Industrial design covers a huge range of products that have been designed ever since the industrial revolution when mass markets developed and people started buying lots of things to improve their home and work lives. This article looks at some of the most famous industrial design inventions over the years.,cartier watches
The Volkswagon Beetle remains a popular car even today – certainly one of the most memorable pieces of 20th Century industrial design. Although the Beetle is somehow synonymous with the free love and hippy-living of the 1960s, it was instigated by the most evil man,Choosing a Watch – An Emotional, Not Just Practica, some say, that ever spend time on the planet. He ordered Ferdinand Porsche to design and build a ‘volks wagon’ – quite literally a ‘people’s car’.
A newer piece of car industrial design has taken the place of the original Volkswagon Beetle, in the form a re-design Beetle. As you might expect this car is much sleeker and more modern,breitling replica watches, but retains the insect like charm of the original.
The humble tin opener is also a piece of highly regarded and highly useful industrial design. The first versions were patented in England in 1855 and in the USA in 1858. In basic terms it was a variation on the knife,Business Kitchen Equipment – What to Know Before Y, and was widely used. In 1870 an alternative wheel-based tin opener was invented, but this was considered by many to be difficult to operate and as such was not so popular. It wasn’t until 1925 that the tin opener really came into its own, with a two-wheel design that made opening tins a great deal easier.
Amazingly, the very first 1855 version is still manufactured today! This just demonstrates how industrial design does not always have to be complex – sometimes the simplest ideas are the best.
The bicycle is a piece of industrial design that was introduced in 1885, and in basic terms has not changed very much since then. Today,ProActive Sports Pro-Circuit Putt Re-patek philipp,chopard watches, there are thought to be over one billion bicycles around the globe – this is twice the number of cars. In many parts of the world, the bicycle is a primary means of transportation for a lot of people.
As global warming and public health becomes more and more of an issue, the bicycle is held up by some as a way to reduce transport-related pollution as well as benefitting those who cycle because it improves cardio-vascular fitness which in turn is likely to reduce risks of various diseases such as heart disease and cancer.
These are just a few pieces of industrial design that have contributed to the improved lifestyle and health of people around the planet.
The purchase of janitorial supplies at wholesale rates is a great way to have frequently used janitorial supplies in ready stock. It also offers the advantage of bulk discounts. Janitorial products can now be easily, conveniently and securely bought online.
Janitorial supplies are indispensable for a clean, properly maintained and healthy atmosphere. Timely measures to keep your home and workplace dust-free and hygienic will surely help avoid unnecessary expenditure. Moreover, a spotless floor or wall would create a good impression on visitors.
You can benefit from cleaning tools and accessories for your restaurant, hotel,chopard watches-Rotary gold ladies slim watch, office building, shopping center, or any other commercial building. There are a number of brands to choose from including Clorox,rolex watches,New Diesel Shining on Black DZ4115 Men’s Watc, Rubbermaid, Procter and Gamble, and Reckitt Benckiser. Whatever be your requirement – clearing dirt or wiping off stains on your floor, washing clothes, making your windows shine,replica chanel j12, a hygienic and odor free toilet, or doing the dishes, you can get the right product from a reliable provider.
You can take advantage of different kinds of janitorial cleaning supplies such as dust pans, mops, laundry products, sponges, squeegees, dusting wipes, toilet bowl brushes, extension handles and poles, spray bottles,fake rolex, specialty cleaners, window washers, and cleaning accessories. Janitorial cleaning accessories are an integral part of cleaning supplies. Such products may range from refill cloths to all purpose cleaners.
Choosing from the wide range and different brands of wholesale janitorial supplies is an overwhelming task. Different considerations that would make selection easier include price preferences, the kind of traffic in the room (heavy or not), whether you would prefer something that is environmentally friendly or have no such requirement, and whether the room would actually be used on a regular basis or has just been built to communicate a particular image. Once you’ve made the choice,rolex replica-Rotary Rocks Pink MoP Dial Diamond W, you’ll find that janitorial supplies greatly lighten the challenges of cleanliness and upkeep.
Unlike in previous years, you can now have a large frame and buy fashionable clothes that fit you. Larger sizes are becoming more readily available in many stores. Sometimes having too many options can make choosing hard. Regrettably,rolex replicas, clothing for full figures and affordable price tags are frequently mutually exclusive. If you can find plus-sized clothing sales then your options are endless.
By using the internet, shopping can be only one click away. You can find clothing for plus-sized people on a number of websites, often reasonably cheaply. Auctions sites,movado diving watch-Bits of Information About the, such as eBay,fake rolex watches-Trekking Poles – Why Are They S, offer fabulous deals. In addition, you can think of using networking sites where people market what they make.
You take into consideration the shipping expenses to arrive at the final cost of a product when shopping online. Unfortunately there’s no access to a fitting room when you shop online. When shopping on the internet the downside is that you can’t touch the fabric to see if it suits you. Find the seller and inquire about the return or exchange policy.
Search catalogs,replica rolex,The Purpose Driven Life Review – The -rolex replic, similar to those by Macy’s. The catalogs usually feature clothing with exceptionally low prices and many styles are available in plus-sizes. Again, include the shipping expenses in your budget. You could try a number of different shops, including the larger ones like WalMart. Some retail shops have larger sizes of their clothing choices,fake rolex watches, but it will likely cost more. There might not be a lot of designs to choose from.
Always stay alert to find big discounts and seasonal clearances. Shops will start putting out older fashions which will be priced quite reasonably. Patience is critical. You may have to go through quite a few racks of clothes before you come across the perfect clothes for you. Don’t worry because it will be worth it down the road.
You should go to some used goods stores where you live, they just may have what you are looking for. Check all secondhand clothing to make sure they’re of good quality and watch out for stains that cannot be removed.
If any of your friends wear larger sizes ask their opinion. They might have good ideas on where to shop and you can go together to check out those places.
If you stick to your clothing budget you’ll have more to spend on fun accessories. Accessorizing is a money-smart way to be in fashion and be unique.
If you are thinking about buying a pair of Spring stilts or you already have a pair, and you are eager to get moving, then you may also be thinking about ways you can use your stilts to exercise and increase your fitness. Stilts just like any piece of equipment can be leveraged not only to make your life easier but to enhance your life and make it interesting,breitling replica watches,Bracelet cuir BREITLING Navitimer vintage NOS 22-1, different,tag hauer, or fun. These stilts are no different – they just may take a bit of getting used to. Once you get the motions down pat though,tag heuer watch,jaeger lecoultre-Buying Cheap Concert, Sport and T, you will find that a whole new world will suddenly open up to you.
?
First, practice power walking with your stilts. Pick a place that is wide open – a school track would be ideal – only pick a time when there aren’t runners on the track as you’ll need to exercise care not to hurt someone since you’ll be moving much quicker than they will be.
?
Secondly, once you have power walking down, practice running. Again, pick a place where you will have most of the space to yourself. When running you will be able to experience strides of up to 9 feet. Of course, that depends on your stamina and speed at which you are running. The faster you run, the bigger the stride that you will experience.
?
Thirdly, practice jumping – but take care only to take small jumps at first. What you want
to do is becoming familiar with the motion of jumping and how to balance yourself as you don’t want to be falling all over the place when you land. Jumping is the easy part – what you need to master is the landing.
?
Fourthly, incorporate stilt use in your everyday activities as much as you can. Obviously taking out the trash might not be possible as you will be several feet off the ground and the garbage can will be on the ground, making it difficult to drag from that position. But you can paint, do other chores such as vacuuming, installing light fixtures,fake rolex watches-Find the Best Outdoor Grills, power washing the house or pruning hedges, shrubs and trees.
We have this little orphan we are struggling to bring back to full health. Every day he’s a bit better, but I think the initial problems (anemia, enteritis, catflu) were his lifelong companions, so I understand this is going to be a long stretch.
However, the anemia is very slow to react positively. Disappointingly, the vet only brought him to a point where he is no longer on drips, and not on the verge of dying, but hasn’t given us much information at all, .
I will be taking him to another vet this week for some blood tests (for a start, a Reticulocyte count will tell us if it’s regenerative or not, a good start to diagnosing causes). I am sticking to soft foods because his bum is still quite raw from the enteritis.
What I am not finding any information on, though, is diet. He has special vitamins the vet gave us to feed him twice a day (liquid, one ml per day)
Currently he’s just finished his tinned Hills we got from the vet, and we’re just starting him on Wellness tins, into which goes plenty of water to ensure no dehydration.
He eats just over a tin a day, but also does not seem to be gaining weight and is still very wobbly, and lethargic.
What can I safely feed him to up his iron, for a start, since we suspect it’s from the combination of diseases he’s had that he had blood loss.
What can I give him as a supportive meal? Liver comes to mind, but is that not perhaps to rich for a convalescing kitten? Along with his vitamins, he gets a drop of the vitamins I have into his food, and I feed him a tiny bit of the ‘Prowl’ powdered foods, it has a nice amount of iron in it, but not so much that he is getting too much in.
Has anyone had a problem like this, I would love to hear what you fed him. Am I being impatient?
He has immensely little muscle tone, which we are also slowly building up by having him walk around the bathroom with us, but not enough to exhaust him, just to try and build muscle a bit at a time.
He’s still skin and bones, so I expect a slow recovery. Is there anything I can do additional to what I am doing?
I have been receiving a lot of e-mail lately about diet. In the past, I was never concerned about what I ate. I just went to the gym, trained hard, and that was the extent of my routine. Not until recently did I realize the power diet has over the way your body looks and performs. I believe that diet is at least 75% of the fitness equation. In this article, I’m going to describe in detail what I have learned about diet during my 12-week transition period.
When to Eat and How Often
This might sound strange, but you have to eat more often to lose fat and gain muscle. During my transition period, I never ate less than 6 meals a day.
• Try to eat every 2 to 3 hours.
• Do not eat complex carbohydrates after 6:00 p.m. or four to five hours before going to bed.
• Try to eat one gram of protein per pound of lean body mass on lifting days and .8 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass on non-lifting days.
• Never eat more than 70 grams of protein in one meal.
Carbohydrates
When I think of carbohydrates, I think of energy. Carbohydrates supply our bodies with the energy it needs to make it through a workout. Without an adequate supply of carbohydrates, the body goes into carbohydrate deprivation. This is called a state of ketosis (meaning our body is using protein as energy). This is not a good state to be in for long because it will rob the body of muscle tissue in an effort to create energy. On the other hand, if too many carbohydrates are consumed, they convert into stored fat. The idea is to consume just enough carbohydrates to make it through our workouts with sufficient energy. I have broken down carbohydrates into these three categories:
• Simple carbs: These are sugars, or quick energy. They are absorbed very quickly into the body. Ex. Anything with sugar, also fruit
• Complex carbs: This is where you get long-term energy for the day. These are long chained carbohydrates that brake down slower, giving us energy over a prolonged period of time. Ex. Oatmeal, potatoes, pasta, rice, breads
• Fibrous carbs: These are things like vegetables. I think of them as roughage in order to stay regular. Make sure you include them in you later meals when you can’t eat complex carbs. They are also a good source of vitamins. Ex. Leafy vegetables like lettuce.
Protein
Proteins are the building blocks of our muscles. Without a sufficient amount of protein in our diet, our muscles will not have the raw materials that they need to build up, or even hang on to what is already there.
Net protein utilization: Not all protein is created equal. Different foods are absorbed more than others. For example, egg white protein is absorbed at 88%. That means we get about 9 eggs to our muscles. On the other hand, chicken breast are absorbed at 68%, meaning we get about 7 breasts to our muscles. It is imported to eat a wide verity of protein foods though; no one protein source has all the amino acids we need.
• Whey protein (100%): the best source of whey protein is from protein supplements. It is also absorbed very fast by the body, so it is best to take this when your body needs amino acids quickly: like right after a workout or when you first get up in the morning.
• Egg whites (88%)
• Fish (78%)
• Chicken breast (78%)
• Soy protein: My one bit of advice would be to try and stay away from soy protein. It is not absorbed very well by the body.
Fats
We normally think of fats as being bad. The fact is certain fats are essential to building muscle and carrying out various functions of the body. There are 2 fat types we need to be concerned about:
• Saturated fats: these are the bad fats. Avoid these fats as much as possible. You will find these types of fats mostly in meats
• Unsaturated fats: these are the good fats. They are a good energy source and help us build muscle. You can find from plant oils. Peanuts are also a good source.
Water
Do not under estimate the importance of water! If you are looking to get lean, water will be your best friend. Drink as much as you can and as often as you can. Also, it is very important to drink lots of water when you’re eating large amounts of protein to clean urea from the system.
Vitamins & minerals
As resistance training athletes, we have a greater need for vitamins & minerals. When we workout and bring blood to our muscles it is important that our blood is full of those essential vitamins & minerals if we want to grow.
Supplements
Supplements are just that, meaning they are used to supplement your diet, not replace it. Don’t ever think of it that way.
Hierarchy of supplements:
I developed this hierarchy of supplements based on what I thought were the most important and also by price.
• 1. Proper diet: Without proper diet you are just wasting money on supplements. Start here! Do not think that supplements are going to do it for you alone.
• 2. Multi-vitamin & mineral: It is very important to have all your vitamins & minerals when resistance training. Most of us are lacking in some areas, make it a priority to make this your first supplement.
• 3. Protein powder: It is usually very hard to get all the protein you need from real foods. Powders make it much easier. Also, these powders are absorbed fast by the body making them ideal after workouts or before and after sleep.
• 4. Creatine: This is great for harder workouts. It also makes you muscles hang on to water, giving them a better environment to grow.
• 5. L-glutamine: This is an important amino acid in muscle recovery
• 6. Branch chained amino acid: These are great before and after workouts along with L-glutamine because it gives your muscles all the amino acids it needs to repair and grow.
• 7. ZMA: This helps you release more growth hormone while you sleep, increasing your size and strength.
• 8. Thermogenic: These really help in the fat loss process. They also help you hang on to more muscle while dieting due to the fact you can eat more.
• 9. Meal replacement: Although very expensive, meal replacements make it much more convenient to get some of your meals in. Also, you can get in more meals than if you were to eat only real foods.
“The golden hour”
Remember “The golden hour” because it will make things so much easier for you. “The golden hour” is a window of opportunity we have to get everything we have depleted in our body back in a short amount of time. Think of your muscles as a gas tank: When you workout, you use gas for energy or in this case glucose. After a workout, our muscles are in a unique state. They are able to fill back up very quickly leaving you full for the next workout. If you wait to long, your muscles don’t fill back up as easily and the carbs you eat are more likely to be stored as fat. Doing this will also let you take advantage of insulin’s muscle building effects from the simple carbs you have ingested. You want to ingest 50-75 grams of simple carbs right after a workout. Also, this is when you want to take your protein shake because it will absorb quickly and supply your muscles with the amino acids that they need.
Insulin
This is a very complicated subject, but all we need to know is that insulin can help us build muscle or can make us fat depending on the timing. Insulin is released by the pancreas in response to elevated blood sugar levels. We can achieve a high blood sugar level by ingesting simple carbs. Like “the golden hour” we have a window of opportunity to take advantage of the muscle building effects of the insulin without getting fat. We have about 4 or 5 hours after we workout to take advantage of insulin. If we take in too many simple carbs out of this window, we are very likely to store fat.
Cheat day
The theory behind the cheat days is you take one day every 2 weeks to eat anything you want and actually get leaner. It might sound crazy, but it worked for me. When you eat low carbs for a time for body begins to think it is not getting all the food it needs (because your not storing any fat) and begins to slow down your metabolism. When you bombard your body with food on that one day, it tricks your body into thinking it has all it needs and speeds your metabolism back up. I can tell you from experience, every day after a cheat day I felt leaner and looked better.
Ketosis
This is when your body uses protein for energy. This happens when we have too few carbs in the body or when we over train. I went into the state of ketosis for only the last week of my 12-week transition for a couple of reasons: (1) I wanted all of my muscles to shrink down so when I carbed back up, my skin would be tighter. (2) When you go into ketosis it seems to bring the water out from under the skin. Don’t go into this state to loose fat. Without carbs your body can not burn fat effectively. You will loose weight rather quickly, but only because you don’t have as much glycogen in the muscle. Also, you are simply loosing water. Remember that proteins are the building blocks for muscle and that means they are fair game for energy when in the state of ketosis. I would not recommend going into this state unless you are trying to get into a super ripped state for a short amount of time, like for a bodybuilding contest.
Hey guys, ok im not fat or nething but i have been overseas for 2months and want to WOW my friends and ex at my coming home celebration, by being around 3kgs ligher, Is it raw foods? only have 10 days so im good for extreem, and i am already a horse groom, wich is alot of physical exercise and cannot be bothered doing nemore! whats the latest celb trend?
So, a previous question asked about Purina. I went to their website and did some poking around and found the following in the FAQ’s.
“Here are some of the foods to watch out for:
* Milk is a food and not a substitute for water.
* Repeatedly adding raw eggs to a dog’s diet can cause a deficiency of the vitamin biotin, which can lead to dermatitis (inflammation of the skin), loss of hair and poor growth.
* Some raw fish can cause a deficiency of the vitamin thiamine. Signs of a thiamine deficiency include anorexia (complete loss of appetite), abnormal posture, weakness, seizures and even death.
* Raw meats may contain parasites and bacteria and do not contain a proper balance of nutrients if fed alone. Although meat is a source of protein, it has very low levels of calcium, a mineral dogs require for proper bone and tooth development. If large quantities of raw meat are fed over time, skeletal problems may develop.
* Raw liver, fed daily in large quantities, can cause vitamin A toxicity in dogs.
* Small soft bones (such as pork chop or chicken bones) should never be given to your dog, as they may splinter and lodge in his mouth or throat.”
And:
What is Wheat Gluten?
Wheat gluten is the natural protein extracted from wheat or wheat flour. In addition to its rich protein content, wheat gluten produces the texture and consistency desired in many high quality food products, both human and pet. It has been a trusted food ingredient, used for decades in the preparation of breakfast cereals, high quality pastas and whole wheat bakery goods. Baking represents more than 60% of the total usage worldwide, and many of our healthier multi-grain and whole grain breads would not be appealing without it.
Why is Wheat Gluten an Important Pet Food Ingredient?
Just as wheat gluten is used in human foods, such as breads, to provide a desired consistency and texture, wheat gluten is used in pet foods for similar reasons. Many pet foods use wheat gluten to help other ingredients come together to form nutritious, good tasting, and appealing foods. While primarily used to enhance texture, wheat gluten also provides good quality protein. With 75% concentration of protein by weight, wheat gluten is an excellent source of protein. When used in combination with other protein sources, a balanced level of amino acids can be attained for the dietary needs of the cat and dog. In its complementary effect with other protein sources, wheat gluten also promotes lean muscle mass and healthy organs.
Purina has used wheat gluten in its foods for nearly twenty years without incident. Independent regulatory organizations, including U.S. FDA and the Association of American Feed Control Officials, as well as respected professional organizations like the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Institute of Baking, all acknowledge the nutritional value and suitability of wheat gluten in foods for human or pet consumption. There should be no concern with wheat gluten as a pet food ingredient.
You have got to be kidding me? Do customers actually believe this? Purina is basically lying to them and telling them to poison their dogs with their crap food!
What do you all think of this?
Here’s where I found this info:http://www.purina.com/WheatGluten.aspxhttp://www.purina.com/dogs/food/FactsAbo…
LEGIT: How many rawhide treats do your dogs get in an average week?
“Aliens Cause Global Warming”
A lecture by Michael Crichton
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA
January 17, 2003
My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.
Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.
I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack.
It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be avery good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world.
But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought—prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan’s memorable phrase, “a candle in a demon haunted world.” And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.
But let’s look at how it came to pass.
Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.
One way to chart the cooling of enthusiasm is to review popular works on the subject. In 1964, at the height of SETI enthusiasm, Walter Sullivan of the NY Times wrote an exciting book about life in the universe entitled WE ARE NOT ALONE. By 1995, when Paul Davis wrote a book on the same subject, he titled it ARE WE ALONE? ( Since 1981, there have in fact been four books titled ARE WE ALONE.) More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called “Rare Earth” theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way.
Back in the sixties, SETI had its critics, although not among astrophysicists and astronomers. The biologists and paleontologists were harshest. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard sneered that SETI was a “study without a subject,” and it remains so to the present day.
But scientists in general have been indulgent toward SETI, viewing it either with bemused tolerance, or with indifference. After all, what’s the big deal? It’s kind of fun. If people want to look, let them. Only a curmudgeon would speak harshly of SETI. It wasn’t worth the bother.
And of course it is true that untestable theories may have heuristic value. Of course extraterrestrials are a good way to teach science to kids. But that does not relieve us of the obligation to see the Drake equation clearly for what it is-pure speculation in quasi-scientific trappings.
The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage-similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example-meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks.
Now let’s jump ahead a decade to the 1970s, and Nuclear Winter.
In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported on “Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations” but the report estimated the effect of dust from nuclear blasts to be relatively minor. In 1979, the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report on “The Effects of Nuclear War” and stated that nuclear war could perhaps produce irreversible adverse consequences on the environment. However, because the scientific processes involved were poorly understood, the report stated it was not possible to estimate the probable magnitude of such damage.
Three years later, in 1982, the Swedish Academy of Sciences commissioned a report entitled “The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon,” which attempted to quantify the effect of smoke from burning forests and cities. The authors speculated that there would be so much smoke that a large cloud over the northern hemisphere would reduce incoming sunlight below the level required for photosynthesis, and that this would last for weeks or even longer.
The following year, five scientists including Richard Turco and Carl Sagan published a paper in Science called “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions.” This was the so-called TTAPS report, which attempted to quantify more rigorously the atmospheric effects, with the added credibility to be gained from an actual computer model of climate.
At the heart of the TTAPS undertaking was another equation, never specifically expressed, but one that could be paraphrased as follows:
Ds = Wn Ws Wh Tf Tb Pt Pr Pe… etc
(The amount of tropospheric dust=# warheads x size warheads x warhead detonation height x flammability of targets x Target burn duration x Particles entering the Troposphere x Particle reflectivity x Particle endurance…and so on.)
The similarity to the Drake equation is striking. As with the Drake equation, none of the variables can be determined. None at all. The TTAPS study addressed this problem in part by mapping out different wartime scenarios and assigning numbers to some of the variables, but even so, the remaining variables were-and are-simply unknowable. Nobody knows how much smoke will be generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long. No one knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into the troposphere. No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so on.
And remember, this is only four years after the OTA study concluded that the underlying scientific processes were so poorly known that no estimates could be reliably made. Nevertheless, the TTAPS study not only made those estimates, but concluded they were catastrophic.
According to Sagan and his coworkers, even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute.
But Sagan and his coworkers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign. The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. The formal papers in Science came months later.
This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.
The real nature of the conference is indicated by these artists’ renderings of the the effect of nuclear winter.
I cannot help but quote the caption for figure 5: “Shown here is a tranquil scene in the north woods. A beaver has just completed its dam, two black bears forage for food, a swallow-tailed butterfly flutters in the foreground, a loon swims quietly by, and a kingfisher searches for a tasty fish.” Hard science if ever there was.
At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying nothing would grow there for 75 years, but in fact melons were growing the next year. So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now?
Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists…”
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6y…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
But back to our main subject.
What I have been suggesting to you is that nuclear winter was a meaningless formula, tricked out with bad science, for policy ends. It was political from the beginning, promoted in a well-orchestrated media campaign that had to be planned weeks or months in advance.
Further evidence of the political nature of the whole project can be found in the response to criticism. Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, “I really don’t think these guys know what they’re talking about,” other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying “It’s an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?” And Victor Weisskopf said, “The science is terrible but—perhaps the psychology is good.” The nuclear winter team followed up the publication of such comments with letters to the editors denying that these statements were ever made, though the scientists since then have subsequently confirmed their views.
At the time, there was a concerted desire on the part of lots of people to avoid nuclear war. If nuclear winter looked awful, why investigate too closely? Who wanted to disagree? Only people like Edward Teller, the “father of the H bomb.”
Teller said, “While it is generally recognized that details are still uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr. Sagan nevertheless has taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can be little doubt about its main conclusions.” Yet for most people, the fact that nuclear winter was a scenario riddled with uncertainties did not seem to be relevant.
I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends.
That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly-and defended.
What happened to Nuclear Winter? As the media glare faded, its robust scenario appeared less persuasive; John Maddox, editor of Nature, repeatedly criticized its claims; within a year, Stephen Schneider, one of the leading figures in the climate model, began to speak of “nuclear autumn.” It just didn’t have the same ring.
A final media embarrassment came in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a “year without a summer,” and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that “it should affect the war plans.” None of it happened.
What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired. That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second hand smoke.
In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was “responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults,” and that it ” impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people.” In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.
This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that “Second-hand smoke is the nation’s third-leading preventable cause of death.” The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had “committed to a conclusion before research had begun”, and had “disregarded information and made findings on selective information.” The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: “We stand by our science….there’s wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems.” Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn’t even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It’s the consensus of the American people.
Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.
As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don’t want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you’ll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we’ve given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We’ve told them that cheating is the way to succeed.
As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?
And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won’t get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and “skeptics” in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.
When did “skeptic” become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?
To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: “These results are derived with the help of a computer model.” But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.
Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?
Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.
Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?
Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about.
Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it.
I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn’t ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.
But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.” It also said, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes.” Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate.”
What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.
The answer to all these questions is no. We don’t.
In trying to think about how these questions can be resolved, it occurs to me that in the progression from SETI to nuclear winter to second hand smoke to global warming, we have one clear message, and that is that we can expect more and more problems of public policy dealing with technical issues in the future-problems of ever greater seriousness, where people care passionately on all sides.
And at the moment we have no mechanism to get good answers. So I will propose one.
Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepeneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.
Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.
I believe that as we come to the end of this litany, some of you may be saying, well what is the big deal, really. So we made a few mistakes. So a few scientists have overstated their cases and have egg on their faces. So what.
Well, I’ll tell you.
In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever “published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review.” )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?
Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was “rife with careless mistakes.” It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: “Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.” Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?
When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn’t enough, he put the critics’ essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.
Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That’s why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That’s why the facts don’t matter. That’s why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He’s a heretic.
Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I’d see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.
Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that “Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer.” Personally, I don’t worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.
Thank you very much.
I would like for someone who knows a bit about how to eat healthy to formulate an ideal week-long diet, using foods that are low in saturated fats and other heart killers, for weight loss and healthy living. researching this topic yields no results as I cannot understand it all- its overwhelming. But I can stick to a regiment- even if its boring. the only requirements I have are:
no fish, or other seafood.
no raw eggs- I can only have eggs scrambled.
no olives
I don’t have a full kitchen (apartment life) and thus have only rudimentry cooking supplies
I’m to busy to spend alot of time cooking
I would just use this diet over and over again, week to week, only eating outside of it for social reasons. I would like to lose about 30lbs and lower my chlorestoral. I am physically active, use the gym 2-3 times a week, and bike and jog frequently. I just dont know how to eat. vague, general suggestions don’t help: I need a plan.
Can you Help?