While it did contain some language about how long term harm, such as cancer, is not proven to be related to RF radiation, it reported about being “Allergic to radio Waves” is if it were conclusively proven as fact. Not surprisingly, the story has generated a lot of hype and has been championed by those who insist that the condition exists.

Well then, I’m going to make an offer.   I contend that electrohypersensitivity is not real.   The condition is psychosomatic.  RF fields do not produce nausea, headache, fainting, skin rashes or any other acute effect on the human body.   No person can, under controlled conditions, show that they manifest these symptoms more often around a low power rf transmitter than when away from radio sources.

Do you think I’m wrong?    Then prove it.   I’m willing to put up one grand of my own money to be proven wrong.   Honestly, I’m so confident about this, I’d put up more than that, but I want this to be a credible challenge and so I’ll put up an amount I know I can provide if I need to. I’m very serious and I’m willing to make the effort of setting up a test to conclusively and fairly settle the issue. And I will eat my words and fork over the money if you can prove me wrong!

The Challenge:

To prove that you manifest symptoms of electrohypersensitivity and that these symptoms are reliably linked to RF radiation by demonstrating the ability to detect the state of RF transmissions in a controlled enviornment.

The Reward:

1.   One thousand US Dollars, provided in the form of a certified check, money order or other mutually acceptable monetary instrument.

2.   I will admit I was wrong about electrosenstivity / electrohypersensitivity not existing.

3.  Your case will be brought to the attention of researchers, with whom I am in communication, and efforts will be made to report your condition and the verification in peer reviewed journals.

The Test Setup:

A number of sources of consumer-level RF emissions will be used, these will include such things as a wifi router, a cell phone signal amplifier, a smart phone, which is programed to begin transmitting as soon as it is turned on, a local FM transmitter and/or various other devices.   These will be placed in boxes which are relatively transparent to radio signals but which will hide any lights or other activity indicators on the devices.    They will be connected to a single power cord which will be connected to a single switch.

The switch will be connected to a power source located in another room, away from view of the room where the test will be conducted.   The individual being tested will not know whether the power supply is actually hooked up or not, the observer in the room with the subject will also not be aware whether the power supply is connected or not.   If the power supply is connected then closing the switch will result in the transmitters coming on, but if the power supply is not connected, the switch will do nothing and the transmitters will remain off.

Those in the room will not know whether or not the session was a dry run or whether the transmitters actually did come on.

The switch will be turned off after five minutes or may be switched off sooner if the test subject believes they know whether the transmitters are on or off.  After the test session, the individual will be asked to report whether or not they experienced any symptoms that would indicate the transmitters were on or not.

The test will be repeated a number of times to demonstrate that the individual can indeed detect whether the transmitters were on or off signifficantly better than they could by sheer chance alone.   The default number of test sessions will be ten, and each test will be randomly selected as being either a power-on test session or a power-off test session.

Additional Rules and Information:

1.   If the individual does not believe that they can detect the state of the transmitter with 100% accuracy, then it is possible that we can negotiate a test protocol in which they are only required to determine the state of the transmitter with a high, but not perfect, reliability.  However, this will require more than ten sessions to verify.   I’m willing to consider an extended series of sessions to determine this reliably.

2.  If the individual believes that their electrohypersensitivity is so severe that they will not be able to do one test session immediately after another, a rest period can be provided,as long as it does not prevent the test series from being completed in a reasonable amount of time.   If absolutely necessary, this does not all have to be done in one day, but more than three or four days will not be acceptable.

3.  I’m willing to be somewhat flexible about the devices used.  As long as they are consumer level RF sources that don’t produce a sound or other indication of their operation, they should be acceptable.   If you believe that there is a certain type of phone or device that is especially prone to causing symptoms, it may be considered.   Alternatively, if you feel that your EHS is so severe that having all those transmitters on at once would be intolerable, then lower power sources can be used.   However, higher power sources than consumer level will not be accepted – broadcast level transmitters will not be allowed.

4.  This is subject to availability on location.   If you live on the US eastern seaboard, you can be accommodated.   I will be traveling in the future to Europe, Australia, the West Coast, Florida and elsewhere, but this may take some time to happen.   I’m also willing to have a third party conduct this test at a location closer to the subject.   Regardless of the subject’s location, an effort will be made to accommodate them, but this can’t be guaranteed.

5.   Since the claims regarding this alleged condition are that it can be triggered by devices signifficantly above ambient rf levels and because the test subject will have a chance to acclimate themselves to the ambient level with the devices powered off, it is presumed that an RF isolated area will not be necessary.  The devices will produce a much higher RF flux than would exist in the area when they are not powered on and this will be confirmed with an isotropic power meter.

However, if the test subject believes that an RF isolated area is necessary to insure they can accurately determine if the transmitters are indeed on or off, arrangements can be made.  This will, of course, depend on the location of the test subject and whether or not they can travel.   If the test is conducted locally (in Connecticut, United States) then I have access to a professional RF test laboratory which includes a verified isolated RF test room.   If the test is to be done elsewhere, efforts will be made to find a similar location, but this can’t be assured.

If you believe that electricity such as mains AC current will cause these symptoms and therefore must be excluded, then we can take steps to use a test room that does not have other electricity service active.

6.   No devices of any kind, which could indicate RF emissions (such as field meters, wifi detectors etc) will be permitted.   If used, they will be considered cheating and you will be dismissed.

7.  This test is only to determine the acute physical effects of RF radiation and establish acute hypersensitivity.   Information about long term exposure or chronic issues is irrelevant and won’t be considered.

8.  Independent observation, verification and other such protection for the subject taking the challenge can be arranged, but ultimately this is my challenge and I reserve the right to stop the challenge and/or cut short the test if i believe that there is cheating involved, that there is a of harm to property, if the test subject becomes violent or unruly or if for any other reason, I deem it necessary.

Remember, this is a challenge.  I’m issuing it.  I make the rules.  I’ll do what I can to accommodate the needs of anyone who wants to apply, but I make the rules.   Every effort will be made to treat you fairly, but I am not going to open myself to any unreasonable  liability.

For the purposes of this comparison, a “green” energy policy is defined by the following:

• Rejects nuclear power, in the most extreme examples, calling for its complete phaseout or banning it outright.
• Strong focus on wind and/or solar power
• Favors enormous subsidies to wind and solar power
• Generally has a fairly favorable stand on natural gas, even if it is rarely (if ever) mentioned
• Attempts to reduce energy consumption through effeciency
• Believes it is acceptable to heavily tax or penalize energy usage as a means of encouraging reduced consumption
• Is supported by Greenpeace, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, Earth First and other groups with similar agendas

The following numbers are from the US Energy Information Administration. Some of the data is a couple of years old, but if anyone knows of any other source of information that provides better country profiles with comprehensive data of this type, let me know.

Lets take a look..

Belgium – Somewhat Green

Currently, the government of Belgium is controlled by the Christian Democratic and Flemish Party, but when it comes to energy, the policies of Belgium would be  the policies are very much in line with “Green” politics, especially when it comes to nuclear energy.  In 2003, Belgium passed a law banning the construction of new nuclear power plants and seeking to expedite the closure of the existing nuclear facilities.  This would result in a complete nuclear phase-out by 2025.    There has been a good deal of controversy on this issue, however.  The current political leadership is generally considered to be right of center and concern has been expressed over the fact that loss of nuclear power would force Belgium to import most of its electricity.   While the Greens are not in control of the government of Belgium, they remain a powerful political group which does control some local offices.

When it comes to energy-related CO2, which serves both as an indicator of greenhouse emissions and a general indicator of the fossil fuel emissions of a country, Belgium is not doing especially well.

While the emissions in Belgium have only risen nominally, the same can’t be said for the country’s consumption of natural gas.  It’s skyrocketed and in the process left Belgium extremely dependent on the constant importation of gas.

Austria – Very very Anti-nuclear, Very Green

Austria has a reputation for being one of the most anti-nuclear countries in the EU and indeed in the world.   This was not always the case, as the Austrian government favored nuclear energy in the 1960’s, but in 1978, the Austrian Parliament banned the use of nuclear fission for energy purposes in the country until 1998 and banned the transport of nuclear material through the country, effectively making any nuclear activities, even pure research impossible.   The ban was only for thirty years, but sadly the Parliament of Austria renewed it in 1997, thus affirming the country’s anti-nuclear stance.

Austria gained attention when the country threatened to block the entry of its neighbor, the Czech Republic into the European Union unless the country shut down the  Temelín Nuclear Power Station, located about 50 km from the border with Austria.   Representatives from Austria to the EU have consistently pushed for anti-nuclear policies, but with little success.

The official energy policy of Austria favors “renewable” energy as the cornerstone of future energy development.   Their emissions numbers for energy-related Co2 are …  abysmal.

Despite efforts to build more generation capacity in the form of wind and solar, the net generating capacity of the country is actually slightly down.

Austria has managed to reduce coal burning, but this has been replaced by a combination of electrical imports and natural gas, which, not surprisingly, has surged.

Denmark – The World Leader In Wind Power – Very Green – Very Anti-Nuclear

Many in the “Green” movement like to point to Denmark as an example of what a country’s energy policy should be.    Denmark is fiercely opposed to nuclear energy, outlawing any nuclear reactors in the country in 1985.  Only three  nuclear were reactors  ever built in Denmark, a series of small research reactors at the Risø DTU National Laboratory, but that reactor was ordered shut down and the laboratory has since been renamed the “Risø DTU National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy.“   The laboratory no longer does any nuclear related research.

Denmark is also one of the biggest supporters in the world of “renewable” energy, especially in the form of wind power.   Starting in the 1980’s, the country invested billions upon billions of Euros in wind energy, making it one of the largest producers of wind turbines in the world and giving Denmark the undespited first place in wind energy as a proportion of total domestic electrical generating capacity.   By the late 1990’s the country claimed to have over 15% of power coming from wind and by 2005 the number topped 20%, with nameplate capacity exceeding three gigawatts.

A large portion of the energy from wind farms is exported (often at a loss) to Norway and other nearby countries where hydroelectric installations can provide some degree of load-following and energy storage – albeit at a huge net energy loss.

Despite the huge investment, the emissions of energy related CO2 in Denmark have not been going down, at least not by very much.   In fact, they seem to be all over the place.

There really does not appear to be any kind of trend, certainly not downward.   There have been some reductions in emissions since the mid 1990’s, but those have been pretty modest and don’t even go far enough to undo the growth in the early 1990’s.   It appears that the CO2 emissions are as variable as the wind.   One major reason for the reduction in CO2 emissions may be the reduction in the use of coal in Denmark.  Coal has the highest emissions per unit of energy of any fuel, as coal is nearly 100% carbon.    Coal use has been dropping, even if not spectacularly.

Is this because coal is being replaced by wind?  Not exactly.   Coal is being replaced with another fossil fuel: natural gas.   Natural gas does have some benefits over coal:  it produces somewhat less CO2 and is substantially less dirty when it comes to emissions like mercury, sulfur dioxide and fly ash.  However, natural gas is also more expensive and less stable in prie and supply.   The use of natural gas does not eliminate the emissions issues with coal, it only reduces them somewhat, and the price is security of energy supply.

In  the early 1980’s Denmark’s consumption of natural gas was very small, almost negligible and Denmark was not a net importer of gas.   Since then, the consumption of natural gas has skyrocketed in Denmark and hundreds of billions of cubic feet are imported annually.

Spain – The world leader in solar power

Spain has gotten a lot of good press for the numerous solar projects it has bled copious amounts of national treasure into.  Spain has some of the world’s largest photovoltaic plants and also has constructed large solar thermal “power towers.”  Spain not only subsidizes solar energy directly but also mandates higher rates for electricity be paid to solar generators than other sources of electricity by grid operators and rate payers.  Spain also has been increasing wind capacity in recent years and now has a large wind power industry.

Spain has eight nuclear power reactors, but has generally been opposed to nuclear energy since the late 1970’s.   In 1983, the Socialist government of Spain enacted a ban on the construction of any new nuclear power plants and has restricted the upgrades to any existing nuclear plants.  This also haulted the construction of new reactors at two of Spain’s nuclear power plants, even though the reactors were already partially built.  In 1994 a further law stopped any further construction on partially built plants, which had been in a state of limbo since the 1983 decision, insuring that the plants would be torn down and not completed.

Officially, Spain is committed to phasing out nuclear energy in favor of renewables.   Shutdowns of nuclear power plants began in 1990, when a small turbine fire shut down one of the nuclear plants.  The government would not allow an upgrade or replacement of the turbine, effectively shutting down the plant and any others which may encounter the need for systems replacements.   The José Cabrera nuclear power plant, a relatively small nuclear power reactor was shut down in 2006 after 38 years of operation.

Spain’s ambitious renewable energy policy has helped the country achieve something that many would have thought impossible.   Spain has actually done worse than pittiful policies of Austria.   CO2 emissions alone have skyrocketed:

Coal consumption in Spain is down slightly, but the natural gas imports of the country have gone in a different direction.   Want your energy, Spain?   Better pucker up and prepare to plant a big smooch right on Russian’s backside, or someone might be inclined to turn off the supply.   So much for domestic energy security…

The Netherlands  – Very Green

You could just about call the Netherlands Greenland if the name were not already taken by the large island north east of Canada.    The Netherlands actually provides taxpayer money to support groups like Greenpeace, which is headquartered in Amsterdam.   Illegal ships run by groups like Greenpeace and Sea Shepard fly the dutch flag and are ported in Amsterdam.   The Dutch have been big supporters of “renewable” energy and in recent years have been fervently anti-nuclear.

The country does have nuclear power reactors, but inn 1994, the Dutch Parliament voted to phase out all nuclear energy.  In 1997 the first plant was shut down.   A second nuclear reactor remains in operation in the Netherlands at the Borssele nuclear power plant.  Plans had initially called for shutdown in 2003, but the power deficit could not be filled by other sources, leading for an extension in the plants operating license until 2013.  Later the Dutch government decided that the plant would be allowed to operate up to 2033, if necessary, but have reserved the power to shut it down if they believe it is not meeting safety standards – a very arbitrary requirement.

The operators of the plant are required to pay most of the profits from the plant into a fund for “sustainable energy.”  Profit is almost illegal in the Netherlands and in this case, the money goes to a fund that provides about half a billion euro in direct subsidies toward the construction of “sustainable energy” – meaning wind and solar power facilities.

In recent years, the Dutch public has become more receptive of nuclear energy, but with powerful entrenched groups like Greenpeace screaming bloody murder at the very word “nuclear” the country remains a very anti-nuclear nation in terms of policy.

Fossil Fuel Related CO2 has only gone up nearly as fast as wind turbines...

The increase in Co2 emissions is not surprising considering that the Netherlands has been burning nearly twice as much coal in recent years as it did in the early 1980’s.

Sweden – Somewhat Green In The Past (situation has changed twice)

Sweden is an interesting case when it comes to “Green” politics.   Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, the government of Sweden favored nuclear energy and was not prone to burning money on things like renewable energy.   That changed in 1980, when the political party in charge, force a referendum in which Swedish voters could vote on the fate of nuclear power in their country.   However, the ballot measure only allowed for three different phase-out options, effectively making it a no-choice situation for voters.

For some time, Sweden was committed to the phase out of nuclear energy, but this never really happened because the language of the law allowed for nuclear energy to be used until renewable energy could replace it:  In other words, forever.   However, it also prevented Sweden from building or upgrading their existing nuclear plants.   Despite the politics that seemed to hate nuclear energy, the Swedes by and large have supported nuclear energy in public opinion poles.

Only recently was the policy reversed.  Still, in the intermittent time period, Sweden has, like many other countries, invested quite a lot in “renewable” energy and has seen absolutely no benefit from it.   Today Sweden gets most of its electricity from hydroelectric and nuclear power generation.   For political reasons, the two reactors at the Barsebäck nuclear power plant were shut down in 1999 and 2005, respectively.    This lead to a small increase in the net electrical imports to Sweden.   Sweden also has some fossil fuel power generating capacity, although this only accounts for about 10% of the total power generated in the country.

Interestingly, the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel in Sweden dropped throughout most of the 1970’s.   However once “Green” politics began to take hold in the early 1980’s the dramatic improvements just about flatlined.

Sweden does not use natural gas in any large capacity for power generation.   The use of natural gas has risen in years past, in part because Sweden used almost no natural gas prior to 1980 and has since begun to use gas for heating and industrial activities like oil refining.  However, after an initial rise in the 1980’s, when gas was first introduced at a large scale, it has since barely increased at all.   As a net exporter of gas, Sweden is not dependent on gas imports and not at all dependent on gas for electricity.

Sweden is not far from Denmark and has a similar climate (although it is actually a bit colder).   It also has twice the population.   Yet Sweden consumes only a tiny portion of the natural gas that Denmark does! Per-capita, the average Swede uses less than ten percent as much gas as the Danish.

Coal is also not used at any large scale for power generation, and has largely been disused for heating.   Some coal is still used for industry, coking and other such uses, but the trend has been toward less coal consumption since the mid 1980’s.

The UK:    A little bit of both.   “Middle of the Road”

The UK is not the kind of green stronghold that many other European countries have become, but at the same time it is not strongly anti-green either.    The country has 26 nuclear power reactors, with the last being built in 1988.   Although the UK does not have any official “nuclear phase out” like other countries do, it also has not been building any new nuclear power plants.   The proportion of British electricity provided by nuclear energy has dropped as some of the older plants have reached the end of their useful lifespans and been retired.   The UK still operates at least two Magox reactors, which are considered to be technically obsolete and are slated to be retired in the next few years with no viable replacements yet forthcoming.

The UK also has a fuel  reprocessing operation, although it not as large or as modern as that of France, in part because of political opposition.   Politically the issue has remained very contentious.  Two of the largest political parties in the UK (the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party) generally been opposed to new nuclear plant construction, but have fallen short of calling for a nuclear phase our or banning the possibility of new nuclear plants.   The current political party in power in the UK is the Labour Party, which has generally been more receptive toward nuclear energy.   In 2008 the government gave the go-ahead to begin planning for new nuclear power plants, but plans for new plants are still very tenative.

In other areas, the UK also has been only somewhat receptive to “green” politics and policies.   The UK has begun to burn money on worthless wind turbines in recent years and has promoted “renewable” energy, but not nearly to the degree that some other countries have.  Energy effeciency legislation in the UK has not generally been quite as draconian as in Germany, Spain or the Netherlands.   The UK continues to rely heavily on coal for electricity, and like many other countries, has been increasingly turning to natural gas for power generation.   British society has begun to fall for the “organic food” nonsense, but has not gone so far as to ban genetically modified foods.

Given the indecisive politics and general stalemate of British energy policy, it’s not surprising that the energy related CO2 emissions from the UK are not getting any better.   However, unlike most of the “greenest” nations, they’re not really getting any worse either, which actually makes the UK one of the better examples of energy policy in Europe…

The UK did manage to decrease coal consumption for most of the 1980’s and 1990’s, but as “green” policy support became more popular in the mid to late 1990’s and new nuclear power plant construction ended, the numbers began to rise again.

So too has natural gas consumption.   The UK has historically been a large producer of gas and increased development of North Sea natural gas fields in the 1990’s eventually lead to the UK being a net exporter of natural gas.  Unfortunately, increased demand domestically combined with well depletion and restrictions on further development of natural gas fields has once again turned the tide and made the UK a net importer of gas.

Romania:   Not Green At all

Romania is about as un-green as you get, if you go by the politics of groups like the Green Party, Greenpeace and other enviornmental groups.   For one thing, Romania has not spent any significant national assets on “renewable” energy in the form of wind, solar and other worthless energy forms.    Romanian energy policy has long favored the deployment of hydroelectric energy to the maximum extent and the use of nuclear energy.

Romania has been seeking nuclear energy since the 1980’s and began construction of its first power reactors the Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant in the late 1980’s.   The project was put on hold for a few years due to the disruptions caused by the fall of communism, but resumed in the early 1990’s.    Unit one, a CANDU-6 reactor began full operations in 1996 and unit two in 2007.   Unit two was amongst the lowest cost CANDU-6 reactors ever built and was completed under budget and ahead of schedule.

At present, Romania is constructing two additional reactors and has plans for the possibility of adding up to three more reactors in the near future.

The combination of pro-nuclear policies and improvements to fossil fuel power plants while all but ignoring solar and wind power may bother many in the psuedo-enviornmental movement but Romania’s CO2 numbers don’t lie.

Although Romania remains a net importer of natural gas, the country has managed to buck the trend of most other nations when it comes to natural gas consumption.   Romania has slashed domestic consumption of natural gas, with a very noticeable drop when they first began using nuclear energy as a major energy source in 1996.  Coincidence?

Coal consumption is generally down as well:

France:   Not green at all and a huge thorn in the side of the whole “Green” movement

France embraced nuclear energy like few others ever have.   In a relatively short period of time they went from being a large importer of power with very little domestic nuclear energy to being nearly 100% free of fossil-fuel in their power generation sector and the regions largest exporter of electricity.    France managed to go from only a  relatively small percentage of nuclear energy on their power grid to more than 80% i just a couple of decades.

The CO2 numbers for France are considerably better than many other countries.   The country managed to buck the trend of higher CO2 emissions throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s.  Since the completion of the nuclear energy transition, CO2 has risen, but only slightly.  All and all, France produces less CO2 today than it did in the early 1980’s and even less than the mid 1970’s.  Something few countries can claim.

Natural gas consumption has risen, though not as badly as most other countries in the region.   Recent initiatives to increase the use of electric heat and other replacements of fossil fuel with electricity are beginning to reverse this trend.

Coal consumption is another story.  It’s only gone down to almost nill.   Today France only uses a small amount of coal for things like coking and as a carbon feedstock for chemical processes.   Coal is no longer used for prime energy in France.

Amazingly, despite these numbers, the French are not using less energy.  In fact, the consumption of energy in France has actually gone up.

It should be noted that the CO2  numbers in France only reflect the gross emissions within the country.   They don’t take into account the net reduction in CO2 emissions and gas consumption that occurs when French-generated nuclear electricity displaces other sources in adjacent countries.   Exports of electricity have only gone up.

Germany:  Very Green and phasing out nuclear energy

A quick look at the CO2 figures from Germany might lead one to think that the country is doing fairly well when it comes to cutting back.  However, these need to be taken in context.  The modern state of Germany came about from the reunification of East Germany and West Germany.   East Germany was equipped with soviet-era infrastructure that was anything but effecient.   Since then, there has been a rapid modernization of East German facilities, accounting for most of the reduction in CO2.    Even so, the net CO2 emissions have not fallen by very much and are generally a flat-line.

Coal consumption dropped immediately after reunification, but by 1999, most of the older East German power plants had been upgraded and the trend began to reverse, if only slightly.

While coal consumption has only risen moderately, natural gas has seen a steeper rise.

Given that Germany has installed a great deal of wind, solar and other “renewable” capacity, you might think that they’re producing more energy than in the past.   You’d be wrong, however, because domestic prime energy is actually down.   This does not mean that less energy is being used, however, as more and more electricity is being imported.

The Czech Republic: Not Green

The Czech Republic has not invested very much in the favorite “Green” energy systems, such as wind and solar.   The country continues to get much of its power from coal, but has embraced nuclear energy as and has considered expanding its nuclear power capabilities.   60% of the public supports more nuclear energy, which would add to an already significant domestic capacity.  

Nuclear energy already represents 30% of the power generated in the Czech Republic. There are six power reactors in the Czech republic, with the first coming online in 1985 and the most recent coming online in 2003.    Last year, the country announced it was interested in taking bids for building of additional reactors.   There are also projects underway which are expected to upgrade the power output of existing reactors.   The two reactors at the Temelin nuclear power plant currently produce 963 MWe each, but are being upgraded to produce 1050 MWe in the near future.

The enthusiastic support for nuclear energy in the Czech Republic has had some political concequences.   Austria has repeatedly claimed that the reactors put their country in danger and even threatened to block the Czech Republic from entering the European Union.  Yet the Czech Republic remains strongly in favor of nuclear energy, both for enviornmental benefits and because of the impact it has on the country’s energy independence.  The head of the Czech Academy of Sciences recommended increased nuclear energy.

It’s no wonder that there is such support, the country has done quite well with the current energy policy.  CO2 emissions are down since the mid 1990’s and have not risen as they have in most other countries.

Coal consumption has been on a downward trend.

This would not be noteworthy if, like so many others, the Czech Republic had replaced coal consumption with consumption of more expensive and mostly imported natural gas.  It has not.

Conclusion:

While some might claim that correlation does not imply causation, it’s certainly clear that the more “green” energy policies are not producing any benefits when it comes to emissions or energy independence and economics.   Furthermore, it appears that those which are most prone to embracing these policies are actually doing fairly poorly.  The numbers are surprisingly consistent:  countries which have committed most strongly to renewable energy and have moved away from nuclear energy are failing, while those that reject this ideology are doing very well, in many cases, improving signifficantly.  Countries which are somewhere between or have gone back and forth on the issue have seen similarly inconsistent or neutral levels of improvement.

It’s also worth looking at the numbers for CO2 per capita rank.   Nuclear-friendly France ranks number 59, and Sweden, which uses a combination of nuclear and hydroelectric ranks number 62.    Meanwhile Germany ranks 36, but is rising,  Belgium is 25, and Denmark is ranked 31.   The Czech Republic is 24, but improving.

Of course, there’s more than just power generation that goes into what makes a country’s CO2 footprint large or small.   Oil refining, heating and transportation also factor in.   In general, colder countries use more energy and countries that are geographically large rely more on automobiles.  Even given these differences, there’s no indication that sticking to a renewable-based and anti-nuclear energy policy does anything to help with CO2 emissions.  Indeed, the data indicates the opposite may very well be the case!

The numbers don’t lie!

Via the Kansas City Star:

Odessa, Mo., cheers news of manufacturing plant

A Utah company announced Thursday that it planned to build a manufacturing and research complex in Odessa, Mo., that could eventually employ more than 3,000 people.

The company, Manna of Utah, said it would build facilities to make home generators that use magnets to make electricity, produce food products from soybeans and rice, and manufacture portable medical emergency rooms that could be sent quickly anywhere in the world.

There also would also be a research and testing center, which would have 1,200 employees and a day care center.

The announcement was made to more than 300 people gathered in Odessa, including several state legislators and U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton.

“This is a magic moment for Odessa, a magic moment for Lafayette County and a magic moment for the Missouri,” said Skelton, a Democrat.

But the announcement also raised questions, including whether Manna of Utah, which has an office in Provo, can bring it off. The company started just last year and has 23 employees.

….
The Missouri Department of Economic Development said discussions have just begun about state incentives. But at this point, an official said, no request for state incentives or other help has been received.

“Our project managers have had very preliminary discussions with representatives of the business to determine what information they would need to provide if they were to apply for any state incentive program,” said John Fougere, a department spokesman.

Officials in Odessa were clearly happy in the hours leading up to the announcement. Rep. Mike McGhee said that Odessa would be producing technology that would be “world-changing” and that the announcement would shake the earth and the product would be the equivalent of the light bulb.

The Odessa Republican was referring to a home generator developed by Maglev Energy in Largo, Fla. The home generator, which Manna of Utah is licensing, uses magnets.

Maglev said that it filed for a patent on the generator in 2005 and that it has a prototype. However, the generator isn’t commercially available.

It should be noted that producing food products from soybeans and rice does not violate any laws of physics nor does producing portable emergency rooms. However, a company that only started last year and appears to be 23 people doing this in their off time (as it was noted that their chief operations officer only works part time for them and has a real job during the day) is something that really anyone should be skeptical about when it starts making such grand claims of a manufacturing plant.

Yet what really shows this to be a complete nutbag proposal is that the supposed company is licensing what, by app appearances, is a perpetual motion machine. The generators are supposed to be the “centerpiece” of the manufacturing operation.

And yes, they are already looking for government incentives and investment of taxpayer dollars. As stated in this article:

Odessa’s Board of Aldermen will have a meeting this evening on the proposal, but it is closed to the public because it deals with development matters. The mayor said Odessa had offered the developer, Manna of Utah, a site and agreed to provide $90 million in revenue bonds for the project.

As for the details of the generators that this company has licensed, some information can be found on the website of “Maglev Energy” of Florida. The images to the right come directly from their website. They are supposed to show the “base frame for the concept” and “concept mockup.” However, it looks suspiciously like a 5000 watt portable generator, from which the gasoline engine has been removed and replaced with a “mockup” made of masking tape, styrofoam and cardboard. Hell, it even says it’s a 5000 watt portable generator on the side.

Well, I hope they at least kept the motor and didn’t damage it while pulling it out, because a generator like this usually costs a good few hundred dollars.   The “magnetic” motor which apparently would drive it, however, is not going to be worth any more than the cost of the magnets put into it and likely less, considering that trying to get the motor to run at all is likely to damage or destroy the magnets.

On the face of it, this appears to be one of the classic misconceptions about magnetism that is constantly being rehashed as a perpetual motion machine.    Like fields of magnets repel, so it seems that if you arranged magnets in a ring, with their poles angled inward, a rotor with like fielded magnets arranged to point outward would result in the opposing fields pushing the rotor in a perpetual spinning motion.

Unfortunately, this simply will not work.   The idea is based on an oversimplisitc and flawed understanding of magnetic fields.  These fields do not simply push in one direction, they create a field of magnetic influence which surrounds the magnet.   This field will repel magnets entering the field regardless of what direction they come from, so the repulsive force is not going to push the rotor around.   The net forces in both directions are equal and the rotor may spin when pushed, but only until it runs out of momentum and settles to a stop.

All attempts at a permanent magnet motor run into this problem and that usually leads the would-be inventor to the next step – trying to figure out a way to make the magnets move due to opposition without coming to a stop by repeatedly reversing, adjusting or otherwise altering the positions of the magnets or their fields.   In theory, this can be done.   As with a lifting magnet, a simple permanent magnet can be made to impart motion and do work.   There is, however, a very big catch to this – it extracts very little energy and ruins the magnets.

Doing work requires energy and that energy comes from the magnetic potential stored within the magnet.   When a magnet does work, the field is degraded.   If the system is in equilibrium, such as if the an item is attracted to a magnet and then pulled off of it with equal or greater force, the magnetic field is not degraded.

However, if a magnet is made to act on an item and impart a net energy, then the field is degraded each time it does so.  This change in force represents energy, energy which comes from the magnet itself.    It takes energy to set up a magnetic field.  When a magnet is manufactured, it is placed in a powerful solenoid coil and a field is imparted to it.  This energy is what is lost when the magnet is degaussed.   Furthermore, it’s not even all that much energy.  Even the most powerful magnets only have a total field potential of a few joules per cubic centimeter. Furthermore, since very high power coils and special manufacturing techniques are needed to produce the magnetic field, once a rare earth magnet is depolarized, there’s no way you can re-polarize it on your own to the levels it came out of the factory with.   It’s basically ruined.

Indeed, Maglev Energy Limited managed to get a patent for their system a few years ago.  A quick glance shows that this is what they’re trying to do – stop the magnets from reaching equilibrium, thus causing some motion at the cost of the magnets.

Despite this, the company claims that what they’re doing is not really a “perpetual motion” machine, just a very effecient generator:

Tony Bamvakais, Odessa’s mayor, also went on the trip to Florida. Told of the experts’ opinions on Tuesday, he said the generator was not a perpetual energy machine. But it was so efficient that it kept on producing power when it was unhooked from an outside power source, he said.

It needs “just enough to get the generator running,” he said.

Well, I’m sorry have to say this, but that is a perpetual motion machine (or at least would be if it worked). Even if it needed a little energy to get started, any device that can produce more energy than it consumes is producing energy and therefore could run itself on its own output and still have energy to spare. You can not run an electric generator off of an electric motor and walk away with a net gain in energy. Anything which can be “unhooked from the power source” and then continue to produce power falls into one of two categories: either it has an internal reserve of energy, such as a battery or fuel tank (which will eventually run out), or it’s a complete work of fiction and does not exist.

Thankfully, the Kansas City Star also ran an article which is extremely skeptical of this alleged technology and includes advice from several experts warning the city not to touch this proposal or invest one red cent in the scheme.

But The Kansas City Star asked experts, including electrical engineers and a physicist, to review information about the generator, including its patent. They weren’t impressed and said Odessa needed to be skeptical.

“I would drop it like a hot potato,” said Ted Higman, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Minnesota. “I would not go one more step down this road if I were Odessa.”

And Bob Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland known for debunking perpetual-motion machines, said the enhanced efficiency claimed for the generator sounded like a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. That law holds that there is some cost when energy is moved, which would reduce the efficiency of such a generator.

But that’s not how some state and local officials view it, including a handful who went to Florida to see the machine. Missouri state Rep. Mike McGhee, an Odessa Republican, said last month when the project was announced that Odessa would be producing technology that would be “world-changing,” the equivalent of the light bulb.

….
The Utah company is licensing the generator technology from Maglev, which has had it for at least five years and got its patent in 2008. The company has yet to make the technology commercially available.

Park, the Maryland professor, said the generator’s patent at one point described generating electricity and energy from permanent magnets, but he said those contained only a small amount of energy. Overall, the patent is obtuse and poorly written, perhaps on purpose, he said.

“It is my personal opinion, based on years of experience in debunking perpetual-motion machines, that the language in this patent is deliberately obfuscating,” he said.

To Bob Park: Thanks for taking the time to refute this ridiculous claim, you’re obviously right on.
To Rep. Mike McGhee: You, sir, are an idiot. I hope voters remember this when they go to the polls.

Via BBC News:

Switzerland rejects move to provide lawyers for animals
Voters in Switzerland have rejected a proposal to introduce a nationwide system of state-funded lawyers to represent animals in court.

Animal rights groups had proposed the move, saying that without lawyers to argue the animals’ case, many instances of cruelty were going unpunished.

But the measure was rejected by around 70% of voters in a referendum.

Opponents had argued that Switzerland did not need more legislation. The government had opposed the idea.

Voters were almost certainly swayed by worries about how much such a system might cost taxpayers, and by objections from Switzerland’s farmers already struggling with reduced subsidies and falling milk prices.

Switzerland already has some of the strictest animal welfare legislation in the world.

Pigs, budgies, goldfish and other social animals cannot be kept alone; horses and cows must have regular exercise outside in summer and winter; and dog owners have to take training courses to learn how to care for their pets.

Yes, it is true that Switzerland has some of the strongest (and I’d argue ridiculous) laws when it comes to animal rights. I’ll be the first to admit that I really like dogs, but even with that bias, I have to wonder if it’s really a good thing to make owners take a training course on how to own a dog. The reason is this: There are a lot of dogs in shelters around the world and it’s very hard to get them adopted. Making prospective owners jump through hoops like going to classes on it might assure that they take care of their pets well, but it could also hurt the ability to place animals with care givers.

The law indeed does care about the social development of goldfish.    (Yes, seriously, that law does exist in Switzerland.)    Indeed, the way the law is written, any animal which is considered to be “social” in any way must be accommodated.  Where does it stop? Well considering a goldfish doesn’t have all that much of a brain (by mammal standards it hardly even qualifies as a brain), one might wonder whether these laws could be applied to the little mites that live in your eyelash follicles.

Of course, despite this, you can still legally kill animals and eat them in Switzerland.  You could catch a fish, yank it into your boat and wack it over the head then fry it up.   However, you can’t keep a “social fish” alive in a bowl by itself – it could get lonely.  Seems a little inconsistent, doesn’t it? This is the country that came up with the idea of plant rights, however.

To be fair, the issue of lawyers appointed for animals was supposed to be for abused animals. (No word on whether goldfish would quality.) The idea being to assure that the animals’ rights were well protected and its best interests considered by giving the animal an individual legal council. Still, although I can understand having some reasonable animal rights laws (for example, protecting animals from unnecessarily cruel treatment or harm without good cause), but this is just a bit over the top.

Then again, it could be worse. The measure could have actually passed.

I collected these classics from a number of sources.  A few came from the excellent Modern Mechanix blog, while others  came from Wikimedia, Erik Nitsche’s Flickr account and other websites.   Since these images were scanned from original material and posted to begin with, I’m assuming that there’s probably no copyright issue here, either because the original ad owner doesn’t mind them being distributed or because they’re no longer under copyright.   In any case, their use for documentary purposes should constitute fair use.

I really love these classics.

Now that his organization has a television deal, they’ve been trying to outdo themselves for dramatic footage and news stories that will grab headlines and get some more donations. Ratings, news coverage, donations – after all, it’s all about the money.

One notorious incident includes Watson claiming he was shot by the Japanese Coast Guard, who were tasked with protecting the whalers. The situation was as follows: after repeatedly coming dangerously close to the whaling vessels, the Sea Shepherd crew began hurling glass bottles of butyric acid at the crew of the Nisshin Maru. It is claimed that this was only because butyric acid smells bad, but one should consider that these glass bottles could still have caused injury and the contents were not known to the Japanese.

The Japanese Coast Guard responded with the use of “flash bang” grenades. These are little more than firecrackers and are typically designed to create an unpleasantly loud sound and otherwise stun or confuse. They’re not very effective at repelling an attack, but the Japanese Coast Guard seems to have been under orders not to use lethal force (which I stress, they would have been justified in using.)

At this point, Watson claims he was shot and survived only because of a bullet proof vest and a badge, which just happened to catch the bullet.

This seems a bit strange, even at first glance. Normally being shot is not a small event, even with a bullet proof vest. Soft body armor will stop a bullet, but much of the force is still distributed over a small area. Typically, a person wearing a vest receives a large bruise or welt from the shot, and occasionally may even suffer a cracked rib. They may be knocked down by the shot, not only because of the force, but because of the sudden and unexpected hit that can knock the wind right out of them.

Police officers who have been shot in their vest often describe the experience as “a swift hard punch” or even “being hit with a hammer.” This does not seem to be at all what happened to Watson. The fragment which he pulls from the vest also does not appear to be a bullet, although he doesn’t let the camera get much of a look at it.

Watson described the incident:

I felt an impact on my chest at one point and didn’t think too much of it at the time and then when I opened up my survival suit – I had a bulletproof vest (on) – and there was a bullet lodged in it.
…
If I wasn’t wearing the vest it would have been pretty serious

Consider the greater context as well: why would the Japanese Coast Guard fire one and only one round at the ship? No reports exist of other bullet holes on the vessel, and even a sniper would have trouble hitting the mark on when shooting from one moving vessel to another on the rolling seas. Yet this one, solitary bullet, fired amid an attack managed to hit Watson right in the chest, and also happened to hit his badge.

The Japanese government claims that no shots were fired and that an investigation of the incident found no Coast Guard members drew their arms and no bullets were missing. They also stated that the grenades used could not account for the projectile, as these grenades were designed for use in crowd control or other non-lethal applications and therefore had no potential to produce shrapnel. At worst, the concussion of these grenades could cause a mild bruise, if they were very close to a person. A total of seven of the non-lethal devices were fired at the Sea Shepperd ship.

Sea Shepperd’s story has been less than consistent. Initially they claimed Watson was shot. Later they seemed to indicate that it was either a bullet or some kind of explosive fragment. They’ve never given much in the way of details that could confirm the incident, but later they did release this dramatic photo. The new “bullet” seems to be part of their slightly toned-down story that the bullet was actually part of a grenade or some other potentially lethal assault on their ship.

The photo is really the icing on the cake of an over the top and ridiculous story. It hearkens to a cliche tale common in old Western movies and legends of war heroes. A bullet cuts down the hero of a story, but he’s miraculously saved when it strikes directly in the center of a badge, lucky coin, pocket bible or other item.

Oh puh-lease!

This lie just keeps getting better and better!

As you probably know from basic chemistry, an alkaline, or base is the opposite of an acid and the level of acidity or alkalinity of a substance is measured by pH.   Seven represents neutral and lower pH values represent a more acidic substance while higher pH represents a more basic substance.   Acids and bases, of course, will react with each other and, if equal, result in a neutral solution of water an an ionic salt.

There’s not a lot you can do to change the pH of your body by very much.   You can take antacids to neutralize some of the acid in your stomach, and if you have heartburn, that might be desirable, but the effect is temporary.   The pH of urine may also be altered by what you consume, but that’s also temporary.

The above graphic comes from an actual “alkalize your body” website.    It appears to indicate that it’s preferable for your body to have a pH similar to that of bleach or lithium hydroxide than one closer to lemon juice or stomach acid. I don’t think I’d want to be either one of those levels, but given the choice between the two, I’d rather be acidic.

But would you even want to make your body alkaline?   Probably not.   The human body does not have any single pH value.   Blood is, on average, ever so slightly bellow a pH of seven, making it basic.   Lymphatic fluid and the fluid in most cells tends to be ever so slightly acidic.   The stomach and digestive tract is acidic and so is the mouth.    Biological compounds and systems are actually far more likely to be acidic than alkaline, and important organic molecules are often acidic.   DNA, is Deoxyribonucleic acid, only one of the vital nucleic acids. Amino acids are vital to numerous biological functions.   Numerous vitamins and other critical compounds are also acidic.

In many cases, the very acidity of the body preforms a vital function.   Acidic environments can help inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria, and in the case of the digestive tract, the acidity of digestive fluids help break down food.   The acidity of the stomach is high enough to cause damage to tissue, but the body has evolved to deal with this – a protective mucus lining prevents the stomach from digesting itself.

Of course, acidic substances can be very harmful, IF they are acidic enough.  This is likely where the origin of this scam lies.   To the lay person, the term “acid” invokes images of the Joker leaving Batman dangling above a vat of sulfuric acid, or the tales of “The Acid Bath Murderer.”    Indeed, powerful acids can be quite harmful, and this could lead one to believe that acids are bad for the body in general.   However, bases can be just as bad, if not worse.   Powerful bases like lye can be found in drain cleaners and can easily cause a severe chemical burn.  A small amount of a substance like cesium hydroxide will literally eat flesh down to the bone, if you are unlucky enough to get some on you.

Plenty of foods are acidic, but few are alkaline.   Indeed, alkaline substances tend to be inorganic.   Some of the few examples of biologically-created bases include eggshells and seashells.   Some of the weaker bases you’re likely to encounter (which are weak enough not to cause burns or eat away your tissue down to the bone) include baking soda, limtstone and chalk.

So how do you alkalize your body, at least according to these quack claims?   One would think it would probably be pretty simple – just get a lot of limestone or baking soda and eat it, bathe in it, inject it or whatever else it might take to get your body alkalized (and possibly kill yourself in the process).   No, that would make too much sense.   You have to buy their special products, such as “ionic water” or “balanced substances” including things like colloidal silver and other products which have no medical value.

But if you want an example of extreme stupidity, check out what this site has to say:

Although lemons are acidic, they are alkalizing in your body.

Most of the foods we eat are very acidic and too much acid can bring about a barrage of health problems. That’s because your body actually prefers to be alkaline. Instead, most people bombard their systems with too many acidic foods and drinks, which have long lasting detrimental effects. That’s why lemons are so important to consume. They help alkalize your blood and your body thanks you!

Yeah, go figure – adding an acidic substance to your body will make it more alkaline? Makes about as much sense as the rest of the claims.

If this does not constitute a direct attack of this nature, I’d like to know what does…

Ramming a ship is deadly serious – as serious as torpedoing it.   In battle, when a ship has run out of ammunition or is too close to fire on an adversary, ramming can be a lethal move that will send another ship to the bottom.    Even if the ship ramming the other is smaller in size, the reinforced, angled prow can cut through the broadside of another ship, potentially causing a sinking with loss of life.    Make no mistake, the maneuver is intended to inflict potentially deadly damage, and in the remote and frigged waters of the Antarctic, it is all the more dangerous.

I’m continuously stunned by what this group (Sea Shepard) is able to get away with.    If this were anyone else, they’d have been arrested and/or sunk by now.

One of these days, someone is going to get killed.

Q. Why don’t you write about global warming and climate change more often?
A. It’s a complicated issue.   I’m not an expert and I’m not sure I’m qualified to really address it.   Also, it’s so politically charged that if I do say the wrong thing then the concequences would be very bad.   I’ve got to cover my ass on that more than anything else.

Q. Do you believe in global warming/climate change?  Is it real?
A. I don’t just believe it, it is real and I accept that.

Q. Is human activity the cause?
A. No.  It is not the cause.  The climate would change with or without human activity.

Q. Is human activity a cause or at least a contributing factor?
A. Yes

Q. How much so?  Is it a major contributing factor or a minor one?
A. I don’t know

Q. How much do you think?  What do you suspect?
A. While I do not know for sure, and I stress that, my opinion is that it is probably considerably less than it is made out to be by most activists.

Q. Are you sure?
A. No.  I just said I’m not sure.  This is what I personally think is probably true, and I don’t actually know it for a fact, so please don’t quote me as saying this is how it will be or that I have anything more than a hunch, if that.   I may very well be wrong.

Q. Do you think the scientists are inflating their numbers or deceiving the public?
A. Some are, but as for the whole field of climatology?   Certainly not everyone, but possibly a significant proportion.

Q. How big a proportion?  By how much?
A. I have no idea.  I said it’s possible that a significant proportion are.  I don’t actually know that they are and I certainly don’t know by how much.

Q. Do you think the media and enviornmental groups are inflating numbers and deceiving the public?
A. Of that I have no doubt.  Groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Sierra Club, The Green Party etc lie more than they tell the truth.   The media always reports the most sensational.

Q. Do you think Al Gore lies to us?
A. He lies by omission and cherry-picks the worst data he can find in support of this claims.  He’s too smart to lie outright.

Q. Do you think global warming will be catastrophic?
A. Probably not, but I don’t really know for sure.  I am confident that the catastrophic predictions made by many lobbyists and groups are not going to happen.

Q. How can you be so sure?
A. They never tell the truth about anything and always inflate the issue to their own advantage.   If the earth really was going to be in a state of moderate drought in 20 years, they’d say that it would be complete drought in ten years.   If it were going to be in complete drought in ten years, they’d say that the earth was going to burn up in five years.  If the earth was going to burn up in five years, they’d say that it’s going to explode in ten minutes.   Nothing, absolutely nothing that an “enviornmental” mainstream group says is ever credible and if they do say something that’s true, it’s usually by mistake.

Q. Do you think anything can be done about global warming?
A. Realistically, there’s little we can do now that will have any effect in the immediate future.  There is too much of a delayed response and the changes in years and even decades to come are already committed to.   It is not an immediate issue, but the long term policies we commit to now can make a difference in fifty to one hundred years.

Q. What do you think of the current proposals to stem global warming?
A. All the mainstream proposals are absolutely worthless or worse than worthless and if we’re only going to do things like carbon capture and storage or building wind turbines, we may as well not even bother, because those kind of solutions are not “solutions” and only hurt us economically while doing not a single thing to reduce enviornmental problems.

Q. Would it surprise you if in thirty years it turned out that it had not gotten any warmer?
A. Not really.

Q. What is the one thing you think climate scientists are hiding the most from the public?
A. The degree of confidence (or lack there of) of projections and measurements.   Not that they are really hiding it actively, but it’s not publicized to the degree it should be.

Q. What do you expect the climate will be like in ten, twenty, thirty, forty years in the future?
A. In ten years, it will be roughly what it is now.  In twenty thirty, forty or more, I have absolutely no idea.

Q. What do you think of climate change conferences like Copenhagen?
A. A lot of hot air, a lot of politics, a small amount of cherry-picked science and a lot of wasted money wining and dining politicians.

Q. So then you’re denying global warming, eh?
A. No, and where the hell did you get that from?

Q. And you think there’s a big worldwide conspiracy of climate change scientists?
A. No, I don’t and where the hell did I say anything like that?

Q. So then you are a big supporter of the Republicans and all over Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and you want Sarah Palin in the Whitehouse right?   Why do you hate black people so much?
A. What the?   no, I’m a registered Libertarian and… I’m not going to dignify the rest of that with a response.

Q. How much are the oil companies paying you?
A. The same as the pharmaceutical companies: nothing.

Q. What do you think should be done to try to reduce climate change as much as is possible?
A. We need to understand what human-driven climate change and impacts of human energy usage on the enviornment are truly part of.

The single biggest thing we can do is recognize that we, as a society are beginning a great transition, as great as the deployment of electricity, the invention of the steam engine or the mastering of fire.   We have begun to outgrow the limitations of hydrocarbon fossil fuels.   Hydrocarbon fuels will continue to be an important energy source for some applications, but we can no longer rely on them for our foundational energy needs.

Just as we outgrew the limits of human muscle and moved onto animal muscle; just as we outgrew the limits of animal muscle and moved onto steam power and to electricity, to turbines and beyond, the time has arived that we will take the next great leap to the next order of magnitude of energy sources, and one which will revolutionize our interaction with the enviornment as fire did thousands of years ago.

Climate change is only a symptom of the fundamental issue: we are pushing combustion of hydrocarbons beyond the limits of what it can effectively provide for us without major problems.   Fuel costs, shortages and choking emissions are the other symptoms of the same disease.   It is time to break these bonds and use the energy source that can send us to the stars and beyond.   Nuclear energy is not simply the answer to global warming, it is the answer to the greatest question one can ask: “what is the destiny of mankind?”

Does this put this issue to rest?   Because I’m tired of being asked about it.  I think I got all the questions I got on there.

Via News.com.au:

A BABY girl survived three days with a bullet in her chest as she lay alone beside the dead bodies of her parents and toddler brother in Argentina.

The Daily Mail reported Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their seven-month-old daughter and two-year-old son before killing themselves.

The pair allegedly agreed to a suicide pact over fears about global warming.

The couple’s son, Francisco, died instantly after being shot in the back, the paper reported.

The baby girl, whose name has not been released, escaped the apparent murder attempt after a bullet from her dad’s handgun missed her vital organs.

Worried neighbours alerted police three days later, after discovering the bodies.

Paramedics then rushed the blood-soaked baby to a hospital.

The miraculous survivor is now recovering in a hospital in the town of Goya in northern Argentina and is out of danger, according to the paper.

Police discovered an apparent suicide note by the girl’s parents in which they outlined their global warming fears.

The New York Daily News reports the letter was found on a table expressing the couple’s anger at the government for not responding to the environmental crisis.

It’s amazing (though not miraculous) that the baby girl has survived thus far with a bullet lodged in her body. Hopefully, she’ll be able to recover, although three days without food and water is no small thing for an infant, and add a bullet in the back to that, and the situation is definitely critical.

Before blaming this entirely on the media hype over global warming, it’s important to note that there’s a pretty good chance that the parents were mentally unstable to begin with, and global warming fears may very well have just been the spark that touched off an already explosive situation. (The fact that the mother was 23 and the father 56 already makes me wonder how stable these two were to begin with. Unless he’s a rock star or just very rich, that’s a pretty rare situation.)

This does, however, show that media hype can be a very dangerous thing when it’s combined with already unstable persons who are already sensitive to irrational fears and prone to potentially violent action.