Canadian Wildfires: Some Real Info to Consider

 ** Many journalists do not have a huge background in general knowledge because of our culture of expertise over broad based knowledge.  Here is a bit of a cheat sheet that can be used to put the current climate change hype in perspective. The library  is much better for research than Google. Trending is not a value of. Knowledge. This is also written by someone who is experiencing the effects of these wildfires as well as the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens.  

Agenda driven politicians and younger scientists take the position that wildfires like these are the result of climate change because natural cycles for the planet take longer than they can remember. That does not make them climate change related but part of a cycle most of us no longer understand. 

 Take these notes into consideration before spreading the hype.

1. Forests are nature's automatic lamd reclaimers. Forests do not need to be planted by humans. Any piece of vacant land, no matter how small, which is located in a place with adequate rainfall (more than 30 inches generally) will produce woody brush and young trees within five years. Burned land often reaches this stage faster because of nature's design (too complicated to explain here)

2. All forests have a life cycle.  Soft woods such as pines may mature in 30 years but hard woods like oaks and maples may not reach maturity for 80 years. The more mature a forest the more likely they are to succumb to wildfires--its nature's method of regeneration. 

3. Pre-electricity, forests were cleaned of downed trees and brush by people who needed the wood for building materials, cooking, heathing, smoke houses etc. Without this mutually beneficial relationship, forests are more likely to become hotter and more dangerous if they start. Interestingly, mature trees can generally survive a ground level wildfire IF and only IF the amount of leaves and debris is minimal.  

4.  By protecting our forests, we abandoned long standing methods of keeping wildfires in check.  That is not a climate change factor. That was allowing environmental emotion to over take good sense.  

 

Now for the Air Quality Issue and weather

1. Yes, heavy smoke is not good for people but the human body is much more resilent than our healthcare system chooses to believe.  Please remember the Air Quality Index goes from 0 to 500. These fires rated upwards of 400.  Generally Air Quality numbers in the States are less than 50 which means that yes the air is free of smoke particles but also free of ground level oxygen compounds which animal life (humans, pets, farm animals and wildlife) need to stay healthy and alive.  

2. Its particles in the air that are instrumental in helping to form clouds. As the Northeast deal with chilly  temperatures during this smoke event, it is clear that everyday clouds would do the same thing. Less Sun. Cooler temperature. No a complicated concept. 

3. Particles are also instrumental in acceptable levels of humity.  While healthcare makes a big deal about high humidity and the effect on the heart, low humidity is just as dangerous for the overall body.  Dry air dires out lund tissue which keeps it from absorbing oxygen as easily as needed.  High humidity at least keep lung tissue moist. 

Conclusion:  Removing components of the atmosphere based on occasional and naturally occuring inconvenience is just ridiculous. the United Nations is spreading hype and not science . 

Hope this helps. 

Climate Change 2023: How AI (Artifical Intelligence) Has Already Fail Mankind With Incorrect Deductions

Please consider passing along this post to government officials and those in Congress. Certainly party politics is against any rational thought or action on either side. Perhaps if enough members see that the dangers of AI are in the here and now, they may back pedal and work together to avoid the worst. 

As Bill Gates pushes computer programing for everything from business management and transportation efficiency to solving climate change by keeping track of carbon emissions, there are those who disagree strongly with Gates' rose-colored glasses viewpoint of an invention that even he does not completely understand. These well educated people are sounding alarm bells about what might happen in the future (See ABC News Coverage link Below)

AI Leaders Warn the Technology Poses 'Risk of Extinction' like pandemics and Nuclear War

As factual as this article may be, this blog takes the position that AI has already done damage to society and unless mankind views this technology as nothing more than the tool it is, decisions may have already been made that will impact the World's population in ways we would never have thought possible. 

Consider these shortcomings of AI technology and see if you do not come away with a different perspective. 

* AI cannot compare apples to oranges. 

Currently, the worse example of this has been the forty-year scare scientists supported that led the World to believe the polar ice caps were melting. To AI one number is the same as any other.  In this case, AI was not smart enough to tell a Celsius number from a Fahrenheit one. 

Mathematically, this creates a 32 degree margin of error--more than enough to make it look like the World is heating up and the ice caps are melting  

In short, AI's support for global warming studies are likely bogus because the AI used is faulty.

* AI has a language barrier.

In the same way that a Google search brings up Ranch dressing along with Bandaids (Search topic: Wound Dressing), asking a computer to interpret the meaning of words across national boundaries and historical time periods, is more than most people can manage. Only with a strong education in history, science and the evolution of certain words, can we really understand what was meant. 

Take for example the belief that John Tyndall determined that carbon based gases kept the planet warm. He did test the ability for CO2 to hold heat and he did study the effects of what he called "radiation" on heat production. Only when you look back at his actual work do you realize he never tested the effect of the sun on gases and what he called "radiation" was the type of heat you get by running hot water through a metal box--what we now call a "radiator".  

AI strung similar words together that allowed scientists to postulate that fossil fuels were bad for the World and that it had been proven over 100 years ago.

Remember this technology didn't prove the planet was heating up so how can it prove that carbon based gases are the culprit? It also could not tell the difference between a heat producing wave of energy from the Sun and a metal box that got warm when hot water was run through it.   

In short, AI does not understand its conclusions. It only understands that it completed the task which it was required to do.  Mankind chooses to take these findings as fact rather than use his own power of thinking.

*AI focuses on details not the big picture. 

For the better part of the last 15 years the Obama and Biden administrations have gone all in on the theory of Climate Change.  Even to the point of rewriting textbooks and spending huge amounts of money on poorly tested green energy sources, these two Presidents have focused on a tiny detail in the Climate Change phenomenon and potentially put this country on a a road to widespread health issues for its residents.  

 Does that sound ludicrous. Yet, it is quite possible. You see, the question should not be how to deal with increasing carbon dioxide levels but what will happen to animal life as green energy reduces ground level oxygen around the world. The risk of extinction grows with every day that electricity replaces fossil fuels. 

Here's Why

 It is quite true that oxygen is one of the most common elements on the planet but it is also one of the most used. The complication is that not all breathable oxygen remains at ground level where wildlife and people can access it easily. This form of oxygen is only released by burning fossil fuels and growing plants. 

What Ai cannot understand, and tries to ignore, is that human beings have survived for five thousand years because of their strong partnership with fossil fuels.  While AI can make life without air pollution look doable, the bottom line is that there is no backup plan for a World without burning.  Wildfires, volcanoes and yes automobile exhaust and coal fired boilers redistribute oxygen, sulfur and water vapor in a way that is both efficient and automatic. A planet without that system of natural recycling would cause a sudden drop in animal populations (including humans) until the cannot sustain a species as needy as humans. Wildlife may be able to adapt but humans could no longer live in highly populated areas made of concrete and steel. 

 *Green Energy Doesn't Work

 It is commendable that President Joe Biden is dedicated to what he believes is the right way to handle climate change.  General George Custer had similar strength in his convictions in regard to the Indian crisis of the Wild West. Biden is in the same type of battle against odds that are overwhelmingly against him. One can only hope he has better advisers than Custer. 

Since 1970, the Federal government has restricted five components of air pollution.  They are, instead, the five gases/particles that keep this planet healthy and happy. Even the Air Quality Index is backwards. Who could have thought a day without oxygen was "Excellent".  

If Biden continues to believe in this fantasy laced concept created by a form of Artificial Intelligence that doesn't realize 8 billion people and trillions of wildlife need oxygen each and every day to live, then we have no hope but to mask up, not with gas masks or viral protection but with oxygen tanks and tents. 

Other things you can do to combat misinformation from Artificial Intelligence.

• Burn some trash
• Burn Candles or incense
• Plant evergreen shrubs for year round oxygen production
  
• Avoid cutting down trees/bushes
• Use charcoal instead of gas for your burgers
• Use gasoline for equipment and vehicles. Skip electric, ethanol, or natural gas.
  

Stra

 

 

 

 

It is quite

Medical AI: How Blood Test Technology Proves AI will NEVER Work (Sorry Bill)

Corrected: 3/29/2023

Even if you haven't been waiting on the Age of Aquarius since The 5th Dimension made the theme popular in 1969, the movement of Pluto out of the capitalistic sign of Capricorn and into the free thinking sign of Aquarius has the technology industry buzzing with anticipation.

Not to give up an opportunity to postulate a future dependent on the computer, Bill Gates has published a relatively brief (7 pages compared to a whole book) list of predictions to ride the wave of astrological fortune telling. Likely more for the purpose of finding backers than civic responsibility, Gates, as so many others have, see this time as an "explosion" of good fortune rather than a re-evaluation of the profiteering pattern of the last 15 years. In the end, it will be Gates' desire for wealth that will fly in the face of Pluto's entry into Aquarius.  

Since one can not argue with the future, it will be the purpose of this article to show how the great advances that Gates is so quick to tout may be just smoke and mirrors like a magician's show.  After all, the invention of the hammer to replace the rock was probably see as something no one could top.

Blood Tests: Accurate, Worthless or A Computer-Generated Trick

Let's take a look at the widespread use of blood tests and monitoring as an example of how current AI is is used. 

The assumption is that these tests make health professionals job both easier and more accurate. . That may not be how it really works and because such tests are used almost exclusively, they may also be worthless in the long run.  We may yet find out that all this is just a distraction from what really ails this Earth and in that case, these tests will be just a slight of hand trick to grow an economy that is bloated and unhealthy in its own right.

How the Tests Were Created

While blood is certainly an important part of animal anatomy, our belief that it is a window to the inner workings of the body may be simplistic. Not only must blood cells do their job at high speed but they must also do it continuously and sometimes with limited resources.

Blood tests are based on mathematical criteria that is assigned randomly based on what people believe to be healthy.  In this way, software makers standardize a system that instead should be very intimate and person.  Recommendations are made based largely on the narrow limits of the data analysis.   In reality, when professionals take these tests at face value and coding doesn't look past the math, serious errors can be made.What appears to be a logical and sound decision making process is little more than sorting figures because of their similarity and not the patients specific health needs.

How the Circulatory System Works

All to often, even in higher education, the circulatory system focuses on the heart and not how the blood does the important work of distributing and collecting nutrients through the body.  In fact, had the focus been on the relationship between blood and cells rather than the heart, Science would have long ago realize it isn't the body that wears out but our environment which has become compromised.

Remember, the human body is designed to survive and that requires some hard choices when the environment doesn't provide what it needs.  For that reason, the composition of your blood is continuously changing. Every breath you take, every bite of food and medicines, every emotion and every activity changes the nutrient levels of your blood. So why  do we believe one blood test a year is adequate to make all health care decisions?

While set up to survive, the body also has the limitation of keeping all cells equally supplied. In order to do that task, blood steals from healthy cells and gives to damaged ones. With out proper environmental support, the body becomes increasingly less healthy, overall. Medications are treated like food and go where the body chooses, not specifically where they were intended. Here is were blood tests and monitoring can mislead a patient  Consider thesse situations.

1.Cholesterol is produced by the body any time a diet is too rich in carbohydrates (any plant based food). Yet, healthcare  recommends such a diet then prescribes a Statin to reduce cholesterol. Because of how blood handles Statins, other fats may be attacked leaving the patient with muscle weakness or brain fog.

2. Restricting salt is recommended. Too little salt can cause bladder incontinence, mental health issues, irregular heart beat, high blood pressure and pain. But healthcare providers stand by that recommendation and prescribe other medications to deal with the side effects of a diet too low in salt.

3. Sulfur, a primary component in insulin, is required for many other body functions. Yet sulfur is not tested for.  Rather than test for a sulfur deficiency which would help the body as a whole, providers choose to focus on blood sugar only leaving blood to continuously recycle the mineral from one place to another in the body.  When sulfur gets too low, a person might experience thinning hair, skin irritations, difficulty conceiving, and early arthritis.  

Add monitoring equipment for blood sugar or activity levels and the robotic instructions for keeping numbers in line can lead to a one-size-fits-all lifestyle that keeps people from achieving their own destiny. 

Why True AI is NEVER Going to Happen?

Hopefully, you are beginning to see that current AI is not really artificial intelligence but the method by which society is made to conform economically.  Computer records and tests are today's weapons  much like a guns and violence were used in the early days of this country. They limit free thinking and keep us lock in an inefficient system of political chaos.

Power is wielded through current systems of AI which manipulate data, make decisions along limited lines and steer the future in a particular direction.  Not until AI has the ability to evaluate thoroughly, speak openly and discuss decisions broadly will true AI be possible.  While certainly welcome in a Aquarian Age, giving up the computer as a tool of oppression seems unlikely for modern man. 

The one outcome that is likely in the next twenty years is for us to realize the computer had a hand every social, political, economic and environment crisis in the last several decades. Being able to see these issues clearly will be the greatest gift the World can get from the Age of Aquarius. 

 

 

 

 

First Amendment Rights: The Difference between Journalists and Civilians

Based in an elementary school history lesson, America's image of Freedom of Speech is a mixture of romanticized legend (Federalist Papers, Tombstone Epitaph for example) and irresponsible behavior by those who wield words like guns.  

If you think that is a questionable comparison, let's see how it works.  

Most gun owners keep their firearms well secured and use them only when necessary. It is the overblown concept of 2nd Amendment Rights or  Freedom to Bear Arms that convinces people the Constitution protects and permits their inappropriate use. The 2nd Amendment was never about ultimate power but a necessary protection for hunting food, and protection from natural (rabid animals, Indians, predators) as well as criminal activity.  It was given because in the early days of this country, the government provided no police force or paid army.  A civilian accepted the responsibility of protecting his family and in return the government allowed all people the tools needed to do so.  

Freedom of Speech/Press was offered in the same manner - a civilian right to allow discussion of varied ideas in order to get the best of a community mindset.  It was NOT intended to control the narrative for profit as it does today. 

Like a gun, each person can elect to keep his words locked up and use them only when necessary or use them indiscriminately with harm and carelessness.  That is an individual protection and when misused can be punished in the same way that misuse of a firearm can be handled. 

But today's media is a group of people and companies with a single goal of providing information that people like rather than that which is dry and factual. As individual citizens, reporters have rights. As employees those rights are negated and replaced with a civic responsibility to act ethically and objectively regardless of position or salary amount. 

Sloppy Reporting Undermines Good Government

The election of George Santos and others such as The Squad, Marjorie Taylor Green and Madison Cawthorn should not be laid on the shoulders of voters but on the advertisers and media that clearly published erroneous information then stood behind the First Amendment to escape backlash. At one time, journalists were smart and mindful of the role they played in educating a diverse public. They understood the information they presented and felt the need to explain rather than simply post a piece of fluff. 

Today, America limps along with an unethical government focused on wealth rather than quality of life.  The media that was supposed to call out such a government has become its twin and seeks wealth even to the point of misleading the country.  

In the absence of good leadership and quality reporting, there is no choice but regulation to limit the level of misinformation.  

Political Reform 2023: The Constitution May Not Allow It. Here's Why?

**Please note: This post is not intended to support extremist viewpoints of either party but to explain how and why our government may not work as well as we would like. These words also do not support Putin in his handling of the Ukraine and Crimean Wars. Since the break down of the Soviet Union, there has been one primary sticking point with Russia.  It is now--as it was before WWII--a country without a year round port.  Instead of sending billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, would it not make more sense to come up with a long term plan that addresses such trade. As it says here, our federal government can only use money or might to solve problems . Shouldn't Biden lead by example and show American citizens how to work with people he doesn't like or accept.  Peach is not based on military muscle but on the feeling that people are safe.  

The Suez Canal was just such an enterprise. Spend billions on creating a frost free canal system that would serve Russia and other countries along that mountain range.  The UN was supposed to be the peace maker but it is busy fighting climate change.  Someone is going to have to blink. 

 "Draining the Swamp" is just the latest catch phrase for political reform. Many  

citizens, from both parties, feel that our current government lacks something--a heretofore undefined quality that will turn it into the ethical, efficient, and collaborative system in which we believe. Yet, change never seems to come, no matter how loud the rhetoric or strong the voter support.

The excuses are many, The old block change and the young rush into decision making without thinking. Politicians lack the moral fiber to sidestep corruption and special favors and, of course, there is a a two-party election system which does not adequately reflect the diversity of a large and vibrant country. Are any of these factors really to blame or is it something else that shackles American government into a series of big plans and divisive protections that simply creates chaos? Perhaps it's time for the young and old in Congress to look beyond age and party affiliation before it wastes another two years doing little more than campaigning for 2024. 

Constitution 1.0

While this country does a good job of hanging with the big boys in global politics, one has to remember that it is still operating on its Constitution 1.0.  Countries like Egypt, India, China, Japan and even those in Europe have a political history that spans thousands of years. Unlike the US, each had a monarchy which gave up total authority for representative government.  To them, our two hundred plus years of experience is nothing. Why is it that Americans feel that their founding fathers had all the answers--even to questions that had not yet been asked?

What was Our Early Government LIke?

To often, our vision of the past is simple and based, at least in part, on fable.  We believe our country to be founded by those who stood up for their rights against the Crown and then developed a system of government that is envied by other nations around the world.  

That perception might be just a tad off.

Here are some interesting tidbits that give a different view of what our early government was actually like. (National Archives source)

1. Early on, the colonies were governed by a well-defined system of local and regional offices that were based on English, French or Spanish law. There was no need for an overseer as most operated independently, even from their home countries.  Today, those structures remain much the same as they did back then.

2.  The First Continental Congress was not for the purpose of gaining independence but for dealing with foreign affairs, trade and tariffs.  Not all the colonies saw a need for centralized authority and one colony did not send representatives this go around.

3. A year or so later, the Second Continental Congress began meetings with a recorded 56 members in attendance. The group meet as needed but without authority from the colonies.  It would be fifteen months after British forces began engaging the colonists that this Congress would finally declare its intention to leave British control.

4. The Declaration of Independence was drafted by a committee of five and ratified by all representatives over a three day period of time.  Not all members of that Congress signed the document reportedly because of a delay in getting the final copy ready.

5. Continuity was a problem. More than a third of the signors of the Declaration of Independence would not participate in the forming of the new government (nine died, some could not attend for personal reasons). Ages varied between 26 and 81. The first version of  government was approved during war time but not set in motion until 1781 when the colonies finally approved the measure and agreed to come together as a unit.

6.  After several years of disorganization, a Constitutional Convention was called in 1787 for the purpose of amending the original Articles. New members brought new perspectives. Debating in closed session for three months, a new Constitution was finally drafted, signed and sent on to the states.  It would be a year before the 2/3 majority was reached and operations begun.  The document would not be ratified by all 13 colonies until 1790. 

7. From 1776 through April of 1789, this country operated, as it had before the War, without a strong centralized government. George Washington, one of the constants throughout the 15 year process to develop this government accepted the position of President.  Other founding members of this government, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc) would act as its first Presidents.

But did this sporadic effort result in an effective and functioning authority that secured the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the way we have been told.

Is Constitution 2.0 Needed?

From the comfort of a computer screen, a general theme runs through the Federal government from beginning to end. At the outset, it needs to be remembered that the US did things backwards. 

It might not have seemed important at the time, but this group of colonies had no common identify on which to bond. While other countries had their revolutions and abolished the monarchy as the head of state, each remained intact as a result of a common cultural background and loyalty, not a specific faith in the new governments.

For the United States, the process of taking authority away from those that had maintained order for a hundred years or more required more negotiation and lower standards than if it had started with a strong centralized government. Even today, patriotism tends to be for its military more than its leaders.  

Here are more similarities:

• The states still manage daily life often without appreciation. 
  
• Authority is still taken from states creating an adversarial political divide. 
• What Washington can do is limited to war/defense and wealth/trade/commerce. 
• The quality of representation is still inconsistent and ever changing. Remember there are no required job skills to be elected and roughly 85% of Congress is up for election every two years. (ex. A teacher must be college educated, licensed, have a background check and tested for TB before they can be hired yet they have no staff and make about 25%  of a Congressional salary)
  
• The size and diversity of the country lends itself to favoritism and discrimination between the states.  Federal policies often take sides in boundary or commerical disputes
  

Ironically, the Federal government is doing exactly what it did when it started and continues to work within the existing Constitution.  It is unlikely that political reform will be possible without a constitutional overhaul.

The Future

Delving into the actual workings of the early Federal government did offer some insight into how and why fovernment operates as it does.  Remember, there are only two main purposes of this body.  The first is to defend the country and the second is to facilitate trade and commerce.  

Two hundred years ago, there was no stock market and the federal government was a shell of what it is today.  As government has grown, it has had to justify its existence.  That means going to war against anything and everything while making money doing it. (Battling an uneducated workforce with student loans) Think about it. Is Climate Change real or is it like communism, a great threat that never seems to materialize. (There are currently five countries that are labeled communist, yet none have successfully incorporated that ideology into their lifestyles--per Encyclopedia Britannica) Why does Biden fear a form of government that is nothing more than a theory? Because without a perceived threat citizens would begin to question why we pay taxes. 

The same goes for commerce. By constantly changing the rules (minimum wage, emissions standards, and required healthcare), the United State would not be seen as one of the richest countries in the World. Is being a citizen of a rich country worth it when half of your salary is drained away with taxes and mandated services.  Maybe not?

Unfortunately, what this country needed two hundred years ago was leadership that would bring it together. Instead, it has further divided its citizens by defending some and abusing others. Will the Federal government tear the country apart just so that it can put it back together again (Make America Great Again or Build Back Better)

Note:Only when citizens stop seeing the World as something to fear will the Feds have to rethink its purpose.  Maybe it is time to rewrite Congress' job description with Constitution 2.0. The states can do that regardless of what Washington wants.

 

 

 

 

SNAP Reform: Iowa Does It Right. Food Snobs SO VERY Wrong (A FACS Teacher Explains)

** Update:  February 2023: the Food and Drug Administration has approved new labeling for milk alternative that allow it to be sold as "MILK".  Likely an effort to circumvent restrictions in WIC standards, this move is also another way for the Biden Adminstration to slip in climate change efforts under different labels.  Nutritionally using these products increases the likelihood of Type 2 diabetes and weakens immune systems without complete proteins. As a whole, a plant-based diet takes more land, more storage, and more transportation than other diets.  So, from an economic standpoint, Biden's measures make climate advocates happy, support crop farmers while under cutting the dairy industry, and of course, grow the health care and pharmacuetical industry by making everyone sick.  And people think its all about the money. 

 On October 27, 2022, this blog published The Farce of Food Insecurity: How Federal Spending Fosters Hunger (and illness) in America which exposed some pretty harsh realities how food is used to grow an economy rather than feed citizens.  The following post will explain how wrong Obama-era food program were particularly for low income families and children.  

Within a few days, those internet advocacy news rags that pounce on political stories with little or no research will be experiencing some digestive distress after calling out Iowa's state proposal of some badly needed reform to the SNAP food assistance program  In the end, these "cruel" (therawstory.com) measures are going to make those who voted in the affirmative look both knowledgeable and fiscally responsible.  Sources such as Salon , The Raw Story , and even  Business Insider will have to eat their words when science proves these changes to be good for citizens as well as at a lower cost to tax payers. 

 

Contributing to the inflation that has elevated food prices for over two years, the sad, and rarely acknowledged truth, is that Federal Food Assistance dollars regularly purchase items that have no food value (diet drinks, almond milk,etc.), and, high dollar splurges such as premium cuts of meat, imported out of season fruits and vegetables and high glycemic snacks that contribute to type 2 diabetes and childhood obesity. 

Perhaps this will be the first step in squashing the "fresh food snob" mentality that has kept quality foods and hunger relief from those who receive benefits.

Started by former First Lady Michelle Obama, the unreasonable expectation of providing fresh food on a daily basis for school lunches was a pipe dream from the beginning. Anyone working in agriculture and around food service understands all too clearly that mankind did NOT survive for five thousands years on fresh fruits and vegetables.  To believe it is possible even in a global economy is simply naive. 

Before further explaining what the bill likely says, readers need to recognize that fresh foods are largely unregulated, highly prone to food contamination, spoil easily, cost more, and are not  tested for food value. Frozen and canned foods have most of the prep work done for you and are tested regularly for quality. In short, NO ONE should be buying fresh food when a canned or frozen food option is available (except eggs).

**ONE MORE THING: Good nutrition is not about how fresh a food is but about how much food can be purchased for a dollar.  By banning the expensive options, lawmakers make MORE food available at a lower cost.  Good nutrition starts with good shopping.

Let's educate readers (and journalists) as to what foods are REALLY banned. 

American Cheese (Food) - Likely shortened by a writer who has not idea what it is American Cheese and American Cheese Food are two different things.  The American Dairy Association has been trying to get the USDA to heavily regulate the use of cheese food for decades.  Consisting of less than 50% milk, cheese food is mostly fat and offers little or no protein to children who like its single slice packaging. If it's slices come wrapped in plastic look elsewhere because that is the sign of a low quality food. 

White Bread - Long on the list of low quality foods, white bread is used far more than it should be in low income lunches.  Tortillas, flat bread or even crackers make a better energy source.  Sure to cause your blood sugar to spike unless you are very active.

Fresh Meat - This is a legal term used for exports as well as retail grocery sales. Fresh meat DOES NOT mean all meat but only that meat which is cut and package but never frozen.  Frozen and canned meat options have come a long way since the days of Spam (the food) and Treet (its competitor).  Top quality beef, chicken, pork and turkey can be found in one pound cans that only need to be reheated. The cost is likely half of fresh and some can be as low as $1.00 per 4 oz serving (think Quarter Pounder).  Frozen chicken breasts, fish, and sausage add variety in a way fresh meats cannot.  

** This is the extent of the highlights most sources mentioned. Here are a few others that might also be added to the list. 

High Water Beverages - From diet drinks to Hi-C and Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice Cocktails.  Many beverage makers sell sugar water as foods.  Lining the shelves these products take the place of 100% juice products.  The profit margin of these drinks is enormous. 

Deceptive Snacks - Everyone deserves a piece of candy or a good chocolate chip cookie once in a while but items like granola bars and fruit snacks sound healthier than they are.  Expect to see a few of these items banned. 

Chips - Contrary to some dietary advice, potatoes chips offer a good supply of essential sodium and potassium.  Other chips like Cheetos, Doritos, corn chips and pretzels are in the same basic category as flour and white bread.  

WARNING - Finally a word of warning about how some websites are using this new item to raise money for questionable charities promising to feed children.  The USDA school lunch program is one of the most comprehensive food access programs there are to children of all ages, rich or poor.  Each lunch meal must provide approximately half of all the calories a child needs in a day. If they eat breakfast as school there access is up to about 80% of needed calories.  It might not be the food they want to eat but to say charities are supplying money to federal school lunch programs is likely fraudulant.  Think twice before you give. The local food bank is the best way to support your neighbors who need help. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atmospheric Rivers: How Urban Infrastructure Contributes to Weather's Desperate Measures

**Update: California has had record breaking rain and snow fall in the weeks after this article was originally written. NBC News did a short piece confirming that modern infrastructure wastes as much as 80% of the water Southern California receives in a year. These wasteful improvements were and continue to be promoted by the Amry Corp of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. Protecting the environment is not the goal. Protecting economic development and wealth are.  Had California been set up to capture is rainfall instead of send it back to the oceans, its drought would have been over long ago and other states would not have had to give up water to support California. 

______________________________

For all the hype, neither scientists nor journalists do a good job of explaining weather events. What they now label as an atmospheric river is not a new phenomenon but one that has been predictable and understood for centuries. With a bit of clear communication, this belief that the Earth's climate is changing might resolve itself in short order.

What is an Atmospheric River?

The jet stream (the way weather flows around the planet) has always moved along the same west-to-east path in the northern hemisphere. In like fashion, the southern hemisphere has a similar east-to-west flow.  Nothing has changed in that regard. 

What seems to have changed is the volume of water in the atmosphere, although concerns based on historic records is a bit dishonest since detailed records are rare and unverifiable. So if the jet stream has always been the train tracks for global water distribution, then what has change that requires such drastic action by current weather patterns.

At this point it is good to remember that those with the power to make great changes to the human experience rarely understand HOW their actions will impact the environment.  With only themselves to answer to, they assume their choices are safe and  effective for the planet.  Human initiated change is a much more likely culprit for causing drastic weather as we will see.

So What Has Change to Cause Atmospheric Rivers

Climate change anxiety is based on the premise that the environment is the same and only weather has changed. That is fundamentally false. Every scientific study or media report that compares similar historical numbers is breaking the first rule of Scientific Inquiry - Control all Variables. In other words make sure you are looking at the big picture instead of jumping to conclusions to get on the evening news or be more opular in the right political circles.

Think about it. A hundred and fifty years ago, all energy was based on the use of fossil fuel, now considered to be the cause of climate change. Does that make any sense at all?

There was no large scale use of electricity. Wind and water were only used for specific mechanical applications such as steam engines and gear-driven machinery.  ALL other energy used for heat, cook stoves and lights came from some form of carbon emitting fuel source.  If it didn't destroy the planet in the previous 5000 years of recorded history, why would it suddenly cause problems now? 

While the move to electricity is the primary environmental change that has occurred over the last 150 years, there are others that have also taken a toll as well.

For this post we will look at how improving urban life worked against Nature's way of hydrating a sustainable land mass.  Maybe then we can all see that a small change in our behavior can make a big change in planetary health.

Urban Infrastructure's Hidden Environmental Costs

Since California seems to be at the center of whether today's weather is normal or a sign of ecological disaster, we will use that location for this explanation. 

Certainly, the early days of San Diego and San Francisco had their challenges. The problem of too many people and not enough water has never been overcome. Sanitation is another ongoing challenge.  But, could this be a man-made problem and not a natural one? 

Back then, short  rain showers washed away the smell of animal waste and open sewers.  Ditches, cobble stone streets and brick or plank sidewalks allowed the rain to soak into the ground and do the job Nature intended.  Cisterns and rain barrels collected water for washing and other uses. Well water was used sparingly. All was good  until it wasn't.

With more people and heavier traffic, dirt roadways needed constant maintenance.  Paving stones and wood planks were used in some areas but eventually a mixture of tar and gravel offered a hard surface that was water resistant and durable. With public water, indoor plumbing and underground sewers soon to follow, water conservation was quickly passe. Now, concrete and asphalt separate rainfall from the ground it is supposed to reach.

But for all their efficiency, what these improvements did to the environment could not have been anticipated.  As California and other parts of the United States deal with strange weather and geological events, laying blame on carbon gases seems more finger pointing and desperation than scientific proof.  Isn't it time to fess up and admit mankind put comfort ahead of environmental protection.  Now with eight times the global population, nature simply cannot carry the burden of as urban locations make it harder.

Rainfall: The Unwanted Necessity

It has been a hundred years since California persuaded the Federal government it was economically necessary to take water from a river  approximately 300 miles away. The Federal government complied and built the Hoover Dam to solve California's water problem.  But what was California's water problem? Was it really a lack of rain or was it how they managed the rain they got. Now we do the math.

Here's how it works.  

For every inch that falls, 17.4 million gallons of water is distributed over each square mile of land (www,weather.gov). Happening over several hours, the process is very effective and without danger to property or life. Urban infrastructure, however, blocks such rainfall from getting to thirsty ground and instead sends it back to the oceans without much benefit.   Can this simple wasting of water REALLY make a difference to the environment? Obviously science does not think so or the Environmental Protection Agency would have banned it decades ago.

For the purpose of exploration, let's assume that California's cities send half of their annual rainfall back into storm drains and out to sea within a few hours of it falling. Exactly how much of an impact can there be?  Here's your answer.

*San Diego - With annual precipitation of about 10 inches, losing 5 inches would cost the city proper 87 million gallons per square mile. The city of SanDiego is 372 square miles in size so the amount of rainfall lost into the ocean in one year is approximately 32.4 BILLION gallons.  if you add a frugal 100 gallons of water per person per day to the flow, SanDiego flushes just less than 78 billion gallons of water back into the ocean each and every year.   That's enough water to provide each resident with half a million bottles of water annually. (please check the math because it seems a bit unrealistic to me too!)

* SanFrancisco City - Even though SanFransisco proper has a much smaller footprint and population, its annual rainfall amounts are 2.5 times that of SanDiego.  Annual rainfall loss would be 9.75 Billion gallons.  Daily wasted water at 100 gallons per resident would add another 30 billion gallons for total water loss of approximately 40 billion gallons or 3.3 million bottles of water per resident per year.  (again, feel free to check the math)

Certainly, these figures seem too large to be factual but this is simple math and not computer manipulated data.  Could these examples indicate that storm drains, sewers and erosion control, while an important part of urban growth, may be a contributor to the drought conditions that nag the state. Doesn't it seem that the discussion needs to turn towards civic responsibility for water management and away from current climate rhetoric that allows bad environmental habits to continue and fester? But then blaming a tiny molecule which can't defend itself does seem a good political maneuver to distract citizens from the truth.

Nature's Response

Divergent thinking always has value.  Let's look at this from Nature's perspective. If every coastal community in the world, unnaturally forces billions of gallons of water back into the seas could this explain why they appear to be rising even though the polar ice caps remain comfortably below freezing.  Can mankind not see that leadership's obsession with building an artificial lifestyle is at the heart of Nature's desperate measures to rehydrate every continent. 

The Threat of Old-School Infrastructure

At the beginning of this piece, we talked about what had changed in the world. For those not up on their history, it was called the Industrial Revolution and along with world wars and global economic woes, it has been 150 years of changing the environment to suit one species -- humans.  Now, we need to decide if we are smart enough to keep the lifestyle while adapting it to be environmentally friendly.

Unfortunately, President Biden, and several others before him, see infrastructure as being the same as what it was in the late 1800s.  Creativity, problem solving and forethought have no place where the economy makes the rules.  Perhaps the greatest gift the environment will get over the next two years is political gridlock. 

 Environmentally sound infrastructure is not hard. Consider these options, not just for coastal cities but for all communities. 

1. Recycle gray water (dirty water that has been used but not contaminated) by having property owners install drain fields or plumbing for washing cars, watering the lawn, etc. Why use potable water for anything but personal use and food. Change will also come faster if individuals take the lead rather than wait for decisions to be politically sanctioned.

2. Encourage plant growth from which water evaporates to increase humidity levels reduce atmospheric volatility. Air can only retain so much moisture. Dry air is a great place to dump huge amounts of water from the atmosphere.

3. Revert to septic tank use for new construction so that water is continually returned to the ground and underlying bedrock.

4. Use gray water for public use such as fighting fires, washing planes and runways, operating steam driven boilers and machinery.  Using potable water for such operations not only is expensive but questionable for the environment. Nature loves its dirt. 

That's enough thought for one day.  Look for some more postings to get politicians to think first and spend last.  Good luck Mr. McCarthy.