author: B-ON-ZO

text:
The Shattered Greenhouse: Simple Physics Demolishes The "Greenhouse Effect".

Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)

Consulting Geologist

First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13

Revision 4 ISO: 2010-June-25

Some former elements of this article such as the laser experiment, radiation
budget commentary, and the UHI implications are to be later reproduced in an
additional article concerning the mid-20th Century revival of the
"Greenhouse Effect". This notice will be removed when the new article is
uploaded.

Abstract

This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and
in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic
definition.

Arrhenius' backradiation mechanism is identified as a key aspect of the
"Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis. The general idea as expressed in
contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of
emphasis, shows little change since its original proposition by Svante
Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909.

The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in
atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased
surface temperatures.

However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a
vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in
fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the
distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it
cannot change the overall temperature of the body.

Arrhenius' backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative
heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow
between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction
includes both kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in
thermal contact.

Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a
greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics.

Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect"
hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has
neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a
material nature.

Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the
"Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.

1.0

Introduction: What on Earth Is the "Greenhouse Effect"?

Confusion and Lack of Thermodynamic Definition

Although the "Greenhouse Effect" is of crucial importance to modern
climatology and is the putative cornerstone of the Anthropogenic Global
Warming hypothesis, it lacks clear thermodynamic definition. This forecasts
the likelihood that the name is misapplied. Even general descriptions of the
"Greenhouse Effect" may seem confused when compared to one another. In the
first year university geology text by Press & Siever (1982, p. 312) we read:

The atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming visible rays of the
Sun. Much of that radiation is absorbed at the Earth's surface and then
reemitted as infrared, invisible long-wave rays that radiate back away from
the surface (Fig. 12-14). The atmosphere, however, is relatively opaque and
impermeable to infrared rays because of the combined effect of clouds and
CO2, which strongly absorbs the radiation instead of allowing it to escape
into space. This absorbed radiation heats the atmosphere, which radiates
heat back to the Earth's surface. This is called the "greenhouse effect" by
analogy to the warming of greenhouses, whose glass is the barrier to heat
loss.

This explanation is fundamentally confusing because it is seemingly
contradictory, as impermeable materials cannot absorb. According to Press &
Siever's explanation above, the atmosphere is relatively impermeable due to
the presence of clouds and CO2, which are part of the atmosphere.

How then, can the part of the atmosphere that makes it impermeable to
infrared, simultaneously make it absorb infrared?

Moreover, the idea of thermal permeability (i.e. thermal conductivity) is a
product of Fourier's work in heat flow (Fourier, 1822). Thermal permeability
is endemic to the 19th century usage of "radiation" to indicate indirect
heat conduction via an intermediary medium, prior to the confirmation of
Maxwell's 1864 discovery of electromagnetic radiation by Heaviside in 1881.
Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18) offers a similar description without the
misplaced 19th century usage:

The incoming solar radiation that the earth absorbs is re-emitted in the
form of so-called infra-red radiation - this is where the vital 'greenhouse
effect' begins. Because of the chemical structure of the greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, they absorb the infra-red radiation from the Earth, and then
emit it, into space and back into the atmosphere. The atmospheric
re-emission helps heat the surface of the Earth - as well as the lower
atmosphere - and keeps us warm.

This explanation describes the "Greenhouse Effect" as "vital", perhaps
because, as Whitaker points out, it warms the earth's surface. Wishart
(2009, p. 24) explains that this "Greenhouse Effect" is useful for a
completely different reason:

The Moon is another excellent example of what happens with no greenhouse
effect. During the lunar day, average surface temperatures reach 107ï¿½C,
while the lunar night sees temperatures drop from boiling point to 153
degrees below zero. No greenhouse gases mean there's no way to smooth out
temperatures on the moon. On Earth, greenhouse gases filter some of the
sunlight hitting the surface and reflect some of the heat back out into
space, meaning the days are cooler, but conversely the gases insulate the
planet at night, preventing a lot of the heat from escaping.

In Wishart's explanation above, the Greenhouse Effect" is no longer a
warming mechanism but a thermal buffer that moderates the extremes of
temperature. In fact, Plimer (2001) uses the term "greenhouse" to denote
interglacial periods (e.g. Plimer, 2001, p. 80). In describing the
conditions when life evolved on earth 3800 million years ago, Plimer (2001,
p. 43), like Wishart, is more reminiscent of Frankland (1864) and Tyndall
(1867):

The Earth's temperature had moderated because the atmosphere was rich in CO2
and water vapour created a greenhouse.

The above quotes demonstrate a confusing array of "Greenhouse Effect"
definitions, including the first one which seems to contradict itself.
Plimer (2009, p. 365) really describes this situation very well when he
writes:

Everyone knows what the greenhouse effect is.

Well ... do they?

Ask someone to explain how the greenhouse effect works.

There is an extremely high probability that they have no idea.

What really is the greenhouse effect?

The use of the term "greenhouse effect" is a complete misnomer. Greenhouses
or glasshouses are used for increasing plant growth, especially in colder
climates. A greenhouse eliminates convective cooling, the major process of
heat transfer in the atmosphere, and protects the plants from frost.

The "Greenhouse Effect" was originally defined around the hypothesis that
visible light penetrating the atmosphere is converted to heat on absorption
and emitted as infrared, which is subsequently trapped by the opacity of the
atmosphere to infrared.

In Arrhenius (1896, p. 237) we read:

"Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse,
because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays
from the ground."

In fact, Fourier doesn't even mention hothouses or greenhouses, and actually
stated that in order for the atmosphere to be anything like the glass of a
hotbox, such as the experimental aparatus of de Saussure (1779), the air
would have to solidify while conserving its optical properties (Fourier,
1827, p. 586; Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 11-12).

In spite of Arrhenius' misunderstanding of Fourier, the Concise Oxford
English Dictionary (11th Edition) reflects his initial opening description
of the "Greenhouse Effect":

Greenhouse Effect noun the trapping of the sun's warmth in the planet's
lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to
visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the
planet's surface.

These descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" all evade the key question of
heat transfer.

Given that the "Greenhouse Effect" profoundly affects heat transfer and
distribution, what are the thermodynamic properties that govern the
"Greenhouse Effect" and how, exactly, is this "Greenhouse Effect" governed
by these material properties? Moreover, all of the elements expressed in the
preceding quotations can be found in Arrhenius' proposition of the
"Greenhouse Effect". While Arrhenius credits Tyndall with the thermal buffer
idea expressed in Plimer (2001) and Wishart (2009), he then goes on to
express the more complicated idea described in Press & Siever (1982) and
Whitaker (2007). Even the "atmospheric re-emission" that "helps heat the
surface of the earth" of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18) is key to Arrhenius'
original proposition.

2.0

How the "Greenhouse Effect" Is Built upon Arrhenius' Legacy of Error:
Misattribution, Misunderstanding, and Energy Creation

Arrhenius' first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a
radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply
prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much
higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824,
translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have
seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental
misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier.

2.1

Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found

Contrary to what Arrhenius (1896, 1906b) and many popular authors may claim
(Weart, 2003; Flannery, 2005; Archer, 2009), Fourier did not consider the
atmosphere to be anything like glass. In fact, Fourier (1827, p. 587)
rejected the comparison by stipulating the impossible condition that in
order for the atmosphere to even remotely resemble the workings of a hotbox
or greenhouse, layers of the air would have to solidify without affecting
the air's optical properties. What Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess,
1837, p. 12) actually wrote stands in stark contrast to Arrhenius' claims
about Fourier's ideas:

In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed,
preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility
which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being
exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind
with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to
the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of
passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata
of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We
should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat,
as we go from the surface of the earth.

A statement to the same effect can be found in Fourier (1827, p. 586). This
demonstrates the sheer dissonance between these statements and what
proponents of the "Greenhouse Effect" claim that Fourier says in their
support. Moreover, I am not the first author to have discovered this fact by
reading Fourier for myself (e.g. Fleming, 1999; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007
and 2009). Furthermore, in his conclusion, the optical effect of air on heat
is dropped by Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 17-18) and
Fourier (1827, pp. 597-598) which both state:

"The earth receives the rays of the sun, which penetrate its mass, and are
converted into non-luminous heat: it likewise possesses an internal heat
with which it was created, and which is continually dissipated at the
surface: and lastly, the earth receives rays of light and heat from
innumerable stars, in the midst of which is placed the solar system. These
are three general causes which determine the temperature of the earth."

Fourier's fame has, in fact, nothing to do with any theory of atmospheric or
surface temperature. This fame was earned years before such musings, when
Fourier derived the law of physics that governs heat flow, and was
subsequently named after him. About this, Fourier (1824, p. 166; Translation
by Burgess, 1837, p. 19) remarks:

"Perhaps other properties of radiating heat will be discovered, or causes
which modify the temperatures of the globe. But all the principle laws of
the motion of heat are known. This theory, which rests upon immutable
foundations, constitutes a new branch of mathematical sciences."

As you can see, Fourier admits that his work is constrained to the net
movement of heat. In fact, nowhere does Fourier differentiate between
radiative and kinetic heat transfer, because the means to tell the
difference were not available when Fourier studied heat flow.

What this tells us is that Fourier's Law, and only Fourier's Law, can
describe the transfer of heat between bodies in thermal contact. Thus the
distribution of heat between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth,
with which it has thermal contact, cannot be correctly calculated using the
radiative transfer equations derived from Boltzmann (1884) because the
thermal contact of these bodies makes this a question of Fourier's Law.

However, to better understand this it is necessary to explore the motion of
heat and the modes of heat transfer more thoroughly than did Arrhenius.

2.2

Aethereal Misunderstanding versus Subatomic Heat Transfer

Arrhenius (1906b, pp. 154 and 225) still clung to the aether hypothesis,
which refers to the unspecified material medium of space. Arrhenius'
adherence to this hypothesis remained firm in spite of its sound refutation
by Michelson & Morley (1887). This leaves the conceptual underpinning of
radiation in Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect" to Tyndall (1864, pp. 264-265;
1867, p. 416), who ascribes communication of molecular vibration into the
aether and communication of aethereal vibration to molecular motion. This
interaction conceptually separates radiated heat from conducted heat so that
radiation remains separate and distinct from conductive heat flow -
effectively isolating conductive heat flow from the radiative mode of heat
transfer. Thus no consideration is made for internal radiative transfer as a
part of conductive transfer, in the context of aethereal wave propagation.

However, Arrhenius' contemporaries, having moved beyond the debunked aether
hypothesis, had a much more realistic perspective of the interactions
between radiation, heat, and subatomic particles.

During the life of Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect", the scientific community
understood that radiation was electromagnetic (Maxwell, 1864; Heaviside,
1881; Hertz, 1888), and by the time Arrhenius first published on the subject
of the "Greenhouse Effect", Thompson (1896) had extended his discovery of
electrons to photoelectric effects on gases due to ionizing radiation, known
then as rï¿½ntgen rays.

The photoelectric effect, by which a current or charge could be generated in
certain materials by their exposure to electromagnetic radiation, was a
matter of inquiry at the time. The emission of radiation in discrete quanta,
though first suggested by Boltzmann in 1877, was mathematically formalised
by Planck (1901). Einstein (1905) experimentally confirmed Planck's Equation
after adapting it to the photoelectric effect, which was the subject of his
study.

However, ideas concerning the internal structure of the atom and it's
relationship to ionisation, magnetism, photoelectric interactions, and
discrete quanta of electromagnetic radiation were under intense development
at the time (Thomson, 1902; Thomson, 1903; Thomson, 1904). By the time Bohr
(1913) corrected the problems in Thomson's atomic model, the relationship
between changes in electron orbital potential and photoelectric emission of
radiation were a foregone conclusion.

The relevance of these discoveries to the question of heat transfer is that
unlike the notion of aethereal heat transfer, emission of electromagnetic
energy quanta by atoms and molecules in materials confirmed that the
radiative mode of heat transfer was as much a part of thermal conduction as
the kinetic mode of heat transfer.

In order to understand how heat moves through materials, we must first
examine the structure and behaviour of the material media at a sub-atomic
level.

An atom comprises a nucleus within a shell. The shell is due to Thomson's
"corpuscles", later known as electrons, which are negatively charged
particles that orbit a nucleus with a positive charge corresponding to the
number of these electrons. These electron shells are also known as orbitals,
and when shared by more than one atom, form the chemical bond between those
atoms.

When a "photon", or rather an electromagnetic wave pulse, hits an electron
shell one of a number of things may occur. It may pass through the shell, it
may be deflected by the shell, or it may be absorbed by an electron in the
shell.

When an electromagnetic wave pulse or 'photon' of light or heat is absorbed
by an electron, the energy imparted to the electron is converted to kinetic
energy, which moves the electron out to an orbital level commensurate with
the energy gained.

If we consider, from the mass of both electron and nucleus, that the centre
of mass is somewhere between the electron and the nucleus, then this centre
of mass does not coincide with the centre of positive charge, about which
the electron orbits. Imagine a circumstance in which this centre of mass
remains static, while the nucleus revolves around it. As the electron shell
is centred on the nucleus, then in this case the shell and the entire atom
or molecule is thus seen to wobble or vibrate about a particular point.

The higher the orbital, the more intense this wobble or vibration becomes.
As a consequence, the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by a material
manifests itself as a corresponding net increase in the kinetic energy of
constituent molecules.

If we take the processes we have just examined and apply them to more than
one molecule, we may then perceive as Waterson (1843, 1846, 1892) did, that
through collisions between molecules, the material must either expand or its
internal pressure will increase. By this we may infer the kinetic
propagation of heat through a medium by the collision of its molecules, as
the momentum of one molecule is transferred to another in the collision.

This is not the only consequence of molecular collision.

Such a collision may transfer the kinetic energy from the orbital of the
inbound molecule to that of the outbound molecule. It is also possible that
the collision may destabilise one or both electron shells resulting in the
corresponding drops to lower electron potentials. When an electron falls to
a lower orbital of lesser potential, a "photon" or pulse of electromagnetic
radiation is emitted.

That electromagnetic wave pulse then propagates through the material until
it is either absorbed by another molecule or escapes from the material.
However short-lived, such radiation quanta carry a proportion of heat flow
in all materials.

Whether we are talking about air, glass, or steel, a component of internal
heat transfer is via internal radiation, however short the path of that
radiation may be.

Ergo, thermal conduction is not solely the kinetic transfer of heat, but
also the transmission and reception of radiation within a material or
materials in thermal contact. This is confirmed by the fact that conductive
heat transfer, as defined by Fourier (1822), is only concerned with total
heat flow and therefore describes the sum of both radiative and kinetic
transfer without addressing either specifically.

This differs markedly from the separation of radiative and kinetic transfer
implicit in the ethereal model of heat transfer proposed by Tyndall and
favoured by Arrhenius.

This divergence of Arrhenius' idea of heat transfer from the facts of
contemporary science forecasts a major error in Arrhenius' thermodynamics.

2.3

Obfuscated Energy Creation versus Kirchhoff's Law

It is an interesting fact that Arrhenius (1896 and 1906b) obfuscates his
critical backradiation mechanism of the "Greenhouse Effect" by focusing the
reader's attention on the idea he falsely attributed to Fourier, which is
now found in the dictionary; namely, that the atmosphere admits the visible
radiation of the sun but obstructs the infrared radiation from the earth.

However, Arrhenius' calculations are based on surface heating by
backradiation from the atmosphere, which is further clarified in Arrhenius
(1906a).

This exposes the fact that Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect" must be driven by
recycling radiation from the surface to the atmosphere and back again.

Thus, radiation heating the surface is re-emitted to heat the atmosphere and
then re-emitted by the atmosphere back to accumulate yet more heat at the
earth's surface.

Physicists such as Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009) are quick to point
out that this is a perpetuum mobile of the second kind - a type of mechanism
that creates energy from nothing.

It is very easy to see how this mechanism violates the first law of
thermodynamics by counterfeiting energy ex nihilo, but it is much more
difficult to demonstrate this in the context of Arrhenius' obfuscated
hypothesis.

Suffice it to say that heat is lost at the earth's surface when it is
radiated to the atmosphere.

The atmosphere having gained this heat loses it when it is re-radiated, half
into space and half back to earth because radiation is omnidirectional.

However, such heat losses are not represented in the "Greenhouse Effect",
which recycles this heat instead. According to this hypothesis, this heat
joins yet more heat absorbed from direct solar radiation during the relay.
The intensity of terrestrial radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is thus
increased, and taken in addition to that absorbed by the earth's surface,
now totals more than the radiation available from the sun (e.g. Kiehl &
Trenberth, 1997; Trenberth et al., 2009).

The logic is seductive, yet flawed.

Radiation is simply the amount of power per square metre. This power cannot
be used and stored at the same time. Power cannot be raised without
intensifying the source or adding another source of energy.

Authors who defend the "Greenhouse Effect" attempt to characterise it as a
form of heat congestion (e.g. Archer, 2009).

The problem with this defense is that no amount of heat congestion can
result in an average power output exceeding the average power input.

The defense is also subject to the limitations of Kirchhoff's Law.

Kirchhoff's Law dictates that while emissivity and absorptivity are always
equal for a given material or body, the equality of absorption (not
absorptivity) and emission (not emissivity) of radiation defines thermal
equilibrium between bodies that are not in thermal contact.

Even the misconception that selective absorptivity makes it easier for
radiation to get in than to escape, breaks down when both the atmosphere and
the surface of the earth are treated as a whole body.

Regardless of internal complexities, a whole body ultimately can only emit
the exact amount of radiation it receives, or a lesser amount corresponding
to a lower pre-equilibrium temperature if thermal equilibrium has not been
reached.

By increasing absorption, emission is increased - which was discovered
experimentally by Kirchhoff (1859 and 1860).

Moreover, this greater emission has a cooling effect on the atmosphere and
Frankland (1864, p. 326) asserts that without this loss of heat by emission
to space, atmospheric water vapour could not condense into clouds and
precipitation. This cooling by radiative emission is further confirmed by
Ellsaesser (1989) and Chillingar et al. (2008).

Thus surface evaporation and subsequent condensation at altitude has a
powerful cooling effect, which in addition to convection, offsets the high
degree of heating that occurs at the surface.

Inasmuch as we raise the absorptivity of the atmosphere, we equally raise
its capacity to emit radiation to space.

This was understood by both Tyndall and Frankland. As such, the temperature
of the atmosphere cannot be changed simply by increasing absorptivity.

Kirchhoff's law, which states as much, is the key to understanding the
behaviour of passive body temperature in constant incident radiation.

Moreover, when Arrhenius (1896, p. 255) added the radiative transfer between
the earth's surface and the atmosphere to the conductive transfer between
the earth's surface and the atmosphere, he effectively duplicated the
radiative transfer quantity, because it was already included in the
conductive transfer quantity ("M"). This quantity is representative of net
heat flow in accordance with Fourier's Law which, further, does not
distinguish between kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer across a
thermal contact.

Not only did Arrhenius duplicate heat, thereby invoking an energy creation
mechanism to equip CO2 with a power source it does not have, he propagated
an erroneous explanation of how greenhouses work, which he falsely
attributed to Fourier. Moreover, Arrhenius used this erroneous explanation
as an alternative focal point for his "Hothouse Effect". With respect to the
"Greenhouse Effect", as it later became known, this misdirection proved most
effective in drawing scrutiny away from the weakest proposition of the
idea - as attested by its consequent Concise Oxford Dictionary definition.
It is upon this litany of error and misdirection that the "Greenhouse
Effect" and the implicitly "anthropogenic" nature of global warming and
climate change is based. Having ascertained the various mechanisms of the
"Greenhouse Effect", we are ready to test this hypothesis against the laws
of physics as they apply to real and repeatable experimental results of a
physical and material nature.

3.0

Elementary Physics versus the "Greenhouse Effect"

Heat distribution amongst materials in thermal contact is controlled by
respective thermal conductivities rather than any putative optical
properties. The relationship between thermal gradient -the change in
temperature per unit length- and heat flux -the rate of energy flow across a
unit area- is key to understanding the relationship between thermal
conductivity and heat distribution within a material or materials in thermal
contact. This is limited by the overall power available via the heat flux,
which may come from another body in thermal contact or as radiation from a
body isolated by a vacuum. However, the amount of heat available to a system
due to increased absorption, is lost to corresponding emission. Thus a
change in materials without a change in incident radiation -the radiation
that falls on a body- can, at most, alter the distribution of heat within
those materials.

3.1

The Physics of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and CO2

The relationship between conductivity and net heat transfer explains why
physicists, as Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009) point out, only
consider the question of heat and temperature in terms of measurable
physical properties such as thermal conductivity and heat capacity, unless
that heat is being radiated across a vacuum. The latter case presents a
question only answered by the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation, explained below.
However, in terms of bodies in thermal contact, such as the atmosphere and
the surface of the earth, the assertions of Arrhenius with respect to
backradiation must necessarily be accompanied by a great variation in
thermal conductivity in order to account for a comparably greater change in
thermal gradient. This question is addressed in Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007
and 2009, pp. 6-10), which shows an insufficient difference in the thermal
conductivities of CO2, nitrogen, and oxygen to account for the claims of
Arrhenius.

CO2 does, in fact, have a lower thermal conductivity than either nitrogen or
oxygen (by roughly 36%, calculated from the figures of Gerlich &
Tscheuschner, 2007 and 2009). So a large increase (i.e. by hundreds of
thousands of parts per million) in atmospheric CO2 concentration that would
increase the thermal gradient accordingly, could produce a measurable
surface warming. As this cannot change the amount of heat flowing through
the system, the effect would be manifest by a decrease in atmospheric
temperature offset by a corresponding increase in surface temperature.
However, a meagre doubling of the presently insignificant levels of
atmospheric CO2 cannot have a measurable effect. In fact, geological history
records that other factors have a much greater influence on global climate
than CO2.

If CO2 produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity
measurements of CO2 would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat
conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature
gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of CO2.

In reality, a 10,000ppm increase in CO2 could, at most, reduce the
conductivity of air by 1%. Given the actual difference between the thermal
conductivities of CO2 (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000ppm
increase in CO2 would lower the thermal conductivity of zero grade air by
0.36%. That would represent a 0.36% increase in thermal gradient, or a
surface warming of 0.18% and a ceiling cooling of 0.18% of the total
difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the affected air
mass. In the case of a tropospheric CO2 increase of 10,000ppm, that would
correspond to a warming of 0.125ï¿½C, or one eighth of a degree Celsius at the
earth's surface, offset by a cooling of 0.125ï¿½C at the tropopause. On the
scale of doubling the troposphere's CO2, the surface warming predicted by
this simple and materialistic thermodynamic approach is on the order of
0.004ï¿½C.

3.2

Extending the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation to Incidence of Radiation

Beyond the material medium of the atmosphere, heat is transferred across the
vacuum of space by electromagnetic radiation. In fact, radiation is the only
way heat can cross a vacuum and this radiative transfer of heat is governed
by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. As we shall see, this is critical to
calculating body temperature from heat entering an otherwise thermally
isolated body. It also dictates the temperature of the ideal greenhouse.
However, as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law concerns radiation emitted, we must
first extend this law to relate temperature to incident radiation. This is
achieved by applying Kirchhoff's Law.

Kirchhoff's Law can be used to simplify the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation
(Boltzmann, 1884) yielding a form that is surprisingly elegant. The
significance of Kirchhoff's Law lies in the fact that emissivity not only
constrains the proportion absorbed, but the readiness with which the body
may emit (Kirchhoff, 1859; Kirchhoff, 1860, translated by Guthrie, 1860).
Thus as emissivity decreases for the same emission of radiation, the
temperature rises. However, given a constant incident radiation, the
proportion by which temperature is raised by lack of emissivity is balanced
by the reduced proportion of absorbed radiation. Substituting incident
radiation multiplied by emissivity for emitted radiation in the
Stefan-Boltzmann Equation arises the following way:

Where:

Wb = Radiation (heat flux) in Wm-2 emitted by the body in question if it is
a perfect black body

Wi = Radiation (heat flux) in Wm-2 incident upon the body in question

We = Radiation (heat flux) in Wm-2 emitted by the body in question

T = Absolute Temperature in ï¿½K of the body in question

? = Emissivity = Absorption / (Absorption + Reflection) of the body in
question

? = Stefan's Constant = 0.000000056704

Wm = Mean incidence of radiation over the entire surface of the body in Wm-2

Ax = Mean cross-sectional area of radiation incident on the body in m2

At = Topographical area of the body in m2

Wb = ?T4     Stefan's Law relating black body radiation to temperature
(Stefan, 1879)

We = ?Wb   Emissivity is the proportion of hypothetical black body radiation
emitted

Wb = Wi     And at thermal equilibrium, black body radiation is equal to
incident radiation

We = ?Wi    Ergo emissivity is also the proportion of incident radiation
emitted

We = ??T4   As the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation (Boltzmann, 1884) elaborates on
emitted radiation:

?Wi = ??T4

Thus a body's temperature response to incident radiation is entirely
independent of emissivity, such that

Wi = ?T4

This is confusing because it looks just like Stefan's Law for black bodies.
However, as the radiation in question is not the body's emitted radiation as
used by Stefan (1879), but is instead the incident radiation, it applies not
only to black bodies but in general - as shown by the simple derivation.
However, this case is strictly for omnidirectional radiation, which is only
incident when all the radiation is diffuse or scattered. Radiation from a
given source is directional and when the source is distant, the radiation is
measured in a plane perpendicular to incidence. As a body is a three
dimensional object with a much larger surface area than the area across
which incident radiation falls, the emitted radiation of a body is always
correspondingly lower in intensity then the incident radiation. As the area
of incidence is less than the area of emission, we must further modify our
equation so:

WiAx/At = ?T4

Wm = WiAx/At

Wm = ?T4

As you can see, the temperature of a body in constant incident radiation
cannot be raised by compositional changes, and solely depends on the
intensity of the radiation. This confirms the duplication of energy and to
some degree, the perpetuum mobile inherent in the "Greenhouse Effect."

3.3

Returning to Wood's Experiment to Test Arrhenius' Backradiation Hypothesis

We may well ask if it is at all possible for backradiation to coexist as a
significant process alongside kinetic transfer. It would certainly seem
possible within the limitations of thermal gradients. However, if we revisit
the experiment conducted by Robert Wood in 1909, an entirely different
picture emerges. Wood constructed two miniature greenhouses identical in all
but one respect. One used a plate of halite to transmit light into the
interior, while the other used a plate of glass to transmit light into the
interior (Wood, 1909). While glass absorbs more than 80% of infrared
radiation above 2900nm, halite does not and is regarded as quite transparent
to infrared. The point of the experiment was to test whether the halite's
lack of absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation relative to that of
glass would have any effect on the temperature of the greenhouse.

Taking Arrhenius (1906a) into account, we may extend his backradiation
hypothesis to this particular situation. In this case, the glass lets
through the light of the sun but absorbs 85% of the terrestrial infrared
radiation radiation returning to space - at least that emitted above 2900nm.
We may suppose that this 85% is of the half of the radiation that is
absorbed above 2900nm and is augmented by about 15% of the other half of the
outgoing infrared radiation based on the numbers from Nicalau and Maluf
(2001). That is a total absorption of 50% of the outgoing radiation. This
radiation is subsequently emitted from the glass itself; half radiated
outside and half radiated back inside the miniature greenhouse. The amount
of radiation reaching the bottom of the greenhouse is equal to that directly
received from the sun plus the 25% radiated back by the glass. Although
halite is more transmissive than glass in the visible spectrum, this is
offset by the fact that halite is much more reflective than glass in the
visible spectrum (Lane & Christensen, 1998). The difference in light
transmission is less than 5%. Thus in the case of this experiment, the glass
greenhouse bottom can be said to have received at least 120% (100-5+25) of
the radiation received by the halite greenhouse bottom according to the
hypothesis of Arrhenius. Thus we expect the temperatures of the respective
greenhouses to reflect this significant difference in hypothetical
radiation.

In Wood's experiment, the halite greenhouse interior temperature rose to
65ï¿½C or 338ï¿½K (Wood, 1909). Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as shown
above, to the relationship between incident radiation and body temperature
we may determine from:

Wm = ?T4

That:

Wm = 0.000000056704 x 3384

Wm = 740 Wm-2

Now, according to Arrhenius' backradiation hypothesis and the measurable
optical properties of glass and halite, this 740 Wm-2 should be augmented,
in the glass greenhouse, by 20% in backradiation from the glass. Thus we may
surmise, via Arrhenius, that the radiation at the bottom of the glass
greenhouse in the first stage of Wood's experiment was 888 Wm-2. This
predicts the temperature of the glass greenhouse as follows:

T = {Wm/?}0.25

Given Wm = 888 Wm-2:

T = {888/0.000000056704}0.25 = 353.8ï¿½K = 80.6ï¿½C

As you can see, Arrhenius' hypothetical backradiation should raise the glass
greenhouse temperature 15ï¿½C above the halite greenhouse temperature, in
Wood's experiment. In fact, the first stage of the Wood experiment resulted
in the glass greenhouse being slightly cooler than the halite greenhouse.
Considering the possibility that this could be due to the fact that the
glass filters some of the sun's radiation that is not filtered by the
halite, Wood proceeded to conduct a second stage in his historic experiment.
This time, he filtered the radiation entering both greenhouses with a sheet
of glass. This had the effect of reducing the internal temperature of the
halite greenhouse to 55ï¿½C or 328ï¿½K. Thus the radiation incident on the
bottom of the halite greenhouse is as follows:

Wm = ?T4

That:

Wm = 0.000000056704 x 3284

Wm = 656 Wm-2

Allowing for additional 20% of backradiation gives us Wm = 788 Wm-2 in the
glass greenhouse, predicting:

T = {Wm/?}0.25

Given Wm = 788 Wm-2:

T = {788/0.000000056704}0.25 = 343.3ï¿½K = 70.2ï¿½C

Once again, the backradiation hypothesis of Arrhenius predicts a temperature
difference of 15ï¿½C but in this second stage of the Wood experiment no
significant difference in temperature was recorded between the glass
greenhouse and the halite greenhouse. From the recorded results of the Wood
experiment, we can only conclude that the backradiation hypothesis of
Arrhenius creates heat ex nihilo, but only in theory.

3.4

Is the "Greenhouse Effect" Really Necessary?

The temperature of the earth's surface is often explained using the
"Greenhouse Effect". However, having refuted the "Greenhouse Effect", we may
wonder if it was necessary in the first place. The earth orbits the sun in
the vacuum of space. There is no aether as Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius
believed. Moreover, there is no heat capacity or thermal conductivity in
space. The only way for heat to escape the planet is by emission to space.
That makes the temperature of the absorbing mass of the earth a question of
radiative heat transfer. Hereafter, I will refer to the that portion of the
earth's mass which absorbs solar radiation as the "solarsphere" because the
atmosphere does not include the surface layer warmed by the sun on a day to
day basis and there is no other term to encompass both. The method of
calculation is to treat the solarsphere as an absorbing body subject to
incident radiation from the sun.

Given the solar constant of 1368 Wm-2 (Frï¿½hlich & Brusa, 1981) and the fact
that the cross-sectional area of solar radiation incident upon the earth is
roughly one quarter of the earth's surface area, it is unsurprising to
observe that authors such as Kiehl & Trenberth (1997) arrive at 342 Wm-2 as
the mean quantity of solar radiation that falls on the entire surface of the
earth. Using this, we may calculate the expected geographical and
altitudinal mean temperature of the earth's solarsphere.

Wm = ?T4

T4 = Wm/?

T = {Wm/?}0.25

Given Wm = 342:

T = {342/0.000000056704}0.25 = 278.7ï¿½K = 5.5ï¿½C

This figure, is an average or mean temperature for all times, latitudes, and
altitudes of the the earth's solarsphere. Just as the balance point or
centre of gravity is found at the centre of mass, this average temperature
may be found at the centre of heat capacity. In materials of similar heat
capacity, this can be found near the centre of mass. Thus, in order to
determine how well our 5.5ï¿½C result -calculated above- corresponds to
observed reality, we must first determine the average observed temperature
at the barometric median in the part of the earth penetrated by solar
energy.


author: Daryl P475

subject: Re: Quakes

text:
In article <[email]>
  Bobby Magee <[email]> writes:

Appears that AOL's server didn't pick up Alan's post.

In reply to Alan's statements, they are partly correct but do not
tell the whole story. I guess Alan was trying to be short and consise
leaving out a few parts.

When Alan calculates his probabilities he is using catalogs containing
the years of 1970 thru 1994 where more events have occurred during this
period.  Based on catalogs from 1949 thru 1984 the probabilities are
about 30% less (roughly).

One argument has been that since we are in a period of higher seismicity
that we should use corresponding higher siesmicity catalogs.  My
position is that since seismicity is random and that we don't know when
we will be in a period of higher seismicity or a period of lower
seismicity,
we should keep with the average and that Alan should be using catalogs
from 1949 thru 1994.  Calculated probabilities would be higher then the
probabilities from 1949 thru 1984 but would be lower then probabilities
based on 1970 thru 1994 data.

Even with the 1970 - 1994 catalogs, not all of my predictions have been
in the 50-99% range.  One of the predictions Alan had calculated at
45%.  Following is a list of the probabilities as calculated by Alan:

                                      Minimum     # days
  Dates               Prob  Success?  Magnitude   window
  1995/02/21 - 03/02  80%   No          4.0         9.60
  1995/03/07 - 03/17  80%   Yes         4.0        10.06
  1995/04/04 - 04/14  50%   Yes         4.5        10.08
  1995/04/09 - 04/19  66%   Yes         4.3        10.52
  1995/04/24 - 05/01  90%   Yes         3.7         7.96
  1995/06/06 - 06/14  58%   Yes         4.3         8.50
  1995/06/20 - 06/26  77%   Yes         3.8         6.06
  1995/06/24 - 06/30  45%   Yes         4.4         6.50
  1995/08/29 - 09/01  44%   Yes         3.0         3.50
  1995/08/29 - 09/07  84%   Yes         3.3         9.50

As you can see, not one is at 99% and two are below 50%.  If you just
look at the average of all the predictions, then Alan is correct.

Since it doesn't look like Alan wants to budge on which catalogs are
being used (maybe earlier catalogs just aren't available),  I will
be trying to keep my predictions below the 50% level at all times as
I have an idea as to what to shoot for based on the past probabilities
posted by Alan.

And in article <[email]>
  [email] (David Stinson) writes:

:>   Just wondering what the accuracy of the predictions for the people
:> making the predictions over the last couple days that I have seen
online.
:>         I finally got connceted to the Internet and saw these and like
a
:> newbie I did read them and take them for something only to find out
that
:> now since I was already prepared with supplies that maybe I shouldn't
:> have taken these predictions too seriously.

It is required.

I've always been a proponent of being prepared at all times.  Even with
earthquake predictions, if were not prepared, its too late to get
prepared.
You wouldn't be able to find supplies anywhere.  A person might be able to
get all the loose items tacked down in time in their home, but may have
trouble finding the supplies to do this.  This kind of thing always
happens
with hurricane preparation, stocking of water supplies and so on.  As far
as bolting the house down, its just to late then.

But you can check on the supplies that you have already stocked, like the
batteries still work, re-check on where you put everything, rehearse
evacuation plans, watch the kinds of things your doing (like not stopping
under bridges).  The list could be endless.

Dennis Gentry
Daryl [email]


author: Richard Ottolini

subject: Re: Quakes

text:
In article <441m02$[email]>,
Daryl P475 <[email]> wrote:

No evidence for higher seismicity on a global scale.
However, seismicity has increased somewhat in southern CA since 1985.
Since your predictions go for thousand of miles,
I'd use the global data.


author: David Salzberg

subject: Re: Quakes

text:
In article <441m02$[email]> [email] (Daryl P475) writes:

The catalogs prior to the mid 60's are incomplete.  There were more earthquakes than were reported.  The fact that probablities are about 30% less are
probably a reflection of that.

It would be incorrect to use incomplete catalogs.

David


author: [redacted]

subject: 7.60 MHz quartz crystal

text:
Hi

Anyone know a supplier of 7.60 MHz quartz crystlas?  I need one for a
Rohm BH1416 FM xmitter chip, it has to be 7.60 MHz since the 19kHz pilot
signal is derived from it.

Thanks in advance

Patrick

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


author: Jim Adney

subject: Re: 7.60 MHz quartz crystal

text:
[email] wrote:

I've got a 19 kHz crystal. Would that help?

-
-----------------------------------------------
    Jim Adney            [email]
           Madison,Wisconsin USA
-----------------------------------------------


subject: Re: 7.60 MHz quartz crystal

text:
No, but thanks.  The 19kz is derived internally, there is no pin on
which to apply the signal.

Patrick

bIn article <[email]>,
  Jim Adney <[email]> wrote:
pilot

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


author: Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson

subject: nodogoshi meaning

text:
It's not just a third-sector beer (第三のビール isn't in EDICT
either...) brand name, but のどごし seems also to be a valid word,
meaning perhaps "thirst-quenching"? Would that be right? I'm not sure
where the ごし part comes from either? Perhaps 越し, which would
make it something like "swallowability", or to (ab)use the UK slang,
"neck-ability", to describe the easy consumption of beverages of an
alcoholic nature.

Ken


author: necoandjeff

subject: Re: nodogoshi meaning

text:
Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson wrote:

You got the kanji right. It isn't so much thrist quenching specifically as
it is just the feeling of a drink going down your throat. 喉越しがよい means
something that feels good to drink, or that goes down smoothly. So I think
your second guess is closer (though I've never heard "neck-ability"). It's
akin to words like 乗り心地, 寝心地, etc.


subject: Re: nodogoshi meaning

text:
Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson <[email]> dixit:

You really should try using the Daijirin on the Goo server:
のど-ごし  【喉越し】
飲食物がのどを通っていくときの感じ。「―のよいビール」

or if you own/subscribe to the GG5:
のどごし【喉越し】
〔ビールなどが〕 のどごしがよい go down smoothly; be [taste] good going down.
のどごしのよさ the ease with which 《a drink》 goes down [can be swallowed]


subject: Re: nodogoshi meaning

text:
[email] wrote:

I consider myself scolded! So, I looked up customising Opera for doing
dictionary searches, and set up entries for Goo and WWWJDIC. For anyone
who's interested, the entries are:

[Opera Search Engine]
Name=goo Dictionary J->J
URL=http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/search.php?MT=%s&kind=&kwassist=0&mode=0
Query=
Key=j
Is post=0
Has endseparator=0
Encoding=shift_jis
Search Type=0
Description=

[Opera Search Engine]
Name=Jim Breen WWWJDIC
URL=http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/jwb/wwwjdic?1MUE%s
Query=
Key=b
Is post=0
Has endseparator=0
Encoding=utf-8
Search Type=0
Description=

Which can be inserted into your search.ini, or use
http://starzaki.eu.org/~hclan/operapl/en/download.html to update it
through a nice (Windows only) GUI.

Ken


author: muchan

subject: Re: nodogoshi meaning

text:
necoandjeff wrote:

OT, but I confess at my first glance I have read it as /harunodo-ga yoi/.  8)

(for On Topic, I don't have anything to add...)

muchan


subject: Re: nodogoshi meaning

text:
Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson <[email]> dixit:

[...]

Being flexible, WWWJDIC runs in both cgiwrap mode (above) and the
newer suexec (this is all Apache-speak).

The suexec version of the above is:
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%s

Usually both work, but there are occasions when the cgiwrap croaks,
due to a size limitation of memory-mapped I/O. It mainly has problems
doing things with the big files like "the_lot". To be on the safe
side I recommend the suexec mode. All the internally-generated URLs
use that mode.


author: Taka

subject: Chemical wars against arachidonic acid: Omega-3 including fish oil

text:
SOURCE: Juvenon Health Journal Vol.8 No.4 - cancer: can we reduce the
risk by eating fish?

A research team from the University of California, San Francisco and
the University of California, Los Angeles reports on “Dietary Omega-3
Fatty Acids, Cyclooxygenase-2 Genetic Variation, and Aggressive
Prostate Cancer Risk” in Clinical Cancer Research, an American
Association for Cancer Research (AACR) publication.

The investigators detail their analysis, using a case-control study of
466 men diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer, as compared to 478
cancer-free controls. Diet was their inquiry’s parameter, more
specifically, what effect a diet rich in the omega 3 fatty acids would
have on the incidence of the cancer.

The results of the study suggest a significant positive correlation
between cancer-free control subjects and the amount of omega 3 fats
from fish that they consumed per week. The subjects with aggressive
prostate cancer reported consuming, on average, significantly less
fish per week, as compared to the cancer-free controls.

The investigators also examined several variations in the subjects’
nucleotides, the genetic constituents comprising a region of the DNA
coding for the inflammatory enzyme, COX-2 (clyclooxygenase-2). An
increased presence of one particular variation of this gene (rs468310,
+8897A/G) had been noted in subjects with the most aggressive prostate
cancer. Although some of the subjects in the cancer-free control group
carried this gene variation, they were also more likely to consume a
much higher number of fish meals per week than their cancer group
counterparts.

The researchers attributed the difference to the amount of omega 3s
from fish consumed. They hypothesize that the mode of action is the
omega 3s’ capacity to inhibit the production of inflammatory
prostaglandins. Apparently, the omega 3s can compete with the omega 6
fatty acids for the active site on the COX-2 enzyme. While COX-2
converts the omega 6 fats to inflammatory prostaglandins, the same
enzyme acts on the omega 3 fats to convert them to non-inflammatory
prostaglandins.

Inflammation, as was first suggested decades ago, is believed to be a
key factor in promoting cancer growth. This research supports a
significant role for eating fish that is high in omega 3 fatty acids
as a potentially potent inhibitor of the inflammatory response and
prostate cancer incidence.

Cancer. We do our best to avoid talking or even thinking about being a
victim. But if something else doesn’t get us first, all of us are
likely to develop some form of the disease or, at a minimum, harbor a
latent form. Is there anything we can do to stack the cards against
this?

Genetic Deck
There is no question that certain forms of cancer are heritable.
Whether children of parents with some cancers develop them also
depends on a unique arrangement of the nucleotides, the constituents
associated with specific genes involved in the disease’s development.
In other words, the same genetic mutation has to be passed on, too.

Even for those who have been dealt a “genetic hand” with a
significantly higher risk factor, recent studies show there are ways
to reshuffle the deck, so to speak.

Common Causes
Researchers from various scientific and medical disciplines are
demonstrating the importance of inflammation as causal in the
development of a variety of conditions, including heart disease,
neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, type II diabetes,
peripheral artery disease and colon, liver and prostate cancer.
Scientific, clinical and epidemiological studies suggest that many
diseases are also associated with certain lifestyles and, in
particular, the types of foods commonly consumed by a population.

These observations recently led a group of investigators to more
closely examine the connection between the foods we eat, inflammation
and the development of disease, specifically prostate cancer. Their
results present strong evidence that links an anti-inflammatory
nutritional component with reduced risk. (See this issue’s “Research
Update.”)

Inflammation Information
But what, exactly, is inflammation and why does the body have this
mechanism if it contributes to disease? Here’s the short answer:

 The cells of the immune system are called into action at a site the
body believes is under attack by a “bad guy,” a pathogen such as a
virus, bacteria or aberrant cell like a cancer cell. Pathogen-fighting
immune cells (macrophages) migrate to the compromised tissue and
immediately activate biochemical pathways that produce inflammatory
molecules and proteins (prostaglandins, inflammatory cytokines).

Some of these molecules function as messengers to attract other types
of immune cells (neutrophils, mast cells) to the tissue under attack.
The defending immune cells start producing a number of toxic
substances (hydrogen peroxide, free radicals, superoxide radicals),
supposedly directed at the pathogen.

As with any “weapon of mass destruction,” not only are the pathogens
negatively affected by the toxins, but there is also significant
“collateral damage” to normal cells. This constitutes what is referred
to as inflammation: swelling, damage to cells including their genetic
material (DNA) and an increase in blood vessel permeability, with
subsequent leaking of fluids into the area.

When the inflammation occurs on an exposed part of the body, such as
the skin, it appears swollen and red and is often painful. As we age,
the inflammatory response becomes even less targeted, accounting for a
higher, age-associated incidence of tissue inflammation.

Omega 3 Protection
Now back to the study mentioned earlier and its answer to how it may
be possible to avert one of the diseases associated with an over-
exuberant immune system reaction and resulting inflammation.

Prostate cancer accounts for about 30% of cancers in the U.S. The
researchers examined the relationship between the incidence of this
disease in people and their consumption of the omega 3 fatty acids
present in fish. Subjects who had the highest plasma levels of the
omega 3s had the lowest incidence of prostate cancer, compared to
controls who consumed little or no omega 3-rich fish.

The researchers also found that those people with an inherited gene
variation, which would normally make them more susceptible to
aggressive prostate cancer, also responded to the omega 3 diet. There
was a dramatic decrease in the incidence of cancer in these subjects
and a significant inhibition of pre-existing cancer growth.

Omega 3 Interference
Not only did the research suggest that the omega 3s had a protective
effect, but the study also identified its mechanism.

 The previously mentioned gene, which confers prostate cancer
susceptibility, codes for an enzyme, COX-2 (cyclooxygenase-2). COX-2
is involved in the synthesis of mediators of inflammation, the
prostaglandins. It appears that the omega 3 fatty acids interfere with
this enzyme, preventing it from converting omega 6 fatty acids to
prostaglandins.

More 3 Less 6
This study and others point to the need for a healthy 1:2 ratio of
omega 3s to omega 6s in what we eat. The problem? The omega 6 fatty
acids are found in many foods prepared with vegetable oil—bread,
crackers, cakes, fried foods—that are favored in western diets. The
solution may be as simple as substituting olive oil for vegetable oil,
whenever possible, and including at least one fish meal per week in
our diets.


subject:
Re: Chemical wars against arachidonic acid: Omega-3 including fish
	oil

text:
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Apr 1;15(7):2559-66. Epub 2009 Mar 24.

Dietary omega-3 fatty acids, cyclooxygenase-2 genetic variation, and
aggressive prostate cancer risk.

Fradet V, Cheng I, Casey G, Witte JS.
Departments of Urology, Institute for Human Genetics, University of
California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143-0794,
USA.

PURPOSE: Dietary intake of long-chain omega-3 (LC n-3) polyunsaturated
fatty acids may reduce inflammation and in turn decrease risk of
prostate cancer development and progression. This potential effect may
be modified by genetic variation in cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), a key
enzyme in fatty acid metabolism and inflammation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:
We used a case-control study of 466 men diagnosed with aggressive
prostate cancer and 478 age- and ethnicity-matched controls. Diet was
assessed with a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire, and
nine COX-2 tag single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) were genotyped.
We used logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (OR) for
association and interaction. RESULTS: Increasing intake of LC n-3 was
strongly associated with a decreased risk of aggressive prostate
cancer (P(trend) <or= 0.0001). The OR (95% confidence interval) for
prostate cancer comparing the highest with the lowest quartile of n-3
intake was of 0.37 (0.25-0.54). The LC n-3 association was modified by
SNP rs4648310 (+8897 A/G), flanking the 3' region of COX-2 (P
(interaction) = 0.02). In particular, the inverse association was even
stronger among men with this variant SNP. This reflected the
observation that men with low LC n-3 intake and the variant rs4648310
SNP had an increased risk of disease (OR, 5.49; 95% confidence
interval, 1.80-16.7), which was reversed by increasing intake of LC
n-3. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary LC n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids appear
protective for aggressive prostate cancer, and this effect is modified
by the COX-2 SNP rs4648310. Our findings support the hypothesis that
LC n-3 may impact prostate inflammation and carcinogenesis through the
COX-2 enzymatic pathway.
PMID: 19318492

------------------------------

Only the dumb people (what is sadly the majority) will go this way to
neutralize the "weapon of mass destruction" called arachidonic acid.
At least they can claim victory by dying cancer free!  For the few who
know what this is all about - any genetic variant of COX-2 will be
powerless in the absence of its substrate ...

Taka


text:
On Apr 16, 10:38 am, "MikeV" <[email]> wrote:

Everyone is free to decide who to believe, this clown calling himself
"MikeV", the Finish fish oil salesman "Matti" pretending to be a
literate or one of the real scientists like Ray Peat, PhD:

The Great Fish Oil Experiment

Reading medical journals and following the mass media, it's easy to
get the idea that fish oil is something any sensible person should
use. It's rare to see anything suggesting that it could be dangerous.

During the recent years in which the U.S. government has gone from
warning against the consumption of too much of these omega-3 oils ("to
assure that the combined daily intake of two fatty acids that are
components" "(i.e., eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic
acid (DHA)) would not exceed 3 grams per person per day (g/p/d)") to
sponsoring biased industry claims, there has been considerable
accumulation of information about the dangers of fish oils and omega-3
fatty acids. But there has been an even greater increase in the
industry's promotional activities.

The US government and the mass media selectively promote research that
is favorable to the fish oil industry. The editorial boards of oil
research journals often include industry representatives, and their
editorial decisions favor research conclusions that promote the
industry, in the way that editorial decisions in previous decades
favored articles that denied the dangers of radiation and reported
that estrogen cures almost everything. Marcia Angell, former editor of
the NEJM, has observed that the "significant results" reported in
published studies can be properly interpreted only by knowing how many
studies reporting opposite results were rejected by the editors.

One way to evaluate published studies is to see whether they tell you
everything you would need to know to replicate the experiment, and
whether the information they provide is adequate for drawing the
conclusions they draw, for example whether they compared the
experimental subjects to proper control subjects. With just a few
minimal critical principles of this sort, most "scientific"
publications on nutrition, endocrinology, cancer and other
degenerative diseases are seen to be unscientific. In nutritional
experiments with fish oil, controls must receive similar amounts of
vitamins A, D, E, and K, and should include fat free or "EFA"
deficient diets for comparison.

In declaring EPA and DHA to be safe, the FDA neglected to evaluate
their antithyroid, immunosuppressive, lipid peroxidative (Song et al.,
2000), light sensitizing, and antimitochondrial effects, their
depression of glucose oxidation (Delarue et al., 2003), and their
contribution to metastatic cancer (Klieveri, et al., 2000),
lipofuscinosis and liver damage, among other problems.

=========================================

"Houston-based Omega Protein Inc.'s bottom line may get a little
fatter.

The publicly traded company, which produces an Omega-3 fatty acid
product called OmegaPure, has signed an agreement to provide its fish
oil in school lunches in 38 school districts in South Texas beginning
this month.

The 500-person company, which has ties to former President George
Bush's Zapata Corp., will distribute the product through an agreement
with Mercedes-based H&H Foods.

Although the dollar amount of the contract between Omega Protein and
H&H Foods hinges on future sales, the company is poised to cash in as
school administrators and parents refocus their attention on the
nutritional content of student diets.

Omega Protein President and CEO Joseph von Rosenberg says the
company's recent investment of $16.5 million for a fish oil refinery
in Reedville, Va., scheduled for completion in May, and an increased
awareness of the benefits of Omega-3 in human food, positions Omega to
capitalize on predicted demand."

Jenna Colley
Houston Business Journal

=========================================

Andrew Weil was on the radio recently recommending DHA (usually found
in fish oil*) to treat depression, and I think that means that a lot
of people are buying it and eating it. A few years ago the government
declared that it was "generally regarded as safe" and approved its use
in baby formula, and a few months ago Texas school districts
contracted with Omega Protein (which grew out of the Bush family's
Zapata Corporation) to provide menhaden fish oil for school lunches.
Between the 1950s and the 1970s, people were assured that eating
polyunsaturated seed oils would protect them against heart disease.
There's no evidence that the bad outcome of that campaign decreased
the gullibility of the public. They are happily joining in the latest
public health experiment.

*Weil recommends eating "oily fish"--"wild Alaskan salmon, mackerel,
sardines, or herring"--. "If you do take supplements, fish oil is a
better source of DHA than algae"

When a group of people in government and industry decide on a policy,
they can use carrots (good jobs, grants, and prestige) and sticks
(loss of jobs and grants, organized slander, and worse) to make their
guidelines clear, and most people will choose to follow those cues,
even if they know that the policy is wrong. Historically, policy
makers have told the public that "radiation is good for you,"
"estrogen will make you fertile (or safely infertile) and feminine and
strong and intelligent," "starchy foods will prevent diabetes and
obesity," "using diuretics and avoiding salt will make pregnancy
safer," and that the polyunsaturated fatty acids are "nutritionally
essential, and will prevent heart disease."

The original "essential fatty acids" were linoleic, linolenic, and
arachidonic acids. Now that the toxic effects of those are coming to
be recognized, new "essential fatty acids," the omega-3 fatty acids,
including those with long chains, found in fish oils, are said to make
babies more intelligent, to be necessary for good vision, and to
prevent cancer, heart disease, obesity, arthritis, depression,
epilepsy, psychosis, dementia, ulcers, eczema and dry skin.
With just a normal amount of vitamin E in the diet, cod liver oil is
certain to be highly oxidized in the tissues of a mammal that eats a
lot of it, and an experiment with dogs showed that it could increase
their cancer mortality from the normal 5% to 100%. Although fish oils
rapidly destroy vitamin E in the body, some of them, especially the
liver oils, can provide useful vitamins, A and D. In studies comparing
fish oil diets with standard diets, these nutrients, as well as any
toxins besides fatty acids (Huang, et al., 1997; Miyazaki, et al.,
1998) in either type of oil, should be taken into account, but they
seldom are.

Despite the nutritional value of those vitamins, fish oils are
generally much more immunosuppressive than the seed oils, and the
early effects of fish oil on the "immune system" include the
suppression of prostaglandin synthesis, because the more highly
unsaturated long chain fats interfere with the conversion of linoleic
acid into arachidonic acid and prostaglandins. The prostaglandins are
so problematic that their suppression is helpful, whether the
inhibition is caused by aspirin or vitamin E, or by fish oil.

Some of the important antiinflammatory effects of fish oil result from
the oxidized oils, rather than the unchanged oils (Sethi, 2002;
Chaudhary, et al., 2004). These oils are so unstable that they begin
to spontaneously oxidize even before they reach the bloodstream.

In experiments that last just a few weeks or months, there may not be
time for cancers to develop, and on that time scale, the
immunosuppressive and antiinflammatory effects of oxidized fish oil
might seem beneficial. For a few decades, x-ray treatments were used
to relieve inflammatory conditions, and most of the doctors who
promoted the treatment were able to retire before their patients began
suffering the fatal effects of atrophy, fibrosis, and cancer. (But a
few people are still advocating x-ray therapy for inflammatory
diseases, e.g., Hildebrandt, et al., 2003.) The fish oil fad is now
just as old as the x-ray fad was at its peak of popularity, and if its
antiinflammatory actions involve the same mechanisms as the
antiinflammatory immunosuppressive x-ray treatments, then we can
expect to see another epidemic of fibrotic conditions and cancer in
about 15 to 20 years.
Around 1970 researchers reported that animals given fish oil in their
food lived longer than animals on the standard diet. Alex Comfort, who
was familiar with the research showing that simple reduction of food
intake increased longevity, observed that the animals were very
reluctant to eat the food containing smelly fish oil, and were eating
so little food that their longevity could be accounted for by their
reduced caloric intake. Even when "fresh" deodorized fish oil is added
to the diet, its spontaneous oxidation before it reaches the animal's
tissues reduces its caloric value. Without antioxidants, fish oil is
massively degraded within 48 hours, and even with a huge amount of
antioxidant there is still considerable degradation (Gonzalez, 1988;
Klein, et al., 1990).
Fish oil has been used for hundreds of years as varnish or for fuel in
lamps, and the fatty fish have been used as fertilizer and animal
feed, and later the hydrogenated solid form of the oil, which is more
stable, has been used in Europe as a food substitute for people. When
whale hunting was reduced around 1950, fish oil was substituted for
whale oil in margarine production. Like the seed oils, such as linseed
oil, the fish oils were mostly replaced by petroleum derivatives in
the paint industry after the 1960s.

Although by 1980 many animal diseases were known to be caused by
eating oily fish, and the unsaturated oils were known to accelerate
the formation of the "age pigment," lipofuscin, many "beneficial
effects" of dietary fish oil started appearing in research journals
around that time, and the mass media, responding to the industry's
public relations campaign, began ignoring studies that showed harmful
effects from eating fish oil.

When reviewers in professional journals begin to ignore valid research
whose conclusions are harmful to the fish oil industry, we can see
that the policy guidelines set by the industry and its agents in
government have become clear. Around the end of the century, we begin
to see a strange literary device appearing, in which research reports
on the toxic effects of omega-3 oils are prefaced by remarks to the
effect that "we all know how great these oils are for good health." I
think I detect groveling and shuffling of the feet by authors who want
to get their work published. If you are willing to say that your work
probably doesn't mean what it seems to mean, maybe they will publish
it.

For more than 50 years, the great majority of the medical publications
on estrogen were part of the drug industry's campaign to fraudulently
gain billions of dollars, and anyone who cared to analyze them could
see that the authors and editors were part of a cult, rather than
seekers of useful knowledge. Likewise, the doctrine of the
harmlessness of x-rays and radioactive fallout was kept alive for
several decades by demonizing all who challenged it. It now looks as
though we are in danger of entering another period of medical-
industrial-governmental cultism, this time to promote the universal
use of polyunsaturated fats as both drugs and foods.
In 2004, a study of 29,133 men reported that the use of omega-3 oil or
consumption of fish didn't decrease depression or suicide, and in
2001, a study of 42,612 men and women reported that after more than 9
years the use of cod liver oil showed no protective effect against
coronary heart disease (Hakkarainen, et al., 2004; Egeland, et al.,
2001).

The most popular way of arguing that fish oil will prevent heart
disease is to show that it lowers blood lipids, continuing the old
approach of the American Heart Association's "heart protective diet."
Unfortunately for that argument, it's now known that the triglycerides
in the blood are decreased because of the fish oil's toxic effects on
the liver (Hagve and Christophersen, 1988; Ritskes-Hoitinga, et al.,
1998). In experiments with rats, EPA and DHA lowered blood lipids only
when given to rats that had been fed, in which case the fats were
incorporated into tissues, and suppressed mitochondrial respiration
(Osmundsen, et al., 1998).

The belief that eating cholesterol causes heart disease was based
mainly on old experiments with rabbits, and subsequent experiments
have made it clear that it is oxidized cholesterol that damages the
arteries (Stapran, et al., 1997). Since both fish oil and oxidized
cholesterol damage rabbits' arteries, and since the lipid peroxides
associated with fish oil attack a great variety of biological
materials, including the LDL lipoproteins carrying cholesterol, the
implications of the rabbit experiments now seem very different.

Another way of arguing for the use of fish oil or other omega-3 fats
is to show a correlation between disease and a decreased amount of
EPA, DHA, or arachidonic acid in the tissues, and to say "these oils
are deficient, the disease is caused by a deficiency of essential
fatty acids." Those oils are extremely susceptible to oxidation, so
they tend to spontaneously disappear in response to tissue injury,
cellular excitation, the increased energy demands of stress, exposure
to toxins or ionizing radiation, or even exposure to light. That
spontaneous oxidation is what made them useful as varnish or paint
medium. But it is what makes them sensitize the tissues to injury.
Their "deficiency" in the tissues frequently corresponds to the
intensity of oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation; it is usually
their presence, rather than their deficiency, that created the
disposition for the disease.

One of the earliest harmful effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids,
PUFA, to be observed was their acceleration of the formation of
lipofuscin or ceroid, the "age pigment," during oxidative stress or
vitamin E deficiency. Associated with the formation of lipofuscin, the
PUFA were discovered to cause degeneration of the gonads and brain,
and the fact that vitamin E could prevent some of their toxic effects
led to the idea that vitamin E was essentially an antioxidant.
Unfortunately, the protective effect of vitamin E against the PUFA is
only partial (Allard, et al., 1997).

The degenerative diseases are all associated with disturbances
involving fat metabolism and lipid peroxidation. Alzheimer's disease,
alcoholic and nonalcoholic liver disease, retinal degeneration,
epilepsy, AIDS, diabetes, and a variety of circulatory problems
involve breakdown products of the PUFA. The products of PUFA
decomposition include acrolein, malondialdehyde, hydroxynonenal,
crotonaldehyde, ethane, pentane, and the neuroprostanes, which are
prostaglandin-like molecules formed from DHA by free radical lipid
peroxidation products, especially in the brain and at a higher level
in Alzheimer's disease.

The reactions of three types of cell--vascular endothelium, nerve
cells, and thymus cells--to the PUFA will illustrate some of the
important processes involved in their toxicity.

When the body doesn't have enough glucose, free fatty acids are
released from the tissues, and their oxidation blocks the oxidation of
glucose even when it becomes available from the breakdown of protein
caused by cortisol, which is released during glucose deprivation.
Cells of the thymus are sensitive to glucose deprivation, and even in
the presence of glucose, cortisol prevents them from using glucose,
causing them to take up fatty acids. The thymic cells die easily when
exposed either to excess cortisol, or deficient glucose. The
polyunsaturated fatty acids linoleate, arachidonate, and
eicosapentaenoic, are especially toxic to thymic cells by preventing
their inactivation of cortisol, increasing its action. (Klein, et al.,
1987, 1989, 1990). Lymphocytes from people with AIDS and leukemia are
less able to metabolize cortisol. An extract of serum from AIDS
patients caused lymphocytes exposed to cortisol to die 7 times faster
than cells from healthy people. AIDS patients have high levels of both
cortisol and free polyunsaturated fatty acids (Christeff, et al.,
1988).
The cytotoxicity caused by EPA and its metabolites (15 mg. of EPA per
liter killed over 90% of a certain type of macrophage) isn't inhibited
by vitamin E (Fyfe and Abbey, 2000). Immunological activation tends to
kill T cells that contain PUFA (Switzer, et al., 2003).

When animals are fed fish oil and then exposed to bacteria, their
immunosuppressed thymic (T) cells cause them to succumb to the
infection more easily than animals fed coconut oil or a fat free diet.
Natural killer cells, which eliminate cancer cells and virus infected
cells, are decreased after eating fish oil, and T suppressor cells are
often increased. More subtle interference with immunity is produced by
the actions of PUFA on the "immune synapse," a contact between cells
that permits the transmission of immunological information. The
immunosuppressive effect of fish oil is recognized as a useful aid in
preventing the rejection of transplanted organs, but some studies are
showing that survival a year after transplantation isn't improved.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids, especially those that can be turned into
prostaglandins, are widely involved in causing inflammation and
vascular leakiness. EPA and DHA don't form ordinary prostaglandins,
though the isoprostanes and neuroprostanes they produce during lipid
peroxidation behave in many ways like the more common prostaglandins,
and their enzymically formed eicosanoids have some functions similar
to those of the common prostaglandins. The brain contains a very high
concentration of these unstable fatty acids, and they are released in
synapses by ordinary excitatory process.

Chan, et al., 1983, found that polyunsaturated fats caused brain
swelling and increased blood vessel permeability. In 1988, Chan's
group found that DHA and other polyunsaturated fatty acids added to
cultured cells from the cerebral cortex produced free radicals and
stimulated production of malondialdehyde and lactate, and inhibited
the uptake of glutamic acid, which suggests that they would contribute
to prolonged excitation of the nerves (Yu, et al., 1986). In brain
slices, the polyunsaturated fatty acids caused the production of free
radicals and swelling of the tissue, and the saturated fatty acids
didn't (Chan and Fishman, 1980). The PUFA inhibited the respiration of
mitochondria in brain cells (Hillered and Chan, 1988), and at a higher
concentration, caused them to swell (Hillered and Chan, 1989), but
saturated fatty acids didn't produce edema. Free radical activity was
shown to cause the liberation of free fatty acids from the cellular
structure (Chan, et al., 1982, 1984). The activation of lipases by
free radicals and lipid peroxides, with the loss of potassium from the
cells, suggests that excitation can become a self-stimulating process,
leading to cellular destruction.

DHA itself, rather than its decomposition products, facilitates
excitatory (glutamate) nerve transmission (Nishikawa, et al., 1994),
and that excitatory action causes the release of arachidonic acid
(Pellerin and Wolfe, 1991).

Considering just one of the products of fish oil peroxidation,
acrolein, and a few of its effects in cells, we can get an idea of the
types of damage that could result from increasing the amount of
omega-3 fats in our tissues.
The "barrier" between the brain and blood stream is one of the most
effective vascular barriers in the body, but it is very permeable to
oils, and lipid peroxidation disrupts it, damaging the ATPase that
regulates sodium and potassium (Stanimirovic, et al., 1995).
Apparently, anything that depletes the cell's energy, lowering ATP,
allows an excess of calcium to enter cells, contributing to their
death (Ray, et al., 1994). Increasing intracellular calcium activates
phospholipases, releasing more polyunsaturated fats (Sweetman, et al.,
1995) The acrolein which is released during lipid peroxidation
inhibits mitochondrial function by poisoning the crucial respiratory
enzyme, cytochrome oxidase, resulting in a decreased ability to
produce energy (Picklo and Montine, 2001). (In the retina, the PUFA
contribute to light-induced damage of the energy producing ability of
the cells [King, 2004], by damaging the same crucial enzyme.) Besides
inhibiting the ability of nerve cells to produce energy from the
oxidation of glucose, acrolein inhibits the ability of cells to
regulate the excitatory amino acid glutamate (Lovell, et al., 2000),
contributing to the excitatory process. High levels of acrolein (and
other products of PUFA degradation) are found in the brain in
Alzheimer's disease (Lovell, et al., 2001).

The "prion" diseases, CJD and TSE/BSE (mad cow disease) have many
features in common with Alzheimer's disease, and several studies have
shown that the "prion" protein produces its damage by activating the
lipases that release polyunsaturated fatty acids and produce lipid
peroxides (Bate, et al., 2004, Stewart, et al., 2001).
Acrolein reacts with DNA, causing "genetic" damage, and also reacts
with the lysine in proteins, for example contributing to the toxicity
of oxidized low density lipoproteins (LDL), the proteins that carry
cholesterol and that became famous because of their involvement in the
development of atherosclerosis that was supposedly caused by eating
saturated fats.

My newsletter on mad cow disease discussed the evidence incriminating
the use of fish meal in animal feed, as a cause of the degenerative
brain diseases, and earlier newsletters (glycemia, and glycation)
discussed the reasons for thinking that inappropriate glycation of
lysine groups in proteins, as a result of a lack of protective carbon
dioxide/carbamino groups, produces the amyloid (or "prion") proteins
that characterize the dementias. Acrolein, produced from the
decomposing "fish oils" in the brain, is probably the most reactive
product of lipid peroxidation in the brain, and so would be likely to
cause the glycation of lysine in the plaque-forming proteins.
These toxic effects of acrolein in the brain are analogous to the
multitude of toxic effects of the omega-3 fatty acids and their
breakdown products in all of the other organs and tissues of the body.
Cancer cells are unusual in their degree of resistance to the lethal
actions of the lipid peroxides, but the inflammatory effects of the
highly unsaturated fatty acids are now widely recognized to be
essentially involved in the process of cancerization (my newsletters
on cancer and leakiness discuss some of the ways the fats are involved
in tumor development).
The fats that we synthesize from sugar, or coconut oil, or oleic acid,
the omega-9 series, are protective against the inflammatory PUFA, in
some cases more effective even than vitamin E.

In Woody Allen's 1973 movie, Sleeper, the protagonist woke up after
being frozen for 200 years, to find that saturated fats were health
foods. At the time the movie was made, that had already been
established (e.g., Hartroft and Porta, 1968 edition of Present
Knowledge in Nutrition, who showed that adequate saturated fat in the
diet helped to protect against the formation of lipofuscin).

PS:
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says 2004 has been the most
catastrophic breeding season on record for seabirds along UK coasts.
It says industrial fishing to supply fish meal and oil is barely
sustainable and imperils the whole marine food web.
"The UK has suffered serious seabird disasters this year already. In
Shetland and Orkney, entire colonies of birds failed to produce any
young because of severe food shortages. "On top of that, hundreds of
seabirds have been washing ashore having perished at sea. Again, lack
of food is thought to be one of the reasons." The report, Assessment
Of The Sustainability Of Industrial Fisheries Producing Fish Meal And
Fish Oil, was compiled for the RSPB by Poseidon Aquatic Resource
Management Ltd and the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

For references and more go to: http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml


author: MikeV

subject: Re: Chemical wars against arachidonic acid: Omega-3 including fish oil

text:
"Taka" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

MikeV (sighing quietly to self)
Has this poster no humility?
(I had realized that EFAD might cause  chronic obsessive compulsion, but
never imagined delusions of grandeur on this scale might be a side effect)
This person truly believes he stands head and shoulders above not just the
worlds professionals, but even above "we the (majority dumb) people' even
above several million years of the creator's natural selection.
When has there *ever* been such an ego? Makes note to self to check possible
EFAD histories of:  A.Hitler; N.Bonaparte; R.Nixon; G.W.Bush; G.Custer and
others.
And so to bed. yawns.


author: mike V

text:
"Taka" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Apr 16, 10:38 am, "MikeV" <[email]> wrote:

For references and more go to:
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml

Taka:

One point I forgot to make, (and  truly do not need to make, because it is
blindingly obvious from this thread), is that you and monty always make the
same extended, impassioned, extended, repetitive, wordy, repetitive
arguments against one that has never been made by me, and regardless of what
has been said.

That is the one for some vaguely defined sinner who is out there taking huge
unlimited quantities of LCPUFA supplements, and advocating, almost forcing,
the worlds innocents to do the same.
Just look at the massive posting to which this is a response. It is
excessive and uncalled for spiel against  positions that have never to my
knowledge been held by any of the more knowledgeable and intelligent people
who frequent this group.   I am thinking of matti narkia, mattLB, ron
peterson, and many others.
You appear to be a knowledgeable person, yet this same spiel has been
forthcoming for decades.
I want to know this: who EXACTLY are you trying to convince? Do you think
you are performing some huge public service? Tell us, please!

It would clearly be in the public interest for us to return to mutually
block posts after this. :-)
I well realize that reason and debate are not the currency here any more
than they are on ironjustice's threads.
Well at least I had my public say!

Mike V


subject:
Re: Chemical wars against arachidonic acid: Omega-3 including fish
  oil

text:
Taka wrote:

Taka:
Sorry if my so called sardonic humor hit a tender spot!

I do not personally advocate, since I am a *confirmed non expert*.
For my own choice, I prefer to eat a *natural diet that produces to the
best I can determine, results in a natural level of PUFA in the blood.

When I believe that this level is not forth coming, I try to correct it
to a natural level, by adjusting the diet, or by MODERATE  supplementation.
Although I try to avoid processed food, to the best I can determine I
moderate excesses by selecting vegetable oils (eg EVOO) to maintain a
moderate level of omega 6.

I should say that I have absolutely nothing against mead acid should it
appear naturally, or as a supplement if proven.

If I were ever to want to advocate something, (which I won't :-)) it
would be to suggest that anyone who acts on the belief that substituting
an unnatural diet for a natural one, for an unsubstantiated goal, may
well be ill advised.

For instance I would clearly not try to influence the natural diet of
one of the hunter gatherer tribes which may? still be surviving in
Indonesia, or South America, or Madagascar to eliminate the natural
levels of PUFA in their diets on the basis it would improve their health.

On this topic, I happen to think your style is often "tabloid" and
overstated (in the style  of some politicians) I guess that is your
privilege. I have no doubt that much of your basic data is correct. You
both seem to be totally enthralled with over correcting major PUFA
excesses in a group which is relatively well educated on the topic.

Perhaps there is a natural more moderate position to consider if you
will see it, where essentiality is of trivial concern.
*********************

Incidentally, I have noticed that endorsers of your "lets kill all the
PUFA" approach seem to have been staying away in droves, but perhaps I
overlooked them.
At least my feeble attempts at ridicule got your attention. Nothing else
did. If I have been offensive, all concerned have my apologies.

Mike V


author: Astronomer Extraordinaire

subject: Re: Where are centre of milky way, galactic pole and ecliptic pole?

text:
On 12 Sep 2006, "Heinz" <[email]> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&scoring=d&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=[email]&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=12&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2006&safe=off

Notwithstanding, I'll answer this anyway, since it's a fun topic...

Terrestrial right ascension/declination coordinates for any given
epoch of date is a far different animal from the relatively fixed
caelestial (ecliptic) coordinates referencing fiducial stars also
for any epoch of date, since these refer to different things. And
"exact" is a strong word. Achieving precision to tolerances within
a few milliarcseconds is better -- often far better -- than most
astronomers generally need. True caelestial coordinates refer to
the Earth's caelestial sphere, versus Earth's terrestrial sphere.
And you can convert from Earth-geocentric spherical coordinates
to Earth-centered, Sun-centered (heliocentric), or solar system
barycentric, Milky Way galactic-barycentric, super-galactic etc.
rectangular coordinates all day long. That's not the point here.

Realize, that our caelestial sphere is isotropic--the same in all
directions, generally speaking. A clear night sky is illuminated
as far as the unobstructed viewing eye can see, stars everywhere
you look! But because the planets of our solar system orbit with
the Sun approximately along our earth-sun plane, or ecliptic, it
is the most prominent and familiar constellations or grouping of
brighter stars in large formations (i.e. big asterisms) that are
best known by their zodiacal names Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer,
Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and
Pisces. Since ancient times, these "iconic" starlight formations
were commonly referenced to Aldebaranu(alTau)--eye of the Bull--
at 15 Tau -5 latitude, the de facto standard since ancient times;
and other fiducial stars, the Great Pyramid star of Orion's belt
marks the end of Taurus Alnitak(zeOri) always near 30 Taurus -25
latitude; and Regulus(alLeo) always near 5 Leo +O latitude, etc...

Referencing the prime fiducial Aldebaran 15Tau00'00.0000", thus
the standard moment of rest, the galactic barycenter(\sgrab) is
near, but not the same as, Sgr A* (02Sag03'07" -5:36'27" J2000).
There are websites on-line which reference these to RA/Dec, etc.,
since most modern-day astronomers don't reference ecliptic grid
coordinates any more. Next time Earth experiences a "pole shift"
or crustal displacement, survivors will assuredly see the light. :)

Near "31 Comae" in Coma Berenices. Google (verb, synonym for
generic Internet search using you favorite search engine[s])
for "galactic coordinates", etc. I bet you'll find it there.

Near "NGC 288" in Sculptor. Ditto.

Near the "Cat's Eye"(NGC6543) in Draco, which was 18Lib08'09"
+89:50'33" (J2000). Obviously, the ecliptic longitudes of such
references change significantly more than ecliptic latitudes,
owing to the slight short-term and greater long-term "wobble"
of the earth-sun plane for any calculable epoch of date.

Years ago, I charted and posted these nearly 1000 starlight-
references by their universal caelestial coordinates, to wit:

*The Twelve Constellations of Earth's
 Caelestial Zodiac for epoch (J2000):
 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=[email]
 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1S7H7HRY37633.235474537 <AT> Nyarlatheotep-frog.org

*The Eighty-Eight I.A.U. "constellations" on
 Earth's Caelestial Sphere for epoch (J2000):
 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=[email]
 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OHU57L4X37633.2354282407 <AT> Nyarlatheotep-frog.org

Near "et1Dor" in Doradus, which was 05Lib35'55" -89:11'29"
(J2000). It's easy enough to look these up for any epoch of
date in reference to any coordinate system of your choosing.
(Not like the old days, using trig tables, slide rules, etc.)

Hope that helps,
Daniel Joseph Min
___________________________________________________________

*Observing and Predicting Planetary Orbits
 (since man walked the face of the Earth):
 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=[email]

*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
 http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/

*Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (how smart are you, really):
 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=[email]

*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=[email]

*Min's Official PGP Public Key (MIT Keyserver compromised):
 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=[email]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA+AwUBRQbfGZljD7YrHM/nEQIK4QCWKwiDpzI6kyV9AdHYw87mo1yeMgCgja7d
1uGjAzIT7ndO8JQyKFJ10fs=
=DNM7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


author: Anonymous

text:
<<off-topic groups removed>>

To minnie, the right wing  religious asshole who everybody hates.

   You do seem to know a lot about astronomy, I'll grant you that.  So
why spam your off-topic political, and religious bull shit?  How can
a guy be so smart about astronomy, and so fucking ignorant and rude about
every fucking thing else?  You talk astrology, moon hoax, gods, what is
your primary malfunction, did you escape from the mental asylum?

   Religion and science do not mix.  Please stop it, or we will make
saa a moderated group.  Religious fanatics are ^not^ welcome here.  If
that means making saa moderated for "atheists only," then so be it.

   Back to lurker status.

Kip

---

In <news:[email]> . . .
Astronomer Extraordinaire <[email]> posted:


author: "Jem"

subject: Beam Expansion Question

text:
I have a 532nm laser with a beam diameter of 1.2mm at the point where I need
to place the spatial filter.  On the beams exit from the spatial filter I
need to expand the beam to 8" diameter at a distance of 22"

Question:

1. What magnification objective do I require to acheive this ?

2. What size pinhole do I require ?

If 1 & 2 don't apply, is it just impractical to acheive this sort of beam
diameter at such a short distance?

Many thanks for any help.


author: Phil Hobbs

subject: Re: Beam Expansion Question

text:
Jem wrote:

Do you want it to be collimated when you're done, or just spread out in
a cone?

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs


author: Dave Schaack

subject: Re: Beam Expansion Question

text:
"Jem" <Email not accepted> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Quite feasible to do this.  The focal length of your first lens would be 1.2
x (22/8) or 3.3 mm.  The focal length of your second lens would be 22
inches, of course.  The pinhole would be somewhere in the 2 to 5 micron
diameter range, depending on how much filtering you want.


subject: Re: Beam Expansion Question

text:
Hi

The idea is to acheive a collimated beam from a collimating mirror.

Thanks

"Phil Hobbs" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject: Re: Beam Expansion Question

text:
Jem wrote:

Please bottom-post--it makes the discussion much easier to follow.

For a hobby project, I'd probably suggest using a Fresnel lens for the
objective.  Since you started out talking about spatial filters, though,
I gather that you have a much more stringent requirement in mind.

When you say "collimating mirror", I presume you mean that you already
own a paraboloidal mirror, because you won't get good results from a
spherical mirror at f/2.8.  That's going to be a painful thing to align,
and will need a pretty substantial mount.  The coma and astigmatism of a
mirror rapidly become truly horrid as you move off axis, so with a
mirror design you'll need some sort of folding mirror to avoid blocking
the collimated beam with your laser and lens mount.  For a
low-performance design, you might be able to use a large flat mirror
with a hole drilled in it, but keeping good wavefront fidelity with a
thin mirror will be very tough, and a thick one will be expensive and heavy.

Spherical mirrors are pretty easy to use, because all you have to worry
about is tilt and spacing--there's no unique vertex on a sphere, whereas
on a paraboloid, there is.  Thus with a paraboloid there are 5
adjustments you have to make (xyz and two tilts), and they all have to
be right.  Furthermore, xy and tilt interact very strongly in a fast
paraboloid like that, so finding the right alignment is going to be hard
unless you're willing to make some serious test equipment.  Amateur
telescope makers do this, but generally not at f/2.8.  (I've never done
it myself, so others on this list can offer more details.)

Off-axis paraboloids avoid the obscuration problem, but are harder still
to align.   For these reasons one usually tries to use lenses where
possible, but lenses that big don't grow on trees, unfortunately.  A
small Cassegrain telescope would give you a nearly turnkey solution, and
its folded light path would allow you to use a smaller aperture, maybe
f/5 instead of f/2.8.  That's still pretty fast for a telescope,
though--most of them are f/8 or f/10.  So it looks like you're going to
have to build your own mount, which is not a particularly simple
undertaking.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs


author: Jem

subject: Re: Beam Expansion Question

text:
"Phil Hobbs" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Thanks folks

Phil, sorry for the top post last time, I will try harder, honest :-)

All I want to do with this is make a simple Denisyuk single beam holography
setup using a (as near as the size of my breadboard will allow) collimated
beam instead of a diverging beam.  I want to use the things that I have
laying around - I only have a small optical breadboard and I happen to have
an f/3 spherical collimating mirror.  This is simply an experiment for me
and it's not really that critical that everything is absolutely spot on.  I
was just wanting to compare the resulting hologram with those made with a
diverging beam.   So far I have only ever made simple single beam reflection
holograms and am just wanting to expand my horizons somewhat before I spend
more money and move on to multi beam setups on a larger breadboard/optical
table

For me, the fun is in building the setups and making the holograms, I try
not to get too tied up in the theory if I can avoid it ;-)

Thanks again

Jem


subject: Re: Beam Expansion Question

text:
"Jem" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

In my first answer, I told you how to fill the mirror with light.  Phil has
pointed out the problems with actually obtaining a well-collimated beam in
that situation.  However, first, you could underfill the mirror, say at F/10
or F/12, and experiment using the smaller collimated beam.  In that case,
You'd use a proportionally longer focal length lens to focus the beam on a
proportionally larger pinhole.  Keep the angle at the mirror as small as you
can, and you should obtain some useful results.


subject: Re: Beam Expansion Question

text:
Thanks Dave, I understand and appreciate you taking the time to reply.

Regards

Jem

"Dave Schaack" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: arron

subject: Re: Rutgers professor's number data Re: tree based agriculture

text:
A MINOR correction (MHA)
 --------------------- at one time it was said that only 3 to 5
 people understood Einstein theory and now everybody  THOUGHT HE does -


author: Scott Truesdell

subject: replacement antenna GPS-45

text:
I have an early Garmin GPS 45 the the antenna sustained damage in a fall
in rough seas -- it no longer sees any satellites even though it looks OK.
Reciever works fine with external antenna.

Garmin wants half the price of a brand new reciever just for a replacement
antenna. I wouldn't mind upgrading, but this little baby suits my needs
fine.

Any ideas?

  --scot


author: Vic Fraenckel

subject: Re: replacement antenna GPS-45

text:
How about searching eBay. I believe it is Consumer Electronics => Gadgets =>
GPS. You just might get lucky or decide to upgrade.

HTH

Vic