“Last summer, University of California scientists made this hysterical claim about the Zachariae Isstrom glacier in northeast Greenland.
It’s a great story, only problem is it is a complete fabrication. If anything, the glacier has grown since 2012.” click here
In this political season much attention is being given to the “climate change” issue and especially comments by the presidential candidates. Mr. Donald Trump offered the following regarding the Paris climate “deal”:
“I will be looking at that very, very seriously and at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum. And at a maximum I may do something else,” (cited here)
Kudos to Mr. Trump. Of course, not everyone is very happy about his view on global warming. One commentator argues that Mr. Trump cannot “derail” the Paris climate deal (here).
From what I have seen already Mr. Trump is simply stating the obvious. The Paris climate “deal” will derail itself. Unintended consequences will soon emerge and every country involved will be looking very seriously at renegotiating or changing it to avoid causing greater harm. Or perhaps it will just be ignored.
Treaties and agreements do not change basic physics and chemistry and the scientific regularities we can observe.
Posted in Climate
Arbitrary changes in historical data should be repudiated (click here).
Ansoborlo E, Lebaron-Jacobs L, Prat O. Uranium in drinking-water: A unique case of guideline value increases and discrepancies between chemical and radiochemical guidelines. Environment International. Apr2015, Vol. 77, p1-4. 4p.
Background: Uranium represents a unique case for an element naturally present in the environment, as its chemical guideline value in drinking water significantly increased from 2 μg/L in 1998 up to 15 μg/L in 2004 and then to 30 μg/L in 2011, to date corresponding to a multiplication factor of 15 within a period of just 13 years.
Objectives In this commentary we summarize the evolution of uranium guideline values in drinking-water based on both radiological and chemical aspects, emphasizing the benefit of human studies and their contribution to recent recommendations. We also propose a simpler and better consistency between radiological and chemical values.
Discussion: The current chemical guideline value of 30 μg/L is still designated as provisional because of scientific uncertainties regarding uranium toxicity. During the same period, the radiological guideline for 238 U increased from 4 Bq/L to 10 Bq/L while that for 234 U decreased from 4 Bq/L to 1 Bq/L. These discrepancies are discussed here, and a value of 1 Bq/L for all uranium isotopes is proposed to be more consistent with the current chemical value of 30 μg/L.
Conclusion: Continuous progress in the domains of toxicology and speciation should enable a better interpretation of the biological effects of uranium in correlation with epidemiological human studies. This will certainly aid future proposals for uranium guideline values.