<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Climate refugees and Wi-Fi pollution]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by JMG http://www.grist.org/article/the-ecologist-dishes-it-up/ Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:50:50 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/the-ecologist-dishes-it-up/1 Hmmmm

There's several things wrapped up here --

First, there are technologies that are only harmful in aggregate or cumulatively, so the typical test regime doesn't flag them.

Second, a regulatory test regime typically can't find interactivity effects; e.g., we've only managed to actually test a few chemicals and we've done no multi-element testing.

Besides, why worry about things like Wi-Fi when the genetic tampering is trying to train e-coli (which populates mammal guts) to exude butanol and other fuels (poisonous to mammals).  I'd be a lot more concerned about genetic drift along these lines than I would be about the vanishingly low energy levels in Wi-Fi exposures.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

]]> Hmmmm

There's several things wrapped up here --

First, there are technologies that are only harmful in aggregate or cumulatively, so the typical test regime doesn't flag them.

Second, a regulatory test regime typically can't find interactivity effects; e.g., we've only managed to actually test a few chemicals and we've done no multi-element testing.

Besides, why worry about things like Wi-Fi when the genetic tampering is trying to train e-coli (which populates mammal guts) to exude butanol and other fuels (poisonous to mammals).  I'd be a lot more concerned about genetic drift along these lines than I would be about the vanishingly low energy levels in Wi-Fi exposures.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

]]> Comment #2 by Erik Hoffner http://www.grist.org/article/the-ecologist-dishes-it-up/ Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:25:08 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/the-ecologist-dishes-it-up/2 pollution

Seems to me that the solution in the case of Wifi is a lot simpler than the genetic pollution issue. Just unplug the WiFi and use good old cables. Schools all over the world are doing so, as reported by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6172257.stm

It's just straight up precautionary principle, at least in the case of kids, with their "thinner skulls" according to the report, until there's evidence in either direction.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

]]> pollution

Seems to me that the solution in the case of Wifi is a lot simpler than the genetic pollution issue. Just unplug the WiFi and use good old cables. Schools all over the world are doing so, as reported by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6172257.stm

It's just straight up precautionary principle, at least in the case of kids, with their "thinner skulls" according to the report, until there's evidence in either direction.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

]]> Comment #3 by Colin Wright http://www.grist.org/article/the-ecologist-dishes-it-up/ Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:16:56 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/the-ecologist-dishes-it-up/3 Who is protecting the American consumer?

The British Independent had a story on this too a while back: People should avoid using Wi-Fi wherever possible because of the risks it may pose to health, the German government has said.

I don't know what to make of it. I have WiFi at home. As JMG cautions, there are probably more important things to worry about.

But it seems that the cell phone manufacturers have cut way back on the amount of radiation exposure, in response to health studies. I suspect WiFi could be made to be just as useful with a factor or 10 lower in radiated power.

]]> Who is protecting the American consumer?

The British Independent had a story on this too a while back: People should avoid using Wi-Fi wherever possible because of the risks it may pose to health, the German government has said.

I don't know what to make of it. I have WiFi at home. As JMG cautions, there are probably more important things to worry about.

But it seems that the cell phone manufacturers have cut way back on the amount of radiation exposure, in response to health studies. I suspect WiFi could be made to be just as useful with a factor or 10 lower in radiated power.

]]> Comment #4 by Schoneveld http://www.grist.org/article/the-ecologist-dishes-it-up/ Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:15:58 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/the-ecologist-dishes-it-up/4 climate refugees???

 "Scientific" conclusions of this caliber are the hallmark of alarmism and damage the reputation of the climate change science.

Fist of all,  water in a mangrove is in communication with the sea (it is situated in the tidal zone of the coastal strip). Since the melting of local glaciers has no measurable effect on sea level the submergence of these islands are unrelated to glacier melting.

Secondly, the Bengal delta is subject to isostatic crustal movement caused by increased sedimentary load, in turn causing the submergence of islands, a common geological phenomenon.

Maybe it is time to educate the readers of this blog about the concept of "relative sea level change" with the emphasis on "relative". The present-day worldwide "absolute" eustatic sea level rise of some 2 mm per year is a futile event compared to local sea level changes which are often more dramatic but unrelated to  ice melt or thermal expansion of warming ocean waters.

Locally observed changes are always the result of tectonics or isostatic movements of the earth's crust and never due to eustatics.  In contrast to the Bengal delta, Stockholm is experiencing a relative uplift of 10 mm per year due to glacial isostatic adjustments, a rebound from the disappearance of the last glacial ice load.  Also the East Pacific coastline shows a relative uplift of 1 mm per year (or an absolute vertical crustal uplift of 3 mm per year). The recent earthquake in the Saloloms, a tectonic event, has even pushed up some islands by a couple of meters.

Furthermore, progressive upward coral growth around many coral islands will be able to compensate for relative sea level rise and therefore Tuvalu or the Maldives are not necessarily doomed by the projected maximum eustatic sea level rise of 58 cm in the next century (provided humans don't damage the fringing reefs). As we all know, an atoll exists by virtue of this process.

]]> climate refugees???

 "Scientific" conclusions of this caliber are the hallmark of alarmism and damage the reputation of the climate change science.

Fist of all,  water in a mangrove is in communication with the sea (it is situated in the tidal zone of the coastal strip). Since the melting of local glaciers has no measurable effect on sea level the submergence of these islands are unrelated to glacier melting.

Secondly, the Bengal delta is subject to isostatic crustal movement caused by increased sedimentary load, in turn causing the submergence of islands, a common geological phenomenon.

Maybe it is time to educate the readers of this blog about the concept of "relative sea level change" with the emphasis on "relative". The present-day worldwide "absolute" eustatic sea level rise of some 2 mm per year is a futile event compared to local sea level changes which are often more dramatic but unrelated to  ice melt or thermal expansion of warming ocean waters.

Locally observed changes are always the result of tectonics or isostatic movements of the earth's crust and never due to eustatics.  In contrast to the Bengal delta, Stockholm is experiencing a relative uplift of 10 mm per year due to glacial isostatic adjustments, a rebound from the disappearance of the last glacial ice load.  Also the East Pacific coastline shows a relative uplift of 1 mm per year (or an absolute vertical crustal uplift of 3 mm per year). The recent earthquake in the Saloloms, a tectonic event, has even pushed up some islands by a couple of meters.

Furthermore, progressive upward coral growth around many coral islands will be able to compensate for relative sea level rise and therefore Tuvalu or the Maldives are not necessarily doomed by the projected maximum eustatic sea level rise of 58 cm in the next century (provided humans don't damage the fringing reefs). As we all know, an atoll exists by virtue of this process.

]]>