion of all those monies may never be used, given the challenges faced by carbon capture and storage and nuclear, although there is an “active pipeline” of projects being evaluated, according to Energy Department spokesman Brian Mahar. The loan program also now hopes to receive applications for Distributed Energy Projects, including solar on home rooftops, grid batteries and similar technologies, though that will likely require bundling together a large number of these typically smaller clean energy projects.

Still, the loan program is not what it once was, helping to turbocharge a clean-energy economy. But it did seed the ground for an energy revolution with some 30 major projects so far, 20 of which are already producing clean power or churning out clean vehicles. All that is left to fight about is the speed at which clean energy will grow. “We launched the utility PV and cellulosic ethanol industry,” Davidson says, just as federal investment helped enable everything from the origins of the Internet to hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”).

These clean-energy projects will prevent the emission of some 14 million metric tons of CO2 and the clean-power plants will produce enough electricity for more than one million average U.S. homes, by Energy’s estimates. These technologies will be available to help states meet the CO2-reduction goals laid out in the Clean Power Plan, already proved to work and just waiting to be built. The Obama administration has left a clean-power legacy that will stand as facts on the ground in the fight against climate change.

Rights & Permissions
Share this Article:

Comments

jamesfrancissweeney September 8, 2015, 10:35 PM
The Hover Dam is around 2000 Mw. This is all day and all night.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
GFORCE jamesfrancissweeney September 10, 2015, 1:37 PM
Hoover Dam has been steadily derated because of drought and now has an operational capacity of just 1,573 MW (it would be 105 MW less but BuRec just installed low-head turbines). Nevertheless, if drought continues to impact Lake Mead in the way it has over the past two decades, “dead pool” could very well be reached in the next two decades. It is only because of the large amount of — albeit intermittent — solar added in the Desert Southwest in the past three years that the region has adequate supplies.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
GFORCE September 10, 2015, 1:42 PM
I fully agree with the author on the significance of the LPO program.
One important correction, however: Agua Caliente does not include any “silicon photovoltaics”. All 5.2 mn of its solar panels are cadmium-telluride thin-film modules made by First Solar.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
jerryd September 10, 2015, 2:45 PM
Let’s remember Solyndra was a Bush program as were the auto company bailouts which accounted for most of the losses, not Obama.
Obama just had to come in and clean up the mess and recovering as much of Bush’s losses as possible.
Obama’s part actually made fairly good money.
What is needed now is home, building solar CSP with biomass/wood pellet, etc burner backup and trough collectors with low cost heat storage for up north power, heat 24-7.
Also small 1-5kw wind generators with 2kw a sweet spot.
These need mass production, the WT’s from the 30’s are still working great, to being the cost down and start up factories.
The Solar./biomass engine is little different than a central home A/C run in reverse and can be made on the same production line.
New tech is cool but we need to get the tech we already have, need into mass production first.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
birdonawire September 10, 2015, 6:53 PM
The best thing Obama can do to boost clean energy is to support R&D and commercialization of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor technology. All he really has to do is either reduce or waive NRC fees for reviewing and approving new reactor design technology. That’s about $2B per design. Peanuts considering the value of a safe new source of clean energy nearly too cheap to meter that will also permanently end the problem of nuclear waste disposal.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Sirkulat September 11, 2015, 12:33 AM
One point of disagreement I hold and would appreciate its hearing. Nevermind market forces which favor large PV arrays, I believe advanced Tesla battery technology is more broadly applicable to Plug-in Hybrid EVs and small scale rooftop PV arrays. The rationale behind my opinion is in regard to land-use and development patterns that benefit alternate yet fundamental modes of urban/suburban travel – mass transit, walking and bicycling. Additionally, PHEVs matched to rooftop PVs may complement regional utility grids for a much greater number of households than all-battery BEVs like Tesla and Nissan Leaf. Though all households with EVs and rooftop PV arrays gain the choice to use electricity for home use or for driving, those with PHEVs gain more economic incentives/disincentives to reduce average driving distances whereby more trips become possible without having to drive, thus offering more opportunity for local and transit-oriented economic development.
This viewpoint is based on the opinion that we drive too much, obviously, fly too much, truck and ship goods around the world too much. In my opinion, the self-driving autonomous car is a pernicious ruse. If it were technologically feasible – which it isn’t – it would do nothing to reduce traffic congestion nor the various severe impediments motor vehicles pose upon communities and structural economics. The technologies we should pursue are those which reduce routine long-distance travel and transport, not those which maintain the status quo of globalization, exotic air travel, rush hour commuting. The 200+ mile Tesla range encourages longer drives. The limited all-electric range of a PHEV, 10-40 miles, encourages households to use electricity and fuels more sparingly. Wholesale conversion to PHEVs has more potential to reduce overall fuel/energy consumption than all-battery BEVs.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sirebral jerryd September 11, 2015, 1:09 PM
jerryd
You are repeating a comment made by President Obama as fact. It is not. Maybe he can blame President Bush for other things, but FactCheck.org has made the case that he was not altogether truthful in his “spin.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/obamas-solyndra-problem/
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
WilliamHG September 11, 2015, 4:24 PM
The offices of the fossil fuel lobbyists must sound like hornet nests that have been poked with a stick as they try to find a way to scupper this effort.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AlextheGreatest September 13, 2015, 7:50 AM
Nice article, except remove the part about fracking being good for the environment. It’s not and new research proves it isn’t and that’s why it is now illegal in NYS.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.
Also, the USGS found a 500x increase in Mag 3-5 earthquakes over the last 10 years due to fracking and that’s why more intense regulations are now going into effect across the heartland.

Nice article, except remove the part about fracking being good for the environment. It’s not and new research proves it isn’t and that’s why it is now illegal in NYS.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.
Also, the USGS found a 500x increase in Mag 3-5 earthquakes over the last 10 years due to fracking and that’s why more intense regulations are now going into effect across the heartland.

A Historical Tour of the Clean Energy Future
A progress report on ARPA-E’s efforts to clean up energy production
By David Biello | April 1, 2015
artificial-leaf
ARTIFICIAL LEAF: Sun Catalytix hoped to turn its sunlight-and-split-water system into a cheap source of power for homes with help from ARPA–E.
© David Biello
More on this Topic
The Future of Energy: Earth, Wind and Fire
The Future of Energy: Earth, Wind and Fire
Hoover Dam rose out of the frenzied efforts to combat the Great Depression. Similarly, the fields of heat-focusing mirrors in the California desert known as the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility might come to represent the frenzied efforts to keep the Great Recession from turning into a full blown depression.

“In past recessions, we had great projects come out,” said Michael Splinter, executive chairman of Applied Materials, at the inaugural Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy summit in 2010. “We need a Hoover Dam of solar; maybe we just surround the Hoover Dam with solar? What are we going to point to in 30 years and say: That came out of the Great Recession of 2009?”

ivanpah-solar-facility

Perhaps the legacy of this recession will be something a little less physically imposing, however. Perhaps it will be ARPA-E itself, the only agency to come out of the 2009 stimulus effort, even if the fledgling organization has yet to fund the invention of a technology as world-changing as the Internet.

ARPA-E started in 2009 with a budget of $400 million, about one third of what its intellectual predecessor, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) got for its start in 1962. With ambitions to instigate a second industrial revolution, the agency received proposals for some 3,700 would-be world-changing energy technologies and handed out $151 million to 37 of them, ranging from turning water and CO2 into fuel with nothing but sunlight to better batteries. The largest single award, for $9.1 million, went to Foro Energy to help develop laser drilling that could make it cheaper to tap Earth’s heat to generate electricity.

ARPA–E’s offices within the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) are meant to feel more like a Silicon Valley start-up than a part of a sclerotic bureaucracy tasked primarily with minding nuclear weapons and their legacy. ARPA–E staff, including directors, serve three-year terms. The short time frame is meant to inspire the “fierce urgency of now,” a quotation from Martin Luther King, Jr. that hangs on the wall of DoE HQ, a concrete block building on stilts with row after row of box windows. The plan was to be a government agency that did not fear risk—a bureaucracy without bureaucrats. “We wanted to be measured in our craziness,” Arun Majumdar, ARPA-E’s first director, told me in 2013 after he had left the agency. “It is early and you want to create a reputation of solid foundations in technology which are risky but not wacky.”

The question, even back in 2010 at the inaugural ARPA–E summit, was whether any of the proposed innovations were truly game-changers. “Business as usual and the pace of innovation is just not fast enough,” Majumdar said at that time.

Defense industry mandarin Norman Augustine, for one, felt that the agency represented an inflection point. The former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, who has chaired innumerable government reports, including the one that birthed ARPA–E, and a master of escape velocities, may have felt that the agency represented a shift from old thinking to new, but most of the first 37 projects represented ideas already circulating for years, such as turning algae into fuel or using carbon fiber to improve fuel-efficiency in cars. Thanks to ARPA-E, they were being pulled off the shelf, dusted off and funded anew, perhaps because of the enthusiasm for “shovel-ready” stimulus projects.

pine-fuel

Five of the first 37 funded projects aimed to develop a cheaper way to capture the CO2 spewed by the nation’s hundreds of coal-fired power plants. Unsatisfied with so few projects for such a critical technology, however, Majumdar created an entire program—Innovative Materials and Processes for Advanced Carbon Capture Technologies, or IMPACCT for short—to add another 15 projects aimed at reducing the cost of capturing of CO2. “We need to develop technologies to do fossil fuels cleanly,” Steven Chu, then secretary of Energy, told me in 2010. Of course, none have accomplished that goal, yet.

Other would-be “home runs,” to use Majumdar and Chu’s preferred baseball metaphor, included Sun Catalytix’s attempt to power homes using only sunlight, chemistry and water:
An attempt to make a giant battery out of liquid metals inspired by the electricity-heavy process of making aluminum from bauxite that would spawn the company Ambri:
A better way to make solar cells by pouring silicon like pancake batter to make wafers rather than sawing wafers out of big ingots. That innovation came from a company named 1366 after the amount of sunlight in watts that hits each square meter of the planet:
ARPA–E lacks the budget to tackle something as sprawling as the grid or as expensive as building a new kind of nuclear reactor. The technologies it has funded that are most likely to succeed include batteries to store the energy generated by nighttime winds and better photovoltaics to turn sunlight into electricity. In just six years the agency has also created a new research community focused on using microbes to turn carbon dioxide—the leading greenhouse gas causing climate change—into fuel, although such electrofuels remain a long way from life outside the science lab.
By 2011, ARPA–E’s investment in inventing the future of energy had spread to 121 projects in seven core areas with catchy acronyms, like Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation or BEEST. “Just like Intel inside your laptops, I hope you have BEEST inside your electric cars in the future,” Majumdar told the crowd at the agency’s second summit. “How do we win the future? We invent affordable clean technology.”

ARPA-E projects are rife with acronyms and out-there program names like electrofuels or REBELS (Reliable Electricity Based on ELectrochemical Systems). Majumdar himself helped come up with PETRO, or Plants Engineered to Replace Oil, in a flurry of e-mails over a weekend. But the agency has no direct ethanol program and Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee (R), one of the political fathers of ARPA–E, used the summit stage in 2011 to call for the abolishment of never-ending subsidies for ethanol from corn and other “mature” energy sources like coal, gas and oil.

By 2011, Majumdar and Chu could extol the more than $200 million in private funding that followed ARPA–E’s investment in certain of these technologies, such as Ambri’s batteries or 1366’s wafer-making technique. The Department of Defense became a major customer that year—if not the major customer—of some of these energy innovations, too. “Changing the way we produce and use energy is fundamentally about improving the national security of this country,” said Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy in 2011, noting the Navy’s history of fuel switches—from wind to coal in the 19th century and coal to oil supplemented by nuclear over the course of the 20th century. “I am confident—as we lead again in changing the way we power our ships and aircraft—that the naysayers who say, ‘It’s too expensive; the technology is not there,’ are going to be proven wrong again.”

Progress will more likely be measured in carbon dioxide molecules not emitted into the air and barrels of oil not imported but it might take as long as 20 years for any of that to not show up. DARPA took 10 years to lay the foundations of what would become the Internet, and it required several decades after that for the Web to conquer the world. In the absence of an energy tech equivalent of the Internet, ARPA–E has had to focus on some nearer term wins, like harnessing the flood of cheap natural gas released by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Even as early as 2011 Majumdar was scheming to tackle problems with natural gas. “We need this to be a bridge to somewhere rather than a bridge to nowhere,” cautioned Ernest Moniz, the physicist who would succeed Chu as Energy secretary, at the 2011 summit. “Somewhere is zero carbon, which would be coal and natural gas with carbon capture and storage, and renewables.”

Better batteries—a constant in ARPA–E funding—are also part of the mix, and the focus of the agency’s highest profile failure: Envia. At the 2012 summit, Majumdar and others extolled the start-up, which was founded in a public library in Palo Alto, Calif., and one of the 37 initial awardees, for achieving power densities of 400 watt-hours per kilogram, results that were independently verified by Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Ind. The battery maker signed a deal with GM to help power the Chevy Volt or another electric car but ultimately failed to deliver. In the same vein Sun Catalytix had to shift focus from the artificial leaf to flow batteries in order to survive, and several of the would-be CO2 capture techniques also dropped out. “I don’t call them failures, I call them opportunities to learn,” Majumdar told me in 2012.

On the other hand, Tesla’s Elon Musk used the ARPA–E stage in 2013 to foreshadow the repayment of his company’s loan from the federal government nine years early and with interest. “The DoE loan to Tesla should be viewed as a pretty significant success,” Musk said. “If people are going to attack DoE for Solyndra, for goodness sake, then there should be some praise for DoE with success.”

The liquid-metal battery concept became a company known as Ambri, now churning out commercial batteries at its new factory in Massachusetts; 1366 also built a manufacturing facility in the state. Google has taken ownership of a bid to build kites from carbon fiber that would harvest the energy in the steady winds of the stratosphere, known as Makani Power after a Hawaiian word for wind.

makani-flying-wind-turbine

Still, ARPA–E’s current ambitions seems to have shrunk, from funding electrofuels to better air conditioners and better windows. “A 50 percent improvement in how much fuel you need to run an air conditioner is not incremental, but it is not sexy,” admitted the agency’s second director Cheryl Martin in 2013. “Once you demonstrate that it’s possible, then the world changes.”

These arguably unsexy wins serve perhaps to safeguard ARPA–E’s current $300 million or so a year of funding, already a far cry from the $1 billion per year recommended by ARPA–E’s intellectual founders or, more recently, the corporate heavyweights of the American Energy Innovation Council, including Augustine. All told, ARPA–E has invested a total of roughly $1.1 billion in more than 400 projects.

Even sustaining that level of support looks challenging. “Hard choices are going to have to be made about what types of energy investment provides the best return with the broadest impact,” Randy Weber a Republican congressman from southeast Texas and chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, told the crowd at ARPA–E’s most recent summit.

The vision of a clean energy future is little better than a mirage without the resources to invest in it. Without sustained support for innovation, when the next oil shock hits the U.S. we will be unprepared to deal with it—again. “Every time the price of oil goes up we panic, and when it goes down we hit the snooze button,” Chu said back in 2011. “Let’s take a longer term, more measured approach.”

ARPA–E has not had enough time to be judged a success or a failure, although some are already willing to make that call. One is Fred Smith, CEO of FedEx, who at the 2012 summit said, “Pound for pound, dollar for dollar, it’s hard to find a more effective thing government has done than ARPA–E.”

The game is not changed, nor is the world. Global oil consumption exceeds 90 million barrels per day and civilization burns more than seven billion metric tons of coal each year—both numbers have grown in the short span of ARPA–E’s existence. As a result, nearly 40 billion metric tons of CO2 are invisibly spewed into the air each year and its atmospheric concentration has hit levels not seen in the entire existence of our species: 400 parts-per-million. U.S. energy security has been delivered by fracking for oil and natural gas in North America as well as mandatory efficiency measures aimed at making cars and trucks burn less fuel per kilometer. Jobs in manufacturing continue to dwindle in this country although the general economy has recovered from the worst of the Great Recession.

The arc of an energy transition may be long, but it bends toward clean. The International Energy Agency noted that in 2014, for the first time in 40 years, pollution from the energy sector did not grow, even as the global economy did. That’s primarily thanks to China burning less coal. And even though India hopes to burn more, ARPA–E may yet help with that. “Maybe we should have the ARPA–E exhibit in India?” Secretary of Energy Moniz mused on stage at this year’s summit.

“An exhibit like this in India would be swamped,” responded Ratan Tata, chairman of the Tata Group and a billionaire businessman who sells everything from trucks to tea. “People are hungry for ideas and they don’t exist in India.”

“Maybe we have an action item,” Moniz said. “I think it could really have an impact.”

That is also the hope of ARPA–E’s new director, chemist Ellen Williams, formerly of the University of Maryland and oil giant BP. Her goal is to expand the impact of ARPA–E, whether that be improving the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, a cheaper battery being made in a garage in Harlem or even something weirder yet.

ellen-williams-rides-in-3d-printed-car

Martin, the agency’s previous director, has a different metric for impact. “In 2060 someone else will say if we were a success,” she told me in 2013. Success may prove a long time coming but if it comes, it will come as a clean energy future that ARPA–E helped invent.

SEE ALSO:
Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Tech: Helmet Sensors Reveal the Real Impact of Head Injuries | The Sciences: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
Rights & Permissions
Share this Article:

Comments

Shane April 7, 2015, 12:19 AM
It is always just staggering when I read articles like this. People, graduate students, professors and home builders have been working on these problems for a long time. Suddenly throwing money at them will not help. This article treats these things as though no one is working on them until money from the feds is thrown at it. All the money in the world can’t solve these issues, slow methodical research and development is the only cure. Don’t fund 37 projects, fund 15,000 students of the sciences. The odds are way better and they will create something more important than anything you have currently thought of.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Mark65165106 April 27, 2015, 5:50 PM
But of course throwing money at it is the way to go. How was the space race won? How are military threats dealt with (and warming + overpopulation + resource depletion is a threat at least as serious as any other on the horizon)? Of course research is half of the solution.
The other half the of the issue is political. Some statutory reform would be nice too, such as cutting fossil fuel subsidies and allowing green energy tech to flourish. For example, this company fights programmed obsolescence: http://www.iwop.es/. (the guy was threatened for it, too, read here http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fight-against-consumerism-and-planned-obsolescence-the-everlasting-light-bulb/5336950) There is a relation between Big Business and its lobby power and the maintenance of the status quo, too – which is why many number of great products don’t thrive, creating the appearance that the problem is technically insolvable (or it ‘would have been solved by now’) when it isn’t.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AlextheGreatest September 13, 2015, 7:52 AM
Nice article, except remove the part about fracking being good for the environment. It’s not and new research proves it isn’t and that’s why it is now illegal in NYS.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.
Also, the USGS found a 500x increase in Mag 3-5 earthquakes over the last 10 years due to fracking and that’s why more intense regulations are now going into effect across the heartland.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Post a Comment
You are currently signed in as AlextheGreatest. If this is incorrect, please sign out.

Comments or accounts in violation of our community guidelines may be removed. Submit
More from Scientific American

Follow Us:
Most Popular
2 Accelerators Find Particles That May Break Known Laws of Physics

Evidence for Person-to-Person Transmission of Alzheimer’s Pathology

NASA Struggles over Deep-Space Plutonium Power

Mysterious New Human Species Emerges from Heap of Fossils

Multivitamins Are a Waste of Money, Doctors Say
Solve Innovation Challenges

Portable Roof Damage DetectionDeadline: Nov 10 2015
Reward: $75,000 USD The Seeker desires a technology that can detect seen and unseen anomalies, such as hail damage, on asphalt shingle roofs. The technology Engineered Surfaces, Materials and Coatings for Aircraft Drag ReductionDeadline: Sep 21 2015
Reward: $100,000 USD The Ohio Aerospace Institute (OAI) and its Engineered Surfaces, Materials and Coatings (ESMC) Team, under contract with the Air Force Re
More Challenges »
Powered By: Innocentive
Latest from SA Blog Network

#DispatchesDNLee 2015 Week 10 Update
The Urban Scientist|2 hours ago
Tiny Metaphors for an Ever-Changing World
Symbiartic|12 hours ago
#NaCl2015: I’m salty but is that always bad?
The Urban Scientist|September 12, 2015
The Humble Art of Sketching
Symbiartic|September 11, 2015
Lessons from Killer Snails: A Q&A with Biologist Mande Holford
Observations|September 11, 2015
News From Our Partners

Reuters
More than 100,000 Flee Floods in Japan after “Once-in-50-Years” Rain
Nature
Cryptographers Brace for Quantum Revolution
TechMediaNetwork
Confirmed: Wing Part Is From Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight
Climatewire
Southern Ocean Sinks Carbon
Science Jobs of the Week
http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/400-ppm-and-climate-change/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/400-ppm-and-climate-change/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-natural-gas-will-reduce-global-warming-pollution/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sorry-state-u-s-s-nuclear-reactor-fleet-dwindles/
http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=1531e66318265132cde25d4f51a2a5d4%7E1442145307264%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1442145307264%7E711%7E9%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E9%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAI1RTW_UMBD9K-TQEzuRv-0sF7ggISEuVQ-cVo7jJGazdhS7REXIv53ZFtpLpeKvGfl5np7nzaWsN_zTDfuMa9_3NrvgYwljcPbiNzxj69IFQbuV4BaP2Zx2GO0GQ_IZUm8vFjIgZCOsafcbrAumU4IQIS9pD3FCOFxs8eBmG6crSQXNjBDScCqpotpI03V1_m85_ZImDGvKBUOe0_0ywO6h2LOHXPyaoSRYN_8T68Euv2YfkAEMoxrl2jjAardziDnFf5cuxWKnkOJVH0dptWpKK5O6Eq2Ep72Ubuy6jnkmlLVaazIKqgYu3n5Qaw7FfxmOSnSCayIl40QoIRmRJ_zdasMUERaCIsCFptwIqrnileAUlZJOVnc-tacnotMrRO9fiE6vErH6kNCE-y1efdpSfxAH2pIj7o-UkA9Hcvj912kIF2xfztgPGJeUnt8zSQiWPIXnqsq4qXe3zV1EdcO724J25wa9bb4-xH5L6dxIQhtBWiW1IaoBzVul2eMtpVLx5tv3anrVGcbUSGmnnJNEUqt5P3rivGGuq_iRlrVMtpR1Nf9wFOwaCFWsjnbJvj6ON834A_5zKhr3AgAA

Full Professorship for Gastroenterology and Hepatology
University of Zurich
Postdoctoral Research Assistant
Queen Mary University of London
Chancellor’s Fellow
University of Edinburgh
More jobs from Naturejobs.com »
risk free title graphic YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription. cover image Subscribe Now
© 2015 Scientific American, a Division of

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-historical-tour-of-the-clean-energy-future/?nocache=1#postcomment

How Far Does Obama’s Clean Power Plan Go in Slowing Climate Change?
The U.S. energy transition will continue under the new plan, but it needs to move even faster

By David Biello | August 6, 2015
wind-farm
WINDS OF CHANGE: The Clean Power Plan will boost renewable energy, like wind farms, but also preserve the role of fossil fuels, especially natural gas.
More on this Topic
400 PPM: What’s Next for a Warming Planet
400 PPM: What’s Next for a Warming Planet
“There is such a thing as being too late when it comes to climate change,” Pres. Barack Obama said in unveiling the administration’s Clean Power Plan at the White House on August 3. “The science tells us we have to do more.”

An analysis by Scientific American suggests that the president is right: the Clean Power Plan alone is not enough. The plan, which goes into effect in 2022 and aims to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent by 2030, will lock in an energy transition that is already underway. But the roughly 1,000 fossil fuel–fired power plants in the U.S. will largely continue to operate as usual, using some combination of efficiency improvements, emissions trading and offsets to meet Clean Power Plan state targets.

“Coal and natural gas will remain the two leading sources of electricity generation in the U.S.” the plan admits. Together, the fossil fuels are anticipated to provide roughly 60 percent of U.S. electricity in 2030, or just 7 percent less than the amount generated from those same fuels in 2014. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expects natural gas to predominate, displacing coal as the number-one fuel for power generation.

But natural gas has already displaced coal over the past decade, cutting U.S. CO2 emissions from the electricity sector by roughly 16 percent. That’s half of the ultimate total reduction the Obama administration expects under the Clean Power Plan—a full seven years before the program even begins. In other words, the plan is really a way to ensure that the U.S. power industry doesn’t backslide into more polluting forms of electricity generation.

The plan relies on three basic options to lock in and drive future reductions: improving the efficiency with which power plants burn coal; swapping natural gas for coal; or replacing electricity generated from burning fossil fuels with electricity generated from renewable resources, such as the wind, water, sun and geothermal heat. Such shifts lead the EPA to project the full 32 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. “The nerdier way to say that is that we’ll be keeping 870 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution out of our atmosphere,” Obama said.

That is significant. But it is also not enough. Here’s what the plan delivers versus what climate scientists say we need:

OVERALL EMISSIONS

Clean Power Plan: Assuming the Clean Power Plan is fully implemented in all 47 affected states, U.S. CO2 emissions just from generating electricity will still add more than 1.7 billion metric tons to the atmosphere each year in 2030—more than the combined emissions of the entire economies of Germany and the U.K. today.

Scientists say: To avoid 2 degree Celsius of warming the world should restrict total emissions of CO2 to no more than one trillion metric tons before 2050 and not exceed atmospheric concentrations of 450 parts per million. There are already nearly 600 billion metric tons of extra CO2 in the atmosphere because of fossil fuel burning, forest clearing and other human activities—a number that increases by roughly 50 billion metric tons per year. These figures suggest that pollution must peak before 2020, a full two years before the plan even comes into effect. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are already higher than 400 ppm. The cuts included in the plan are a first step but will not be enough to combat climate change.

THE ROLE OF NATURAL GAS

CPP: Natural gas will become the single largest fuel for electricity generation, and gas-fired power plants will run more often—75 percent of the time, up from roughly 50 percent today. Existing nuclear plants do not help states meet emission-reduction targets. Only “uprated” or new nuclear power plants, like those under construction in Georgia and South Carolina, can help ensure compliance. And in case the electricity supply falters, the plan offers exemptions in the form of a so-called “reliability safety valve”—a 90-day period when emissions will not count against a state’s reduction goals in the event of emergency, such as extreme weather or a nuclear power plant that must unexpectedly shut down.

Scientists: Natural gas is better than coal—when gas replaces coal as a fuel to generate electricity, CO2 emissions are cut in half—but it still produces CO2 when burned. And when the methane it contains leaks into the atmosphere, it acts as a potent greenhouse gas itself. When natural gas replaces nuclear power, however, CO2 emissions rise, and cheap natural gas can prevent renewable power from being built in the absence of mandates or other policies. Natural gas power plants will still be emitting 771 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity at the end of the Clean Power Plan in 2030, adding yet more to the thickening blanket of atmospheric greenhouse gases and potentially slowing the shift to even cleaner forms of electricity generation, such as renewables or nuclear. “I usually compare natural gas to reduced-fat Oreos,” says environmental scientist Steven Davis of the University of California, Irvine. “They may have less calories than the regular ones but if you are morbidly obese, you should be looking for an apple.”

SEE ALSO:
Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Tech: Helmet Sensors Reveal the Real Impact of Head Injuries | The Sciences: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
THE FATE OF “CLEAN” COAL

CPP: Capturing and storing CO2 pollution from coal-fired power plants is too expensive, says the EPA in the plan, although it is “technically feasible” and “adequately demonstrated.” To meet the Clean Power Plan’s emission standard for coal (1,305 lbs/MWh) a new coal-fired power plant would have to capture roughly 20 percent of its CO2—which is why operators are more likely to simply switch to burning natural gas in a combined-cycle turbine than install CO2 capture.

Scientists: All CO2 pollution from coal-fired power plants must be kept out of the atmosphere by 2050 and global pollution must peak around 2020.

CAP AND TRADE

CPP: Individual states will have to craft plans to meet the EPA’s new CO2 reduction targets. States that fail to submit a plan by 2018 or submit an inadequate one will be placed into a national cap-and-trade program. Multistate trading regimes, like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative of nine northeastern states, are the preferred option per the EPA. States or generators that exceed mandated reductions can sell those reductions to other states or generators that are struggling to replace coal.

Scientists: Pollution markets can be gamed, especially when subject to a patchwork of rules. Such gaming has been found in international carbon markets, such as the Clean Development Mechanism or the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme as well as regional markets like the Acid Rain Program.

THE NEED TO ACT QUICKLY

CPP: The Clean Energy Incentive Program, a component of the plan, encourages states to make changes early by offering extra emission credits. “We’ll reward states that take action sooner instead of later, because time is not on our side here,” Obama explained. The EPA will provide pollution allowances or emission-reduction credits for those states that take early action, up to a cap of 272 million metric tons of CO2 among all 47 affected states.

Scientists: It is cheaper to act sooner than later to reduce CO2 pollution. The faster pollution goes down, the less risk of catastrophic climate change.

The Clean Power Plan also cannot encompass other looming challenges from climate change, such as more acidic oceans or tipping points that could lock in the meltdown of ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica, raising sea levels by many meters this century. These kinds of “important impacts” cannot be monetized, according to the EPA, and therefore suggest that the $20 billion in anticipated climate benefits of the plan are an underestimate. “I don’t want to fool you here. This is going to be hard, dealing with climate change,” Obama added. “It’s exactly the kind of challenge that’s big enough to remind us that we’re all in this together.”

As the plan notes, climate change has become the most pressing environmental problem facing the U.S., especially since “the full warming from any given concentration of CO2 will not be realized for several centuries, underscoring that emission activities today carry with them climate commitments far into the future.” This plan is likely the most the U.S. can do given current political realities and therefore is an important step, but that doesn’t mean it’s sufficient.

Rights & Permissions
Share this Article:

Comments

jerryd August 6, 2015, 9:32 PM
The US will easily meet these rather mild goals. Just solar which is 2% now including behind the meter solar which EIA doesn’t count.
But increasing 40%/yr that is 3% next yr, 5% the yr after, 7% in just 3 yrs, 10% in 4 yrs with 14% 5th, 20% 6th, 28% in the 7th yr.
And that doesn’t include wind, biomass, cogen, new hydro too.
Wind is likely to just take over Mississippi to the mountains where it is winning most contracts. Along the east coast the sea breeze comes noon to 8-9pm peak.
2030-2045 river, tidal steady base power will move way up along with overbuilding wind, solar using the surplus to make synfuels from air CO2, water, energy, by the FT process, etc with 30 million V2G EV’s sinking and producing power on demand to balance the grid will take care of most energy needs at less than we pay now as 200 mile range EV’s cost less than the average car price next yr with the Chevy Bolt with other just behind it.
Fact is we will blow right through Obama’s goal yrs early as homes, buildings, factories, etc just make their own power and fuels locally.
Both FF producers and utilities will be small shells of what they are now in 30 yrs and down 30-45% in 15 yrs .
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sofistek August 7, 2015, 6:57 AM
Which scientists say “To avoid 2 degree Celsius of warming the world should restrict total emissions of CO2 to no more than…”? It’s actually, “to have some chance of avoiding 2 degree C of warming, the world should restrict …”. Any restriction is not guaranteed to keep warming below 2C, only to have a chance of such an outcome. Even a realistic plan that met the mild targets, that was fully acted on, may not keep warming to 2C so a backup plan is needed. James Hansen thinks warming of more than 1C would be very dangerous. This year, we’re already at 1C, so we already need to be aware and plan for wilder weather and other effects of warming.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AlextheGreatest September 13, 2015, 7:57 AM
Nice article, except remove the part about fracking being good for the environment. It’s not and new research proves it isn’t and that’s why it is now illegal in NYS.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.
Also, the USGS found a 500x increase in Mag 3-5 earthquakes over the last 10 years due to fracking and that’s why more intense regulations are now going into effect across the heartland.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Post a Comment
You are currently signed in as AlextheGreatest. If this is incorrect, please sign out.

Comments or accounts in violation of our community guidelines may be removed. Submit
More from Scientific American

Follow Us:
Most Popular
2 Accelerators Find Particles That May Break Known Laws of Physics

Evidence for Person-to-Person Transmission of Alzheimer’s Pathology

NASA Struggles over Deep-Space Plutonium Power

Mysterious New Human Species Emerges from Heap of Fossils

Multivitamins Are a Waste of Money, Doctors Say
Solve Innovation Challenges

The SUDEP Institute Challenge: Preventing Epilepsy SeizuresDeadline: Oct 13 2015
Reward: $30,000 USD Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the leading cause of death in young adults who have epilepsy and poorly controlled seizur Portable Roof Damage DetectionDeadline: Nov 10 2015
Reward: $75,000 USD The Seeker desires a technology that can detect seen and unseen anomalies, such as hail damage, on asphalt shingle roofs. The technology
More Challenges »
Powered By: Innocentive
Latest from SA Blog Network

#DispatchesDNLee 2015 Week 10 Update
The Urban Scientist|2 hours ago
Tiny Metaphors for an Ever-Changing World
Symbiartic|12 hours ago
#NaCl2015: I’m salty but is that always bad?
The Urban Scientist|September 12, 2015
The Humble Art of Sketching
Symbiartic|September 11, 2015
Lessons from Killer Snails: A Q&A with Biologist Mande Holford
Observations|September 11, 2015
News From Our Partners

Reuters
More than 100,000 Flee Floods in Japan after “Once-in-50-Years” Rain
Nature
Cryptographers Brace for Quantum Revolution
TechMediaNetwork
Confirmed: Wing Part Is From Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight
Climatewire
Southern Ocean Sinks Carbon
Science Jobs of the Week

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sorry-state-u-s-s-nuclear-reactor-fleet-dwindles/

Full Professorship for Gastroenterology and Hepatology
University of Zurich
Postdoctoral Research Assistant
Queen Mary University of London
Chancellor’s Fellow
University of Edinburgh
More jobs from Naturejobs.com »
risk free title graphic YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription. cover image Subscribe Now
© 2015 Scientific American, a Division of N
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-natural-gas-will-reduce-global-warming-pollution/?nocache=1#postcomment
Fact or Fiction?: Natural Gas Will Reduce Global Warming Pollution
Has burning natural gas instead of coal helped the U.S. economy decarbonize? It’s complicated

By David Biello | August 3, 2015
pennsylvania-freacking
Is natural gas enough to combat climate change?
A drop in U.S. carbon dioxide pollution in recent years stems from burning natural gas instead of coal. Or does it? Given that the U.S. bid to combat climate change through actions like the Clean Power Plan relies on more burning of gas than coal in power plants, that answer is both politically and scientifically important.

Compared with coal, burning natural gas results in roughly half the amount of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity. Yet even half the CO2, when spread over hundreds of power plants,is too much to achieve such goals as a CO2-emission reduction of 80 percent by 2050 or 100 percent by the end of this century, in order to avoid more than 2 degree Celsius of global warming, more acidic oceans, inexorable sea level rise and extreme weather, among other unpleasant impacts predicted by scientists. Under the terms of the Clean Power Plan, the most advanced natural gas burning power plants can still emit 771 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced. So is natural gas a bridge to a cleaner energy future or a slightly longer route to climate catastrophe?

To answer that question the past may provide a rough guide. At roughly the same time after the turn of the 21st century the U.S. underwent a recession, an energy transition to more natural gas and a move away from producing highly polluting products such as steel. So which of these factors deserves the most credit for the accompanying drop in the nation’s global warming pollution? It’s an important puzzle to solve because recessions are not widely viewed as a policy option (advocates of “degrowth” notwithstanding) whereas the export of fracking—the process by which natural gas is extracted from shale rock—to other countries to help deliver a cleaner fossil fuel habit is.

To disentangle all these competing explanations or at least find out their relative importance, scientists have used a mathematical technique known as structural decomposition analysis. Here’s how it works: There is a big number to look at, say, total consumption in an economy. This big number can be broken down into contributing factors, such as population size and consumption per person. Hold population steady through time as total consumption changes and you derive the change in total consumption caused by a change in consumption per person. Then hold consumption per person steady while changing population size and you derive how much of total consumption comes from each of these factors.

A group of scientists and economists used such a mathematical analysis to look at U.S. CO2 emissions between 1997 and 2013, a period that saw total pollution drop by nearly 800 million metric tons, or roughly the annual pollution of Germany. The group looked at six different factors: population and consumption per person, but in addition shifts in consumption patterns; shifts in industry; the energy intensity of the economy; and changes in the fuel mix.

The study found that prior to 2007 (and, hence, the start of the recession), U.S. CO2 pollution continued to grow, largely because the economy continued to expand; people bought more and more. After 2007 U.S. CO2 pollution dropped but roughly 80 percent of that decline was because people and companies bought and built less stuff, supplemented by the shift away from heavy industry. This finding matches a slew of previous analyses by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and CO2 Scorecard, among others, that have also concluded that the 2008 great recession was largely responsible for the observed emission reductions. In fact, one warm winter in 2012 alone played an outsize role in recent CO2 reductions.

SEE ALSO:
Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Tech: Helmet Sensors Reveal the Real Impact of Head Injuries | The Sciences: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
Natural gas did play a significant supporting role in reducing pollution from the energy sector, however—a role that has increased over time as people and companies have started buying more stuff. The shift away from burning coal has counterbalanced population growth, according to this new analysis. In fact, cheap and abundant natural gas appears to have helped keep some 160 new coal-fired power plants from being built, which would have spewed hundreds of millions of metric tons of CO2 over the years.

Coal’s share of electricity generation in the U.S. has been dropping since 2009 and more than 180 gigawatts of power plants that burn natural gas have been built since 1990. The electricity from a one-gigawatt coal-fired power plant can be replaced by burning one billion cubic meters of natural gas instead, resulting in an annual savings of roughly three million metric tons of CO2 in addition to reductions in other air pollution, like the sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain or the nitrogen oxides that create smog. There is now 1.5 times more potential electricity generation from burning natural gas than from burning coal in the U.S., and coal-fired power plants representing roughly 7 percent of this country’s electricity generation are retiring this year, mostly in the eastern half of the country. An analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory suggests that natural gas and renewables like wind turbines and solar panels have picked up the slack produced by missing coal—the beginnings it seems of a long-term energy transition. More simply put, natural gas may be keeping a lid on growth in CO2 emissions from generating electricity in the U.S. at present.

But natural gas hasn’t just killed coal. From Florida to Wisconsin, gas-fired power plants are replacing nuclear ones. That fuel switch actually increases CO2 pollution, however. And, in the absence of mandates like renewable portfolio standards—mandates for a certain percentage of electricity to derive from renewable resources—natural gas could also prevent the building of wind and solar farms or geothermal power plants.

Furthermore, all those power plants that burn natural gas will still spew CO2, albeit less than the equivalent coal-fired power plant. In a world aimed at zero emissions, that reduction is not good enough ultimately. In fact, the more than 1,000 gigawatts of natural gas–fired power plants built around the world would spew roughly 300 billion metric tons of CO2 if operated over the next 50 years—or more than half of the world’s remaining carbon budget. Exceeding that budget may lock in the worst of climate change, whether fast sea level rise or extreme weather. Cheap natural gas may even slow the shift away from heavy industry in the U.S.: New fertilizer plants and chemical plants have already been built as a result of cheap and abundant natural gas and new steel plants may not be far behind. Finally, natural gas can leak, adding methane to the atmosphere, which also exacerbates global warming.

In the context of an energy transition that may take decades the U.S. does not have 20 years for natural gas to kill coal and replace oil in power and transportation, respectively, followed by another 50 years needed to replace now-entrenched natural gas with renewables and/or nuclear power plants powering electric cars and trucks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expects natural gas to be producing one-third of U.S. electricity in 2030 and technologies that might make natural gas near-zero carbon, like those that capture and store CO2, have yet to be tried or even tested on the gaseous fossil fuel.

For all these reasons, natural gas makes for a weak bridge to a zero-pollution future and truly clean power—one that cannot span more than a few decades. Still, a bridge made of gas is better than none at all.

Rights & Permissions
Share this Article:

Comments

JoshJansen August 4, 2015, 2:09 PM
One mention of methane, and no mention that it’s four times the warming gas that CO2 is.
Whatever, we’re burning it, right?
Ask the fracking industry how much of that stuff is leaking from their wells, or what their fracking liquid is composed of, or how much they lose while they drill or store.
These are numbers that no one will ever know, especially when there’s no federa standard for such a concept.
This is besides what the fracking liquid mines are doing in terms of earthquakes and the water table, which again, we’ll never really know because there are no government funded studies of these topics.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AlextheGreatest August 4, 2015, 3:37 PM
You’re absolutely right, and it isn’t 4 times, it’s actually that Methane is 86 times worse than CO2 and the generally accepted figure is there is a 5% leak! This has been published in the journal Science.
As far as earthquakes, the studies have already been done and we already know that fracking is resulting in a huge increase of mag 3-5 earthquakes; Oklahoma, Kansas, Ohio and NY have already or are passing new regulations on fracking now after the USGS showed that these types of earthquakes have gone up from 1.5 per year to 585 per year!
Nuclear is the only option and it’s already here- why go backwards to ANY fossil fuel? Kill the Keystone debacle and look to the nuclear future rather than the dirty fossil fuel past.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
wdemoss1 August 4, 2015, 7:24 PM
This article made no mention at all about the warming effects of methane leakage from drilling and processing. Methane on a per molecule basis is a much more powerful contributor to warming than CO2. How will this effect the global warming “budget”? Some estimates of the methane leakages from shale wells are enormous.
Extinguished flares, compressing, and leaks from the wellhead all spew methane into the air. How does this factor in to the warming reductions of lower CO2 emissions? We need a proper accounting before any conclusions can be made.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
rodnjik August 5, 2015, 9:51 AM
i find these statistics very interesting but hardly plausible. To base pollution levels on GHGs produced at the point of burning tells only half the story. What happens to the CO2 and other GHGs that come out of the well ? Some facilities re-inject these gases back into the reservoir, but not all do. And even those that do, cannot claim that the gas will remain there permanently. There is nothing “clean” or “natural” about gas and to suggest either seems to me to be irresponsible, unscrupulous and unprincipled.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
toilone25 August 5, 2015, 11:27 AM
Animal based agriculture requires 40% of the population and 40% of the land must be dedicated to feeding the horses an other draft animals. Life is trade offs, make sure you know what you are trading for.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
sabrina94 AlextheGreatest August 6, 2015, 11:51 AM
Nobel laureate James Lovelock tried to explain the need for nuclear power, but there is too much resistance. We are doomed.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
toilone25 rodnjik August 6, 2015, 4:16 PM
Under the existing regulatory regime it is illegal to vent or flare gas from an oil well. There is an exception for 6 months to allow the installation of marketing or re-injection facilities, but after that the well is shut-in until the gas can be captured.
You have been listening to too many “Gas Country” watchers.
As for staying there, the gas was there for hundreds of thousands if not millions of year. Other than recycling through production re-injection loop, why would it not stay there now?
Also, have you scrapped your car, sold your air conditioner, disconnected your house from the grid for gas or electricity? Quit using plastics and other substances produced from oil or gas. Moved to a farm, bought a horse for plowing. Obviously you are using a computer so your personal carbon foot print is there. You just want everyone else to live on dirt floors in a mud hut and eat bean, rats, and snakes.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
jerryd August 6, 2015, 10:05 PM
Alex I like nuke but for 1 new nuke kw at the present $10k/kw you can install 5kw of wind, 2 kw of solar and 10kwhrs of battery.
Just to clean one up is $1B which will along put in as much wind as the nuke was at recent bid lets on both/Songs.
Ng doesn’t have that much time either as DG home, building solar, wind starts really taking market share in leaps an bounds at present 40%/yr growth is 28% of US generation in just 6 yrs.
As for why is simple, clean power costs less because it doesn’t have FF expense and on DG, doesn’t have utility expense which increases the price 200-300%.
In DG the owner pockets those costs making a very nice profit and why coal is history soon in the US and NG not long afterward.
In 10 yrs they will cost too much and by 30 yrs mostly gone, priced out of the market by much lower cost clean power and syn fuels.
Utilities will be reduced to the grid transporting others selling their power, and a few peaking plants. E.ON in Europe is already doing this, selling off generation and reducing debt to survive the shrinking utilities.
And demand is shrinking because of CAFE, EnergyStar, building code from decades ago are finally getting the numbers to make a difference.
You can tell because even with the economy increasing since 2010, CO2 generation has been dropping in the US, proving we are reducing GHG’s.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
jamesfrancissweeney August 9, 2015, 8:45 AM
Interesting article. Two comments:
Methane is emitted by the earth naturally, see the many methane hydrate articles in SA. Consider the methane emitted at lower pressures and higher temperatures. Leak rates from commercial fuel operations can only be a small fraction of the total emission from the earth.
Track down an SA article on fuel re-processioning with modern methods and fast breeder reactors. These two topics eliminate the noxious waste problem of nuclear power and the “china syndrome” of current reactors; AND no harmful emissions. The negative and out of date political issue needs to be addressed to bring this advantageous situation to the attention of the public.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
horemheb August 14, 2015, 10:01 AM
” The electricity from a one-gigawatt coal-fired power plant can be replaced by burning one billion cubic meters of natural gas instead[…]”
What the what? A gigawatt is a measure of power, whereas a billion cubic meters of natural gas is a measure of energy. So no, one cannot “replace” the other.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
A Regular AlextheGreatest August 20, 2015, 6:51 PM
Alex, yourself and Josh need to go to “Methane” in Wikipedia to get corrected figures on both, the methane and CO2 greenhouse gas effects in the atmosphere. NOAA satellite surveillance and laboratory research has defined them for you there. The data you have presented is not the same. The natural gas industry will be useful short term compared to the fusion generators and thorium power plants now being in the experimental stage. The fusion power plant designs successful are expected to begin construction globally in about 10 years. They will be pollution free and use landfill or even raw garbage for fuel. The thorium plants will be pollution free as the ‘spent’ thorium will be recyclable. Study on them both. Sci.Am. has articles in their archives on these becoming power plants in the near future. Thank you both for being here.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
AlextheGreatest September 13, 2015, 8:01 AM
I’d rather read this, it shows what the new research says.
Thorium and fusion are extremely intriguing though.
Nice article, except remove the part about fracking being good for the environment. It’s not and new research proves it isn’t and that’s why it is now illegal in NYS.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/new-study-shows-total-north-american-methane-leaks-far-worse-epa-estimatesJust how bad is natural gas for the climate?A lot worse than previously thought, new research on methane leaks concludes.Far more natural gas is leaking into the atmosphere nationwide than the Environmental Protection Agency currently estimates, researchers concluded after reviewing more than 200 different studies of natural gas leaks across North America.The ground-breaking study, published today in the prestigious journal Science, reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has understated how much methane leaks into the atmosphere nationwide by between 25 and 75 percent — meaning that the fuel is far more dangerous for the climate than the Obama administration asserts.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733.summaryhttp://www.cgmf.org/blog-entry/92/Study-America’s-natural-gas-system-is-leaky-and-in-need-of-a-fix.
Also, the USGS found a 500x increase in Mag 3-5 earthquakes over the last 10 years due to fracking and that’s why more intense regulations are now going into effect across the heartland.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-far-does-obama-s-clean-power-plan-go-in-slowing-climate-change/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-has-done-more-for-clean-energy-than-you-think/?WT.mc_id=SA_ENGYSUS_20150910

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-accelerators-find-particles-that-may-break-known-laws-of-physics1/

ciences » News 10 Email Print
2 Accelerators Find Particles That May Break Known Laws of Physics
The LHC and the Belle experiment have found particle decay patterns that violate the Standard Model of particle physics, confirming earlier observations at the BaBar facility

By Clara Moskowitz | September 9, 2015
Particle tracks from LHCb experiment
A display from the Large Hadron Collider’s LHCb experiment shows the paths of particles such as leptons created in the collision of two protons at the accelerator. LHCb and another accelerator experiment, Belle, have found preliminary evidence that leptons do not obey the known laws of physics.

CERN/LHCb Collaboration
At the smallest scales, everything in the universe can be broken down into fundamental morsels called particles. The Standard Model of particle physics—the reigning theory of these morsels—describes a small collection of known species that combine in myriad ways to build the matter around us and carry the forces of nature. Yet physicists know that these particles cannot be all there is—they do not account for the dark matter or dark energy that seem to contribute much of the universe’s mass, for example. Now two experiments have observed particles misbehaving in ways not predicted by any known laws of physics, potentially suggesting the existence of some new type of particle beyond the standard zoo. The results are not fully confirmed yet, but the fact that two experiments colliding different types of particles have seen a similar effect, and that hints of this behavior also showed up in 2012 at a third particle collider, has many physicists animated. “It’s really bizarre,” says Mark Wise, a theorist at the California Institute of Technology who was not involved in the experiments. “The discrepancy is large and it seems like it’s on very sound footing. It’s probably the strongest, most enduring deviation we’ve seen from the Standard Model.” Finding such a crack in the Standard Model is exciting because it suggests a potential path toward expanding the model beyond those particles currently known.

The eyebrow-raising results come from the LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland and the Belle experiment at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) in Japan. Both observed an excess of certain types of leptons compared to others produced when particles called B mesons (made of a bottom quark and an antiquark) decay. Leptons are a category of particles that includes electrons, as well as their heavier cousins muons and taus. A Standard Model principle known as lepton universality says that all leptons should be treated equally by the weak interaction, the fundamental force responsible for radioactive decay. But when the experiments observed a large number of B meson decays, which should have produced equal numbers of electrons, muons and taus among their final products (after the different masses of the particles are taken into account), the decays actually made more taus.

Atom smashing

The LHC collides protons with protons, whereas the Belle accelerator smashes electrons into their antimatter counterpart, positrons. Both types of collisions sometimes result in B mesons, however, allowing each to measure the end products when the unstable mesons decay. In a paper published in the September 11 issue of Physical Review Letters, the LHCb team announced that they had observed a potential excess of taus about 25 to 30 percent greater than the frequency predicted by the Standard Model. Belle saw a similar, but less pronounced, effect, in data reported in a paper under review at Physical Review D. Both teams shared their findings in May at the Flavor Physics & CP Violation 2015 conference in Nagoya, Japan.

Intriguingly, both results also agree with earlier findings from 2012 (and expanded on in 2013) made by the BaBar experiment at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in Menlo Park, Calif. “By itself neither the Belle result nor the LHCb result is significantly off from the Standard Model,” says Belle team member Tom Browder of the University of Hawaii, who is also spokesperson of its successor project, Belle II. “Together with BaBar we can make a ‘world average’ (combining all results), which is 3.9 sigma off from the Standard Model.” Sigma refers to standard deviations—a statistical measurement of a divergence—and the usual threshold among physicists for declaring a discovery is five sigma. Although a 3.9 sigma difference does not quite hit the mark, it indicates that the chance of this effect occurring randomly is just 0.011 percent. “Right now we have three suggestive but not yet conclusive hints of an extremely interesting effect,” says theorist Zoltan Ligeti of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who was not involved in the experiments. “We should know the answer definitively in a few years” as the experiments collect more data.

If the discrepancy is real, rather than a statistical fluke, researchers will then face the tough challenge of figuring out what it means. “This effect is really not the kind that most physicists would have expected,” Ligeti says. “It is not easy to accommodate in the most popular models. In that sense it is quite surprising.”

For instance, the darling of so-called “new physics,” or beyond-the-Standard-Model, ideas—supersymmetry—does not usually predict an effect quite like this. Supersymmetry posits a host of undiscovered particles to mirror the ones already known. Yet none of its predicted particles easily produce this kind of violation of lepton universality. “I don’t think at this point we can say that this points to supersymmetry,” says Hassan Jawahery, a physicist at the University of Maryland and a member of the LHCb collaboration, “but it doesn’t necessarily violate supersymmetry.”

SEE ALSO:
Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Mind: Animals Have More Social Smarts Than You May Think | Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Tech: Helmet Sensors Reveal the Real Impact of Head Injuries
Yet if the signal is real, then some kind of new particle is probably implicated. In all B meson decays, at one point a heavier “virtual” particle is created and then quickly disappears—a strange phenomenon allowed by quantum mechanics. In the Standard Model this virtual particle is always a W boson (a particle that carries the weak force), which interacts equally with all leptons. But if the virtual particle were something more exotic that interacts with each lepton differently, depending on its mass, then more taus could be created at the end because taus are the heaviest leptons (and thus might interact more strongly with the virtual particle).

New Higgs or leptoquark?

One potentially appealing candidate for the virtual particle is a new type of Higgs boson that would be heavier than the particle discovered to much fanfare in 2012 at the LHC. The known Higgs boson is thought to give all other particles their mass. The new Higgs, in addition to being heavier than this known particle, would have other differing qualities—for example, to affect the B meson decays, it would have to have electromagnetic charge, where the known Higgs has none. “It would mean that the one Higgs we found so far is not the only one that is responsible for generating the mass for all the particles,” Jawahery says. Supersymmetry, in fact, predicts additional Higgs bosons beyond the one we know. Yet in most formulations of the model, these predicted Higgs particles would not create a discrepancy as large as the one showing up in the experiments.

Another option is an even more exotic hypothetical particle called a leptoquark—a composite of a quark and a lepton, which has never been seen in nature. This particle, too, would interact more strongly with the tau than the muon and the electron. “Leptoquarks can occur very naturally in certain types of models,” Ligeti says. “But there is no reason to expect them to be as low-mass as what would be needed to explain these data. I think most theorists would not consider these models particularly compelling right now.”

In fact, all of the explanations theorists can think of so far for the observations leave something to be desired—and do not do much to solve any of the larger outstanding problems of physics, such as the question of what makes dark matter or dark energy. “There’s nothing nice about these models—they’re just sort of cooked up to explain this fact, not to get at the trouble with other facts,” Wise says. “But just because the theorists are not comfortable with it, nature will do what nature does.”

There is also a chance, albeit slim, that physicists have incorrectly calculated the Standard Model’s predictions, and that the reigning rules still apply. “It’s possible the Standard Model calculation is not correct, but recent calculations have not revealed any serious problem there,” says Michael Roney of the University of Victoria in Canada, spokesperson for the BaBar Experiment. “It is also conceivable that the experiments have missed some more conventional explanation, but the experimental conditions at LHCb and BaBar are very different. In BaBar we have been continuing to mine our data in different ways but the effect persists.”

Physicists are optimistic the mystery will be sorted out soon with more data. In April the LHC started running collisions at higher energy, which for LHCb translates to more B mesons produced, and more chances to look for the discrepancy. Belle, meanwhile, is planning an upgraded experiment with an improved detector called Belle II scheduled to start collecting data in 2018. Both experiments should eventually find more data to confirm the effect, or see it fizzle if it was a statistical fluke. “If it is there then we have a huge program ahead of us for the next decade to study it in even more detail,” Jawahery says. “By then we would hopefully know what it also means, not just that it is there.”

brainburst1 September 9, 2015, 1:55 PM
I strongly disagree with these conclusions. The suppositions that there are new particles comes down to a deviation from a statistical expectations whereas it could be that genuine randomness exists. A statistical anomaly is just a statistical anomaly.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Vic1248 September 9, 2015, 2:35 PM
As much as I like Classical Physics, I have a lot of reservations on Theoretical Physics. That said, if those experiments are showing real phenomena and not a statistical fluke, that’s bad news for the Particle Physics Standard Model, which has been on shaky grounds for quite a while now.
And yes, it has been surprising and problematic to scientists that the discovered particle in July 2012 has a very much less mass than the predicted Higgs Boson Particle by the Standard Model. That issue has not been resolved as far as I know.
All that adds to the ambiguity of the “quantum effects” which seem to be “non-local,” as well as the direct collision course between Quantum Physics/Mechanics and the Theory of General Relativity over major issues, of which are gravity, time, and the fate of a quantum particle/system data (represented by the Wave Function) at the “Event Horizon” of a Black Hole.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
zghermann September 9, 2015, 10:27 PM
It is also possible that our scientific adventures have hit a very significant boundary.
And it is not a technological one but one that is based on perception of reality.
After all how do we expect for even the greatest present human mind, locked into the Newtonian, subjective, rigid coordinate system to depict, research, let alone understand a “quantum system” that behaves completely differently with infinite possibilities.
Science up to this point was based on the reality an unchanging self-centered observer depicted. From now on the observer constantly needs to change, achieve similarity with the system observed in order to enter it and understand it.
We just have to find the “human accelerator”, “human laboratory” to create such observers, new age scientists”.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Vic1248 SLTom992 September 10, 2015, 12:42 AM
I don’t know if particles’ lifespans and the Speed of Light are correlated. What I do know is that one of the conundrums in Quantum Physics/Mechanics is that the observation or measurement of an entangled-particle instantly determines the outcome of the other, which, in turns, violates Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity postulate that nothing can travel faster than the Speed of Light. Therefore, it is obvious that the “quantum entanglement” is a “non-local” phenomenon that cannot be explained by the Particle Physics Standard Model.
Regarding the size of the universe, it is ironic that science knows precisely the size of the “observable universe,” which is only 4%, and that it is finite, while it has no clue how big is the rest of the universe, the other non-observable 96%, and if it is finite or infinite.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
MrAptronym September 10, 2015, 4:31 AM
Well, that is why we do the tests after all. This is actually really exciting, we know the picture is incomplete and its only when you get to see the cracks like you can here that you can make progress forward.
Of course, it could be a statistical anomaly. I am sure they’ve calculated how likely that is, but I don’t see a specific mention here? Even so, this is one of the more exciting stories I will be following, if its verified this could lead to some further big discoveries.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
lyle918 September 10, 2015, 3:43 PM
The possibility of a new particle being found makes me ask how many things that have been predicted have not yet been found! It took many years to discover the Higgs particle that was predicted. Gravity waves have been predicted but none found (not to my knowledge). And one of my favorite ‘things’ that have been postulated are tachyons(I read a lot of Science Fiction)! Which leads to this question, if they are found, maybe they are what is causing dark matter and energy and the speeding up of the expansion of the Universe!
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
kebil brainburst1 September 10, 2015, 4:15 PM
Yes, it is a statistical anomaly. All modern particle physics comes down to statistics because of the probabilistic nature of quantum theory. We never know exactly what will happen in any interaction between two particles because many (every) things can happen.
This is why we use statistics, so we can tell how far our observations are from the expected distribution of possible outcomes, currently based on the Standard Model. A deviation of 3.9 standard distributions tells us this would be a highly unlikely result if the Standard Model is absolutely correct. If that model is correct, we would expect to see this collection of results only 0.011% of the time if we repeated these experiments many, many times. Thus, this is either a very unlikely, but purely random result, or there is some explanation beyond the standard model. Generally, if the results are 5 standard deviations from expected results, it is considered a novel finding.
It is important to remember that this is not just one or two observations that are different than we would expect, but millions or more. Further, it has been replicated at numerous sites using different equipment and different methods.
There is always a probability that this is just chance. The discover of quarks, neutrinos, the many different types of composite particles, are discovered this way. I know lots of people distrust statistics because of the adage that says you can use statistics to say anything you want. I prefer the words of Andrejs Dunkels who said “It is easy to lie with statistics. It is hard to tell the truth without it”.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
johnog September 10, 2015, 4:37 PM
Somehow my original ‘comment’ has not shown up. I find no reference to “preons” particles making up both leptons and quarks, as articulated in the main article in the Nov. 2011 issue, by (from the heading)
——
Don Lincoln, who has been interested in quark and lepton substructure for decades, is a senior physicist at Fermilab. He splits his research time between Fermilab and CERN and, in the occasional spare moment, also writes books and articles on particle physics for the public. He lives in the Chicago suburbs with his family and a particularly hirsute cat.
——-
The title:
The Inner Life of Quarks–What if the smallest bits of matter actually harbor an undiscovered world of particles?
——–
These results look awfully enticing in terms of “preons”, but, time will tell.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
scimus September 11, 2015, 7:20 AM
Paradigms are meant to be tested by such anomalies, but it requires a satisfactory theory the embraces both the successful features of the old paradigm and the anomalies to replace it. While these new observations and their interpretations may be fascinating, they are not yet logically equivalent to the Standard Model.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
dfgriggs September 11, 2015, 10:08 PM
MORE TAU BELLE (screamed Christopher Walken)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-for-person-to-person-transmission-of-alzheimer-s-pathology/

Prions are the misshapen proteins that replicate by inducing normal proteins to misfold and aggregate in the brain, leading to rare diseases such as mad cow and kuru. In recent years, scientists have discovered that similar processes of protein misfolding are at work in many neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease. Now, a study in Nature reveals the first evidence for human-to-human transmission of the misfolded proteins that underlie the pathology of Alzheimer’s disease.

The new findings draw upon earlier research conducted on a prion disease. Between 1958 and 1985, a number of individuals with short stature received shots of human growth hormone extracted from the pituitary glands of cadavers. The gland is a pea-sized structure that sits at the base of the brain. Some of these samples were contaminated with prions that caused certain patients to develop Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), a rare and fatal brain disorder. Treatments ceased once these reports came to light, but by that time an estimated 30,000 people had already received the injections. As of 2012, researchers have identified 450 cases of CJD worldwide that are the result of these growth hormone injections and other medical procedures, including neurosurgery and transplants.

Misfolding of the amyloid-beta proteins is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s. Previous studies have shown that minute amounts of amyloid-beta injected into animals such as mice or monkeys act as seeds that initiate a chain reaction of protein misfolding that resembles the pathology of Alzheimer’s. However, until now, no studies have found evidence that this process occurs in humans.

To explore the question of human transmission, John Collinge, a neuroscientist at University College London and his colleagues, conducted an autopsy study of eight patients who died from CJD after treatment with cadaver-derived growth factor. To their surprise, they found that six of the brains had the amyloid-beta pathology found in Alzheimer’s patients, and four exhibited some degree of cerebral amyloid angiography, in which amyloid deposits build up on the walls of blood vessels in the brain.

The patients were between the ages of 36 and 51—typically too young to exhibit Alzheimer’s pathology—and none of the individuals bore genetic mutations associated with early onset of the disease. All evidence pointed toward one possibility: Like prions, amyloid-beta seeds were in the growth hormone injections and infected these individuals. Although none of the brains showed any other Alzheimer’s disease markers, such as buildup of another misfolded protein called tau, the researchers suggest that had the patients not died young, they would have developed the disease later in life.

The research may be a first step toward answering the question of whether human-to-human transmission of pathological proteins is possible. “This is an observational study,” Collinge says. “We’re simply describing what we see in these patients and we are trying to explain that.” This study alone, he says, does not suffice to prove that the Alzheimer’s disease process can be induced in one individual through contact with another’s brain tissue. In a follow-up study, the researchers are hoping to obtain archived batches of the cadaver-derived human growth hormone to look for the presence of telltale, small clusters of amyloid-beta.

SEE ALSO:
Health: Researchers Seek Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs | Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren’t Always Greener, Data Show | Tech: Helmet Sensors Reveal the Real Impact of Head Injuries | The Sciences: The Mystery of the Cat’s Inner Eyelid
One prominent Alzheimer’s investigator—John Trojanowski of the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study—asserted that the research does not provide a clear answer about whether Alzheimer’s pathology can spread between humans. Trojanowski says that the study will “generate more confused thinking and stoke unreasonable concerns by the public about the infectivity of Alzheimer’s, which I think does not help the field of prion and AD research.”

He points to the small size of the study and the fact that the subjects did not show other signs of Alzheimer’s. “Also, studies show that plaques and tangles begin to deposit as early as the second and third decade of life, which means the subjects could merely have aging-related deposition of amyloid-beta.”

But other researchers found the study to be an important contribution to the growing body of research showing that many neurodegenerative diseases may be induced through prionlike processes. All direct evidence of transmission was conducted in animal studies, Collinge says, raising questions about whether the same pathology was present in humans. “The best evidence for the transmissibility of amyloid-beta lesions comes from animal studies, in which various factors are carefully controlled and competing hypotheses are ruled out,” says Lary Walker, a neuroscientist at Emory University not involved in the study. “[This study] adds an important dimension to the establishment of the prion paradigm.”

Collinge emphasized that Alzheimer’s and prion diseases such as CJD cannot be “caught” through direct contact and previous epidemiological studies have found no evidence that a history of blood transfusion is associated with increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. However, the possibility remains that certain medical procedures, such as transplants and neurosurgery, may expose individuals to amyloid-beta seeds, and the possibility of transmitting them through blood will likely become an avenue of further research.

In another study, published today in Nature Neuroscience, Mathias Jucker from the University of Tübingen in Germany and colleagues, including Lary Walker, found that amyloid-beta seeds have the ability to persist in the brain for months and regain pathogenic properties when introduced to the right environment. Together with the evidence that Alzheimer’s pathology can be transmitted between humans, scientists are starting to look carefully at the ways in which a range of neurodegenerative diseases may develop over the course of decades—and the role that transmission between humans may play. “I think we all agree that more systematic research in this area is necessary,” says Jucker.

*Gary Stix contributed reporting

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=011dc81f9283de62dcfa2aa97f5af88c%7E1442146067630%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1442146067630%7E703%7E9%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E9%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAIWRS2_cIBDHv0p9yKmLxWvA9JZLpUpVVSnKoacVxuM1WS9YQLraquKzl92oj0OqMIjHzPDjz7CUst2J-zv-sfXz-dxn5zEUP3tnT5jaGHoXTy1oU_FuxbbC737C4JDMMZENU46BlPhnlWzIJ5-zb5s4E7v-WNA3Fslks2WJazxcGqUSUFxRKUAaEMCoYgzq8q-eMcZj_r-iOR9-J13nZH0gucR0yqQsSJJtEpuu57BGd7y5TpdcGgLzVdhm09GHq-RMJp_RZny5tgoYRK2aisoYB12pVhLZCOBmYwxHLpW1Wms6S6YmId9OqDX7gp-mD0oaKTQF4IJKJYFT2Ld3bdYfQguDokYAZWYAo7QBBrzSZqoy0eS4477fv5D2r5De_yXtXyOxZgldJOflshO7r3F7Xm3a_axcDPXxoXsMDT29eyi2YO6Aqe7zJYypFbhrpE7SXoEeqOqIFr3S_OZtv6ZE9-VbHUcmtZAWDR0cRc4GrtEay8dhEGyylbVTvOfQM25qfnKM2M1TplWd7Zqx3tqbpfwFOgKCVLICAAA

http://rma-api.gravity.com/302/redirect?grcc2=49bcd237a9c7542249d0ec42dc8f50fc%7E1442146067630%7E0764e1b55cf9992e246aa7770f416d34%7E%7E1442146067630%7E703%7E9%7E0%7E0%7E0%7E-1%7E-1%7E-1%7E127%7E9%7E49%7EH4sIAAAAAAAAAJ2Qy2ocMRBFfyW98CqjRu9HdiYQCIRsjBdZDRp1tVueHqmR5EwmGH17ys7DG4MhkhCluuLUrVpa267E9RX_hOd8Po81REgtzjH4ExS80xjyCUVfWgwrYATf4wQpAJlzIRuUmhNp-V9UfKqnWGvER56JX38uEJFFKtl8W_Ka7y5I6dZyZSl1RnPBKLeS9eU_3GwFC63xCGSKFXwFspUcoFao5HQhD2mCskZ48VGJTxNaKceY0HB98iKUFb0bKjpXplOjJbCDUmF2znHgUntvjKGzZHoS8u0PvdfY4PP0QUsnhaFKcUGllopTtcdeNh_vEspSMhSENExg_0Zo0Slu1hl1qofjftz_Bu1fAb1_Ae1fBfFeIGRyXi47sfuYU4Mf7cGvu8e_aXKC5lHzT4X-jBRh1nGtcRDOUqMk5UjbPXYubL-9GW4TGpre3TTfoA6K6eHLJR1KzsdBUTZIOmplLNUDMWLUhj9nGVNaDF-_9cOBSSOkB0dtoMCZ5Qa88_xgrWCT7-h95CNXI-Ou1_vAiN8iZUb32a8V-vN6c_6_ALDENKbXAgAA

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/should-we-take-steps-to-prevent-alzheimer-8217-s-and-parkinson-8217-s-contagion/

Comments

flounder March 24, 2015, 9:56 AM
Alzheimers disease and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy prion disease, Iatrogenic, what if ?
Posted by flounder on 05 Nov 2014 at 21:27 GMT
Alzheimers disease and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy prion disease, Iatrogenic, what if ?
Background
Alzheimers disease and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy disease have both been around a long time, and was discovered in or around the same time frame, early 1900s. Both diseases are incurable and debilitating brain disease, that are in the end, 100% fatal, with the incubation/clinical period of the Alzheimers disease being longer (most of the time) than the TSE prion disease. Symptoms are very similar, and pathology is very similar.
Methods
Through years of research, as a layperson, of peer review journals, transmission studies, and observations of loved ones and friends that have died from both Alzheimers and the TSE prion disease i.e. Heidenhain Variant Creutzfelt Jakob Disease CJD.
Results
I propose that Alzheimers is a TSE disease of low dose, slow, and long incubation disease, and that Alzheimers is Transmissible, and is a threat to the public via the many Iatrogenic routes and sources. It was said long ago that the only thing that disputes this, is Alzheimers disease transmissibility, or the lack of. The likelihood of many victims of Alzheimers disease from the many different Iatrogenic routes and modes of transmission as with the TSE prion disease.
Conclusions
There should be a Global Congressional Science round table event set up immediately to address these concerns from the many potential routes and sources of the TSE prion disease, including Alzheimers disease, and a emergency global doctrine put into effect to help combat the spread of Alzheimers disease via the medical, surgical, dental, tissue, and blood arenas. All human and animal TSE prion disease, including Alzheimers should be made reportable in every state, and Internationally, WITH NO age restrictions. Until a proven method of decontamination and autoclaving is proven, and put forth in use universally, in all hospitals and medical, surgical arenas, or the TSE prion agent will continue to spread. IF we wait until science and corporate politicians wait until politics lets science _prove_ this once and for all, and set forth regulations there from, we will all be exposed to the TSE Prion agents, if that has not happened already.
end…tss
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1982;396:131-43.
Alzheimer’s disease and transmissible virus dementia (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease).
Brown P, Salazar AM, Gibbs CJ Jr, Gajdusek DC.
Abstract
Ample justification exists on clinical, pathologic, and biologic grounds for considering a similar pathogenesis for AD and the spongiform virus encephalopathies. However, the crux of the comparison rests squarely on results of attempts to transmit AD to experimental animals, and these results have not as yet validated a common etiology. Investigations of the biologic similarities between AD and the spongiform virus encephalopathies proceed in several laboratories, and our own observation of inoculated animals will be continued in the hope that incubation periods for AD may be even longer than those of CJD.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1982.tb26849.x/abstract
CJD1/9 0185 Ref: 1M51A
IN STRICT CONFIDENCE
Dr McGovern From: Dr A Wight Date: 5 January 1993 Copies: Dr Metters Dr Skinner Dr Pickles Dr Morris Mr Murray
TRANSMISSION OF ALZHEIMER-TYPE PLAQUES TO PRIMATES
1. CMO will wish to be aware that a meeting was held at DH yesterday, 4 January, to discuss the above findings. It was chaired by Professor Murray (Chairman of the MRC Co-ordinating Committee on Research in the Spongiform Encephalopathies in Man), and attended by relevant experts in the fields of Neurology, Neuropathology, molecular biology, amyloid biochemistry, and the spongiform encephalopathies, and by representatives of the MRC and AFRC. 2. Briefly, the meeting agreed that:
i) Dr Ridley et als findings of experimental induction of p amyloid in primates were valid, interesting and a significant advance in the understanding of neurodegenerative disorders;
ii) there were no immediate implications for the public health, and no further safeguards were thought to be necessary at present; and
iii) additional research was desirable, both epidemiological and at the molecular level. Possible avenues are being followed up by DH and the MRC, but the details will require further discussion. 93/01.05/4.1
http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080102191246/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1993/01/05004001.pdf&#8221; target=”_blank”>http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080102191246/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1993/01/05004001.pdf
BSE101/1 0136
IN CONFIDENCE
5 NOV 1992 CMO From: Dr J S Metters DCMO 4 November 1992
TRANSMISSION OF ALZHEIMER TYPE PLAQUES TO PRIMATES
1. Thank you for showing me Diana Dunstan’s letter. I am glad that MRC have recognized the public sensitivity of these findings and intend to report them in their proper context. This hopefully will avoid misunderstanding and possible distortion by the media to portray the results as having more greater significance than the findings so far justify.
2. Using a highly unusual route of transmission (intra-cerebral injection) the researchers have demonstrated the transmission of a pathological process from two cases one of severe Alzheimer’s disease the other of Gerstmann-Straussler disease to marmosets. However they have not demonstrated the transmission of either clinical condition as the “animals were behaving normally when killed’. As the report emphasizes the unanswered question is whether the disease condition would have revealed itself if the marmosets had lived longer. They are planning further research to see if the conditions, as opposed to the partial pathological process, is transmissible. What are the implications for public health?
3. The route of transmission is very specific and in the natural state of things highly unusual. However it could be argued that the results reveal a potential risk, in that brain tissue from these two patients has been shown to transmit a pathological process. Should therefore brain tissue from such cases be regarded as potentially infective? Pathologists, morticians, neuro surgeons and those assisting at neuro surgical procedures and others coming into contact with “raw” human brain tissue could in theory be at risk. However, on a priori grounds given the highly specific route of transmission in these experiments that risk must be negligible if the usual precautions for handling brain tissue are observed.
92/11.4/1-1 BSE101/1 0137
4. The other dimension to consider is the public reaction. To some extent the GSS case demonstrates little more than the transmission of BSE to a pig by intra-cerebral injection. If other prion diseases can be transmitted in this way it is little surprise that some pathological findings observed in GSS were also transmissible to a marmoset. But the transmission of features of Alzheimer’s pathology is a different matter, given the much greater frequency of this disease and raises the unanswered question whether some cases are the result of a transmissible prion. The only tenable public line will be that “more research is required” before that hypothesis could be evaluated. The possibility on a transmissible prion remains open. In the meantime MRC needs carefully to consider the range and sequence of studies needed to follow through from the preliminary observations in these two cases. Not a particularly comfortable message, but until we know more about the causation of Alzheimer’s disease the total reassurance is not practical.
JS METTERS Room 509 Richmond House Pager No: 081-884 3344 Callsign: DOH 832 121/YdeS 92/11.4/1.2
http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080102232842/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1992/11/04001001.pdf
BSE101/1 0136
IN CONFIDENCE
CMO
From: Dr J S Metters DCMO
4 November 1992
TRANSMISSION OF ALZHEIMER TYPE PLAQUES TO PRIMATES
http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20081106170650/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1992/11/04001001.pdf
CJD1/9 0185
Ref: 1M51A
IN STRICT CONFIDENCE
From: Dr. A Wight Date: 5 January 1993
Copies:
Dr Metters Dr Skinner Dr Pickles Dr Morris Mr Murray
TRANSMISSION OF ALZHEIMER-TYPE PLAQUES TO PRIMATES
http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080102191246/http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1993/01/05004001.pdf
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Transmission of multiple system atrophy prions to transgenic mice
Our results provide compelling evidence that -synuclein aggregates formed in the brains of MSA patients are transmissible and, as such, are prions.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/48/19555.abstract.html?etoc
Transmission of a neurodegenerative disorder from humans to mice
The findings suggest that the -synuclein deposits that form in the brains of patients with MSA behave like prions and are transmissible under certain circumstances, according to the authors. N.Z.
-Synuclein deposits in the brainstems of inoculated mice.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/48/19175.full.pdf+html
kind regards, terry
No competing interests declared.
Alzheimers disease and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy prion disease, Iatrogenic, what if ?
Posted by flounder on 05 Nov 2014 at 21:27 GMT
http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=82860
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Alzheimers disease and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy prion disease, Iatrogenic, what if ?
Proposal ID: 29403
http://betaamyloidcjd.blogspot.com/2012/05/alzheimers-disease-and-transmissible.html
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
Stevencd August 17, 2015, 2:55 AM
Well, last month, on on July 22, 2015, a new study published in Nature also points out two high-profile clinical trials that have got an exciting result. It is a improvement and a good news from the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Washington DC, namely Antibody Drugs for Alzheimer’s Show Glimmers of Promise, http://blog.creative-bioarray.com/significant-progress-antibody-drugs-for-alzheimers-show-glimmers-of-promise/.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/should-we-take-steps-to-prevent-alzheimer-8217-s-and-parkinson-8217-s-contagion/

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/lessons-from-killer-snails-a-q-a-with-biologist-mande-holford/

http://naturalsociety.com/california-may-soon-label-monsantos-roundup-as-known-to-cause-cancer/?utm_source=Natural+Society&utm_campaign=ed2788a801-Email+812%3A+9%2F5%2F2015+-+Product+Cancer-Warning+Label&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f20e6f9c84-ed2788a801-324182761

Monsanto may be in for a big surprise, courtesy of the EPA California state. The EPA’s environmental health hazard assessment office out of California has announced a move to label the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide ‘Roundup’ (and four others) as “known to cause cancer.”

This could begin a legal precedent that leads to not only the labeling of Roundup as ‘known to cause cancer’, but other Monsanto creations (and crops known to be sprayed heavily with glyphosate-based products).

As RT reports:

“The EPA’s office of environmental health hazard assessment in California wants to label four chemicals, including the most popular herbicide and key ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundrup, glyphosate, as “known to cause cancer,” following the most recent WHO cancer research division’s report.
The “notice of intent” envisions placing Glyphosate within 30 days to the list of chemicals that are known to cause cancer, classification of which falls under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, or the Proposition 65. Under the Act any chemicals that threatens human life require a businesses to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning label before exposing individuals to a chemical on the list.”

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/admin_listing/intent_to_list/090415LCset27.html

http://www.rt.com/usa/314544-california-epa-glyphosate-carcinogenic/

http://naturalsociety.com/pesticides-linked-to-brain-cancer-in-children/
http://mindfulmeats.com/monsantos-government-infiltration/
http://theprogressivecynic.com/2012/11/05/no-matter-who-wins-the-2012-presidential-election-monsanto-benefits/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-seed-vault-in-the-arctic-2/23503
Privatization and corporate ownership of our food and water is what is at stake. The greed that has allowed companies to create patents on food and to siphon off water and sell it back to the world is as disturbing as ever. Following are ways which a cabal is trying to control 2 of our most basic needs – food and water.

The Overtaking Of The Food Supply
A cabal controls our food supply. If you haven’t heard about the massive Svalbard ‘doomsday’ seed bank that individuals and companies like Bill Gates, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation, and the Government of Norway have created, then you might want to check it out. The Svalbard seed bank seems to foreshadow a massive food crisis on this planet.

By infiltrating our government regulatory agencies and lying about the safety of genetically modified foods, our world’s food supply is now in critical danger. Obama has passed Monsanto-friendly legislation, and with the Trans Pacific Partnership being negotiated behind closed doors, it is likely our ability to decide against GMO labeling or bans as states will be retracted by the federal government.

GMOs have been linked to cancer, with the World Health Organization now finally admitting that glyphosate, the main herbicide manufactured to be used in concert with these crops, is ‘probably carcinogenic.’

The Institute for Responsible Technology reports how GMOs pose a reproductive risk, accelerated aging, and problems with our digestive system by damaging our healthy gut flora.

gmo-corn-dna-300In the same manner that the cabal’s banking system (which you can read about in part one) strips the common man and woman of their inherited wealth, poor nations have become a testing ground for GMOs. Even places like Hawaii, called Ground Zero for GMOs, are also especially appealing to the biotech arm of the cabal since the US government is complicit in pushing this toxic food, and since the islands have a year-round growing season due to perfect weather and daily rain.

These crops not only spoil our current food, but they deplete the soil. What’s more, they cross-pollinate thousand-year-old native crops which are already very good at defending against pests, weeds, and even drought.

Under the ‘food’ topic I will also include the pharmaceutical arm of the cabal, though it has no place here. But they are so inextricably linked, that I may as well combine them.

Monsanto, arguably the most influential company controlling our food supply, spun off into Pfizer – one of the biggest legal drug cartels on the planet. Americans consume half of the world’s pharmaceuticals, and we only account for 5% of the world’s population.

This is no mistake. Part of the reason Americans are so drugged up and doped out is because the same companies that control our food supply also control our healthcare system and government agencies that regulate them – the CDC, FDA, EPA, etc.

Controlling The Water
California is going through the worst drought it has ever seen, and with a burgeoning 40 million population, some might think it is no wonder that they are suffering, having built their infrastructure in the middle or an extremely arid climate. But there’s more to the story than this.

water-world-hands-300Corrupt corporations are making a killing off of California’s drought. Nestlé’s actions are especially despicable. The company is drawing an unnumbered amount of water, likely millions of gallons of water from an underground spring, and then selling it back to the public. The company’s CEO even recently said on a radio show that he would ‘increase it if he could,’ referring to revenues gained from water privatization. Nestle has even said that water is not a human right.

This is just a small example of world-wide water privatization aims. The World Bank wants water privatized – go figure! And so do many corporations with a stake in making gazillions off of the world’s thirst. Activist Vandana Shiva states:

“Since nature gives water to us free of cost, buying and selling it for profit violates our inherent right to nature’s gift and denies the poor of their human rights.”
The sustainable use of water is never discussed by these companies, nor the fact that desalinization technologies already exist which could make places like California an utter oasis.

What To Do About The Oligarchy?
The fact that you are reading this article and educating yourself is a big step in the right direction. As the world awakens to the atrocities that are being committed right under its nose, we will free ourselves from tyrannical corporate control.

“The only tyrant I accept in this world is the ‘still small voice’ within me.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Storable Food
About Christina Sarich:
Author Image

http://naturalsociety.com/nestle-ceo-water-not-human-right-should-be-privatized/

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/water-managementprivatizationworldbankgroupifc.html

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/15/3659415/drought-isnt-nestles-problem/
http://naturalsociety.com/nestle-ceo-water-not-human-right-should-be-privatized/

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/nestles_despicable_water_crisis_profiteering_how_its_making_a_killing_%E2%80%94%C2%A0while_california_is_dying_of_thirst/

http://www.inquisitr.com/1659847/monsanto-slaps-a-lawsuit-against-maui-hawaii-for-banning-gmos/

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers
http://www.inquisitr.com/1623604/hellmanns-attacks-upstart-non-gmo-company-with-lawsuit-claiming-their-product-is-not-real-mayo/

http://www.inquisitr.com/1623604/hellmanns-attacks-upstart-non-gmo-company-with-lawsuit-claiming-their-product-is-not-real-mayo/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2834249/2-developers-sue-Hawaii-county-halt-GMO-law.html

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/11/12672/monsanto-launches-new-pr-campaign-sues-maui-direct-democracy

omments
Sort by
Top

Add a comment…

Also post on Facebook
Post

Alex Kent Kalel Reynolds · Creative Director at V For Vendetta
Based on Monsanto and Dow’s history of war crimes and poisoning the environment, we should sue them and remove them from existence.
Like · Reply · Just now

boston9000
it ignores the fact that the lawsuit tried to GMOs even though it allowed Gm papayas. It talks about Monsanto not allowing independent testing but they do. You can’t get your facts from other anti_Gm activities . Just google scholar of GM or transgenic and you will see masses of publications/journal articles. The activists pull out the 1% of studies almost all reported in journals that have no peer review or have not rejected the studies. But they don;t care – they repeat scare stories form 18 years ago. Lets see now: monarch butterflies all being killed by Bt corn then when that failed to impress -roundUp corn kills the butterflies and bees and actually causes bee die off even in countries that don;t use GM crops ! GM food apparently causes just about every disease know to man and those diseases are going up with Gm crops – yet organic crops acres are also going up the same way but they are not to blame. Of course organic food has killed people but they and you ignore that –
Like · Reply · Dec 7, 2014 9:56pm

Uwe Schroeder
I agree that little is correct in this article – i.e. Heilmann didn’t sue because the mayo is organic but because it’s vegan and thus not “mayo” per definition.
Anyways, you still need to get some facts right: Monsanto does not allow any independent 3rd party studies on their products and doing so will immediately get you to court. The only studies about GMO’s are those funded or favored by Monsanto. As a matter of fact, their seed contract contains a “no studies” clause.
As for your “gmo’s kill bees” – no, they don’t. However, most GMO’s are designed to be resistant to glyphosate – and that does kill bees. Glyphosate is also used on non-GMO’s – it’s only that the GMO’s can tolerate much higher doses.
Like · Reply · 3 · Dec 9, 2014 4:00am

Arthur Doucette · Granby High School
Uwe Schroeder False. Monsanto has a blanket Academic Research License with 100 Ag universities in the US. You don’t even need to contact Monsanto to do research on their seeds.
Like · Reply · Apr 7, 2015 7:14pm

Arthur Doucette · Granby High School
Uwe Schroeder False. Glyphosate is a HERBICIDE. It has NO effect on Bees.
Like · Reply · Apr 7, 2015 7:15pm

Uwe Schroeder
Arthur Doucette : you may want to read this article from yale university: http://e360.yale.edu/…/companies_put_restrictions…/2273/
So the industry grudgingly granted some form of access to select universities, it’s a far cry from “independent studies”. The terms of those agreements are restrictive and individually negotiated. If, for example, a university in – say france or germany or finland – wanted one of those agreements, chances are they don’t get one and if it’s very restrictive as to what can be researched. The whole point is money: US universities are very easy to control – they ge…See More
Like · Reply · 2 · Apr 8, 2015 12:36am

boston9000
virtually nothing is accurate in this report sad reflection of how the internet is falling us all

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/11/12672/monsanto-launches-new-pr-campaign-sues-maui-direct-democracy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2834249/2-developers-sue-Hawaii-county-halt-GMO-law.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2834249/2-developers-sue-Hawaii-county-halt-GMO-law.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26914141/mayo-lawsuit-hellmanns-accuses-san-francisco-company-misusing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2014/11/10/big-foods-weird-war-over-the-meaning-of-mayonnaise-americas-top-condiment/
http://www.inquisitr.com/1265168/march-against-monsanto-fifty-countries-rally-against-the-most-evil-corporation-in-the-world/

http://www.inquisitr.com/1404052/monsanto-invests-1-5-million-into-tekmira-the-company-making-the-ebola-virus-cure/

http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/2014/11/09/big-mayo-files-frivolous-lawsuit-against-eggless-competitor/
Big Food’s weird war over the meaning of mayonnaise, America’s top condiment
Resize Text Print Article Comments 64
By Drew Harwell November 10, 2014
Mayonnaise’s identity crisis goes to court. Courtesy of Hampton Creek. Mayonnaise’s identity crisis goes to court. Courtesy of Hampton Creek.
A big-money war is brewing over the meaning of America’s best-selling condiment: mayonnaise.

The maker of Hellmann’s mayo, food giant Unilever, has sued the San Francisco start-up behind Just Mayo, an egg-less, mayonnaise-like sandwich spread giving Big Mayo a run for its money.

The global food giant argues that Hampton Creek’s Just Mayo is not, as Unilever lawyers wrote, “exactly, precisely, only and simply mayonnaise,” as defined by the dictionary and the Food and Drug Administration, which says mayo must include “egg yolk-containing ingredients.”

The Just Mayo identity crisis, Unilever lawyers said, has hurt Hellmann’s market share, “caused consumer deception and serious, irreparable harm to Unilever” and the mayo industry as a whole. The firm wants Hampton Creek to stop calling it Just Mayo, yank the product off store shelves and pay Unilever damages worth three times the startup’s profits.

It is a strangely defensive stance for Unilever, a Big Food titan that made more than $64 billion last year selling foodstuffs in nearly 200 countries (including “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!”, a spread that is not butter). Hellmann’s, which is branded Best Foods west of the Rocky Mountains, dominates 45 percent of the mayo market, data from industry researcher Euromonitor shows.

But market watchers say it highlights the fears from traditional food conglomerates facing unexpected competition from crafty start-ups. It’s perhaps no coincidence that the biggest battleground is mayonnaise: Americans buy $2 billion of the stuff every year — more even than ketchup, salsa or soy sauce.

“It’s not about using the (mayo) word,” said Michele Simon, a public health attorney who wrote about the suit. “It’s about the fact that this company is taking market share away. And now it’s like they’ve awakened the giant.”
That the plant-based Just Mayo is a new type of food will lend an interesting dimension to the legal proceedings: Brand disputes typically quibble over words, not the definition of the product itself.

But the very modern legal battle will be fought on regulatory territory that is decades old. The FDA’s definition of mayonnaise was set in 1957, decades before the phrase “vegan mayo” ever made sense. (Maintaining that “standard of identity” is important: Kraft Foods’ Miracle Whip, which doesn’t meet the FDA’s standard, is technically a salad dressing.)

Unilever doesn’t just call out Just Mayo for what it calls confusing branding — advertisements have called the stuff “mayo,” and its logo resembles an egg — it also says the company has no proof in its claims of beating Hellmann’s in a taste test.

So what’s spooking Big Food? Hampton Creek has some big backers, including Bill Gates, and in a matter of months has spread rapidly to more than 20,000 Walmarts, Costcos and other stores across the country.

While other organic spreads like Vegenaise play up their place in the vegan niche, Hampton Creek has widely promoted Just Mayo as a mainstream brand: healthy, cheap and good for everybody. (Company ads rarely call it “vegan.”)

“We don’t market our product to tree-hugging liberals in San Francisco, even though I’m in the middle of nine of them right now,” said Josh Tetrick, Hampton Creek’s founder and chief executive. “We built the company to try to really penetrate the places where better-for-you food hasn’t gone before, and that means right in the condiment aisle of Walmart.”

The fate of Just Mayo, which swapped out eggs for Canadian yellow peas, will be watched closely by other food conglomerates. Hampton Creek also sells Just Cookies, a line of egg- and milk-free cookie dough, and is working on a gooey egg-free mix, Just Scramble.

The suit comes at a touchy time for Unilever, which just launched an ad campaign promoting itself as devoted to sustainability, and which backed its own soy-based egg alternative, Alleggra Foods, nearly ten years ago.

“Our concern here is not about innovation, it is about misleading labelling,” a Unilever spokesperson said in a statement Tuesday. “We simply wish to protect both consumers from being misled and also our brand.”

Just Mayo has fought back with the help of celebrity chefs including Andrew Zimmern, who launched a petition, “Stop Bullying Sustainable Food Companies,” that has more than 11,000 signers. The firm tweeted Unilever’s chief executive’s own words against him (he called for “transformational innovation”) and was less than subtle on its Facebook about its David-vs.-Goliath status (though the illustration has since been deleted):

2014-11-10 15_16_36-Hampton Creek
Tetrick, the start-up’s chief executive, said his firm is looking at the lawsuit as a chance to not just expand their corporate profile, but to lift up their egg-free sandwich spread as the touchpoint for a larger food-based cultural movement.

“A lawsuit gives us the opportunity to talk about the things that matter,” he said. “So we’ll take it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/sarah-halzack

http://www.inquisitr.com/1659847/monsanto-slaps-a-lawsuit-against-maui-hawaii-for-banning-gmos

http://naturalsociety.com/humanitys-big-fight-the-corporate-ownership-of-food-and-water

http://www.care2.com/causes/nestle-exec-says-gmos-are-unnecessary-but-our-customers-demand-them.html

http://www.alternet.org/story/52526/rural_communities_exploited_by_nestle_for_your_bottled_water

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=240#water
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/26/uk-nestle-online-water-idUKBRE89P07Q20121026
http://naturalsociety.com/corporate-giant-nestle-contradicts-gmo-stance/

s water a free and basic human right, or should all the water on the planet belong to major corporations and be treated as a product? Should the poor who cannot afford to pay these said corporations suffer from starvation due to their lack of financial wealth? According to the former CEO and now Chairman of the largest food product manufacturer in the world, corporations should own every drop of water on the planet — and you’re not getting any unless you pay up.
The company notorious for sending out hordes of ‘internet warriors’ to defend the company and its actions online in comments and message boards (perhaps we’ll find some below) even takes a firm stance behind Monsanto’s GMOs and their ‘proven safety’. In fact, the former Nestle CEO actually says that his idea of water privatization is very similar to Monsanto’s GMOs. In a video interview, Nestle Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe states that there has never been ‘one illness’ ever caused from the consumption of GMOs.

Watch the video below for yourself:
The way in which this sociopath clearly has zero regard for the human race outside of his own wealth and the development of Nestle, who has been caught funding attacks against GMO labeling, can be witnessed when watching and listening to his talk on the issue. This is a company that actually goes into struggling rural areas and extracts the groundwater for their bottled water products, completely destroying the water supply of the area without any compensation. In fact, they actually make rural areas in the United States foot the bill.
As reported on by Corporate Watch, Nestle and former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe have a long history of disregarding public health and abusing the environment to take part in the profit of an astounding $35 billion in annual profit from water bottle sales alone. The report states:

“Nestlé production of mineral water involves the abuse of vulnerable water resources. In the Serra da Mantiqueira region of Brazil, home to the “circuit of waters” park whose groundwater has a high mineral content and medicinal properties, over-pumping has resulted in depletion and long-term damage.”
Nestle has also come under fire over the assertion that they are actually conducting business with massive slavery rings. Another Corporate Watch entry details:

“In 2001, Nestlé faced criticism for buying cocoa from the Ivory Coast and Ghana, which may have been produced using child slaves.[58] According to an investigative report by the BBC, hundreds of thousands of children in Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo were being purchased from their destitute parents and shipped to the Ivory Coast, to be sold as slaves to cocoa farms.”

So is water a human right, or should it be owned by big corporations? Well, if water is not here for all of us, then perhaps air should be owned by major corporations as well. And as for crops, Monsanto is already working hard to make sure their monopoly on our staple crops and beyond is well situated. It should really come as no surprise that this Nestle Chairman fights to keep Monsanto’s GMOs alive and well in the food supply, as his ideology lines right up with that of Monsanto.

Storable Food
About Anthony Gucciardi:
Author Image
Google Plus Profile Anthony is a natural health and self-development author, speaker, and activist whose writings have appeared in #1 USA Today and Wall Street Journal Best-Selling books and top 100 websites. As the Co-Founder of NaturalSociety, Anthony’s writings on the subject of health and wellness have reached tens of millions of readers worldwide. A proponent of an organic lifestyle, the growth of alternative news, and a ded

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/13/3646220/nestles-ups-and-downs-in-california-and-oregon/

http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/local/grassroots/2015/04/13/feds-look-expired-permit-bottling-water/25703629/

http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2015/04/11/nestle-bottled-water-california-drought-water/25621915/
https://www.couragecampaign.org/aboutus/

http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2015/04/11/nestle-bottled-water-california-drought-water/25621915/

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/nestles_despicable_water_crisis_profiteering_how_its_making_a_killing_%E2%80%94%C2%A0while_california_is_dying_of_thirst/

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/12/the_private_prison_company_thats_getting_rich_locking_up_migrant_kids_partner/

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-cap-drought-20150406-column.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-cap-drought-20150406-column.html

217 comments
Sign in84 people listening
+ Follow
Post comment as…
Newest | Oldest | Top Comments
SharksFan Apr 9, 2015
Yellow journalism at its best. Bottled drinking water represents 0.00003% of our water use in California. I for one would not want to fire all the workers in Nestle’s bottled water plant over this tiny amount of water. The public is confused because bottled water is one line of business within the Nestle Waters group. Nestle Waters also owns and operate dozens of local water utilities, which supply millions of California homes and businesses with water for household and industrial use. So if you see a figure that Nestle Water uses 7% of California’s water, don’t believe for a second that water is going into bottles destined for out of state. It’s probably watering your yard.

LikeReply
chibi Apr 9, 2015
There’s been a boycott against Nestle since the 70s for KILLING BABIES, look it up.

LikeReply
Nypapajoe Apr 8, 2015
i don’t reside in California, but I bet that all of the Resorts, Disney, Golf, and other corporate entities are all utilizing unlimited water resources with no restrictions! But profiteering from a catastrophic event is Criminal and immoral! They must be Stopped immediately!

2LikeReply
DesertDavey Apr 8, 2015
So huge profitable corporations use PUBLIC assets to make themselves rich, without regard to the public COSTS associated with the use of such assets.

Typical American-style “capitalism”: Private profits, public costs. That ain’t no capitalism. That is THEFT pure and simple.

I think it’s time to roll out the Guillotine.
4LikeReply
ecoalex Apr 8, 2015
Brown is also pro fracking in Ca. There have been protests for over a year, anti fracking protesters showing up all Brown appearances.

Sadly the Dems in Ca have lost much enviro cred, instead taking cash from oil/gas cos.

Fracking in Ca uses many millions of gallons of water, 4 aquifers now ruined by deep well waste injection.
LikeReply
iReason Apr 8, 2015
Nestle is one of the corporate giants that has been buying up water rights for years. Sometimes with their water bottling plants that gobble up ground water, sometimes companies with unrelated products but already licensed for large water consumption. One example is Gerber Baby Food – the largest corporate water consumer in Michigan.

To secure water rights other companies have taken over American beer companies and other large water consumers.

In Michigan the fight to preserve the Great Lakes is a daily battle that will only become more aggressive as we face situations like California. Having drained the incredible Colorado river (among others) they are now looking for new sources.

Fresh water is the gold and platinum of the future – and as we see not that distant future.

Help Preserve and Protect this precious resource.
2LikeReply
Gkamom Apr 8, 2015
Wouldn’t want to get in the way of big business. After all, when they buy a polititician they expect him to stay bought.

https://syndication.streamads.yahoo.com/na_stream_brewer/signal/v1?cid=2551f9fc-2c22-3d93-af4e-181bc8359390&template=single-column-thumbnail&res_id=aa6ef4ef-a8e5-3062-b0e7-5388565dfd5a&type=content&dest=http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/09/03/3698272/mr-robot-finale-its-all-in-your-head-or-is-it/&sig=9mYd5DltrJrC0mHvJiOxZKm1FGI-

http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2015/04/11/nestle-bottled-water-california-drought-water/25621915/

https://syndication.streamads.yahoo.com/na_stream_brewer/signal/v1?cid=2551f9fc-2c22-3d93-af4e-181bc8359390&template=single-column-thumbnail&res_id=a540a7e3-a5ba-3a87-b8f6-2d2db57c4119&type=content&dest=http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/09/01/3697798/uber-drivers-class-action-granted/&sig=mfKfsbc05.YihO5BHFDMbunZy00-

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/11/3700451/demystifying-classified-material/

https://syndication.streamads.yahoo.com/na_stream_brewer/signal/v1?cid=2551f9fc-2c22-3d93-af4e-181bc8359390&template=single-column-thumbnail&res_id=7ef75950-7184-30ed-bfd3-dcf05222ec1c&type=content&dest=http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/01/3697644/bernie-sanders-science-self-fulfilling-prophecy/&sig=UTWqJ184L6P3JtCn7a_3COYpJjo-

https://syndication.streamads.yahoo.com/na_stream_brewer/signal/v1?cid=2551f9fc-2c22-3d93-af4e-181bc8359390&template=single-column-thumbnail&res_id=5e60e575-8df5-35a4-91f5-2c33ce3d5d9a&type=content&dest=http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/09/01/3697394/carlos-mercado-diabetes-video/&sig=06r11.HQ0RJEPtTWnOuFENswzGw-

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/how-us-embassy-cables-leaked

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/09/03/3698272/mr-robot-finale-its-all-in-your-head-or-is-it/

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/07/why-bernie-sanders-cant-win/
http://www.newsweek.com/why-bernie-sanders-running-328526
http://themoderatevoice.com/206559/politix-update-why-bernie-sanders-like-eugene-mccarthy-will-fail/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0527-mcmanus-bernie-sanders-20150527-column.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/opinion/sunday/the-bernie-sanders-moment.html

tidbits • 2 months ago
If only I could remember where I heard or read this a couple of days ago. Among Democrats, Sanders peaks at about 25% and fewer than half of those who support him, just 12%, think he can actually win in the general. If the source comes to me, I’ll return to edit with a link. Of course, I’m sure that whatever the source is, it will be denounced as invalid (unreliable, based on bad methodology, etc.) by some.
•Share ›
Avatar
Ron Beasley • 2 months ago
I remember 1968 very well. It was the year I graduated from college. I woke up the day after the election to discover that everyone I had voted for had lost and then went down to the induction center and after a bus ride up I5 found myself at Fort Lewis. Basic training was hell, it was a cold and snowy winter in the Pacific Northwest. I was lucky however because my education and skill set was attractive to the Defense Intelligence Agency and after basic training I went to the East Coast to the DIA interrogation and analyst school for training and from there to 2 and a half years in Munich Germany.
•Share ›
Avatar
Ron Chusid • 2 months ago
Odds are Sanders will fail as McCarthy did in winning nomination. However we have a relatively small number of contested presidential primary battles in modern history and to try to make each fit into the mold of a previous one is risky. It will be seen like a previous one until and unless something unique happens.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/06/why-hillary-clinton-is-wisely-resisting-bernie-sanders-political-strategy/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-voters-socialist-atheist-catholic-119273.html

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/hillary-gets-it-calls-for-mandatory-police-body-cams/

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/05/liberal-infighting-over-trade-deal-is-getting-ugly-and-personal/

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/bernie-sanders-is-about-to-make-hillary-clinton-miserable/

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/reality-check-bernie-sanders-might-be-running-but-hell-never-be-president/

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/07/heres-why-bernie-sanders-had-a-really-bad-weekend/

i like Bernie a lot. even have a “Bernie” magnet on my car.
that said, i fully expect to be enthusiastically campaigning and voting for Hillary next year.
15 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
ssj mellowjohn • 2 months ago
Exactly.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
igggie mellowjohn • 20 days ago
yasssssssssssssss
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tim mellowjohn • a month ago
Did you say this years ago when Obama was running against her?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds mellowjohn • 11 minutes ago
Dont vote for her. She sidestepped the Keystone pipeline issue and has a stunning lack of honesty. Rather abstain from voting or vote independent.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
Go peruse the Daily Kos recommended list someday. It will be almost all “this is why Bernie is going to win” cheerleading. Bernie never thought he could win until he started listening to voices like theirs – voices who are as out of touch as those who believe Ted Cruz is going to be the next president. Media drove this, and as Jonathan Allen has so well catalogued have different rules for covering the Clintons. I’m not a Hillary guy, but that anti-Clinton bias is becoming more and more apparent to me every day.
9 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
i_a_c Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
Increasingly among the Bernie fangasms at DKos are smear attacks on Clinton, too. I’ve seen as much Clinton hysteria and conspiracies as I’ve seen from the right. We’ve gotten our piece of it in the comments here too: Hillary orchestrated the BLM thing.

Hell, on DK where the rec list is dominated by Bernie diaries, someone accused Markos of hosting a Clinton astroturf site. They are increasingly unhinged.

I’m pretty much supporting Hillary by default and not for any real reason other than thinking she has the best chance of winning, but I find myself defending her from these bogus smears more often than not.
8 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan i_a_c • 2 months ago
You’re braver than I am. I can’t deal with most of the nuts over there. They have indeed gotten unhinged and conspiracy loving in their thinking (amongst the users). They are as detached from reality as the always-victim far-right are.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Draxiar i_a_c • 2 months ago
Insofar as campaign support (and this applies only to Democrats…I couldn’t care less what the GOP does), when it comes to other candidates in the same party, don’t smear…only promote the candidate you’re for. Only smear the candidates in the opposing party. At the end of the day the party needs to be a united front even if the candidate you’re for doesn’t make the cut.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest i_a_c • 2 months ago
just like 2008.

just like 2000.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
igggie i_a_c • 20 days ago
esp when we should be fighting a thing like trump
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds i_a_c • 10 minutes ago
Clinton lacks honesty and has sidestepped the Keystone issue. Better to vote Independent
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Officer Serpico Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
No I think he started noticing the huge crowds that come to hear him speak. You really think he’s that susceptible to media hype? I think he’s wise enough to know better than that, or be seduced by that.
4 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tim Officer Serpico • a month ago
He is the only sincere candidate running and he has the track record to prove it.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
missliberties Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
They dKos crew. Same old. Same old.

Remember when supporting Obama drew fear and loathing from the Kosbots? The leader of the Obama isn’t good enough for us crew was none other than Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is no liberal and I suspect a lot of the anti-Hillary crowd that cheers for Bernie are NOT in fact liberals but real live trolls.

Just remember, Ted Cruz is a Bernie Sanders Republican. Or how the right attacks from the left.

Sad the Kos Krew falls for it.

That said Bernie is an admirable man and if and when push comes to shove I am sure he will rally his voters to support Hillary.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan missliberties • 2 months ago
I don’t think they’re conservative trolls. I really think that they’re that far to the left that they see things through the opposite side of the same distorted lens that the Tea people and the people to their right are. These are people that are anti-government far-leftist in the traditional sense. The funny thing is that my father pointed out that the Tea folk have actually adopted ’60s radical left tactics and ideas. You see it when you compare the rhetoric of the most radical voices on Democratic Underground or Firedoglake and FreeRepublic or Breitbart. Different targets in some instances, but their view of the government is identical.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
missliberties Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
I mostly agree. I was under the impression that the left believed in the governments ability to do good, whereas the right seems to think that the government can only do bad.

I do believe that there are right wing operatives busy trying to attack democrats from the left. It’s an old trick and they now can infiltrate blogs, etc. Ted Cruz for example touted vociferously the honesty and integrity of Bernie Sanders in an interview with Chris Matthews, trolling Hillary from the left.

I completely agree with your Dad. He rocks!
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dusty Ayres missliberties • 2 months ago
Ratfucking all around, in other words.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan missliberties • 2 months ago
Well, you are right that the left and center-left generally believe the government can be an agent of good. However, the far-left and left fringe are the kind of people who were anti-establishment in the ’60s and who fought against “the man,” which in many cases means the government. These people truly aren’t on the right side of the spectrum, but generally fall into the far-left/libertarian quadrant of the political graph. They’re almost (if not actually) anarchist, and don’t believe that the State can be anything but corrupt.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
missliberties Matthew C. Ryan • a month ago
The far left and the anti-establishment movement seem tame to me compared to what is going on in todays right.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan missliberties • a month ago
That much is true, if only because it is so much smaller.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tim Matthew C. Ryan • a month ago
Um. No, that is not true Matt Ryan. I have been a progressive all my voting life and as Canada is embracing a progressive agenda. you will see this in the States. If you think the folks supporting Bernie are anti-government, you need to look up what a Dem. Socialist is. Please do some research on this issue.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan Tim • a month ago
I wasn’t talking about Bernie or his followers as a whole; I was talking about far-leftists at Daily Kos who refer to America as a “police state,” who believe that there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and who truly believe that the government is an evil entity that needs to be fundamentally altered as it is currently a fascist system.

Yes, some of them are Bernie supporters, but more are simply anti-Clinton. Those who do support Bernie in this category do so because they believe he will bring about this complete shift in governmental system. I’m sorry, but all of that is delusional.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Matthew C. Ryan • 3 minutes ago
Wrong, you are the delusional neocon here Matthew. There isn’t much of a difference between either political party, they both take bribes from super PACs. And because Sbowden and Assange exposed the NSA, we now have stronger laws to protect us from the ”
Patriot Act” Clinton is unelectable because of her lack of honesty and being in bed with corporate elite. Fortunately, companies that frack and Monsanto have gotten a big kick in the balls with the latest scientific research and banning in NYS and stocks plummeting. We dont want Clinton and establishment people like you are going the way of the dodo
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tim missliberties • a month ago
He is going to win. Just saying. Support what you truly believe.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
trilobytegames Matthew C. Ryan • a month ago
There is absolutely nothing wrong with “cheerleading” for your preferred candidate or for having a bias against the opponent. It’s politics. Be a big boy and try to handle it.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan trilobytegames • a month ago
I’ll look forward to you pointing out where I said that it was wrong.

TIA.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
repugnicant • 2 months ago
If you don’t vote for Bernie, you’re a neo-liberal fascist pig, licking the boots of the banking industry… or, at least that’s what they tell me. I got a three day ban at the Daily Kos just for saying Bernie can’t win. Wasn’t even an asshole to anyone.

Just makes me want to vote for Hillary even more.
12 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds repugnicant • 2 minutes ago
she wont win, she is a dishonest pig
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aimee Barfield repugnicant • 2 months ago
It’s almost comical over there. Someone got HR’d for saying they would write in Clinton if Sanders won. The people who HR’d the comment said they’d do the same for anyone who said they’d write in Sanders if HRC won. I’ve seen countless people make that very comment about writing in Sanders and not a single HR was given, though a few recs were.
6 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan Aimee Barfield • 2 months ago
They’ve become nuts. I understand that this is how they acted during 2007-8, though I never read the site then.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Ceoltoir Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
Back in 2008 there was a lot of time spent concern trolling over there. Of course as soon as the election was over Barack Obama became a POS used car salesman and a total disappointment because he failed to be a true progressive, whatever the Hell that even means.
7 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan Ceoltoir • 2 months ago
There is a large group there who are apparently deputized to affirm what is and isn’t “liberal” or “progressive.” Most of those people are so far on the fringe as to be anti-government extremists themselves. They’re the Tea Party of the left.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
worldwide_webster Matthew C. Ryan • a month ago
Exactly. I adore Bernie, I really do, but the thing is…as President he would either have to compromise some of his agenda in order to get *part* of his agenda accomplished against the obstructionist GOP (as Obama has done), or he could refuse to compromise and get absolutely zero done, and be declared a “failure” as a President. Either way the far left would not be happy with him and would feel like they were let down, just as many on the far left feel like Obama sold them out somehow by not magically forcing the GOP to act like reasonable adults.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
repugnicant Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
Well, this is how they acted during the Snowden affair. Same people, different shiny object.
7 • Reply•Share ›

Avatar
Ceoltoir repugnicant • 2 months ago
It was the whole “You’ll have to take their word for it” in regards to the claims made by Snowden and Greenwald that presented so many problems back then. Yet presenting any of the mounting evidence that either of them might not be presenting the whole truth or are misrepresenting the facts would get you shouted down.

The ideas that Bernie Sanders has for free college for all or single payer healthcare have merit. But asking how such programs could get through a Republican controlled congress get you the same reaction.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a minute ago
It’s because of Snowden and Greenwald that we learned the truth about what the NSA was doing and we exposed them for the SS that they are
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
conundrum repugnicant • 2 months ago
No, not the same people. Snowden is a traitor, Sanders is a statesman. Hang Snowden, listen to Bernie.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds conundrum • 6 minutes ago
Wrong, Snowden and Assange are both heroes for exposing the NSA.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan repugnicant • 2 months ago
Yeah, that’s when I registered an account to comment. I got kicked for linking to Bob.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tort Master Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
At different times, I linked to Bob Cesca and Tommy Christopher (when he was at Mediate) over at daily kos. To say that those links met with enthusiasm is like saying Donald Trump’s hair is a beautiful sunrise.
Thumbnail
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
repugnicant Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
LoL, yeah, Cesca is a commie bastard over there.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
read the daily howler
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan Guest • 2 months ago
No thanks. Somerby is a one note tune, going after “liberal media” figures for not doing shows like he would. His constant attacks of Rachel Maddow for not doing enough in-depth reporting are at the same time shallow and incorrect. Going after her for something he disagrees with factually or politically would be one thing, but his grudge is a stylistic one at its heart, and is grossly unfair in my opinion. I don’t agree with much of what she says, but that doesn’t mean I agree with Bob, either.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
bob is the smartest and most honest guy, period.

hes been right about maddow and msnbc from the start.

bob looks at the long view and i agree with him totally, msnbc and that “our Fox” attitude lost us lots of supporters.

trust me youre not smarter than bob.

gore himself told me bob was the smartest guy hes ever met.

no offense , but do you think hed say that about you?
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan Guest • 2 months ago
Bob may be a smart guy. He may be smarter than me. I’ve never claimed to be the smartest guy around. Heck, I’m not even the smartest guy I know.

But that’s a logical fallacy that you’re building your argument on.

Whether or not Somerby is smart, whether his past career endeavors are worthy of esteem (including by Mr. Gore, whose coverage by an unfair media was the topic that Bob built his current career on, so it is unsurprising that he’d be a fan), whether or not some of what he writes is unimpeachable – none of these actually have anything to do with my critique of him, and even if he were the smartest man on earth, this would not preclude him from being blinded to his bias or wrong on a subject (see also Carson, Dr. Ben). His coverage of MSNBC, and of Maddow in particular, appears to be more grudge-based than objective. He imputes to her and other people appearing on air motives which he is only guessing at, yet which he presents as fact. He seems to fall for the same type of “both sides” criticism (“our Fox News” is a grossly unfair representation of Maddow) that he criticized mainstream sources for a decade ago. It really appears to bother him that she chooses to inform and entertain her audience in a way different than he would like to see done, and as such he jumps to all sorts of unfair and uncharitable conclusions about her and her programming decisions. This goes back more than six years now, and there is a bitterness to his writing about certain people that I am no fan of. It’s no different than Andrew Sullivan’s approach to writing about Bill and Hillary Clinton; and as I am also not fans of them, I think that I’m coming at this from a rather objective place.
see more
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Matthew C. Ryan • 2 months ago
Grudge based?

Roflmfao!

Sorry, youve got it ALL wrong and Im just not interested in arguing with one of you cable news celebrity worshipers.

I know Bob and simply, you dont.

You couldn’t be more wrong about a person if you tried.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan Guest • 2 months ago
Do you think you could engage in discussion without ad hominem, arguing using logical fallacies, and using some actual evidence?

So far, all you’ve done is make incorrect assumptions (like Bob with MSNBC), dismiss argument based on ad hominem (like Bob with their personalities), tried to argue from authority and a number of other fallacies, and basically offer no evidence whatsoever (again, Bob). I would be more than happy to take the last three posts about Maddow – and because you seem to have missed it, I am not a “fan” of – and show you what I’m talking about.

(It’s ironic that I’m dismissed for being a “cable news celebrity worshiper” – which, if you knew me, is laughable – yet your entire argument is “I know Bob”.)
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Matthew C. Ryan • a month ago
What part of ” Im just not interested in arguing with one of you cable news celebrity worshipers.” was so hard to understand ?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan Guest • a month ago
I understand. Facts are unimportant to you. (Starting with calling me a “cable news celebrity worshiper.”)

It’s a shame; I was looking forward to see how you tried to justify Bob’s last post about Maddow for its truth and objectivity.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Matthew C. Ryan • a month ago
I have been clear.

I didn’t read your last comment or this one either.

Beat it poser.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matthew C. Ryan Guest • a month ago
You have been clear… that you can’t have a civil debate.

I’ve not insulted you. I’ve not insulted Somerby (is it you?). I’ve not posted anything that I can’t support.

If you have a problem with that, that’s on you completely.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dusty Ayres Aimee Barfield • a month ago
Pardon my ignorance, but what does HR’d mean?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aimee Barfield Dusty Ayres • a month ago
Hide rated. If you get enough of them your comment disappears from general viewership. The only people able to see it are trusted users who can view it through a hidden section. If a person gets three hidden comments in 24 hours the first offense (a time out) warrants a three day suspension. The penalties become longer with each time out. Some people purposefully HR people into time outs when it’s not warranted.

The rules regarding HR’s are pretty specific but are abused. The community moderates itself. In the cases of the Presidential primary and anything having to do with Snowden, moderation is abused.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tort Master Aimee Barfield • 2 months ago
I’ve HR’d those comments when I see them. As I’ve also HR’d comments that claimed Senator Clinton was behind the netroots #BlackLivesMatter protest.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aimee Barfield Tort Master • 2 months ago
There’s a comment sitting in the ‘NYT house party for Clinton finds Sanders supporters’ thread that has recs when a commenter said they’d write in Bernie. It’s not highly rec’ed, but it’s not HR’d either.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/05/liberal-infighting-over-trade-deal-is-getting-ugly-and-personal/

You can’t be in every thread at DK, but trust me Tort Master, people saying they’re going to write in Bernie happens n the regular.

The bigger question is not whether Sanders will fail as McCarthy did in winning the nomination, but whether he will succeed in knocking off Clinton like McCarthy did in contributing to knocking off Johnson.

The significance of the Sanders campaign could turn out to show that Clinton is vulnerable, making an opening for a candidate who is more acceptable both to liberals and to the party establishment. Maybe Democrats will later turn to O’Malley, especially if he does will in the debates. This could also be what it takes to get Joe Biden into the race, or perhaps someone not commonly mentioned by the press as a candidate like Sherrod Brown, Ron Wyden, or a long list of Democrats who are more credible candidates than those in the Republican clown car.
•Share ›
Avatar
shaun Ron Chusid • 2 months ago
Good points all except trying to make each primary “fit into the mold of a previous one.” In fact (pardon the word), I took pains to point out how they were different despite surface similarities.
•Share ›
Avatar
Ron Chusid shaun • 2 months ago
I was commenting on how the subject is commonly discussed and not just your post.
•Share ›
Avatar
JSpencer • 2 months ago
1968 was a magical time; I was 16, full of oats, and it seemed anything was possible. I rode that wave as long as I could – finally slowing down a bit a few years back……..

The favored word writers use to describe Bernie seems to be “quixotic”. To me that denotes disrespect (whether intended or otherwise) both to Bernie and his supporters. Sanders is the only one in the field who doesn’t bend, dip, and dodge while fielding questions. He isn’t changing his story, trying to remake himself, or constantly teetering on the edge of damage control. I could be wrong, but I think what we’re seeing there is called “integrity”.

I suppose the fear democrats have of losing is so virulent they would sooner choose a status quo, establishment, republican-lite candidate they thought could win, than adhere to standards they once may have had in their idealistic youth. Better to be pragmatic about this.. we’ll just coast until the gas is gone, then we can turn the reins over to some other poor SOBs. Maybe they’ll be desperate enough to overcome their political timidity.
•Share ›
Avatar
shaun JSpencer • 2 months ago
It is unfortunate that Sanders is unelectable because he is a deeply decent man, an endangered species when it comes to public figures.
3 •Share ›
Avatar
JSpencer shaun • 2 months ago
Some of us view that belief (unelectability) as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Personally I believe the state of the union can ill afford more status quo candidates. That state may be less concerning to those of us who have already achieved much of what we set out to do in life (many of us on TMV), my worry has more to do with what coming generations are going to face. If the aforementioned status quo was more progressive in terms of rational economic policy and rational environmental policy then I would probably worry less. The stakes are high, the obstacles are enormous, and it’s all time sensitive…

” I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I’m obliged to do all I can.” – Robert Kennedy 1968

Had Kennedy not been assassinated, I wonder how many democrats would have still gone with the establishment candidate (Humphrey) because they wanted to play it safe. Of course we’ll never know..
2 •Share ›
Avatar
tidbits JSpencer • 2 months ago
Just speaking for myself through the haze of old memories, but I think Robert Kennedy, unlike McCarthy, might have pulled it off. Kennedy’s most serious problem was that he got in very late, after many delegates were already committed. But, Kennedy had strong support in many aspects of the party, the establishment, the African American loyalists and liberal wings of the party, and had grabbed onto the anti-war mantle…he could also, not to be too crass, ride the nostalgia of his brother’s assassination just five years prior.
1 •Share ›
Avatar
shaun JSpencer • 2 months ago
I believe there would have been a good chance that Kennedy would have gotten the nomination, and that would have been a major game changer.

Recall that Nixon was elected because of false promises to end the war. Kennedy would have made similar promises, and that might have gotten him elected. Whether he would have been able to actually end the war in a timely fashion is another thing, and I’m going to suggest that good intentions aside, that would have been very difficult.

(Lotsa woulds, eh?)
•Share ›
Avatar
JSpencer shaun • 2 months ago
While his brother’s assassination was a major turning point in US history, I believe the loss of RFK had even more negative and far reaching ramifications. Of course I’m not the first person to make this observation.

HRC is a strong candidate, and my hope is that Bernie Sanders (and Elizabeth Warren) will (at the very least) help to inform her priorities. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen, but I am hoping…
1 •Share ›
Avatar
Beth Zampol JSpencer • 2 months ago
I certainly do agree with your quixotic vs integrity point. An excellent one.

As a self-identified liberal/socialist/Pollyanna type, I would LOVE a President Sanders. Realistically, though, I fear that likelihood is poor, to say the least. My fear of another Repub presidency, however, especially with the asshats in this damned clown car is a whole lot greater.
1 •Share ›
Avatar
Slamfu • 2 months ago
My memories of 1968 are a bit hazy, which is understandable because I was born in 1975. But I’m still not sure I’m seeing the connection here with this McCarthy person I’ve been hearing so much about. In ’68 there was a massively unpopular war going on which if I understand correctly was a cornerstone of McCarthy’s campaign. Today’s run is different, this is about the middle class being ground down and burned by the people with LOTS of money. It’s a lot more like FDR, but even that isn’t true because we’ve been digging out of our generations “1929” for almost 8 years now.

Problem is unlike FDR, there hasn’t been enough political will to reign in the banks. There just aren’t that many candidate on that ride yet, but Sanders is one of them. Also, the Dems have tried the GOP-lite strategy and it’s been getting them their asses handed back to them. Clinton does that. Sanders does not. This seems like the perfect time to get a movement going.

What really gets me is that people think that Sanders would lose in the General. To that I would say, “Have you seen the GOP options?” There isn’t one of them that isn’t a clown prone to saying something every 30 seconds that is pretty embarrassing. If either candidate is going to have trouble running against the GOP it would be Clinton due to her similarity to, let’s charitably call it “Centrishness”. Of course I still think Clinton would win too. But Sanders would stomp all over those guys in a debate.
2 •Share ›
Avatar
JSpencer Slamfu • 2 months ago
“My memories of 1968 are a bit hazy, which is understandable because I was born in 1975.”

😉

“Look to the summer of seventy-five
All the world is gonna come alive
Do you want to ride the tiger?”

– Jefferson Starship
3 •Share ›
Avatar
SteveK JSpencer • 2 months ago
To some of us ‘oldsters’ it was the “winter of ’65…”

Edit to add: I just self edited myself. I like the song I posted and I really like the band but now is not the time to post “The night they drove old dixie down.”

I’ll just go to the den, put on “The Last Waltz,” and feel bad about my faux pas.
1 •Share ›
Avatar
tidbits SteveK • 2 months ago
Well, I like the song too, either by The Band or by Joan Baez. It captures a feeling of the pain it’s like to face defeat. It’s not an anthem to slavery. Just my view.
•Share ›
Avatar
SteveK tidbits • 2 months ago
Thanks tidbits,

it’s 10:45 here and we just finished watching “The Last Waltz”…Again! It’s too bad that so many don’t even know what ‘it’, or ‘music’ is.

PS – The Last Waltz IS grand.
•Share ›
Avatar
Ron Chusid Slamfu • 2 months ago
The comparisons to the McCarthy campaign come from more liberal and idealistic Democrats supporting McCarthy over the presumptive nominee, LBJ. While Sanders is campaigning more on economics, his opposition to the war backed by Clinton also strengthens this analogy.

Like any analogy, there are similarities and differences. It remains to be seen whether one aspect of the analogy will hold–will Sanders play a role in forcing Clinton out of the race (or forcing her to lose) as McCarthy played with LBJ.

Another key factor in 1968 was Robert Kennedy running. Will another liberal enter the race to shake things up this year.

Bernie would definitely give people far more reason than Clinton to turn out to vote for him–also helping Democratic candidates down ticket.
1 •Share ›
Avatar
KP • 2 months ago
Tremendous article. I was born in ’55 so I was only 13/14 in ’68. I recall most of what you discuss from that time but appreciate the refresher and comparisons to today. Well done.
•Share ›
Avatar
Bob Munck • 2 months ago
to slog through deep snow in New Hampshire to volunteer for the maverick U.S. senator from Minnesota in the first-in-the-nation primary. They even cut their long hair and shaved off their beards to “get clean for Gene.”
Just the long hair; I’d started the beard the day JFK was shot and thought it was too soon to shave it off.

Still haven’t.

Don’t remember deep snow; I think I was there in a season they call “Black Fly.” I would have prefered snow.
•Share ›
Avatar
Greg • 2 months ago
Lots of unsubstantiated assumptions in the comparisons and distinctions in this article. I think that makes the analysis suspect.
•Share ›
Avatar
shaun Greg • 2 months ago
Understanding that this is an opinion column and not a news article, which I hope you do, would you care to elaborate?
•Share ›
Avatar
Greg shaun • 2 months ago
No, not really up to it. It’s just my opinion.
•Share ›
Avatar
shaun • 2 months ago
A fine piece on Sanders’ genesis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07&#8230;

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/11/if_republicans_really_want_to_hold_up_the_iran_deal_they_should_send_dick_cheney_to_jail/
http://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2015/08/olc-nsi/

http://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/nsi.pdf

http://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/nsi.pdf

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/15/the_best_series_finales_ever/
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/must_see_photos_never_before_seen_images_inside_the_white_house_on_september_11/

http://www.inquisitr.com/1623604/hellmanns-attacks-upstart-non-gmo-company-with-lawsuit-claiming-their-product-is-not-real-mayo/

https://www.change.org/p/tell-unilever-to-stop-bullying-sustainable-food-companies

https://twitter.com/hamptoncreek/status/531204203411042304

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2014/11/05/the-growing-popularity-of-organics-is-both-good-and-bad-news-for-whole-foods/?tid=article_nextstory
Rights & Permissions
Share this Article:

Comments

soahpp September 10, 2015, 3:51 AM
I thought human-to-human contraction of prions was possible via cannibalism?
Reply | Report as Abuse | Link to This
E.Nordman September 11, 2015, 8:27 PM
Soahpp is correct. Kuru is a prion disease that resulted from eating human brains.
The conclusion that human transmission of Alzheimer’s occurs since similar plaques were found in CJD patients seems a stretch. A better title might have been Alzheimer’s like plaques found in patients with CJD.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/06/media-attacks-hillary-clintons-press-shop-for-being-a-press-shop/

CL Nicholson • 3 months ago
And my left wing friends wonder why I give no craps about Bernie Sanders. A dusty old hippy yadda-yadda-yadda’s the Black, Arab/Muslim and Latino vote in favor of chasing the mythical “disenfranchised white working class voter”. Ask the Good Senator how well that worked out for the Green Party.

Here’s the thing, the reason why working class whites don’t vote for Democratic policies along with LGBT people and minorities is that the average working class white person despises to be lumped with minorities. The GOP has been training our trailer park brethren that all of their economic woes are due to those darkies since the Nixon administration. Dixiecrat, anti-science, anti-poor policies weren’t arcane relics that have no place in modern society, they’re bedrocks of “Southern Pride”. Don’t need Race Mixing, Queer Loving, Northeast Jew Commies liberals telling us what to do, No sir!! Basically Bernie Sanders wonders why working class white don’t vote for the pro civil rights party – after we just watched a working class white guy slaughter a prayer meeting full of black people because of the advancements of civil rights. I’m not even go into the numerous attacks on Muslim and Southeast Asian Americans since 9/11, police brutality, the inherent racism in our drug laws and the prison industrial complex. Reach out the White Working Class? Is he kidding?

The issue in the progressive movement isn’t that liberals don’t care about working class white people. The issue is that working class white have been trained to loathe the idea their fate are tied to people of color. They cling to their white privilege like a tattered blanket in a snow storm.

So good luck Bernie Sanders on snagging that brass ring while crapping on people the color of brass. Minorities make 1/3 of the population and over half of Democratic voters. But you know, “demographic politics” You can ask Ralph Nader, John Edwards and Clinton herself how far poo-pooing minorities got them.
19 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
nicole CL Nicholson • 3 months ago
Good comment.

Just a note on coding…. <[strike]><[/strike]> was correct last time I checked (don’t include ‘square’ brackets).
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
CL Nicholson nicole • 3 months ago
Yeah, I saw that. Fixed it right away.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Victor the Crab CL Nicholson • 3 months ago
Excellent post.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Peter Tobias CL Nicholson • 2 months ago
“we just watched a working class white guy slaughter a prayer meeting full of black people because of the advancements of civil rights. ”

And how is that somehow speaking against Bernie Sanders? Sanders demonstrated for Civil Rights in the 1960s and fought against housing segregation.
. . . Why do you call the murderer from Charleston a “working class white guy” instead of “white young male racist”, which would be more precise. I haven’t heard about his parent’s social status, but that he was an unemployed drifter who didn’t look for a job but for race war. What is so working class about him?
• Reply•Share ›

Avatar
CL Nicholson Peter Tobias • 2 months ago
Did you actually listen to his interviews? I never said that Bernie Sanders was a bigot – I said he’s explicitly ignoring the issues of people of color. He said it – TWICE!!

And frankly, using the “I marched with MLK/I hung out with the Panthers” shtick is getting really old. You know who else worked on progressive causes for poor working people. The Clintons, when they were law students at Yale. Also, Holy Joe Lieberman was a Freedom Rider, doesn’t make him any less of a hardcore bigot.
4 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds CL Nicholson • 6 minutes ago
when she speaks out against Keystone pipleine and fracking I’ll vote for her
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aaron M. Litz CL Nicholson • 3 months ago
Hell yes.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Norbrook • 3 months ago
As a number of Democrats found out the hard way out in the real world, it’s not a good idea to distance yourself from, or run against, the President, and in particular, this President. Despite the “purist liberals” belief in various heroes (Bernie is just the current one) and their own influence, they never going to be satisfied with the reality, which is good because they’re really not that influential or a major force in the Democratic Party. Want an indicator? Hillary isn’t going to Netroots Nation this year. 😉
14 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
CL Nicholson Norbrook • 3 months ago
Not surprised that Clinton is skipping Nut-Roots Nation. Why would Hillary bother kissing up to a bunch of dirty, irrelevant, granola crunching Twitter trolls who hate her guts regardless?
10 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds CL Nicholson • 6 minutes ago
she’s not getting elected any way
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar CL Nicholson • 3 months ago
Fucking hippies.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aaron M. Litz Felonious Grammar • 3 months ago
*snrk*

HA!

🙂
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
formerlywhatithink • 3 months ago
Bernie’s biggest liability is going to be his most ardent supporters. Holy shit, if you want to read some sanctimonious, smug, pretentious crap, go to Reddits Bernie Sanders campaign page. I’m not going anywhere near Sanders.
13 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Victor the Crab formerlywhatithink • 3 months ago
I read an article last week from fivethirtyeight, of all places, where they dismissed Sanders chances of coming anywhere near Clinton for the Democratic ticket using raw numbers and statistics, like Sanders’ five percent support among Democratic minorities. His true believers went looney tunes over the article accusing the author of political bias and saying shit like “STATISTICS DON’T MATTER! YOU JUST DON’T GET IT! BERNIE SANDERS 2016!!!”

God help us if those idiots fuck things up for the Democratic party next year.
14 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Victor the Crab • 3 months ago
“using raw numbers and statistics

Its that damn Reality again. I has a clear liberal bias.
6 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aaron M. Litz Christopher Foxx • 3 months ago
I blame it on there being more subatomic particles with left spin than right.*

[*just a joke, I have no idea if that’s actually true.]
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Aaron M. Litz • 3 months ago
It would be so cool if that were true!

Alas, spin doesn’t have a direction. Or, at least, it depends on your frame of reference. Two people oriented different ways (picture one doing a headstand on top of another) report the same particle spinning opposite directions.

There’re “up” and “down” types of quarks, but spin isn’t a left/right thing.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aaron M. Litz Christopher Foxx • 3 months ago
I know, I just wanted to make a joke about spin as political left vs right. 😉 I was thinking about helicity and handedness rather than spin, but I thought spin sounded more impressive. Should have just said more particle were left-handed.

My favorite quarks are strange and charm. 😉
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Razor Victor the Crab • 3 months ago
STATISTICS DON’T MATTER!

Unskewed Polls returns!
4 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Peter Tobias Victor the Crab • 2 months ago
Early polls measure more how well a person is known than voting preferences. A good campaign makes the candidate known, also among minority voters.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
CL Nicholson formerlywhatithink • 3 months ago
The only people who are more self righteous and delusional are Jill Stein supporters. The Jill Stein fanboys are just less relevant.
8 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Razor • 3 months ago
You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing?

It has taken me awhile to figure out what bugs me about statements like this, it seems like a perfectly rational thing to say, almost makes people who do vote “based on color” sound like those real racists the right always tells me about.

But I think I’ve figured it out. Not to get all “check your privilege!” on everyone, but to say something like that does come from a place of privilege. Because simply being black or being Latino in America is inherently political. Look no further than Charleston, Baltimore, Ferguson, Beavercreek, Sanford, Cleveland, etc. and tell me that being black in America should have nothing to do with your politics. For Latinos, it’s plainly obvious and not just when Donald Trump runs his stupid fucking mouth.

So don’t tell me, pampered white liberals, that people shouldn’t vote based on race. Now, if you’re voting for Ben Carson just because he’s black, then yeah, that doesn’t make any sense, but to vote for the Democratic candidate, who is actively courting the black vote based on black interests, makes perfect sense to me.

Obviously Bernie Sanders has proven himself sympathetic to these issues over time, so by no means am I calling him a racist here, just an awful campaigner.
9 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Victor the Crab • 3 months ago
You’d think Bernie Sanders was running for the Republican ticket, what with his base of white Kool-Aid drinking zombies supporters. Not a good idea to be dismissive of a core of Democratic supporters if you’re trying to gain the party’s presidential nomination.
7 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
JohnC80 Victor the Crab • 2 months ago
I notice that about his campaign, the only thing whiter than a Bernie Sanders rally are tea party rallies and snow storms.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Peter Tobias JohnC80 • 2 months ago
And still he supported Jesse Jackson in 1988 and convinced white Vermont to do so, too. Jackson won the Democratic primary in Vermont that year. Did Hillary help Jackson to win in Arkansas?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
NW10 • 3 months ago
And this is why Sanders will fizzle out after New Hampshire, he simply does not have the campaign to compete with Hillary Clinton head to head in states like California, Texas, and Florida with large minority voter populations.
6 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Peter Tobias NW10 • 2 months ago
Sanders is not foreign to minorities. As mayor of Burlington and US senator from Vermont he had to represent white people, but the horizon is wide for the Jewish boy from Brooklyn who marched for Civil Rights in DC in 1963. Where was Clinton when Sanders supported Jesse Jackson in 1988 and helped him to win white Vermont? Scheming with Bill for 1992? I would rather hear more from actual minority voters and less from whites telling minorities what’s best for them.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
lilyhammer • 2 months ago
1) I’m not seriously considering Bernie Sanders. I agree with a lot of what he says, but a lot of what he says isn’t different from what Hillary Clinton says.

More important, I believe that Bernie Sanders is uninterested in convincing people who don’t already agree with him. For instance, instead of becoming a Democrat and doing the hard work of politics, i.e., persuasion and compromise, he’s contented himself with caucusing with Democrats (sincere thanks) and remaining pure.

Also, he’s shown little interest in incorporating race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation/identity into his core class critique. (See 2.) Clearly, he thinks voters will capitulate to his evident correctness. That’s the opposite of how the presidency works.

2) Obviously, how someone’s family is doing has something to do with ethnicity/color. When times are good, whites do better than other races/ethnicities while hard times hit people of color harder than other communities. Class is gendered and racialized. Some recognition of that is good and also smart.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Peter Tobias lilyhammer • 2 months ago
Sanders has worked hard to find allies for his legislation among Democrats and Republicans (Matt Taibbi described his work with the powerful rules committee in an article). At one time, Sanders had created most successful amendements to house bills, but most were stripped out by the Senate afterwards.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Vaidas Sukauskas • 2 months ago
Wow, so many butt-hurt people. I dont have a dog in the fight, since i’m from europe, so i might me more objective.

1. Hillary is more rightwing than Obama. She has closer ties with financial industry. She seems out of touch with struggling middle class and income inequality. Bernie is way better on this. And it benefits eveyone, white. black, latino. Minorities would be stupid to vote hillary over bernie.

2. Obama has been a pocket change President. His only significant achievement is ObamaCare. And even then it’s watered down. Basically a republican plan. Obama’s Modus Operandi is 5% change. Real jounarlist should have asked him – when you said change the system, not just play better, what did you mean? Alas, you have not real meadia. Well, at least it’s not backwards like republican presidents do.. So Hillary hitching her wagon to Obama is not that great as it sounds. For example, what Obama has done for black community? There’s sentencing reform? Gun regulation? Inner cities reform? Affordable housing? Drugs legalization? Nada on these issues.

3. Hillary is duplicitous. She’s in it to win it, not to help people. Do you think rich people would donate her this much money if she’d be really serious about helping others, not just increasing profits for her friends the bankers?

4. What does she stand for? I know it’s still a little too early in elections for her to hammer her plans (since voters are stupid and gonna forget all about it by fall next year, just like they did about republican govt. shutdown…), but by the same token why would you support her? Isnt that should be reserved for when you hear about the issues?

Bernie would be far better for america. Just look at all those societal health indicators. You’re so deep in the shit. Teen pregnancy, abortion rate, incarceration rates, longevity, healthcare, paid holidays, divorce rates, social mobility, you name it, you lag behind western europe.

So how about you drop this condescending crap and give Sanders a fair chance?
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Victor the Crab Vaidas Sukauskas • 2 months ago
The only butt-hurt person on this comments section is you. Tissue?
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matt Ladouceur Victor the Crab • 2 months ago
Go back to spongebob.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Victor the Crab Matt Ladouceur • 2 months ago
Such a witty response coming from a four year old.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Victor the Crab • 4 minutes ago
at least his IQ isn’t 4
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
fidel305 Vaidas Sukauskas • a month ago
then STFFU and go away and let Americans decide the fate of the world as usual
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Vaidas Sukauskas fidel305 • a month ago
Oh nice, i got my own personal troll.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
fidel305 Vaidas Sukauskas • a month ago
Ur a socialist. You don’t have a personal anything, remember?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds fidel305 • 3 minutes ago
yes Fidel Castro we know your bias
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
John Smith Vaidas Sukauskas • a month ago
See this is a serious problem for democrats. Bernie supporters are basically eating the DNC from the inside out. Most of America isn’t gonna vote for him, and by him running on our ticket, he is dragging us down with him. He is using our ticket to sell ponies and rainbows. I don’t know, I got a bad feeling about this one guys. It’s not looking too good. His supporters don’t understand the first thing about the powers of a president and act as if Bernie is gonna use some super power to force congress to provide a utopia against their constituents wishes.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Vaidas Sukauskas John Smith • a month ago
It’s the DNC that abandoned most of america. Bernie is just return to normalcy. And polls bear on that. MOst of America are liberal on issues. And polls also say that head to head with republican candidates, bernie wins presidential elections, more so than Hillary. Democrats now have become republicans lite. Look at scandinavia, look at Germany, France. Their rightwing canditates for prime ministers and presidents are to the left of Hillary Clinton!
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
John Smith Vaidas Sukauskas • a month ago
Hillary is anything but republican lite. Apparently you have become so blinded by the propaganda about the Clintons, that you haven’t done any real research. Her voting record is even more left than Obama. Tax the rich to give back to the corporate owned government you say? How exactly do you think that is gonna work out for us? Why does he need the government to institute income equality? Why not just cut the government out and force the corporations to give it directly back to us with caps on CEO pay?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds John Smith • 2 minutes ago
Clinton is dishonest and is in bed with big business. She wont be elected
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Vaidas Sukauskas John Smith • a month ago
I didnt say Hillary, i said DNC and democrats. Learn to read… For the last 2-3 decades they drifted to much rightward that they woudnt be considered leftwing here in Europe. Hence my comment about republican lite.

Also, i am not knowledgeable about about her voting record. Or bernie sanders. But i know Obama’s. And he’s at best a centrist. a 5% change man. Saying Hillary is to the left of him is not much of a praise… Besides, given her Iraq vote, given her ties with financial industry, i would be surprised to find her to actually be to the left of Obama. And if not for the bernie, who’s forcing her to adopt more leftwing campaign…

Tax the rich? When did i say that? Learn to read, again… And that’s the wrong question. They are already taxed (however little) Are you saying dont tax the rich? The real question is how much to tax. But, as i see, you’re an ideologue, I won’t be able to have an intelligent conversation and hence i end this..
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
fidel305 Vaidas Sukauskas • a month ago
but then again you’re a moron. so there’s that to consider
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds fidel305 • 2 minutes ago
and you’re a dictator- there’s that to consider
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Jamesi3m Vaidas Sukauskas • 2 months ago
You may be more objective, but certainly not more informed. I don’t think you have a good understanding of how American governance actually works.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Jamesi3m • a minute ago
that american politics is corrupt and takes bribes from super pacs? American politics is plutocracy.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aimee Barfield Jamesi3m • 2 months ago
He’s not more objective. He’s shown that clearly but what he’s written. He’s definitely not informed.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matt Ladouceur Jamesi3m • 2 months ago
That’s uncool. Maybe you’re too close to be properly objective. Or maybe Hillary is too close to your beloved pseudomessiah Obama. Either way cats right about her. She’s progressive and a neo con deep down. More názi than you know.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Vaidas Sukauskas Jamesi3m • 2 months ago
What have I gotten wrong?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Jamesi3m Vaidas Sukauskas • 2 months ago
1. Clinton is left of Obama, and has a clear record on pay and income inequality.

2. You are wrong about the presidency and what should be expected of the office, and you are wrong about Obama’s accomplishments.

3. A smear with no basis in reality. Clinton gets donations because she is a force to be respected.

4. Again, no basis. Clinton has a decades long record or her positions and sentiments.

Finally, saying Bernie would be better again shows your ignorance of the the office of the President and the American political system. We don’t have any sort of coalition building. We have three branches where it is winner take all. Any Dem president that puts forth the effort will be about the same as any other. The difference is not what they will accomplish, it is which is more likely to lose the race. That is Bernie.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Matt Ladouceur Jamesi3m • 2 months ago
Democratic party koolaid aid drinker. Thought you were made of better stuff.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Jamesi3m Matt Ladouceur • 2 months ago
Interesting. Especially since i’m not a Dem at all. But clearly you are not making any sort of rational argument, or you would have directly addressed my points and not simply resorted to name calling.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
fidel305 Vaidas Sukauskas • a month ago
life
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Mark Eurich • 2 months ago
Sanders is good for Clinton. He will either make her stronger by raising issues she hasn’t addressed, or look like she’s avoiding them. It’s time to show your true colors Hillary.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
John Smith Mark Eurich • a month ago
I disagree. I think he is proving a false sense of reality to desperate adults who, for whatever reason, feel they are trapped in a hopeless situation and are looking for an easy way out. It took me 7 years of sacrifice and hard work in a science related field to get a good paying job. I watched as my friends went out almost everyday of the week, switching their majors to BAs because they just “couldn’t” handle the demand of studying instead of being able to party all the time.

These same people are now working in some retail job for low pay because they can’t find a job. No amount of free stuff is gonna change their lives. They made the choices that got them where they are. People that come after them are gonna make the same choices in life that they did. No one is your savior except yourself.

Then I see some guy on tv promising free college (not affordable but free), free healthcare, and it breaks my heart. Because I know that as president, he won’t be able to deliver these things. He has no such power as president to do so. This is a total congressional issue, but more importantly, a life style issue that is personal, and not dependent on getting something handed to you on a silver platter.
• Reply•Share ›
Load more comments
Powered by Disqus
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/08/bernie-sanders-just-rolled-out-a-pretty-good-racial-justice-platform/

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/08/bernie-sanders-just-rolled-out-a-pretty-good-racial-justice-platform/

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/08/bernie-sanders-refuses-to-say-hillary-clinton-is-honest-and-trustworthy/

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/06/why-hillary-clinton-is-wisely-resisting-bernie-sanders-political-strategy/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80728.html

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2008/03/09/3-am-girl-is-an-obama-girl-now/

http://thedailybanter.com/2008/05/hillary-clinton-says-shes-staying-in-because-someone-could-assassinate-obama-like-rfk/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained

ॐ peaceful_revolutionary • a month ago
Hillary has you to remind everyone of Bernie’s college essay, Tommy.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Peter James ॐ peaceful_revolutionary • a month ago
Just like Bernie has him (Tommy) to remind everyone of Hillary’s missteps in the 2008 primary against Obama.

That sword cuts both ways, chief.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
ॐ peaceful_revolutionary Peter James • a month ago
I’m not a chief. I’m a 70 year old grandmother 🙂
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx ॐ peaceful_revolutionary • a month ago
Riiiight. Because “everyone” reads the Banter.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
ॐ peaceful_revolutionary Christopher Foxx • a month ago
Missed my point completely.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx ॐ peaceful_revolutionary • a month ago
No, I got what you were trying to convey with your hyperbole. So I called you out on your hyperbole.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Jason Christopher Foxx • a month ago
It’s not hyperbole. Tommy is a hack.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Jason • a month ago
You should check a dictionary sometime.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
missliberties • a month ago
Bernie is doing a great job, but I still trust Hillary’s experience.

That said, Hillary is going to be Swiftboated to the death by the right.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
D_C_Wilson missliberties • a month ago
Hillary’s biggest problem is that the GOP has had 23 years to do opposition research on her. Obama had a big advantage in 2008 in that republicans were unprepared to face him at first. They had been gearing up to run against Hillary and had to scramble to shift gears when he overtook her.

On the other hand, so much about Hillary is already old news. Her skeletons have been dragged out of the closet, beaten, and then ground into a fine powder. Stories about Vince Foster and the stained dress aren’t going to derail her. Even Emailgate is getting stale. Can the GOP win by constantly fucking the Benghazi chicken for another 15 months? I kind of doubt it.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
condew missliberties • a month ago
For somebody who’s been contemplating a run for President for at least 15 years, her website is surprisingly thin. I guess if she says very little there is less to attack her on, but also no reason to support her.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
missliberties condew • a month ago
blah blah blah I am not here to defend Hillary against your bromides.

What I will say is that girl is one tough sister. She has been visciously attacked over made up scandals for decades now.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds missliberties • 4 minutes ago
and she has created her own scandals and missteps
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
D_C_Wilson • a month ago
If Hillary is denied the nomination a second time by an upstart candidate (and I don’t think she will be) the results are going to be thermonuclear.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
condew D_C_Wilson • a month ago
True, but Obama won reelection by 4% in 2012 and Hillary will not hold every vote Obama got. It’s going to be a hard slog to get enough Democrats excited enough to turn out in 2016, and Hillary hasn’t really hit the campaign trail yet; we may not even see much of her until the first debate October 13. Then we’ll find out if she’s viable or likely to fizzle. Until Hillary shows some life and a reason to change, I’ll support Bernie.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Peter James condew • a month ago
Hillary “will not hold every vote that Obama got” but you think that Bernie will?

Bernie who can’t even crack more than 10% in key constituencies and demographics of Obama’s base (blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities)?

That’s some righteous logic, right there.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Peter James • 3 minutes ago
her dishonesty will kill her
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
NW10 condew • a month ago
As long as Hillary holds onto black voters and Hispanics/Latinos, she’ll be fine. POC are the Democratic base, because they reliably vote Democratic. White liberals don’t reliably vote Democratic at all.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
condew NW10 • a month ago
POC are 45% of the Democratic base, and mostly because they turn out a larger percentage. Will black voters stand in line all day to vote for Hillary like they did for Obama? I doubt it. Their treatment of Bernie says loud and clear “only skin color matters”.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
D_C_Wilson condew • a month ago
If that was true, then black people would be flocking to Ben Carson in droves. Obviously, more than skin color matters to them.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
NW10 condew • a month ago
Sanders supporters like you are doing more to ensure that he doesn’t get POC to support him more than he is. Posting and speaking like you know what’s better for black people than they do is precisely why Bernie is likely to fizzle out once he gets out of the majority white states of New Hampshire and Iowa.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Peter James NW10 • a month ago
To be fair to him, he’s only parroting what his candidate (Bernie) ) essentially said about black voters after the 2014 mid-terms.

Reality be damned.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
i_a_c condew • a month ago
There you go, calling all black people racist again.

I know this is difficult for some people to understand, but black folks are not some monolith of thought.
1 • Reply•Share ›

Avatar
Peter James condew • a month ago
>>>>”Will black voters stand in line all day to vote for Hillary like they did for Obama? I doubt it. Their treatment of Bernie says loud and clear “only skin color matters”.”

So it must suck for you to know and realize that Bernie can’t win the White House without them (and the Latino vote).

No Democrat nominee can win the White House without winning a majority of the Minority (non-white vote).

But yeah, keep slamming blacks and see how well that works out for your dream candidate.
Enjoy the ride while you can.

“only skin color matters”?

Right.
Spoken like your candidate when he made the same asinine slam against blacks after the 2014 mid-terms.
Black voters who have voted for nothing but WHITE candidates (in reliable and consistent numbers) before Obama came along.

But right, “only skin color matters” to them.

You’re an idiot.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Peter James • a minute ago
they wont vote for dishonesty and big corporation hillary either, she is as racist as they come.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Peter James • 2 minutes ago
only honesty matters
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Sir Heywood J. • a month ago
Oh sweet sweet schadenfreude
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Badgerite • a month ago
I think it is going to be an interesting primary season in the Democratic party and I think Bernie Sanders has been responsible for making that so. I think the eventual candidate will come out stronger for it. But in the end the ultimate test is who is the best candidate to hold the field in November against whoever the GOP finally nominates. That Bernie Sanders can do well, when actually listened to, with basically liberal voters in the Northeast I don’t think was ever in question. It is the general election where he would have to face the onslaught of negative and downright libelous campaigning that Hilary Clinton has faced pretty much her entire political life that is in question. I think he has added a dimension to the debate that was lacking before. And I think there is one thing you can count on Bernie Sanders to do and that is keep it above board with an eye toward the general election and the long term interests of progressives. Some of his supporters I don’t think can be counted on for that.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Jason Badgerite • a month ago
🙂
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
NW10 • a month ago
When Bernie fizzles out after New Hampshire and Iowa, I’m going to look forward to hearing all of the excuses of a conspiracy involving Hillary Clinton buying off superdelegates and the primaries. Bernie Sanders = Ron Paul 2.0 with the same wacko bird supporters.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds NW10 • a few seconds ago
no one wants a plutocracy, we’ve had more than enough clintons and bushes in the white house
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds NW10 • a few seconds ago
Clinton is going down, and she knows it.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Peter James NW10 • a month ago
You don’t need to wait that long.

The conspiracies claims of Hillary being behind the BLM protesters against Bernie at his events, are running in full swing (despite the fact that BLM protesters also protested at a Hillary even a couple of days ago).

And you’re right;
Bernie is Ron Paul 2.0 with the same Libertarian whackjob supporters sprinklered in with “Far Left Progressives” and the usual cry-babies on the Democrat side (The “Obama didn’t deliver my sparkle-coloured ponies and unicorns exactly like I wanted”-types)
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Peter James • a few seconds ago
nah hillary wont win because she’s in bed with the oil companies. whack jobs? the only whacker is you
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/08/what-bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-lead-means-for-hillary-clinton/

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/a35d9ff8-45d4-476d-8751-f0f2e6b54a7b.pdf

mmunity
Avatar
2
Recommend
Sort by Best
Join the discussion…

Avatar
Barbara Striden • 3 days ago
Biden is polling well because he’s a hypothetical; since he isn’t a candidate yet, people project their various wish fulfillment fantasies onto him. As soon as he declares, takes a few stands and makes a few mistakes, people will turn on him. It’s a sad aspect of human nature that Chez points out in his post about Bernie and how his supporters would respond to his actually governing as President.

Remember, in his past runs for the White House, Biden not only lost, but lost badly. His tenure as VP has probably helped his image somewhat, but not enough to make a difference. And one should not underestimate the rage that would be unleashed if Hillary, the first woman in history to have a strong shot at being elected President, is turned aside again. And I think a significant amount of that rage would be justified; whatever Hillary’s baggage may be, is it really that much more significant than that carried by many of the men who’ve occupied the Oval Office?
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Barbara Striden • a minute ago
Rage? The Clintons have been around long enough. So have the Bushes. It’s time for a change. There would be more rage if she somehow got elected (she wont.)
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Camacho/Trump 2016!! • 3 days ago
Part 214 of Tommy Christopher’s ongoing series, “Why you should stop being excited about Bernie Sanders and start supporting Hillary”
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Jason Camacho/Trump 2016!! • 2 days ago
Exactly.
It is fun tracking Tommy’s progress through the various stages. We have already seen denial. I am pretty sure this is an attempt at ridicule. I guess we can start getting excited if he ever hits the anger stage. Which I am pretty sure Chez is already at with his latest piece.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Jason • a few seconds ago
Tommy is a paid schill, pure and simple
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
CaliCat • 4 days ago
I’ve been saying this for a while now – Joe Biden is the best option the Democrats have to retake the White House. Some writers here continue to insist that Hillary is doing just fine and her unfavorability is merely media spin – they’re wrong. As for Sanders, he has about as much chance of getting elected president as Nader or Kucinich did in the past. He’s a fantasy of the far left that will lead nowhere.

Pragmatically speaking, we need Joe to run ( I also like him the best). I hope he makes it official soon. I still think he should choose O’Malley as his running mate if he wins the nom. Not sure Warren has enough mainstream appeal to be a good choice for VP.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
repugnicant • 4 days ago
Warren must be loving this shit. She is HYDRA.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
That River Gal • 4 days ago
No doubt because of the rumors swirling about Warren.
Ceoltoir
Ceoltoir 14 minutes ago
What you want to be true doesn’t make it so. Greenwald has been proven over and over to completely full of crap and will to engage in bald face lies in order to advance his own agenda. Snowden has shown little or no integrity. For all the talk of respecting the rights of individuals has had no problem selling information to the respective Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies. Not much respect for human rights there.
At what point Alex do you admit that you’ve been played as a sucker by these two charlatans?
Reply View in discussion
Alex Reynolds
Alex Reynolds a few seconds ago
Selling info to the Chinese and Russians is messed up, but the fact is what the Americans and British were doing didn’t respect human rights either. I read every word that was published- from the skype and yahoo cam shots to the google hack to the using Guatemalans as guinea pigs for medical experiments.
Alex Reynolds
Alex Reynolds a few seconds ago
None of that even matters in face of what they exposed about the NSA. The fact is what they did resulted in massive reforms to the system, those reforms would never have been happened had they not blown the whistle. Same goes for wikileaks.

Ceoltoir
Ceoltoir 14 minutes ago
What you want to be true doesn’t make it so. Greenwald has been proven over and over to completely full of crap and will to engage in bald face lies in order to advance his own agenda. Snowden has shown little or no integrity. For all the talk of respecting the rights of individuals has had no problem selling information to the respective Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies. Not much respect for human rights there.
At what point Alex do you admit that you’ve been played as a sucker by these two charlatans?
Reply View in discussion
Alex Reynolds
Alex Reynolds a few seconds ago
Selling info to the Chinese and Russians is messed up, but the fact is what the Americans and British were doing didn’t respect human rights either. I read every word that was published- from the skype and yahoo cam shots to the google hack to the using Guatemalans as guinea pigs for medical experiments.
Alex Reynolds
Alex Reynolds a few seconds ago
None of that even matters in face of what they exposed about the NSA. The fact is what they did resulted in massive reforms to the system, those reforms would never have been happened had they not blown the whistle. Same goes for wikileaks.

saarah halzack wash post

Nefercat • 5 months ago
“…see if any Republicans release a video favorably showing two men holding hands”
————————–
You mean like Bush and the Saudi king?
22 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Greta42 Nefercat • 5 months ago
Not only holding hands but kissing!
9 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
McKinley Nefercat • 5 months ago
Nefercat, you win the internet today!
4 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
repugnicant • 5 months ago
I’m more worried about the new generational Left and how they can condemn us all to a GOP presidency. A bunch of whiny, ill-informed children who think their personal lives trump the country as a whole.
12 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds repugnicant • 6 minutes ago
yes they do, because the politicians dont get to define what “country” means, we do. They cannot be allowed to take away freedom for security, something Ben Franklin wrote about. You do know who he is?
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Scopedog repugnicant • 5 months ago
Hell, they did it back in 2000. The fact that they’re still carrying on with the same old line of nonsense means that they haven’t learned a damned thing over the past fifteen years. Sad, really.
6 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Scopedog • 5 months ago
Hey, buddy.

Do you know how generations work?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Scopedog Guest • 5 months ago
Yes I do, thank you very much. And I’ll ask you–do you remember how 2000 worked out? Or have you flensed that from your memory?
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Scopedog • 5 months ago
I wasn’t old enough to vote in 2000. Like 99% of millenials. I do know how it played out though.

Someone (Nader) ran a campaign based on anti-corporate fuckery.

Someone else (Gore) didn’t.

Bush was then appointed supreme leader.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
nicole Guest • 5 months ago
but of course you’re a millenial.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest nicole • 5 months ago
AYE.

Of course I am one of those who doesn’t readily accept the way things work around here.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
That River Gal Guest • 5 months ago
Because you lack the sense, age and experience to have a clue.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds That River Gal • 6 minutes ago
No because we aren’t corrupt like you are
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest That River Gal • 5 months ago
I have reason to believe otherwise.

Some of them people your age who’ve been around long enough to actually witness the stupidity of the American public.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
nicole Guest • 5 months ago
Correction: you are one of those who doesn’t have much understanding of how anything works. Nor do you care to educate yourself. Nor do you care to listen to people who know more than you do.

Big surprise.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds nicole • a few seconds ago
Sure when your dishonest candidate makes her position clear on Keystone then you can talk, until then it’s pathetic that you support a liar and big oil supporter
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds nicole • 5 minutes ago
sure and you’re the one who would have blindly followed the experimentation on Guatemalans by Americans? Your evil knows no bounds
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest nicole • 5 months ago
How anything works?

I don’t need to have been alive for the last 50 years to understand how things work.

They work a lot differently now than they did when you were growing up. How hard was it for one person to work and support a family when you were a kid? How expensive was college when you were a kid?

I understand that there are vast differences between republicans and democrats–but I also understand the similarities. People with money and corporations are catered to, not people like me.

You know who gets that? Sanders/Warren.

You know who doesn’t get that? Clinton.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aimee Barfield Guest • 5 months ago
Warren was still a Republican when I cast my first ballot in 1994. For an educated woman she was a Republican for the most ill informed economic reasons. Forgive me if I don’t roll over at Warren’s ‘progressive bona fides’. When she was older than I am now she marveled at how the market performed under Republican leadership. She disliked Democratic control of government because Democrats more likely to be ‘activist’ in terms of the ‘ free market’.

The only thing Elizabeth Warren got was what Hillary Clinton knew forty some odd years before Warren up and decided to get anything.
3 • Reply•Share ›

Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“You know who gets that? Sanders/Warren.
You know who doesn’t get that? Clinton.

You know who doesn’t stand a chance of becoming President? Sanders.
You know who isn’t even running? Warren.
You know who’s going to be far better for people like you than any Republican? Clinton.

You know who doesn’t get that? You.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Christopher Foxx • 3 minutes ago
Nah, it’s better that Clinton lose. Too much monarchy with the clintons and bushes- both those families need to disappear
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“…Chris Foxx”

I prefer Christopher, Dennis.
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
And today’s “contributions” add:

“Chris, you fat fooker you. Shut the fook up”
“Xtopher shut up. Billary2016. Stop her is a fat fooker”
“You prefer having dudes sticking fingers up your ass, don’t you Chris?”
“Wah, way wah. You stupid libtard fat fooker you. Wah wah wah”

Can someone just ban this Dennis sockpuppet?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar Guest • 5 months ago
If you don’t see how not holding your nose and voting for Clinton can result in a Republican POTUS that would be much worse than Hillary, then your problem is with arithmetic.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dennis Felonious Grammar • 5 months ago
You’ll protest a war that Hillary voted for but you won’t protest not having a choice for a Democrat nominee for president. You’re given a 68 year old throw-back from twenty years ago with few accomplishments and you’re expected to not only like it, you’re also given the directive to shame folks like Bim Jean into liking her, too.

How far the party has fallen.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar Dennis • 5 months ago
The “throw back” who just spent four years in the State Department? Not everyone fossilizes like you do, Dennis.

edit: And no one is asking anyone to like her. People here have indicated that she’s not their first choice. We’re talking about the difference between having a Democratic President and a Republican one. I don’t think it’s any secret that this is the general bias here. No one is trying to play tricks on you.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Felonious Grammar • 5 months ago
“And no one is asking anyone to like her. People here have indicated that she’s not their first choice.”

You’re trying to get Dennis to acknowledge provable reality. You know that’s just not going to happen, right?
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“Yo Chris”

I prefer Christopher.

And who are you?
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
And today’s contributions add:

“Chris, you fat fooker you. Shut the fook up”
“Xtopher shut up. Billary2016. Stop her is a fat fooker”
“You prefer having dudes sticking fingers up your ass, don’t you Chris?”
“Wah, way wah. You stupid libtard fat fooker you. Wah wah wah”

Can someone just ban this Dennis sockpuppet?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
cleos_mom Dennis • 5 months ago
“You’re given a 68 year old throw-back from twenty years ago with few accomplishments”

Absolutely. If a candidate in a national election isn’t young enough to give ya a woody, what good is she?
Thumbnail
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Dennis • 5 months ago
“but you won’t protest not having a choice for a Democrat nominee for president”

There was a choice. And that choice has already been made.

“and you’re expected to not only like it, you’re also given the directive to shame folks like Bim Jean into liking her, too”

More just Dennis bullshit, as expected. Nobody has told Bim Jean he “has to like it”. On the contrary, folks have been pointing out the pragmatism of holding your nose and voting for her.
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
FATTYWiley = Dennis sockpuppet.
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
And today’s contributions include:

“Chris, you fat fooker you. Shut the fook up”
“Xtopher shut up. Billary2016. Stop her is a fat fooker”
“You prefer having dudes sticking fingers up your ass, don’t you Chris?”
“Wah, way wah. You stupid libtard fat fooker you. Wah wah wah”

Can someone just ban this Dennis sockpuppet?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dennis Christopher Foxx • 5 months ago
You sound like a cultist, xtopher. Listen to yourself, a full year and a half before the election.

You sound like Tom Cruise being asked about Scientology.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Dennis • 5 months ago
“You sound like a cultist, xtopher.”

I prefer Christopher.

And a cultist? How, exactly? By pointing out that folks aren’t blindly singing the praises of Clinton?

Oh, right. We’re in Dennis world, where not drinking the Kool-Aid makes you a member of the cult, where selecting an option means you didn’t get a choice and where every day is opposite day.

Gods, he’s tiring.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dennis Christopher Foxx • 5 months ago
Cultists like you demand tribal loyalty the way you’ve demanded it of Bim Jean, a year and a half before the election, because he tells you what you already know but won’t admit, that Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
cleos_mom Guest • 5 months ago
Yep.

One of the voters who’s going to give us a GOP President. “OMG!! HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?”
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
nicole Guest • 5 months ago
You’re a fool.

You can scream and cry all you like, but you will not change anything, you will only make things worse. Just like you did in 2000.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds nicole • 2 minutes ago
Isn’t it time for you to put on your Depends?
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest nicole • 5 months ago
I am not screaming or crying.

I’ve come here to tell you that Clinton is a non-starter for me, and I suspect there are more like me out there.

I did nothing in 2000, as I was not old enough to vote. That is something you’ll have to resent others for.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
stacib23 Guest • 5 months ago
I’ve come here to tell you…
I’ve had a crappy two days, but damn if this isn’t funny and makes me feel a bit better. The picture in my head of how one must look when pronouncing such a statement is cracking me up.
4 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar stacib23 • 5 months ago
Hat and a trench coat?
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
stacib23 Felonious Grammar • 5 months ago
Big belly, too short pants, arm raised, stentorian voice – pompous, very pompous. LOL
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“I’ve come here to tell you that Clinton is a non-starter for me, and I suspect there are more like me out there.”

And when the choice comes down to Clinton or a Republican, which way will you go?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aimee Barfield Guest • 5 months ago
His ‘anti-corporate fuckery’ was funded by Republican donors. Same as it’s been ever since.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Guest • 5 months ago
☛✈4< keys to Continuous Optimism

* 3 areas to be mindful of

* 4 daily practices to become very optimistic

* A very simple key to being happy ^^ ===> You can get it HERE

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

►►►►►►—- http://www.optimism.com/best/789k

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫ ✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
cleos_mom repugnicant • 5 months ago

Thumbnail
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest repugnicant • 5 months ago
Hahaha.

” condemn us all to a GOP presidency.”

Feel free to take credit for any of the countless fuckups your generation has elected into office, asshole.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
repugnicant Guest • 5 months ago
Like I said…
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds repugnicant • a minute ago
Why aren’t people from your generation euthanized yet? You contribute nothing
• Edit• Reply•Share ›

Avatar
Guest repugnicant • 5 months ago
I replied to what you said. Do you have something you want to add?
• Reply•Share ›
Load more comments

Recommend 2
Sort by Best
Join the discussion…

Avatar
Nefercat • 5 months ago
“…see if any Republicans release a video favorably showing two men holding hands”
————————–
You mean like Bush and the Saudi king?
22 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Greta42 Nefercat • 5 months ago
Not only holding hands but kissing!
9 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
McKinley Nefercat • 5 months ago
Nefercat, you win the internet today!
4 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
repugnicant • 5 months ago
I’m more worried about the new generational Left and how they can condemn us all to a GOP presidency. A bunch of whiny, ill-informed children who think their personal lives trump the country as a whole.
12 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds repugnicant • 10 minutes ago
yes they do, because the politicians dont get to define what “country” means, we do. They cannot be allowed to take away freedom for security, something Ben Franklin wrote about. You do know who he is?
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Scopedog repugnicant • 5 months ago
Hell, they did it back in 2000. The fact that they’re still carrying on with the same old line of nonsense means that they haven’t learned a damned thing over the past fifteen years. Sad, really.
6 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Scopedog • 5 months ago
Hey, buddy.

Do you know how generations work?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Scopedog Guest • 5 months ago
Yes I do, thank you very much. And I’ll ask you–do you remember how 2000 worked out? Or have you flensed that from your memory?
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Scopedog • 5 months ago
I wasn’t old enough to vote in 2000. Like 99% of millenials. I do know how it played out though.

Someone (Nader) ran a campaign based on anti-corporate fuckery.

Someone else (Gore) didn’t.

Bush was then appointed supreme leader.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
nicole Guest • 5 months ago
but of course you’re a millenial.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest nicole • 5 months ago
AYE.

Of course I am one of those who doesn’t readily accept the way things work around here.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
That River Gal Guest • 5 months ago
Because you lack the sense, age and experience to have a clue.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds That River Gal • 10 minutes ago
No because we aren’t corrupt like you are
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest That River Gal • 5 months ago
I have reason to believe otherwise.

Some of them people your age who’ve been around long enough to actually witness the stupidity of the American public.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
nicole Guest • 5 months ago
Correction: you are one of those who doesn’t have much understanding of how anything works. Nor do you care to educate yourself. Nor do you care to listen to people who know more than you do.

Big surprise.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds nicole • 4 minutes ago
Sure when your dishonest candidate makes her position clear on Keystone then you can talk, until then it’s pathetic that you support a liar and big oil supporter
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds nicole • 9 minutes ago
sure and you’re the one who would have blindly followed the experimentation on Guatemalans by Americans? Your evil knows no bounds
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest nicole • 5 months ago
How anything works?

I don’t need to have been alive for the last 50 years to understand how things work.

They work a lot differently now than they did when you were growing up. How hard was it for one person to work and support a family when you were a kid? How expensive was college when you were a kid?

I understand that there are vast differences between republicans and democrats–but I also understand the similarities. People with money and corporations are catered to, not people like me.

You know who gets that? Sanders/Warren.

You know who doesn’t get that? Clinton.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aimee Barfield Guest • 5 months ago
Warren was still a Republican when I cast my first ballot in 1994. For an educated woman she was a Republican for the most ill informed economic reasons. Forgive me if I don’t roll over at Warren’s ‘progressive bona fides’. When she was older than I am now she marveled at how the market performed under Republican leadership. She disliked Democratic control of government because Democrats more likely to be ‘activist’ in terms of the ‘ free market’.

The only thing Elizabeth Warren got was what Hillary Clinton knew forty some odd years before Warren up and decided to get anything.
3 • Reply•Share ›

Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“You know who gets that? Sanders/Warren.
You know who doesn’t get that? Clinton.

You know who doesn’t stand a chance of becoming President? Sanders.
You know who isn’t even running? Warren.
You know who’s going to be far better for people like you than any Republican? Clinton.

You know who doesn’t get that? You.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Christopher Foxx • 7 minutes ago
Nah, it’s better that Clinton lose. Too much monarchy with the clintons and bushes- both those families need to disappear
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“…Chris Foxx”

I prefer Christopher, Dennis.
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
And today’s “contributions” add:

“Chris, you fat fooker you. Shut the fook up”
“Xtopher shut up. Billary2016. Stop her is a fat fooker”
“You prefer having dudes sticking fingers up your ass, don’t you Chris?”
“Wah, way wah. You stupid libtard fat fooker you. Wah wah wah”

Can someone just ban this Dennis sockpuppet?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar Guest • 5 months ago
If you don’t see how not holding your nose and voting for Clinton can result in a Republican POTUS that would be much worse than Hillary, then your problem is with arithmetic.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dennis Felonious Grammar • 5 months ago
You’ll protest a war that Hillary voted for but you won’t protest not having a choice for a Democrat nominee for president. You’re given a 68 year old throw-back from twenty years ago with few accomplishments and you’re expected to not only like it, you’re also given the directive to shame folks like Bim Jean into liking her, too.

How far the party has fallen.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar Dennis • 5 months ago
The “throw back” who just spent four years in the State Department? Not everyone fossilizes like you do, Dennis.

edit: And no one is asking anyone to like her. People here have indicated that she’s not their first choice. We’re talking about the difference between having a Democratic President and a Republican one. I don’t think it’s any secret that this is the general bias here. No one is trying to play tricks on you.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Felonious Grammar • 5 months ago
“And no one is asking anyone to like her. People here have indicated that she’s not their first choice.”

You’re trying to get Dennis to acknowledge provable reality. You know that’s just not going to happen, right?
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“Yo Chris”

I prefer Christopher.

And who are you?
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
And today’s contributions add:

“Chris, you fat fooker you. Shut the fook up”
“Xtopher shut up. Billary2016. Stop her is a fat fooker”
“You prefer having dudes sticking fingers up your ass, don’t you Chris?”
“Wah, way wah. You stupid libtard fat fooker you. Wah wah wah”

Can someone just ban this Dennis sockpuppet?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
cleos_mom Dennis • 5 months ago
“You’re given a 68 year old throw-back from twenty years ago with few accomplishments”

Absolutely. If a candidate in a national election isn’t young enough to give ya a woody, what good is she?
Thumbnail
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Dennis • 5 months ago
“but you won’t protest not having a choice for a Democrat nominee for president”

There was a choice. And that choice has already been made.

“and you’re expected to not only like it, you’re also given the directive to shame folks like Bim Jean into liking her, too”

More just Dennis bullshit, as expected. Nobody has told Bim Jean he “has to like it”. On the contrary, folks have been pointing out the pragmatism of holding your nose and voting for her.
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
FATTYWiley = Dennis sockpuppet.
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
And today’s contributions include:

“Chris, you fat fooker you. Shut the fook up”
“Xtopher shut up. Billary2016. Stop her is a fat fooker”
“You prefer having dudes sticking fingers up your ass, don’t you Chris?”
“Wah, way wah. You stupid libtard fat fooker you. Wah wah wah”

Can someone just ban this Dennis sockpuppet?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dennis Christopher Foxx • 5 months ago
You sound like a cultist, xtopher. Listen to yourself, a full year and a half before the election.

You sound like Tom Cruise being asked about Scientology.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Dennis • 5 months ago
“You sound like a cultist, xtopher.”

I prefer Christopher.

And a cultist? How, exactly? By pointing out that folks aren’t blindly singing the praises of Clinton?

Oh, right. We’re in Dennis world, where not drinking the Kool-Aid makes you a member of the cult, where selecting an option means you didn’t get a choice and where every day is opposite day.

Gods, he’s tiring.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dennis Christopher Foxx • 5 months ago
Cultists like you demand tribal loyalty the way you’ve demanded it of Bim Jean, a year and a half before the election, because he tells you what you already know but won’t admit, that Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
cleos_mom Guest • 5 months ago
Yep.

One of the voters who’s going to give us a GOP President. “OMG!! HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?”
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
nicole Guest • 5 months ago
You’re a fool.

You can scream and cry all you like, but you will not change anything, you will only make things worse. Just like you did in 2000.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds nicole • 6 minutes ago
Isn’t it time for you to put on your Depends?
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest nicole • 5 months ago
I am not screaming or crying.

I’ve come here to tell you that Clinton is a non-starter for me, and I suspect there are more like me out there.

I did nothing in 2000, as I was not old enough to vote. That is something you’ll have to resent others for.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
stacib23 Guest • 5 months ago
I’ve come here to tell you…
I’ve had a crappy two days, but damn if this isn’t funny and makes me feel a bit better. The picture in my head of how one must look when pronouncing such a statement is cracking me up.
4 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar stacib23 • 5 months ago
Hat and a trench coat?
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
stacib23 Felonious Grammar • 5 months ago
Big belly, too short pants, arm raised, stentorian voice – pompous, very pompous. LOL
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“I’ve come here to tell you that Clinton is a non-starter for me, and I suspect there are more like me out there.”

And when the choice comes down to Clinton or a Republican, which way will you go?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aimee Barfield Guest • 5 months ago
His ‘anti-corporate fuckery’ was funded by Republican donors. Same as it’s been ever since.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest Guest • 5 months ago
☛✈4< keys to Continuous Optimism

* 3 areas to be mindful of

* 4 daily practices to become very optimistic

* A very simple key to being happy ^^ ===> You can get it HERE

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

►►►►►►—- http://www.optimism.com/best/789k

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫ ✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
cleos_mom repugnicant • 5 months ago

Thumbnail
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest repugnicant • 5 months ago
Hahaha.

” condemn us all to a GOP presidency.”

Feel free to take credit for any of the countless fuckups your generation has elected into office, asshole.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
repugnicant Guest • 5 months ago
Like I said…
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds repugnicant • 5 minutes ago
Why aren’t people from your generation euthanized yet? You contribute nothing
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest repugnicant • 5 months ago
I replied to what you said. Do you have something you want to add?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Hemidemisemiquaver Guest • 5 months ago
“Feel free to take credit for any of the countless fuckups your generation has elected into office, asshole.”

Ah, but keep in mind that all those fuckups were human beings who were elected by other human beings.

Given that the young are also human beings, I’m pretty sure that you collectively will (over time) elect your own set of fuckups (as well as elect a variety of good people, just as generations older than you have done).

In any event, the next 19 months will be interesting. My prediction is Clinton/Castro (Julian) will win over Bush/Martinez (NM Governor) and come close to 400 EC votes. Will the Dems take back the Senate? I hope so, but I just don’t know enough yet to have an opinion.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar Hemidemisemiquaver • 5 months ago
Thank you.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“Feel free to take credit for any of the countless fuckups your generation has elected into office, asshole.”

I take credit for voting for the folks who weren’t and wouldn’t have been fuckups. You and your petulant ilk can take credit for staying home and letting the fuckups get elected.
2 • Reply•Share ›

Avatar
missliberties • 5 months ago
I love it.

Why? Because she stumped the pundints. Way to go Hillary.

She’s old. She’s stale. She’s this and that thing horrible. No. HIllary is a brilliant hard working dedicated public servanat with tons and tons of experience.

It’s a new day in politics due to tech drenched millineials and a zillion choices on how you receive information or news. Hillary’s Team gets that which pleases me no end!
8 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds missliberties • 2 minutes ago
she also collects tons of corrupt donations from super pacs especially linked to the fossil fuel industry- and trust me everything will become known soon. We’ve had enough of the clintons and the bushes. Time for a revolution.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Scopedog missliberties • 5 months ago
She’s a survivor, that’s for sure. They’ve thrown enough s*#! at her for over 20+ years and still she keeps going and remains one of the world’s most admired women.
8 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
cleos_mom Scopedog • 5 months ago
The monkeys had a field day throwing feces at her in 2008.

Some of them were even on the Right.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar missliberties • 5 months ago
I actually prefer Biden, but if she’s at the top of ticket I’m voting for her with no misgivings, and if she wins I’ll get my wish of seeing the first woman POTUS (who is not Republican) in my lifetime. That’s a wish you only get once, and I’ll treasure it as much as seeing the first black man elected to be POTUS, and elected twice. Historical progress— yippee!
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Hemidemisemiquaver Felonious Grammar • 5 months ago
I was hoping for Romneybot 3.0. To see him beat by a black guy and then beat by a woman? Too, too sweet.

Oh well.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar Hemidemisemiquaver • 5 months ago
IMO, a can of pickled beets would beat Romney. I think white, man, and Republican are the only qualities that got him as far as he went in the Presidential campaign. He’s an automaton.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Felonious Grammar • 5 months ago
“I think white,man, and Republican are the only qualities that got him as far as he went in the Presidential campaign.”

No big deal in that. White, male and Republican are the only qualities any Republican candidate has.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
formerlywhatithink • 5 months ago
This is a reply to a comment I made on Reddit about Hillary and her chances against the current Republican pool of possible candidates.

From u/literalShitPost:

Yeah, Hillary’s inaction resulting in the death of US government members over seas is a huge plus for her campaign. Oh wait, were we supposed to forget that people died because she ignored the emails she got on her super secret private email server that’s been sterilized of all emails surrounding the incident. Sorry, I forgot to forget. The thought that she even has a job, much less running for POTUS after her extreme negligence got people killed is terrifying. More insult to irony is that we will probably elect her because at the heart of the matter, we would still rather elect The First Female POTUS™ over one that actually gives a shit.
Yup, Hillary Derangement Syndrome is already in full swing.
8 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar formerlywhatithink • 5 months ago
Bullshit. Republicans in Congress cut the budgets for security at embassies before and after Benghazi.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
xServer Felonious Grammar • 5 months ago
And try to blame someone else when the lack of money results in breaches. It’s ridiculous. But that’s the Republican party for you.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest formerlywhatithink • 5 months ago
Are we all aware that negligence actually did play a huge role in Benghazi? They requested better security. They were denied, repeatedly.

The conspiracy theories surrounding Benghazi/her private server were not actually spawned from delusional right wing minds.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
formerlywhatithink Guest • 5 months ago
You’re a fucking idiot. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) admitted on CNN that he voted for cutting funds for embassy security and specifically referenced Libya as a reason why it should be cut. Benghazi has been pushed by Boehner himself, despite being refuted by the House Intelliogence Committee, which is Republican led. Any inference that somehow Clinton was involved with what happened in Benghazi is nothing but horse shit.

The conspiracy theories surrounding Benghazi/her private server were not actually spawned from delusional right wing minds.
Idiot.
10 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest formerlywhatithink • 5 months ago
If I understand your comment correctly….

You believe funding was the reason why repeated requests for additional security were denied.

And you’re also calling me an idiot.

Awesome.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
formerlywhatithink Guest • 5 months ago
This really shows you’re an idiot. If there is no funding available how the fuck is additional security supposed to provided?
6 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest formerlywhatithink • 5 months ago
Do you know how funding works?

How is it that funding is available for all embassies except the one in Benghazi? You don’t think funding could be shifted from somewhere else–given the repeated requests for additional security?

You do not know enough about what actually happened regarding the security requests in Benghazi–to be sitting here calling me an idiot about it.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
formerlywhatithink Guest • 5 months ago
Idiot.

The Republicans are also open to charges of having contributed to the debacle in Libya. They forced hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to the state department security budget over the past two years which contributed to the fight over personnel levels.
Which means that had security been pulled from one country and transferred to Libya, there would’ve been huge political, and possibly foreign policy, fights in Congress and the host countries were the security was removed from. You don’t know enough of politics, especially where money and foreign policy is concerned, which completely justifies me calling you an idiot.
6 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar formerlywhatithink • 5 months ago
Yeah, you have to get out of what is “obvious” in your head and keep up with current events, and often do a little research to get a grip on any particular issue or event.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest formerlywhatithink • 5 months ago
Which says nothing about why additional security was denied to Benghazi.

I’ll give you a hint though: funding wasn’t cited as a reason.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
formerlywhatithink Guest • 5 months ago
http://www.k5learning.com/read&#8230;
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest formerlywhatithink • 5 months ago
“charges” = accuse (someone) of something

“contributed” = help to cause or bring about.

Let me know when you’ve finished your worksheets.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aimee Barfield Guest • 5 months ago
There wasn’t an embassy in Benghazi. There wasn’t even a Consul in Benghazi. There was a diplomatic mission and a CIA outpost.

You don’t appear to know what you’re talking about even in the simplest of terms, so it’s mighty funny to see you lecturing people.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Aimee Barfield • 5 months ago
“so it’s mighty funny pathetic to see you lecturing people.”

FTFY
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“Do you know how funding works?
… You don’t think funding could be shifted from somewhere else”

Well, clearly you don’t know how funding works.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
ninjaf Guest • 5 months ago
Security was denied due to lack of funding…that Republicans wanted cut.
6 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest ninjaf • 5 months ago
In order for me to accept that as the actual reason the extra security was denied–I would have to see why funding everywhere else was so justified.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
studio Guest • 5 months ago
crowdsource somewhere else.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
D_C_Wilson Guest • 5 months ago
You’re assuming that extra security was approved every where but Benghazi. Facts not in evidence.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Felonious Grammar D_C_Wilson • 5 months ago
Ah, but they cut funding somewhere where it was obvious in hindsight was the wrong place to cut.

Ex post facto, duude, ex post facto.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest D_C_Wilson • 5 months ago
No…

I’m assuming if funding was the actual rationale for denying additional security requests in Benghazi (it wasn’t), then there would have been an easy fix.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
D_C_Wilson Guest • 5 months ago
No, you’re assuming you know what you’re talking about. Again, facts not in evidence.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Guest D_C_Wilson • 5 months ago
Then you’re definitively saying that funding was the rationale for denied security requests?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
D_C_Wilson Guest • 5 months ago
I’m saying you have no proof it wasn’t.
4 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Lady Willpower Guest • 5 months ago
You’re a Benghazi Truther now? Are there no depths you won’t sink to? I thought you were a leftist?
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
cleos_mom Lady Willpower • 5 months ago
On what basis did you think that? Not all the WND set are old white males.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“In order for me to accept that as the actual reason the extra security was denied–I would have to see why funding everywhere else was so justified.”

In order for Bim Jean to accept this dollar wasn’t spent here, you’re going to have to justify every one of the other 3.9 trillion dollars in the US budget.

Go ahead. He’ll wait.
1 • Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
“Hey Chris”

I prefer Christopher.

And can someone just cut to the chase and ban this latest Dennis sockpuppet now?

Contributions by “FATTYWiley” thus far (each being the entirety of his comment):

“Hey Chris. How you doing douche bag?”
“You are a fookin moron. Shut the fook up”
“Go Fook yourself moron”
“How about you go on a diet, fat load”
“Better than being a fudge packing jerk off”
“Nicole. You little spinner you. How fat are you?”
“Yo Steve. You a queer?”
“You can’t get rid of me you loser. Go run to Cesca. He is my cousin so , you go the Fook away loser.”
“Yo Doc, you know what? You are a fookin dumb libtard.”
“You are fat and have a mullet and no job and a libtard and a loser and no home. Hahahahahahahhahahah”
“Sure you did, you stupid fookin liar. Go Fook yourself fatty Vicky”
• Reply•Share ›
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Guest • 5 months ago
Such a coward, Dennis.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Christopher Foxx Christopher Foxx • 5 months ago
sighAnd today’s contributions add:

“Chris, you fat fooker you. Shut the fook up”
“Xtopher shut up. Billary2016. Stop her is a fat fooker”
“You prefer having dudes sticking fingers up your ass, don’t you Chris?”
“Wah, way wah. You stupid libtard fat fooker you. Wah wah wah”

Can someone just ban this Dennis sockpuppet?
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/ready-for-hillary-derangement-syndrome/

http://thedailybanter.com/2008/05/hillary-clinton-says-shes-staying-in-because-someone-could-assassinate-obama-like-rfk/

http://thedailybanter.com/2008/03/hillary-clinton-crosses-the-commander-in-chief-threshold-during-her-time-as-first-lady-illustrated/

http://www.unmotivating.com/40-of-the-worlds-most-beautiful-female-news-anchors/?utm_source=spoutable&utm_medium=referrer&utm_campaign=news

http://www.unmotivating.com/40-of-the-worlds-most-beautiful-female-news-anchors/?utm_source=spoutable&utm_medium=referrer&utm_campaign=news

Bullshit, President Obama actually laid out reforms for the NSA months before Snowden defected. It was the release of that information, frequently in a misleading manner, that blew up the whole process. As for the reforms, that was blocked by Senate Republicans. Better luck next time chump.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a few seconds ago
The people have a right to know, regardless of what you may “think.”
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a few seconds ago
lmao you’re delusional. That you’d actually support a corrupt system proves how messed up you are. Because of Snowden and Assange, the tech community has been able to develop ways to thwart the NSA on our own. A naive old goat like you trusts the government too much.

Bullshit, President Obama actually laid out reforms for the NSA months before Snowden defected. It was the release of that information, frequently in a misleading manner, that blew up the whole process. As for the reforms, that was blocked by Senate Republicans. Better luck next time chump.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a few seconds ago
I suppose you didn’t care about people being tortured, innocents being killed in drone attacks or people in third world countries being used as guinea pigs either. Nice, no wonder the rest of the world hates your kind.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a minute ago
The people have a right to know, regardless of what you may “think.”
• Edit• Reply•Share ›

Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 2 minutes ago
lmao you’re delusional. That you’d actually support a corrupt system proves how messed up you are. Because of Snowden and Assange, the tech community has been able to develop ways to thwart the NSA on our own. A naive old goat like you trusts the government too much.

And I should know because I’m one of those tech types who developed ways to thwart the privacy invasion.

Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a few seconds ago
Look up HBGary if you want to know what we did to them 🙂 Again, the corruption of Americans is shocking (sarcasm).
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a minute ago
And I should know because I’m one of those tech types who developed ways to thwart the privacy invasion.

Seriously, you’re into Alex Jones territory there. That is how you lose every shred of credibility. Want to be told by people you don’t know that you belong in a mental ward, keep it up.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a few seconds ago
lmao wow you’re such an idiot, I almost feel bad about doing an encryption probe on your IP.

But anyway since you lack the IQ for a formal discussion, let me educate you. America had been experimenting on Guatemalans by intentionally injecting them with needles infected with syphilis. The american govt already admitted to it, and they did it in concert with Johns Hopkins hospital and Bristol Squibb Myers, there is a 1 billion dollar lawsuit in progress and the number of people infected was 774. It was all reported on CNN. Anything else? I eat morons like you for lunch on a daily basis.

Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a few seconds ago
I rather think you would enjoy being waterboarded and anally probed.

Seriously, you’re into Alex Jones territory there. That is how you lose every shred of credibility. Want to be told by people you don’t know that you belong in a mental ward, keep it up.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a few seconds ago
I have proof of every classified document as well as multiple copies and resources. Keep up your blind patriotism and I\ wont be sorry when another one of your cities get blown up- people like you deserve it.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a minute ago
Wrong thanks to our efforts the rest of the world knows what America has been up to. The credibility of your country is lost- as if it ever had any. Agent Orange and Monsanto anyone?
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 2 minutes ago
I rather think you would enjoy being waterboarded and anally probed.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 2 minutes ago
lmao wow you’re such an idiot, I almost feel bad about doing an encryption probe on your IP.

But anyway since you lack the IQ for a formal discussion, let me educate you. America had been experimenting on Guatemalans by intentionally injecting them with needles infected with syphilis. The american govt already admitted to it, and they did it in concert with Johns Hopkins hospital and Bristol Squibb Myers, there is a 1 billion dollar lawsuit in progress and the number of people infected was 774. It was all reported on CNN. Anything else? I eat morons like you for lunch on a daily basis.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 38 minutes ago
None of that even matters in face of what they exposed about the NSA. The fact is what they did resulted in massive reforms to the system, those reforms would never have been happened had they not blown the whistle. Same goes for wikileaks.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Ceoltoir Alex Reynolds • 24 minutes ago
Bullshit, President Obama actually laid out reforms for the NSA months before Snowden defected. It was the release of that information, frequently in a misleading manner, that blew up the whole process. As for the reforms, that was blocked by Senate Republicans. Better luck next time chump.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 6 minutes ago
Look up HBGary if you want to know what we did to them 🙂 Again, the corruption of Americans is shocking (sarcasm).
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 8 minutes ago
And I should know because I’m one of those tech types who developed ways to thwart the privacy invasion.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 9 minutes ago
I suppose you didn’t care about people being tortured, innocents being killed in drone attacks or people in third world countries being used as guinea pigs either. Nice, no wonder the rest of the world hates your kind.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 10 minutes ago
The people have a right to know, regardless of what you may “think.”
• Edit• Reply•Share ›

Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 11 minutes ago
lmao you’re delusional. That you’d actually support a corrupt system proves how messed up you are. Because of Snowden and Assange, the tech community has been able to develop ways to thwart the NSA on our own. A naive old goat like you trusts the government too much.
Ceoltoir repugnicant • 2 months ago
It was the whole “You’ll have to take their word for it” in regards to the claims made by Snowden and Greenwald that presented so many problems back then. Yet presenting any of the mounting evidence that either of them might not be presenting the whole truth or are misrepresenting the facts would get you shouted down.

The ideas that Bernie Sanders has for free college for all or single payer healthcare have merit. But asking how such programs could get through a Republican controlled congress get you the same reaction.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • an hour ago
It’s because of Snowden and Greenwald that we learned the truth about what the NSA was doing and we exposed them for the SS that they are
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Ceoltoir Alex Reynolds • an hour ago
What you want to be true doesn’t make it so. Greenwald has been proven over and over to completely full of crap and will to engage in bald face lies in order to advance his own agenda. Snowden has shown little or no integrity. For all the talk of respecting the rights of individuals has had no problem selling information to the respective Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies. Not much respect for human rights there.

At what point Alex do you admit that you’ve been played as a sucker by these two charlatans?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 39 minutes ago
Selling info to the Chinese and Russians is messed up, but the fact is what the Americans and British were doing didn’t respect human rights either. I read every word that was published- from the skype and yahoo cam shots to the google hack to the using Guatemalans as guinea pigs for medical experiments.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Ceoltoir Alex Reynolds • 23 minutes ago
Seriously, you’re into Alex Jones territory there. That is how you lose every shred of credibility. Want to be told by people you don’t know that you belong in a mental ward, keep it up.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 3 minutes ago
I have proof of every classified document as well as multiple copies and resources. Keep up your blind patriotism and I\ wont be sorry when another one of your cities get blown up- people like you deserve it.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 4 minutes ago
Wrong thanks to our efforts the rest of the world knows what America has been up to. The credibility of your country is lost- as if it ever had any. Agent Orange and Monsanto anyone?
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 5 minutes ago
I rather think you would enjoy being waterboarded and anally probed.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 5 minutes ago
lmao wow you’re such an idiot, I almost feel bad about doing an encryption probe on your IP.

But anyway since you lack the IQ for a formal discussion, let me educate you. America had been experimenting on Guatemalans by intentionally injecting them with needles infected with syphilis. The american govt already admitted to it, and they did it in concert with Johns Hopkins hospital and Bristol Squibb Myers, there is a 1 billion dollar lawsuit in progress and the number of people infected was 774. It was all reported on CNN. Anything else? I eat morons like you for lunch on a daily basis.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 41 minutes ago
None of that even matters in face of what they exposed about the NSA. The fact is what they did resulted in massive reforms to the system, those reforms would never have been happened had they not blown the whistle. Same goes for wikileaks.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Ceoltoir Alex Reynolds • 27 minutes ago
Bullshit, President Obama actually laid out reforms for the NSA months before Snowden defected. It was the release of that information, frequently in a misleading manner, that blew up the whole process. As for the reforms, that was blocked by Senate Republicans. Better luck next time chump.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a minute ago
I have some rather interesting “classified” documents posted about Clinton’s corrupt involvement with the fossil fuel industry. No wonder she wont come out about Keystone. It’s too bad really, especially since science now has shown how horrible fracking is for the environment. But like I said, we have our ways of exposing corrupt politicians for what they are.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 9 minutes ago
Look up HBGary if you want to know what we did to them 🙂 Again, the corruption of Americans is shocking (sarcasm).
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 11 minutes ago
And I should know because I’m one of those tech types who developed ways to thwart the privacy invasion.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 12 minutes ago
I suppose you didn’t care about people being tortured, innocents being killed in drone attacks or people in third world countries being used as guinea pigs either. Nice, no wonder the rest of the world hates your kind.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 13 minutes ago
The people have a right to know, regardless of what you may “think.”
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • 14 minutes ago
lmao you’re delusional. That you’d actually support a corrupt system proves how messed up you are. Because of Snowden and Assange, the tech community has been able to develop ways to thwart the NSA on our own. A naive old goat like you trusts the government too much.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
conundrum repugnicant • 2 months ago
No, not the same people. Snowden is a traitor, Sanders is a statesman. Hang Snowden, listen to Bernie.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds conundrum • an hour ago
Wrong, Snowden and Assange are both heroes for exposing the NSA.
Like I said, mental ward and totally got a screw loose.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Alex Reynolds Ceoltoir • a few seconds ago
lmao I’m having too much fun decrypting your accts Moffitt 😉 it’s going to be fun to expose your private info like I’ve done with MANY others and in the meantime you should learn about the Tuskeegee Experiments and what happened in Guatemala. It’s sad to find someone so behind the times like yourself.

CeoltoirPrivate
@craig_moffitt

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31157/11-memories-not-so-modern-medicine

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/08/mass_drug_overdose_at_german_homeopathy_conference.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/humans-arent-so-special-after-all-the-fuzzy-evolutionary-boundaries-of-homo-sapiens/
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/08/bernie-sanders-refuses-to-say-hillary-clinton-is-honest-and-trustworthy/

Advertisements