HFC-23 is 15,000 times as potent as CO2 in the greenhouse gas stakes. It’s only made by six factories in the whole of Europe.
Given that, you would think that they’d have this one esoteric compound completely tracked, measured to the nth, audited and cross checked, right? After all, how devastating would it be if governments can’t report something as simple as HFC-23 accurately, how could they possibly expect to run a global trading scheme on a gas like CO2, which is not just made in hundreds of factories, but thousands of cities, millions of cars, and billions of animals. Well, if you thought someone somewhere had a handle on those numbers, get ready to be corrected. Not only did people think it was a good idea if countries self-assessed their emissions, but they trusted those countries to accurately report numbers that millions of dollars of payments rested on, and nobody was looking too hard over their shoulder.
Who has been emitting twice as much HFC-23 as they admitted? That would be the whole of Western Europe. Italy, apparently, has snuck out 10 times as much.
So what does a “binding target” mean exactly? Not much. When we can’t measure the emissions easily, a “binding target” only binds governments to making reports stating that they met the binding target. (Even if they blew that target by 1000%.)
How emblematic of the whole enterprise. It’s like they don’t really care about the results, only that the appropriate bureaucratic machinery be in place and appearances established — which is “consistent with” (as they say) the whole theory being a front for an expansion of government and a boondoggle for banks, renewables, bureaucrats, climate “scientists”, Greens, etc etc.
Source: Science Daily
Under-Reported Greenhouse Gas Statistics? Sketchy Emission Reports Revealed by Swiss Measurements
…pollutant measurements carried out by researchers at Switzerland’s Empa now reveal that several countries under-report their emissions. For instance, Italy emits 10 to 20 times more HFC-23 than it officially reports.
Pollutant analyses by Empa, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, — at the Jungfraujoch research station at 3580 metres above sea level, among others — using a special gas chromatograph mass spectrometer called ‘MEDUSA’ not only enables the emission levels of more than 50 halogenated GHG to be quickly and precisely evaluated; they also make it possible to identify the emission sources regionally, thanks to atmospheric and meteorological computer models. The sobering result: Western Europe emits around twice as much HFC-23 as officially reported. A corresponding study was recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The usual suspects?
The suspicion that some countries have not been overly precise in reporting their GHG emissions has been around for some time; projections from measurements of the world-wide AGAGE network (Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment) showed significantly higher readings than officially reported. Reimann: “It was assumed that, above all, China and some developing countries did not correctly report their emissions levels.”
For example emissions of HFC-23, with an atmospheric half life of approximately 270 years an extremely long-lived GHG — and with a global warming potential 15,000 times greater than CO2 a particularly potent one. HFC-23 is produced as a by-product in the manufacture of chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22), which is used as a cooling and foaming agent and in Teflon production. The advantage of HFC-23 is that it is almost exclusively emitted by HCFC-22 manufacturers. And there were just six of them in Western Europe in 2008. Reimann: “That means we exactly know our point sources.”
I stand to be corrected here?…
HFC-23 is a by product of producing HFC-22, which is used in refridgeration or as a refrigerant.
There are operations throughout the world producing HFC-22 just to emit the HFC-23 and therefore garner a credit from the EU and make mmmooooonnneeeyyy.
When are these idiots going to understand that you can’t muck with a market without creating serious distortions in the demand/supply relationship that is so dependant on human behaiviour, which are even harder to understand than climate science.
“Hey, I’ve got a good idea”!
“oh, yeh, what”?
“Lets mix climate science and human behaiviour and regulate stuff”. “it’ll be great”, “cause we know so much about both we’ll know what the outcomes are going to be”.
“Yeh, beaudy, great idea, how hard can it be”?
Idiots!
More importantly, when is the rest of the world going to wake up and stop this rubbish.
Probably after it’s too late is my guess.
10
Sounds like this regulation is being administered by the BBC’s “Top Gear” … “Ambitious but rubbish”.
10
I’ve always maintained that a global agreement on the production and use of greenhouse-linked gases would always be impossible to implement and maintain.
Why?
It’s a simple case of game theory. A global version of the prisoners dilemma.
We already have a simple case study – OPEC.
While OPEC is considered by many to be the height of protectionism and organised cartels, in reality it’s a hotchpotch that really isn’t that successful.
The OPEC nations with smaller reserves want to sell it all now at the highest price possible. Those with the largest reserves (like Saudi Arabia) want to keep the price at the level where alternatives (in both alternative fuels and alternative production, like Canadian tar-sands) are not quite economically feasible.
In the end they all cheat, misreport and generally undermine their own effectiveness. And this is for something which actually brings profits in for them. And the development and production of non-alternative OPEC resources has exploded as a result, to the point where they really don’t have that much control over international pricing anymore. OPEC started out in a blaze of glory culminating in a decade of own-goals and infighting.
Now flip over to GHG production, whether by refrigerant gas or co2, or methane. There is massive incentives for any country to cheat on the reporting of production. Those countries with large non-GHG power sources want stricter targets, because it hands them a competitive advantage (viz Norway, Sweden, France). Those with large fossil fuel resources don’t want anything to do with it, or those that are rapidly industrialising don’t either. So you’ll have one lot overreporting their credits, and another lot underreporting their emissions. Or you don’t have to be as blatant with your cheating. You can overreport going into the agreement, so you can meet your targets without actually changing a thing, or you can mothball old power stations due for decomissioning and claim that as well. There are infinite ways of undermining a global agreement, and only a couple of approved ways of actually sticking to it. You can do what the Howard government did and create ‘credits’ with a quick change in legislation that reclassifies forests. The entire thing is designed to be run under the auspices of the UN, which has a terrible record for oversight and responsibility when it comes to financial matters, and also has the odious problem of being non-elected representatives.
In short, a global agreement is completely futile and only the domain of either power-hungry meddlers or starry eyed dreamers, the worst kind of pairing possible.
And the evidence that the Italians have already been caught cheating should surprise the sum total of nobody.
Even if a global agreement were to somehow materialise, it would be a total farce like all the other global agreements to stop war, eradicate hunger and heal the sick have all been. Only this one hasn’t even got some lofty ambition of easing the suffering of humanity. This one is to control the worlds temperature. I mean, seriously, even if the science was correct, it’s a giant joke.
10
louise is an abc reporter, writing here as if she is just a regular canberran, advising rural australians with the convoys to go look at australian landscape paintings before they leave, and not trash “our town”. altho there’s been no traffic congestion, louise warns of medical appointments that might be missed and pregnant women who might be affected, such as someone who had a baby in a car a week before. louise then tells us no traffic congestion caused even more problems!
22 Aug: ABC: Louise Maher: The convoy comes to Canberra
The cranky anti-government protesters who’ve trucked into the nation’s capital say their beef is not with the people of Canberra – it’s with the politicians…
Some Canberra residents passionately share the protesters’ concerns and support their aims. Others most vehemently don’t. But as the Convoy of No Confidence rolls into town it’s hard not to feel that we Canberrans are in the firing line, even if it’s not intentional.
“Help!” says one woman. “I’ve got an early medical appointment and I have to get across town. What am I supposed to do – camp outside the hospital all night?”
A Canberra father tells me he has to drop off his kids at childcare then get to work – and his wife is eight-and-a-half months pregnant. (Expectant parents in Canberra are particularly jittery at the moment – a woman was forced to give birth in her car last week because of a peak hour traffic jam on a major city link road.)…
The convoy organisers have been liaising with local police to minimise traffic disruption. They say they don’t want to inconvenience residents going about their day-to-day business, but with hundreds of trucks, vans and other vehicles on the road and thousands of people rallying there will inevitably be some discomfort for the locals…
Another view is why the hell are these people with their mass-produced-in-China flags clogging up the streets, trampling the lawns and polluting the air when they aren’t going to get what they want anyway?
As it turned out, Canberrans suffered an unexpected inconvenience from the Convoy of No Confidence. During the morning peak fewer than 200 trucks rolled down the main drag for the early parade around Parliament House, nowhere near the huge numbers expected. There was no traffic congestion – which meant many people, who’d been prepared for long delays actually arrived at work an hour or so early. Others who’d seized the opportunity to sleep in had to make up excuses as to why they were late. Meantime charities around the region have been left with thousands of uncooked sausages as the expected sizzles have fizzled…
This Canberran – who has also lived in other cities, in the bush and in the outback – has a few polite requests for visiting protesters. Don’t equate the people of Canberra with the federal politicians who work here now and then. Don’t get cranky with us. Try not to trash our town – it’s our home. And if you get the chance, go and see the Fred Williams retrospective exhibition at the National Gallery. His paintings of our beautiful land leave most of us speechless.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-22/maher-the-convoy-comes-to-canberra/2850126
22 Aug: Canberra Times: Cyclists take on the truck convoys
BY STAFF REPORTERS
with Myles Peterson
The Don’t Be Taken for a Ride bicycle ride set off from Old Parliament House around lunchtime today, after being addressed by Greens senator Christine Milne…
Geoff Lazarus, of Climate Active Australia, said the afternoon protest would focus solely on the issue of climate change, in response to what he described as a vigorous misinformation campaign waged by certain industry lobby groups and some sections of the mainstream media.
Misinformation was a key component of the Convoy of No Confidence campaign, he said.
”It’s unfortunate that you have poor reporting and biased reporting combined with confused and contradictory statements creating confusion in the community.
”There’s maybe only 20 journalists in the country who have bothered to do the proper research … that is certainly not the case at News Limited,” Mr Lazarussaid.
Mr Lazarus likened the Convoy of No Confidence to the Tea Party in the United States and claimed both groups were backed by vested interests with deep pockets.
”We … say with total confidence that the main organisation behind this event is the [Australian] Trade and Industry Alliance,” he said.
”We know that to be the case because one of the organisers told us that was the case.
”It is a quasi-Tea Party situation, where rich and powerful interests attempt to organise ordinary Australians to protest,” he said.
It is estimated there are approximately 100 cyclists taking part in the protest.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/business/cyclists-take-on-the-truck-convoys/2266125.aspx
and here’s inexperienced, unqualified Myles (according to the man himself) complaining about earning and wastefully spending taxpayer money last year!
21 Feb 2010: SMH: Myles Peterson: Yes Minister meets Alice in Wonderland
Midway through last year I was head-hunted by the federal Department of Health and Ageing to write speeches for their ministers – a surprise as I had no experience or qualifications. As far as the department was aware, my limited skills were derived from reviewing video games for The Canberra Times…
”And you’re going to pay me how much?”
”Eighty thousand a year. Will that be enough?”
So began my journey down the public service rabbit-hole…
I was given my first speech to write. I was not given an induction, training, an occupational health and safety lecture, a security clearance, a standard operating procedures manual, a style guide or anything you would expect when starting a job with the federal government of Australia.
As promised, the speech was for Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing…
Our section was under-budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars, necessitating we blow all the unspent money before the end of the financial year…
Despite my short length of service, I was included in the spending free-for-all. I later found myself in a plush Sydney harbourside hotel with hundreds of dollars in unnecessary travel allowance – everything, including meals, flights and accommodation, was covered by the department. I was attending a conference on Web 2.0, a topic I was mildly interested in but which had nothing to do with my duties.
The rest of the office also enjoyed jetting around the country. Four staff members managed to book into the same four-day public relations event and, reportedly, a great time was had by all.
We were not the only ones wasting money. Associated with our section were those boffins who create public health campaigns, the ones that appear on television with increasing regularity: nights out turning into nightmares, measure your fat stomach, wash your hands – that kind of thing.
I was surprised to discover the minds behind these campaigns were not health professionals. They had backgrounds and degrees in marketing, communications and advertising, not medicine. Under their watch, the government became the No.1 spender on free-to-air television…
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/yes-minister-meets-alice-in-wonderland-20100220-omsa.html
10
The human health aspect is probably the most important aspect of fluoride emissions.
Why is it that in the USA the Federal maximum contaminant level [MEL] for lead is 15 parts per billion [ppb], 5 parts per billion for arsenic and 4,000 parts per billion for fluoride when fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic?
Fluoride:An Invisible Killer, by chemical engineer, Floyd Maxwell, BASc.
http://www.just-think-it.com/no-f.htm
10
Nick in 1,
Lets not forget why we now produce these chemicals to make mmmmmmmmmmmoooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, anyone checked the size of the ozone hole lately. What you need to understand here is this has nothing to do with what is right or fair. A good analogy would be the tale of the two Thompsons, one gets screwed by the government and pays dearly whilst the other gets screwed by a prostitute and has lived the high life ever since.
10
Oh i almost forgot this latest development leaves MattyB and FE looking rather STUPIDwith their 2 – 1 = 3 analogy over on the “Planetary blockbuster” thread. I suspect they will once again fade quietly into the night and return when least expected for another round of smackdown.
10
Okay, I’ve finally found it. It took me nearly ten links down a search engine with the correct terminology defined for the text in that search box.
Remember how I’ve been rabbiting on about how an ETS is something we need to be more scared about than this, er, supposedly simple
CPRS,CO2 Tax,Price on Carbon, Clean Energy Future.Remember also how I mentioned that in the proposed legislation there was a little thing no one has yet ‘really’ talked about, a little thing called CO2 equivalence, and how different gases will be calculated with accordance to their ‘volatility’ when compared with CO2.
Okay, I found that list of equivalence.
This is not proposed legislation.
This is already approved Government Regulations, and they came into effect on Jul 01 2011, not yet seven weeks ago.
Why I mention it is in relation to this Post of Joanne’s, and also the Post at the Bolt site last week detailing how refrigerants will be spiking in cost by a huge amount.
Remember back in the 70’s and 80’s how they banned Freon, and its close derivatives, and before some of you rabbit on with conspiracy theories from Dow Chemicals, that was just a tiny part of that thing.
In the electronics trade we used Freon to clean delicate electrical circuitry, as it was perfect for this application. Freon was the main constituent also of nearly every airconditioning unit. That Freon was banned outright and they searched around for a viable replacement, something they eventually did find. However, aircon units from then on did not operate as well as they had been.
Remember also how underarm spray was once really cold when sprayed on the skin. It did no harm to you by spraying on the skin, but that also was a CFC.
They removed this refrigerant and its closer derivatives because it was breaking down the Ozone Layer.
Those CFC’s have been removed for almost 30 years now, and that hole keeps returning every so often, proving that it also is a cyclical thing.
Then remember also how they removed the Halon based Fire Extinguishers as well, and there was no better extinguisher than those ones at the time.
As an aside to that last paragraph, I wonder how soon it will be before some CO2 ‘nuts’ start questioning those CO2 extinguishers, and out of worry whether or not to use them, will attempt to put out fires with water extinguishers, and don’t laugh, because people still are blissfully aware of that fact, not that many people are trained in fire extinguisher use these days.
So now we have the creeping scare campaign of how these GHG’s are so deadly and we need to
make money from themlower the emission of them.While all the drama is on those CO2 emissions, there are others as well that they feel they need to have regulated, so Government has legislated those Regulations, in this case, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Regulations 2008. Note how the date says 2008, because this is the amended and most recent edition of these Regulations.
I would like to include the whole chart but it’s too large to include here, so I’ll just post the link to the particular place in that regulation that shows that list of equivalence.
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011C00443/Html/Text#_Toc298160653
Note the list of 24 gases listed there, and then note the multiplier for each of them at the right of each gas.
Also note under the list it has 2 notes,one mentioning the UNFCCC, and the other, the UNIPCC.
Gee! What a surprise.
Fancy those two ‘august’ bodies being referred to by this Labor Government.
Now, that equivalence wrt CO2 also works when applying the cost. CO2 is that $23 per ton, and all the others are, well, multiplied by that multiplier at the right of each gas.
Hey!
Don’t try and tell me that this is about the environment.
It’s just about the money.
Again, sorry to take so much space here.
Tony.
10
Tony @ 7
The “F” in CFC has the same toxicity as lead and arsenic. See @ 4
10
T from Oz,
Thanks for that, one thing that stands out like dog balls to me (apart from the disclaimer)is that only one of these gases is naturally occurring and it is the least most likely to do any damage but yet is the only gas a multi billion dollar tax is targeting.
One wonders where the sense is in all of this.
Cheers
Crakar24
10
Crakar24,
all those gases will be taxed on emission.
Consider this also.
Part of the proposed CO2 Tax legislation also takes in ‘gassy’ mines.
With the mining of all coal, Methane is emitted, and that is also covered in those Regulations I linked to, in an separate area.
That Methane is costed at 21 times that of CO2.
The coal that is mined is still subject to State ‘Royalties’, an artful name for Tax.
The coal that is mined is also subject to the new mining tax.
The emissions of CO2 from the burning of coal will also be subject to this new proposed Carbon Tax.
I have spoken sometimes of LCOE, the Levelised Cost Of Electricity, which is, in effect the lifetime cost of that electricity over the life of any electrical power generating plant.
Note how coal has become more and more expensive to use as a fuel for generating electricity.
With each new Tax and Regulation imposed coal fired power becomes more and more expensive, and still coal fire power can sell its power to the grid at such a cheap rate.
Everything new that they do is in an attempt to make those renewables in some way competitive when compared to coal fired power, with respect to that levelised cost of electricity, and still coal fired power is seven to ten times cheaper.
Then there’s the dream of CCS, which again adds to LCOE for coal.
One day we’ll wake up and those renewables will be close in price, not because renewables have got cheaper, but that coal fired power has been taxed to extinction.
Then all you’ll have is eight hours of electricity a day.
Thank heavens for long term supply contracts.
In the meantime, they’ll make as much money as they can from
every one of usthose evil ‘derdy polluders’Tony.
10
Tony @ 11
I hope you recall the Honourable Minister on “Pravda” (7:30 Cheer Squad) ~09/06/2011-
Leigh Sales:-
“Australia is heavily dependent on coal production. The Australian Coal Association released research yesterday showing that none of our competitors in coal production are applying carbon taxes or emissions reduction schemes. So, is a carbon price going to put Australia at a competitive disadvantage?”
Greg Combet:-
“On the coal industry specifically, at an example of a $20-per-tonne carbon price, the average liability for each tonne of coal mined in our economy for its methane emissions would be about $1.60 per tonne, and that’s in a context where steaming coal’s selling for more than $120 a tonne and coking coal in particular’s selling for more than $320 a tonne.”
Funny how Media Watch never goes there.
Who is spinning out the public’s ignorance?
Go Julia!!!!!!………..just go
10
Yeah sorry forgot about methane so OK apart from those two the rest are MM products of which none are subject to the carbon tax and yet they are “derdy polushon” as you say. My question is why not just have a tax on them and leave poor old Co2 alone?
I guess it is because we as useless eaters dont really associate with HFC whatevers and so it is not our fault whereas Co2 is our fault so we are to blame so we will accept full responsibility for destroying the planets fragile (yet very long stable and lasting utopian existence). Hence the carbon tax was born and not the HFC whatsemakallits tax.
Hence why no one really cares if Italy or whoever have diddled the books because its all about the CO2.
10
Whoa! The ABC goes completely feral with an all out attack blog on The Drum:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2850098.html
I haven’t read the full piece yet, but from a casual perusal I wouldn’t go there if you are a sceptic with high blood pressure. The denier, big oil, right-wing, slurs are in full flight.
You were cautioned 🙁
10
My counter at the aforementioned link (after forcing myself to read the tripe), fully expecting the ABC to moderate it out of existence:
10
Hey Jo,
Your check box to recieve posts via email is playing up. So far i count two posts that have slipped through the net. The one from Pattoh (12) and the first from BD (14) did not make it. It might be your end but then again i am using a government email so maybe it is my end broken.
Cheers
10
Bulldust @ 15
I looked up Exiled Online. It had its origins in Moscow.
10
Hey BD just read the drum piece, kinda ironic….the title that is “unanswered questions” this idiot has plenty of them. Hardy ha ha to that russian twit.
10
I shouldn’t let The Drum get me riled up…. it wouldn’t if it were private press, but this is my tax dollars as well. As Monckton would say “Sir, your attack dog is off its leash.”
10
Gillard must go, or the party will go broke
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_must_go_or_the_party_will_go_broke/
Global warming: the new great “moral epidemic”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/global_warming_the_new_great_moral_epidemic/
10
Shock horror – Auntie let my comment through (maybe it was the line at the end which helped). Watch the ferals jump on it now LOL
10
Crakar24,
I think we may have our wires crossed somewhat here, and, I’m not sure, but I think you may have missed the point of what that CO2 equivalence means.
Each of those listed 24 gases will have a cost placed on them at emission.
Hence, just for one of them on that list as an example, as Nitrous Oxide is emitted, then for each ton emitted, it will be costed at the cost of the CO2 multiplied by the multiplier which is its volatility level when compared to CO2, hence for that Nitrous Oxide it will be $23 X 310 (or $7130 per ton) for every ton emitted.
And so on down the list.
Those gases are being emitted from power plants as well as from other sources, so as each is emitted, then they will be charged at that rate of equivalence with CO2, all 24 of those gases.
It may seem that some of those gases are perhaps esoteric in nature, but these are the most commonly emitted GHGs.
While CO2 may seem the largest, that list has some pretty hefty multipliers and that first year starting price of that $23 multiplied by in some cases thousands and in two cases, tens of thousands, it then amounts to a pretty large sum.
Tony.
10
The same total CRAP as the so called CFC scare
scamthat they tried to get rid of a perfectly good refrigerant (CFC) and force a more poisonous one to replace it. All based on one false paper. Theres no GHG’S, only heat conductors, so I doubt whether this stuff is anything to worry about unless its highly toxic, but thats another matter.10
Report on the Convoy on Yahoo NZ
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/10087117/australia-capital-hit-by-convoy-of-no-confidence/
So it’s getting reasonable coverage in NZ.
10
Yahoo report disingenuous as one would expect from the globalist pro AGW cooporation like YAHOO. Note the article doesnt say much about the fact that the convoy is about CO2 (plant food tax). Remember Kiwis will be envious they never got of there asses over the ETS and did something similar so theyre ‘paying’ the price.
10
Crakar24 at 7:
Oh i almost forgot this latest development leaves MattyB and FE looking rather STUPIDwith their 2 – 1 = 3 analogy over on the “Planetary blockbuster” thread. I suspect they will once again fade quietly into the night and return when least expected for another round of smackdown.
If you make such remarks, please have your math right.
My math says that 4 – 8 = -4, thus nature is a net sink for CO2.
If the CO2 emissions are underestimated by 100%, the real math gets:
4 – 16 = -12, thus nature is even a much larger sink for CO2…
And still, humans are responsible for near all the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
10
Jo,
There is a vast amount of scientific areas unexplored due to the “science is settled” mentality that has significant bearing on our understanding of this planet.
Compression of gases is stored energy and has not been looked at yet they generate significant changes of atmospheric heat. Looking at Nitrogen is very cold when compressed yet it is in our atmosphere and so are hydrogen and oxygen. Our atmosphere is in partial compression of by way of gravity. Compression under massive weight and heat generates a more compacted space than when gases are compressed and turn to a liquid and in some cases a solid.
Another area is planetary water loss through the atmosphere. Three areas pop up with this that shows this planet had vastly more water than today. One area is ocean salt around the planet at significant land heights that are less than a billion years old. Next is the lack of volcanic evidence of our planet with massive volcanic activity before a billion years ago. Compression from massive amount of ocean weight can suppress volcanic activity and the ash and gases would be suppress as liquid and sands. Next is the lack of cratering from meteor hits. Our atmosphere cannot suppress all that violent activity by itself billion of years ago, but water has the ability of dispersing shock from hits and splash in the atmosphere would generate more pressure protection.
Also when more and more land mass appears, the more heat is absorbed by the rocky mass compared with ocean water.
Another is the change of planetary speed changes compression.
But hey, you should not be reading this as it may corrupt your view on science and the laws that are binding innovative research.
10
Kevin More @4 and 7, these websites contain unbalanced information and are a major scare campaign for Fluoride. If you read the alarmist nature of these sites and the so called sources, it almost reads as if the world will end catastrophically at the behest of fluoride. Sound familiar?
The company I work for manufactures timber preservation products with sodium fluoride (NaF) and has several thousands of pages of documents from various legitimate sources in relation to all aspects of NaF. We have those documents to support product registration. Furthermore I have gone through in detail these documents to ensure that my company is 100% meeting its regulatory requirements in relation to OHS&E. So some facts which are easily verified with non alarmist organisations.
Fluoride is the 11th most abundant element on earth and is present in all soils, fresh water and sea water naturally.
In most common forms including NaF which is used in drinking water, F is neither an accumulative toxin, mutagenic, carcinagenic (no definitive link, though suspected to increase occurance) or teragenic in nature. Lead and arsenic are highly accumulatory in the human body and both are considered to carcinagenic and mutagenic.
LD50 data, oral rat for common forms of F, As and Pb data are:
NaF 52mg/kg
Tetra Ethyl Lead: 1200 µg/kg
As (inorganic): 763mg/kg
Fluoride is clearly about the middle of the range here, but to put that into perspective, the LDLO for humans is about 1000mg/kg or for an adult male of 80kg about 80 grams consumed.
Foods such as tea, red meat and dairy products have high concentrations of Fluoride, up to 5mg/100g in some instances.
For the record, I hold a degree in Chemical Engineering and have 14 years experience in the timber preservation industry. Fluoride is a relatively low risk material, while lead and arsenic are considered otherwise.
10
Rohan Baker: 28 .Just an opinion. No chemical inert or otherwise except that for control of pathogens should be put into any public drinking supply for alleged health purposes. If one wants flouride then take it yourself or rely on other natural forms. An example of Gov tampering with food is the NZ Gov was considering putting – compulsory – folic acid in bread. It was thrown out by the PM in the end.
10
I suspect that cheating by countries will only increase as the science of AGW gets more iffy. Clearly, if AGW is not occurring, there is no incentive to comply with onerous regulations that provide no benefit to the host nation. Even if AGW is happening, sacrificing your industries while others do not is a sure ticket to the 3rd world status.
10
FE in 26,
Good to see you have a sense of humour. What i was trying to highlight is that X – Y can be anything you like to produce the sum but the Italy experience shows that we really do not know the exact amounts for example have you included the CO2 emissions from volcanos? I dont care of if your opinion is “they dont produce much” i want to know how much that “something” is, to the third decimal place would be nice.
Of all the co2 released from the oceans how much was original from man and how much came from volcanos both submarine and on land? What is the exact amount of CO2 produced by cars, factories, human and animals? How much CO2 is absorbed by the ceans and by plants, exact figures please not random guesses.
This is the problem you have that you dont know the full equation so you fill in the gaps with imaginary numbers just like Italy and co.
Cheers
10
Tony in 22,
Yeah i get it, one question. The carbon polushon tax will generate revenue from CO2 emissions but does it generate revenue from all the HFC watchamakallits or Nitrous oxide etc?
10