U.S. as part of the united nations has signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
I can't believe there is still people that uses this methods, all the responsibles should go to Jail.
<a href="http://www.poemadeamor.org/poemas-tristes/8" style="display:none">Poemas tristes</a>
What sense does it make to question somebody's motives because of who's paying them? Don't you think this person had a choice to decide who he works for? Who is paying YOU and what does that say about YOUR motives? What about oft-quoted scientific research? Research only happens when somebody pays for it. Finally, consider this: NOBODY is paying me to rebut your nonsense.
OK, so the marketing is less than brilliant. What proof do you have that GE's emissions reducing technology will not work? Or are you just assuming?
"Greenhouse gases" simply mean carbon dioxide. Anything you burn and anything that breathes makes it. Even if you went back to HORSES and MULES you'd still be producing this gas (along with lots of methane). There are very few ways to get heat, light and mechanical energy other than burning something, and I doubt you'll like any of them.
Solar energy depends directly on surface area. In other words, you have to cover up huge amounts of landscape to obtain useful amounts of solar power directly. This will obviously kill plants and DECREASE the conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen. Also, reflecting and absorbing sunlight causes climate change--it's been shown that the concrete surfaces of large cities actually alter weather patterns, for example. The only way to avoid these problems is to build huge solar collectors in space, but this is only science fiction for now.
Wind energy also depends directly on surface area, except in this case the technology only blocks a portion of the land, and instead kills birds and wildlife. Perhaps building wind farms on the polar ice caps might be a solution, though I don't see anybody rushing out to try it.
Hydropower is reasonably clean although it tends to interfere with fish migration. It doesn't even matter though because practically every river that can be dammed has been already.
Geothermal power is only practical in a very few locations where the earth's crust is thin enough, and it isn't especially safe to live around volcanoes and geysers. Do we even know whether taking too much heat from beneath the earth's surface might have unwanted side effects?
Now here's the part I'm certain you don't want to hear. The least potentially hazardous way to create energy for heat, light and transportation is nuclear. It has been decades since the last time there were any noteworthy problems with a nuclear power facility, and current techology is far safer still. Countries like France are doing very well with this source of energy. It produces NO greenhouse gases and most of the fuel gets recycled. Even the warm water produced by older plants could be mitigated with proper planning. Before you start complaining about what to do with the radioactive materials, think about where they came from in the first place. That's right--they're in the ground!
As with all studies, this one was not without some limitations, but nevertheless it builds on eight similar studies done prior to it that yielded strikingly similar results.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, <em>Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report</em>, which published information on this study, had this to say regarding its limitations:
"The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, because no data were available on whether study subjects were nonsmokers or smokers, determining what portion of the observed decrease in hospitalizations was attributable to reduced SHS [secondhand smoke] exposure among nonsmokers and what portion was attributable to increased quitting among smokers was not possible. The prevalence of smoking decreased in Pueblo County as a whole, but the difference over time was not statistically significant. Second, the study did not directly document reductions in SHS exposure among nonsmokers after the city of Pueblo smoke-free law took effect, although studies elsewhere have reported such reductions (1,5,7,10). Third, individual residences were assigned based on postal codes, which might have resulted in a small amount of misclassification (3); however, misclassifying residents' exposure to the city of Pueblo smoke-free ordinance would result in underestimating the effect of this ordinance. In addition, residents of the area of Pueblo County outside the city of Pueblo limits might work in workplaces or patronize restaurants or bars in the city of Pueblo, or vice versa; again, this would bias findings toward the null. Finally, the ecologic nature of this study precludes definite conclusions about the extent to which the observed decline in AMI hospitalizations in the city of Pueblo was attributable to the smoke-free ordinance. To the extent that any unmeasured factors influenced rates, the findings described in this report might overestimate or underestimate the actual effect. AMI hospitalization rates initially were substantially higher in the city of Pueblo than in the two comparison areas, suggesting that these areas might not be fully comparable to the intervention site because of demographic and other differences. However, no significant changes in the manner in which AMI patients were diagnosed, treated, or transported occurred in the three study sites during the study period. Future studies could further expand the evidence base by including information on the smoking status of AMI patients and biomarkers (e.g., cotinine and troponin) for objective measurement of SHS exposure and case ascertainment, as was done in one recent study (7).
You can access their entire report on the study [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htm here].
I hope this helps answer your question.
Anne Landman
I believe in the great danger of second hand smoke, but your article fails to say whether the data were normalized for certain factors, such as locations of hospitals, which might tend to skew the data either way, lifestyle, and the aging of the population in the inner city. Heart attacks are caused by too many factors for this study to be useful. The second hand smoke fight is best done based on epidemiological evidence, as it's nearly impossible to refute.
What sense does it make to question somebody's motives because of who's paying them? Don't you think this person had a choice to decide who he works for? Who is paying YOU and what does that say about YOUR motives? What about oft-quoted scientific research? Research only happens when somebody pays for it. Finally, consider this: NOBODY is paying me to rebut your nonsense.
Pages