It would be revolutionary for the World Bank to support policies that divert massive lending and guarantee resources from nuclear and coal plant construction to expanding manufacture of the Gorlov Helical Turbine currently used to extract energy from flowing water in streams, sluice ways, rivers, tidal flows, waves, and ocean currents.
The ocean is a clean, renewable, source that consumes no fossil fuels in harnessing the energy of flowing water. Nor is there a CO2 problem.
Expanding the production and deployment of the Gorlov Helical Turbine would return benefits in less than a year. By comparison, a similar strategy for nuclear and coal plants would not produce net energy to the grid for 4 to 15 years, and consume ten to twenty times the capital and human resources to produce an equivalent amount of energy. These CO2 emitters would also exacerbate global warming.
All of the political posturing about global warming is just that posturing. Neither the World Bank, nor the U.S. Congress "Get It"...we have a crisis of systemic proportions and all they are willing to do is spout the rhetoric of those supporters with the most cash promising the highest rate of return. And that amounts to, "do nothing now, don't rock the fossil fuel boat."
If anyone knows of a more efficient source of energy than ocean currents, then please let all policy makers know of this alternative energy source and show how it compares to the following characteristics of energy extracted from flowing water:
* power can be harnessed and deployed to grids or
distributive systems this year, and
* has no CO2 emissions,
* no nuclear waste issues, or security concerns,
* is renewable without interruption,
* needs no fossil fuels to get it started or keep it
running, and
* can be delivered to your toaster for less than 6 cents
per kilo watt hour.
If this other source of energy can not meet the above criteria then we have to settle for flowing water from oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, and even the discharge from hydroelectric dams. which can be harnessed and turned into usable power.
How close to the edge of self destruction must we get before we realize that something courageous has to be done?
...This type of content bothers me as much as it does journalists and unsuspecting readers. Using any "fake news" tarnishes the legitimacy of the "real news."
I'm working hard to get journalists interested in what my clients do for a living, and to explain why the public should care about it. I can accept rejection from gatekeepers - I face it every day. It's hardly fair play when deep-pocketed companies can bypass these gatekeepers.
I understand media today is suffering from numerous pressures, but I won't allow my clients in any pay-for-play "opportunities." I want coverage in legitimate, reputable, ethical media outlets; it does not serve my clients when the public is forced to question the credibility of the message or the messenger.
[http://www.pmlive.com/index.cfm?showArticle=1&ArticleID=7027 PM Live reports] that Merck has responded to the Annals of Internal Medicine study in an open letter, which claims that the study "contains numerous inaccuracies."
The Annals study concluded that the 1999 Vioxx clinical trial was designed by one of Merck's marketing units. However, Merck maintained that the trial was "designed, conducted, analysed, interpreted and published by the scientific department of Merck’s US Human Health organisation." Merck also stressed that there were legitimate scientific reasons to conduct the trial, such as assessing "the gastrointestinal tolerability of VIOXX compared to naproxen."
It would be revolutionary for the World Bank to support policies that divert massive lending and guarantee resources from nuclear and coal plant construction to expanding manufacture of the Gorlov Helical Turbine currently used to extract energy from flowing water in streams, sluice ways, rivers, tidal flows, waves, and ocean currents.
The ocean is a clean, renewable, source that consumes no fossil fuels in harnessing the energy of flowing water. Nor is there a CO2 problem.
Expanding the production and deployment of the Gorlov Helical Turbine would return benefits in less than a year. By comparison, a similar strategy for nuclear and coal plants would not produce net energy to the grid for 4 to 15 years, and consume ten to twenty times the capital and human resources to produce an equivalent amount of energy. These CO2 emitters would also exacerbate global warming.
All of the political posturing about global warming is just that posturing. Neither the World Bank, nor the U.S. Congress "Get It"...we have a crisis of systemic proportions and all they are willing to do is spout the rhetoric of those supporters with the most cash promising the highest rate of return. And that amounts to, "do nothing now, don't rock the fossil fuel boat."
If anyone knows of a more efficient source of energy than ocean currents, then please let all policy makers know of this alternative energy source and show how it compares to the following characteristics of energy extracted from flowing water:
* power can be harnessed and deployed to grids or
distributive systems this year, and
* has no CO2 emissions,
* no nuclear waste issues, or security concerns,
* is renewable without interruption,
* needs no fossil fuels to get it started or keep it
running, and
* can be delivered to your toaster for less than 6 cents
per kilo watt hour.
If this other source of energy can not meet the above criteria then we have to settle for flowing water from oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, and even the discharge from hydroelectric dams. which can be harnessed and turned into usable power.
How close to the edge of self destruction must we get before we realize that something courageous has to be done?
Please visit: www.gcktechnology.com
...This type of content bothers me as much as it does journalists and unsuspecting readers. Using any "fake news" tarnishes the legitimacy of the "real news."
I'm working hard to get journalists interested in what my clients do for a living, and to explain why the public should care about it. I can accept rejection from gatekeepers - I face it every day. It's hardly fair play when deep-pocketed companies can bypass these gatekeepers.
I understand media today is suffering from numerous pressures, but I won't allow my clients in any pay-for-play "opportunities." I want coverage in legitimate, reputable, ethical media outlets; it does not serve my clients when the public is forced to question the credibility of the message or the messenger.
[http://www.pmlive.com/index.cfm?showArticle=1&ArticleID=7027 PM Live reports] that Merck has responded to the Annals of Internal Medicine study in an open letter, which claims that the study "contains numerous inaccuracies."
The Annals study concluded that the 1999 Vioxx clinical trial was designed by one of Merck's marketing units. However, Merck maintained that the trial was "designed, conducted, analysed, interpreted and published by the scientific department of Merck’s US Human Health organisation." Merck also stressed that there were legitimate scientific reasons to conduct the trial, such as assessing "the gastrointestinal tolerability of VIOXX compared to naproxen."
environmental achievements of the torch relay :
- walking around with a CO2 friendly device
- on the way, getting rid of such dangerous pollutants as human right activists
- associating the Coca Cola brand with a worldwide military parade camouflaged as a sports event
______________________________________________________________________________________
Stephane MOT -
blogules and other Weapons of Mass Disinformation
_____________________________________________
Thanks for calling attention to our inadvertent misquote, which has been corrected.
Pages