Skip to comments.Bad news for people who breathe in California (This Is Hugh!)
Posted on 06/11/2011 12:06:03 PM PDT by PROCON
Don't let the cooler temperatures fool you. The climate is heating up, and that is expected to have a damaging impact on ozone pollution and respiratory diseases -- especially in California.
A report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group, found California would likely suffer more than any other state when it comes to health effects from worsening ozone pollution from climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Kill every concerned scientist and the problem is solved!
How is the air going to be NEAR as bad as it was growing up in LA during the 60’s and 70’s where you couldn’t see 300 feet because of photo-chemical smog. It was supposed to be equivalent to a pack-a-day smoking habit.
Color me NOT WORRIED. Besides, the science is likely all wrong ANYWAY!
I’m not worried about the “climate change” scam. Those “concerned scientists” need to get their asses over here to northeastern Arizona and breathe some of this crap I’m breathing from the Sierra Club-9th Circus Court fire that is currently burning the mountains down.
Not a problem. They are going to shut down all industry, let the farms return to deserts, shut off the water. Population in California will shrink.
No people, no problem.
Of course I do not know what the rest of the nation is going to do without the money generated in (the former) State of California, or what they are going to eat, but hey, at least the air will be clean.
First time on about 30yrs I can remember snow remaining on San Gorgonio / San Jacinto a week after Memorial Day. It’s still sweater weather in the early morning.
Breathing will be too expensive anyway, after they start taxing carbon emissions. They finally found a way to tax the air we breathe--by taxing the air we breathe out.
Junk science alert!
Right. Don't believe your lyin' eyes, believe our hysterical nonsense.
The Magazine of the Union of Concerned Scientists Vol. 21 No. 4 Winter 2000
Are nuclear power plants ready for the next century?
by David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer
in clean energy
The new year’s countdown will hold more suspense this year than in previous years. Some computers will “crash” as a result of the millenium bug, causing inconvenience as ATMs and traffic lights shut down. But if computers quit at nuclear power plants, the result could be more than inconvenience. The nuclear industry and nuclear regulators have had time to take precautions against a not-so-Happy New Year, but they’re not as prepared as the threat warrants.
The Millenium Bug
Many computers and products with computer chips keep track of dates as two-digit values — October 15, 1980, codes as 10/15/80; June 7, 1999, as 06/07/99. At midnight on December 31, 1999, these computers will interpret the new year as a step back to 01/01/00, or the year 1900, instead of a step into a new millenium. Confused computers may malfunction or stop working altogether.
The Effect on Nuclear Plants
Operations and emergency systems at nuclear power plants use 1960s technology that is not controlled by computers. Thus the millenium bug cannot affect them. But the bug may disable supporting systems, such as plant monitoring or security, making it more difficult for workers to recognize or respond to any emergency that might arise from other causes.
What Can Be Done
Throughout 1999, UCS has been warning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Congress, and the public about the potential dangers and the simple measures that would decrease risks. Because malfunctioning security computers could lock doors normally accessed by card readers, we’ve suggested that plant workers carry the ordinary keys that can also open the doors. Since operators are unaccustomed to using the backup systems that record data from sensors throughout the plant, we’ve recommended additional training to bring staff up to speed in using the backups to evaluate plant conditions.
We’ve also warned against a false sense of security. In July, the NRC announced that emergency systems at all of the 103 nuclear power plants currently in operation in the United States were Y2K ready. We pointed out that the NRC was basing that claim on responses to an audit plan that does not define what constitutes Y2K readiness. It’s like asking, “Does the Titanic carry lifeboats?” instead of “Does the Titanic have enough lifeboats to carry all its passengers and crew?”
We are not alone in our criticism. In October, the US Government Accounting Office testified before Congress that the NRC has done a poor job of independently verifying plants’ Y2K readiness.
In October, the GAO and the Department of Energy asked UCS what could be done at this late date. We suggested running tests at plants that are shut down for refueling before January 1: simply roll the computers’ clocks forward into the new year and see what happens. Since 26 plants are slated for refueling during this period, the results would provide some indication about which plants might have problems. Workers at plants with computer systems similar to those that fail could take precautions and make tests of their own. Whether this advice will be followed we don’t know.
If you live near a nuclear power plant, you might want to ask plant personnel about the plant’s Y2K readiness. The UCS website (www.ucsusa.org) provides a list of questions.
In other words: "We gotta invent a crisis to justify those government grants coming in."
“...a nonprofit advocacy group...”
Tells you everything you need to know. The “scientists” can’t find real jobs, so they live on the public dole, courtesy taxpayer’s money through grants. A lot of these “climate scientists” got their degrees from the Internet. Not a bad scam, if you don’t have a conscience.
Yah, it’s 62 here in Los Angeles today! Where’s the HEAT, you GW bozos?
More left wing BS from so-called scientists. I have lived in So Cal for the past 41 years. The air is far cleaner than it was when I arrived here in 1970. the difference is amazing, mostly due to reductions in vehicle emissions.