Daily Archives: November 9, 2012

Fluoride bioconcentration in submerged plants…

Zhou, Jun, Gao, Jingqing, Liu, Yang, Ba, Kun, Chen, Shaohua, Zhang, Rinqin. Removal of Fluoride from Water by Five Submerged Plants. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Aug2012, Vol. 89 Issue 2, p395-399.

Studies were conducted on the bioconcentration of fluoride (F) in five submerged plants species. Ceratophyllum demersum, Hydrilla verticillata, Potamogeton malaianus, Myriophyllum verticillatum and Elodea nuttallii were all able to remove F from water to some degree of efficiencies. At 5-20 mg F/L culture solution, C. demersum had the best F-removal performance, E. nuttallii had the poorest F-removal performance among these plants. The relative growth rate (RGR) of the five species varied in different concentrations of F, of which C. demersum had the highest RGR. Its RGR decreased by 26.3 %, 63.2 % and 73.7 % from controls at 5, 10 and 20 mg F/L, respectively.

Click here for the full paper (free).

The Devil’s Poison: How Fluoride is Killing You

The Tampa Bay Times (Florida) is claiming responsibility for ousting 2 Pinellas County Commissioners for not supporting addition of fluoride to their drinking water (click here). Of course, there are other views on this issue….voters should consider the other side of the story as in this book. Of course, they can vote to poison themselves if they so choose (assuming this author is correct, or even partially correct)….and those concerned about fluoride can pay for a home treatment system to remove it from their tap water.

Urine fluoride a short-term biomarker

Sun, Dianjun. Commentary Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice. May-Aug2012, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p149-150.

The author discusses the impact of fluoride in drinking water on the intelligence quotient (IQ) of the children in India. He states that the article contributes the use of urine fluoride as a short-term biomarker in reflecting the fluoride intake condition. He mentions that effectual measurements are required to ease long-term fluoride toxicity to the physical health of children.

Natural climate variability dominates future climate….

Many of us have argued for a long time that natural climate variability is much more important in the larger scheme of climate, and that CO2 has a smaller role than promoted by the  IPCC. Now, perhaps the idea is getting through to others, although it is not clear at this time if the full implications are being taken seriously by these authors or other “global warming” promoters. Scenario modeling can be extremely misleading because it must rely on a number of assumptions that are epistemologically invalid. Maps such as the one below from this paper are impressive and the issue here is not one of intelligence or capability of the modelers, but of underlying presuppositions inherent in the analysis. Decision-makers must consider the inherent assumptions behind the development of any scenarios generated when trying to decide how to apply such projections in making planning decisions. In some cases, such modeling efforts can be useful, but in most instances they are research efforts undertaken in an attempt to further develop the science, and do not provide anything close to definitive projections.

Deser, C., Knutti, R., Solomon, S. and Phillips, A. Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate. Nature Climate Change. Volume:2, 775–779 (2012). DOI:doi:10.1038/nclimate1562

As climate models improve, decision-makers’ expectations for accurate climate predictions are growing. Natural climate variability, however, poses inherent limits to climate predictability and the related goal of adaptation guidance in many places, as illustrated here for North America. Other locations with low natural variability show a more predictable future in which anthropogenic forcing can be more readily identified, even on small scales. We call for a more focused dialogue between scientists, policymakers and the public to improve communication and avoid raising expectations for accurate regional predictions everywhere.

Click here for full paper (free).

Oceanside (CA) rejects desalinated water as too expensive…

“Oceanside officials are advising the City Council to reject as too expensive an offer to buy drinking water from the planned Poseidon Resources desalination plant in Carlsbad that would tap into the ocean.” Click here for news article….

Recent global warming is not related to anthropogenic forcing

M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor. Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming. Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 3, 561–596, 2012.

We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used o test AGW since during the bservation period (1880–2007) global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences whereas greenhouse gases and aerosol forcings are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.

Click here for full paper (free).


Global climate change impacts…

Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies Patrick J. Michaels writes in this new study:

Of all of the “consensus” government or intergovernmental documents of this genre that I have reviewed in my 30+ years in this profession, there is no doubt that this is absolutely the worst of all. Virtually every sentence can be contested or does not repre­sent a complete survey of a relevant litera­ture…

…There is an overwhelming amount of misleading material in the CCSP’s “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” It is immediately obvious that the intent of the report is not to provide a ac­curate scientific assessment of the current and future impacts of climate change in the United States but to confuse the reader by a loose handling of normal climate events (made seemingly more frequent, intense and damaging simply by our growing popu­lation, population movements, and wealth) presented as climate change events. Addition­ally, there is absolutely no effort made by the CCSP authors to include any dissenting opinion to their declarative statements, despite the peer-reviewed scientific litera­ture being full of legitimate and applicable reports and observations that provide con­trasting findings.

…The uninformed reader (i.e., the public, reporters, and policy-makers) upon read­ing this report will be led to believe that a terrible disaster is soon to befall the United States from human-induced climate change and that almost all of the impacts will be negative and devastating. Of course, if the purpose here is not really to produce an unbiased review of the impact of climate change on the United States, but a politi­cal document that will give cover for EPA’s decision to regulate carbon dioxide, then there is really no reason to go through the ruse of gathering comments from scientists knowledgeable about the issues, as the only science that is relevant is selected work that fits the authors’ pre-existing paradigm.