To be honest, the idea that Michael Jackson would try to fake his own death does not seem entirely implausible to me.   He was definitely a freaky enough dude to do something as whacked out as that.   However, I still don’t think he did, in part, because while Jackson may have been freaky enough to do that, I don’t think he would have been able to get away with it for long and I certainly don’t think that the LA County Medical Examiner, the state and local police, the DA’s office, all the media and promoters and all the others required would have been so easy to convince to go along with it.

In any case, here’s some of the “proof” that has been offered to show he’s really alive:

You have to fast forward to about 2:17 on this video to show the individual some claim is Michael Jackson on the Larry King Show.

Admittedly, they both have somewhat similar high pitched voices, but that’s not Michael Jackson, that’s a known individual who currently goes by the name “Dave Dave.”    Dave Dave was born David Rothemberg.  He changed his name, because he did not want to carry the last name he received from his father.   His father was a very disturbed man who, in a notoriously cruel incident (which later became the basis for a made-for-tv movie) set a fire that caused severe burns to his six year old son.  This was triggered by a nasty divorce and custody battle with David’s mother in 1983.

Dave Dave has been known since that time and his struggle with the disfiguring burns and skin grafts has been documented for many years.   Today he lives in Utah.  Dave Dave does not actually look all that much like Jackson, his eyes are a different color, for one thing, and while it is possible to achieve a different eye color using contact lenses, achieving a realistic looking eye color as light as Dave Dave’s is all but impossible for someone with eyes as dark as Michael Jackson’s.

David has only appeared publicly a few times since the incident, but he spoke about Michael Jackson because Jackson had helped pay for some of his medical expenses and befriended David and his family shortly after the incident.  While some of Jackson’s relations with young children may have stirred some suspicion, it seems that in this case, the star was genuinely offering compassion and financial help to someone who is almost impossible not to feel sympathy for.

Conclusion:  Dave Dave is not Michael Jackson

Example number 2 of “proof” that Michael Jackson is alive:

Well, I admit that I don’t know who that woman is, but sorry, what I see is a slightly blurry individual who doesn’t actually look like Michael Jackson at all. Then again, maybe Michael Jackson is this guy.

Example number 3 of the “proof”:

Sorry, I don’t see anything there to prove anything significant happened.

Then we have the “hidden messages.”

In the spirit of “Paul is Dead” you can hear almost anything you want.   Apparently Jackson planned on faking his own death years ago, back long before he was prosecuted for child molestation, years before his financial problems and years before he even turned white.   In that case, one might ask why he waited so long, but then again, these things generally don’t make sense to begin with.

Finally the Pièce de résistance:

Wow.   That sure looks like it could be Jackson.  That sure looks like the van that was transporting his body.   Wow.  Even the license plate is the same! Well it should look good, because the German television station that made this video put in a fair amount of effort to create this hoax video as a publicity stunt!

Conclusion: Sorry, Michael Jackson is dead.   There’s really no reason to think otherwise, and while I would not past Michael Jackson to try that kind of stunt, getting away with it is another thing.

Despite this several websites have cropped, a couple noteworthy ones are
Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigation Forum
Michael Jackson Sightings

On this topic, a few examples of those who many claimed had faked their death or were not dead:

Lee Harvey Oswald – A wacky conspiracy theory claimed that the “Oswald” that the world knew and who was shot by Jack Ruby was actually a Soviet double. They even managed to exhume his body in 1980, and dental records and other examination conclusively proved that yes, it was Lee Harvey Oswlard. Some continued to claim that it was really an imposer and that the Soviets somehow managed to replace the double’s body with the real Oswald body in the cemetery. They cited the fact that the burial vault was damaged, although this was likely caused by the weight of the soil and the age of the vault.

Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanov – After the execution of the Russian royal family, rumors surfaced that one or more had survived. Anastasia was the most common family member cited as being alive. A woman in Germany woman by the name of Anna Anderson claimed to be Anastasia for her entire life and managed to acquire some followers. Scholars pointed out that Anderson’s use of the Russian language and accent indicated it was not her primary language and that she could not provide details that Anastasia would have known. Many continued to insist Anderson was indeed Anastasia until several years after her death when DNA analysis conclusively proved she was not. The Romanov graves were discovered in 1991, but it was not until 2007 that analysis of the graves as well as partially cremated remains found nearby conclusively proved all family members were executed.

Billy the Kid – Billy the Kid (Henry McCarty) was shot dead in 1881, but later at least two men would claim to be Billy the Kid, saying the death was faked. Attempts to confirm the identity of the body buried as Billy the Kid have been held up in the courts, but analysis of photographs and historical accounts has lead most researchers to dismiss both claims as bogus.

Jesse James – Since the death of Jesse James in 1882, many have cliamed to be James. In 1995, mitochondrial DNA recovered from the body of Jesse James proved to be consistent with the body indeed being Jesse James, but some continue to insist that it was not him, citing the possibility that the body was another individual who was closely maternally related to James.

Amelia Earhart – Irene Craigmile Bolam was an American bank executive who also happened to be a private pilot. She also bared a resemblance, although not a very strong one, to Amelia Earhart. In 1970 a book was published aledging that Bolam was infact Amelia Earhart, who had lived under the false identity since her disappearance in 1937. Bolam was not happy about this and sued, receiving a 1.5 million dollar settlement. Unfortunately for those who believe that Bolam was Earhart, the life and family history of Irene Bolam is well documented and photometric comparisons have been fairly conclusive in showing that the two individuals are not the same.

Whatever the case, these comments and link-backs really get in the way of having a meaningful discussion and are a huge annoyance.   It’s important to catch them as much as possible, because many spammers are able to detect if the comment has been successfully posted and, if it was, they will continue to post to the site.  If it’s not, the spambot may know enough not to bother with the site anymore.

For this reason I’ve had to increase the level of filtering.   This includes filtering messages from certain IP ranges, domains and email addresses, as well as messages which contain certain key words and phrases.   Some of the filtering methods also include filtering messages which fit a profile derived from public spambot lists.   Sites that receive spam report it to various databases and the patterns are used to reconize when the spambot comes to another site.

Unfortunately, as the filtration standards are made tighter, more legitimate messages are likely to get moderated as suspicious.   They are not deleted!  They end up in a spam folder which I regularly review and approve messages that are not spam and don’t belong in there.   However, this might take a day or so, because I do have a life aside from this site.

So if your comment does not show up, that is probably why.   Please don’t keep trying to post the same message 20 times in a row and then start posting messages about how you’re being censored.   That’s not what’s happening.   It’s just an issue of the spam filters not being perfect.

US court rules again against vaccine-autism claims

WASHINGTON, March 12 (Reuters) – Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal cannot cause autism on their own, a special U.S. court ruled on Friday, dealing one more blow to parents seeking to blame vaccines for their children’s illness.

The special U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that vaccines could not have caused the autism of an Oregon boy, William Mead, ending his family’s quest for reimbursement.

“The Meads believe that thimerosal-containing vaccines caused William’s regressive autism. As explained below, the undersigned finds that the Meads have not presented a scientifically sound theory,” Special Master George Hastings, a former tax claims expert at the Department of Justice, wrote in his ruling.

In February 2009, the court ruled against three families who claimed vaccines caused their children’s autism, saying they had been “misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment”.

The families sought payment under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a no-fault system that has a $2.5 billion fund built up from a 75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines.

Instead of judges, three “special masters” heard the three test cases representing thousands of other petitioners.

They asked whether a combination vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, plus a mercury-containing preservative called thimerosal, caused the children’s symptoms.

Well this is certainly good, if not expected news. While courts don’t always make the right decision on issues of health and science (witness the breast implant fiasco for example), in this case, the data is so compelling, so one-sided and the claims so baseless that it’s all but impossible to imagine any sane judge or jury would find for the anti-vaccine movement, which has so strongly backed this bunk idea.

Interestingly, the whole anti-vaccine movement also seems to be incapable of figuring out exactly what they’re complaining about. Is it the thimerosal containing vaccines? Is it the MMR vaccine? Is it all vaccines in general? All of thee? Such inability to even express a consistent and logical argument is very typical of such baseless claims.

Indeed, this is the fourth time a US federal court has ruled on the issue and the fourth time that a US federal court has completely dismissed the claims.

It should be noted that the court was specially created to deal with vaccine-related issues as part of The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It’s possible that the litigants will appeal this decision and attempt to get a hearing at a higher US federal court, possibly even the Supreme Court. If the courts do consider their appeal (which they very well may not even bother hearing) then it’s hard to imagine a favorable ruling for the litigants.

Some news agencies have reported this as if it is a watershed moment in the field of immunology and autism research. For example, ABC News, which reports:

Thimerosal in Vaccine Out as Autism Cause
Millions of parents who for years had feared a vaccine was to blame for their child’s autism learned today that is not the case.

At least according to a special federal court, which — while expressing sympathy for families — found no direct link between autism and the vaccine additive Thimerosal.

The ruling by the so-called vaccine court means that those families are ineligible to receive federal victim compensation.

So tonight, we ask: Is this ruling enough to convince you there is no connection between vaccination and autism?

Sadly, the ruling is not going to convince anyone that there is no connection between vaccination and autism who believes such nonsense to begin with. The court decision does not change anything in the scientific or medical community. All mainstream and credible researchers already were well aware that the whole notion of autism being linked to vaccination is entirely false. No judge or court needed to tell anyone who actually understands the data this, and for those who have convinced themselves that it’s all a big conspiracy, this will be more likely to reinforce that idea than dismiss it.

The ruling may, however, make a difference when it comes to litigation. Lawyers may like to sue, but the thing they really like is winning, and this kind of validation of the futility of any such lawsuit is going to make it not only more difficult to take it to court, but is likely to discourage most lawyers from even wasting their time trying.

Not surprisingly, the ruling already has sparked an enormous amount of comments and even more banter from the anti-vaccine, anti-science advocacy groups.

Finally, it should be noted that this entire ruse is based, at least in part, on the idea that autism is rising or has become “epidemic.” A lot of numbers are being thrown around which sound quite scary. Claims that “One in 110 children have autism” or that “it’s a mystery why this condition is rising” are really based on a complete misunderstanding of the diagnostic criteria. To many in the public, the idea of someone having “autism” congers up images of profoundly disabled people who can’t take care of themselves, can barely talk and are wholly incapable of functioning in society. This is simply not the case. In years past, such individuals would be the extent of who is considered to have autism, but the modern diagnostic criteria recognize an entire “spectrum” which includes cases of fully functional individuals.

The lack of understanding and misconceptions about the diagnostic criteria and the spectrum of autism disorders has only served to make the situation worse for those with autism spectrum disorders and those caring for children with these conditions. If that’s not bad enough, many of the same groups and individuals who spread this misinformation are also active in encouraging dangerous and sometimes torturous “treatments” ranging from locking kids in hyperbaric chambers to subjecting them to harsh chelation agents via IV.

Make no mistake, many of these “autism advocacy” groups are not helping the situation and are no friend to the families they may have managed to woo. The perpetuation of lies, stigma, dangerous and ineffective treatments is shameful and destructive.

The CT scan has become on of the biggest targets.   CT scans are rapidly becoming one of the most common forms of medical imaging.  They’re relatively quick, painless and provide excellent diagnostic data for a wide number of conditions.   The technology of CT scanning and imaging processing has improved dramatically in recent years, making the procedures both more economical and increasing data quality and resolution.    There’s no doubt that these procedures save lives and improve the quality of life by giving doctors a look inside the human body at both bone and soft tissue.

CT scans do subject patients to some radiation exposure, however.   The levels of radiation which a patient receives from a CT scan (or even several of them) has never been shown to actually cause any long term harm, but the long-standing and many times debunked linear non-threshold model presumes that it will.  LNT was conceived as a “worst case scenario” for the effect that ionizing radiation might have on the human body in the earliest days of radiation research, when data was scarce.

LNT holds that radiation effect is directly proportional to dose, all the way down to zero and therefore assumes that the human body is incapable of repairing damage caused by radiation, recovering from radiation-induced cellular damage or in any way mitigating the effects of radiation.   It further assumes that the effect of a few atoms in a human cell being ionized is smaller, but otherwise no different than an enormous amount of ionization of the cells.

There’s no doubt that cancer risk is increased by radiation if the dose is high enough.   Radiation can damage the body on both a macroscopic and cellular level.   A high enough dose of radiation can cause tissue damage, internal bleeding and even death.  Those who do recover from multiple incidence of near-fatal acute radiation poisoning may face life-long complications and health issues relating to the damage caused by radiation.   At high enough levels, the dangers appear to be relatively linear in relation to radiation dose.  In other words, a person exposed to 1000 rems has approximately twice the risk of complications like cancer as someone exposed to 500.

By this logic, one rem should result in .1% the likelihood of developing cancer as 1000 rems.   This has been likened to observing that when a person is thrown off a ten story building they die 100% of the time, when thrown off of a 5 story building, they die 50% of the time and therefore assuming that 10% will die from a one story fall and 1% will die after falling 12 inches.  Furthermore, the implication is that the optimal living situation is zero radiation exposure (something which is effectively impossible) and the higher the exposure is over zero, the worse off you are for cancer risk.

Needless to say, many have pointed out that there’s a flaw in this logic and as knowledge of radiation has increased, LNT has begun to look less and less likely.  Unfortunately for the promoters of LNT, examination of the cancer rates in populations living in high radiation background areas shows no increase in cancer and in fact, has produced some evidence of a decreased risk of cancer.

Yet what these reports on the dangers of medical imaging really are is nothing more than a combination of the LNT hypothysis and fifth grade level mathematics.

In the media:
SF Gate: CT scan cancer warnings worry patients
WEB MD: Multiple CT Scans Raise Cancer Risk
Daily Mail: CAT scan cancer fear: Radiation ‘could trigger the disease in one in 80 patients’
US News and World Report: Too Many CT Scans Pose Cancer Risk, Studies Say
Wall Street Journal: Radiation Risks Prompt Push to Curb CT Scans

The math:

Radiation Exposure From Procedure * Presumed Increased Cancer Risk Per Rem = Increased Risk Per Procedure

Increased Use Per Procedure * Number of Patients Who Receive Procedure = Presumed Cancer Incidence Caused By Procedure

Assumed lifetime risk increase per rem is .08%  ( .0008) – this is based on extrapolation of observational data with the presumption that the risk is a linear function.   (It has not been proven through direct observational data at such low levels.)

An average CT Scan will produce an exposure of roughly 600 mrem pr .60 rem (A full body CT Scan is roughly one rem*   A local scan of the chest Abdomen pelvis is roughly 450 600 mrem)

There are at least 62 million CT scans preformed per year, in the United States alone.  Hundreds of millions are preformed world wide

*depending on the exact nature of the equipment and procedure.  Nominal exposure from Chest, Abdomen and
Pelvis averages 990 mrem, slightly more if additional local imaging is included.

Therefore, using this simple formula:

.60 * .0008 = 0.00048 or .052% increase in lifetime cancer risk

.00048 x 62,000,000 = 29,760

Thus we have come to the conclusion that in the United States alone, there will be about twenty nine to thirty thousand new cases of cancer per year due to CT scans.

Of course, we could go a bit further with this, we could break down CT scan dose further and rather than just using 600 mrem as a good approximation, we could break down the number of CT scans by type and the independently multiply each by the exposure it results in.   We could do the same with everything from simple two-dimensional bone x-rays to mammograms, dental x-rays, angiograms and all the other procedures that use x-rays and then add them all up.

In the end, however, all we’re really doing is fourth grade math – multiply the exposure level from the procedure times the presumed added risk per rem (or sievert if you prefer to be metric about it) and then multiply that by the number of procedures preformed.   Thus, we have our theoretical number of cancer incidence produced by the use of the procedure.

Numbers which, I will stress again, don’t come from going out there and collecting data or studying the results of medical imaging on the population, but simply using a hypothetical constant whose validity is never actually addressed by the study itself.

Is this actually any revelation?  Is this news?

There’s absolutely no observational data here and there’s no empirical evidence to support the numbers at all.  It’s just multiplying out the numbers based on a pre-conceived notion with no actual validation that this notion is even true.    Furthermore, it’s math that you could do on the back of a cocktail napkin.

So how is this really news?   It’s not.   Yet somehow it gets reported as if it were.

Conclusion:

What these studies indicate is really fairly obvious:   the LNT hypothesis indicates that any level of radiation exposure will increase cancer risk.   CT scans use ionizing radiation.  Therefore if CT scans are used, LNT predicts that there will be an increase in cancer proportional to the number of CT scans preformed.   This is obvious, even self-evident, but it should be stressed that this is only based on the LNT model – it does not actually mean that there will be more incidence of cancer.

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!