Sunday, July 16, 2006

Stem cells and the Catholic Church

Attack on the science behind stem cells by a prominant cardinal (Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo). One man!! CATHOLIC stem cell researchers could be banned from taking Holy Communion, relieved of church duties and even denied a church burial.

Head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Trujillo is the most senior Catholic official so far to proclaim on the morality of stem cell research. "Destroying human embryos is equivalent to an abortion," he said. "Excommunication will be applied to the women, doctors and researchers who eliminate embryos and the politicians that approve the law."

The arrogance and ego are too much, aren't they? Who does this man think he is to make such threats. God? Now that is arrogant!

It remains unclear whether Pope Benedict XVI supports Trujillo. Nor was it clear whether the threat applies only to researchers who destroy embryos to extract embryonic stem cells, or whether it extends to researchers who later work on the derived cells. Probably anyone he doesn't like. Me? I'm worried now.

Many scientists are horrified. Chris Shaw of King's College London, who has a licence to create cloned embryos to study motor neuron disease, says that if stem cell researchers are to be punished for "abortion", so too should Catholic couples who use the pill or intrauterine devices.

It sounds like disgusted would be a better word than horrified. Condemning very ill people to a worse future. Very compassionate for a man of God.

"This amounts to religious persecution of scientists," says Julian Savulescu, an ethicist at the University of Oxford. "Presumably God will be the one to judge the scientists, not Church leaders."

We are back to the days of Galileo. If the Catholic Church does not get its way then it plays with the life of the mature living. To deny beliefs after death? And to speak of destroying human embryos. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But not particularly surprising.

What are these people? Who do they believe they are to threaten such action "to get their way"?

A nuclear future?

UK energy review backs new nuclear power stations. The UK government's Energy Review swept aside objections from environmentalists and anti-nuclear campaigners by proposing a new generation of nuclear power stations.

A new generation suggests a new and improved version. Safer, perhaps. "A new generation of nuclear power stations could make a contribution to reducing carbon emissions and reducing our reliance on imported energy," UK Energy Secretary Alistair Darling told the House of Commons. "But it would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the costs of decommissioning and their full share of long term waste management costs."

Dodging the issue of environmentally poisonous. The NUCLEAR WASTE remember? And sounds like: at no cost to the taxpayer. But we will pay for it through the cost of buying energy. And it will be much, much more expensive that at the moment. Justifiction (sic): "it was the only way forward".

The government's review sets out its strategy for supplying energy while also tackling climate change until 2020. It also recommends financial measures that would increase the extent to which renewable energy technologies feed into the power grid. It will, for example, make wind and tidal power cheaper for electricity companies to use through subsidies. Sounds good, but it only represents a few % of the total. Will that be increased?

The UK is the world's fourth largest economy trailing after the US, Japan and Germany, and is re-examining the sources that feed its electricity grid because demand over the next decade is projected to exceed generation capacity. This so-called "energy gap" will emerge as old and inefficient coal and nuclear power stations are retired under measures the European Union is taking to cut carbon dioxide emissions in compliance with the Kyoto protocol (the US doesn't give a toss about Kyoto and never did).

Without reinvestment, this gap will add up to about one-fifth of the nation's requirements by 2015, according to the Carbon Trust, a UK organisation that helps companies cut their emissions.

Be careful: sounds like out with the old generation and in with the next safer, cleaner (and cheaper?!!) new generation.
The Energy Review opens the way for new nuclear power stations to replace those to be retired.

"This will ensure that nuclear energy continues to provide at least 20% of UK's electricity, which will otherwise drop to 6%," Darling warned.

Do you believe this? France generates 80% of its energy by nuclear means.

Speeding up the construction of the new nuclear power stations will include what may be highly controversial:

"streamlining" of the planning process to prevent local objectors delaying construction.

In other words, plans to steamroller through objections even if they are well-founded. Moving so fast that any court action would be circumvented.

This government knows exactly what it is doing. It can move swiftly and effectively enough when money is at stake (to everyone connected to the right business). Any other scenario, take time and "display" incompetence. This incompetence is deliberate. Misdirection. It's how the classic magician's trick always works.

Check out the planned dismantling of the NHS: through a "miscalculation, lose £700m (Hewitt), sack doctors and nurses (they make it work don't they - that's one reason to get rid of them), but keep the managers because they create failure. The public, ie taxpayer, is being conditioned to accept winding up the NHS as it's too expensive to keep.

But I digress...

"We'll be acting to ensure that energy companies, whether seeking to build gas storage facilities, wind farms or any other kind of large energy installation, are not faced with costly uncertainties and delay," Darling added. "Local concerns must be taken into consideration but the right balance has to be struck with the national need for our vital energy infrastructure."

Alternatives will be completely blocked,. Opinions supressed.

The review also makes a commitment to lowering the cost of using renewable energy sources for electricity companies. This will mean subsidising less widely used renewable technologies.

Sounds good, but they won't be there. They'll have been blocked.

UK electricity companies have an obligation to acquire 10% of their power from renewable sources by 2010. But above was made mention of 2015. Watch out for the spin and misdirection here.

They mainly opt for the cheapest option: onshore wind turbines. They'll be ridiculed as wind is not predictable, but nuclear power is.

What about off-shore? See below.

Do you get the hypocrisy again? Nuclear power. A nuclear power. You can trust us. We're British. The country that invaded Iraq illegally at the behest of Dubya (W), allegedly. An excuse to meddle in nuclear fuels. Sources of nuclear warfare. Like the depleted (or maybe not so depleted) uranium shells. The new method of conducting nuclear war without the nuclear bombs. Nuclear shells instead. The outcome is much the same as in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Just no tell-tale mushroom clouds.

The Carbon Trust last week urged the government to provide subsidies for the less successful and more expensive renewable technologies like offshore wind, tidal and solar power. With new investment, Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust says renewables could feasibly supply up to 13% of the UK's electricity by 2015 and 19% by 2020. This is close to the government's target of 20% renewables by 2020.

Answer that one Blair. And no spin. I have a spin detector and it sits next to my (bull)shit detector.

Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace in the UK, said: "This renewable push should be seen in the context of what it is: just a way of delivering new nuclear build." Parr also questions whether the investment community will be willing to pay to build, manage and handle waste from the nuclear power stations. He cites a report from Standard & Poor's, the credit ratings agency, which earlier in 2006 warned investors that cost overruns are "highly probable" on new nuclear power station projects.

I would say guaranteed.

"The headlines today might be about new nuclear build, but the devil will be in the detail," Parr adds. "There is a huge level of risk for anyone putting up the money for a nuclear power station and there is a distinct possibility the investment the government is seeking won't be there."

But, no doubt, the government on our behalf, as the taxpayers, will underwrite any cost differential. If, rather when, it all goes sour, the investors will get bailed out.

Win-Win scenario for investors.

We're in the process of being fucked yet AGAIN. And nobody seems to notice. There's none so blind as those that WILL NOT see.

Other environmental groups reacted negatively to the review:

"The idea that we are facing an enormous energy gap which only nuclear power can fill has been a classic piece of spin," said Keith Allott, head of climate change at the World Wildlife Fund. "Nuclear is a costly red herring and it will be the taxpayers who end up covering the costs of an uneconomic industry and future generations who deal with its legacy of radioactive waste."

Legacy provided for by Blair. The most disastrous PM since the IIWW.

Kevin Anderson, director of the energy programme at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK, said the review focuses disproportionately large-scale electricity generation. "There is no real action proposed to realise the substantial potential of alternative means of generating low-carbon power, such as micro-generation of electricity at the community-level," he said.

NB. Blair and Darling visited the wind farm at Kentish Flats last week (windfarm at sea) owned by a Swedish company, which produces enough energy to power 100,000 homes. It is the largest off-shore wind farm in operation with some 30 turbines.

Blair talks about protecting the environment. That, after backing the nuclear proposal. Hypocrisy? To the nth degree.

And then some.

I believe the nuclear path has ensured UK Ltd can legally stockpile nuclear sources. If not warmongering and selling arms is enough.

No, it's about greed.

Enough is never enough.

Why kill only one or two thousand when it's possible to murder a nation?

Carbon emissions again

By switching off street lights from midnight until dawn, Essex County Council will reduce energy consumption by up to one third, so reducing carbon emissions. So goes the spin. What will not happen is the reduced energy consumption will lead to reduced Council Tax payers' bills. This God called 'carbon emission' is a catch all phrase to exploit the situation and so 'spin' some money.

Israel does it again

It is difficult to imagine that the Israeli aggression against the Hizbollah and Lebanon is simply for a pawn or two. Soldiers of little status. Clearly, this is the justification (if it were ever needed) to launch such murderous action.

Department of Stealth

There must be a government department whose task it is to devise new 'stealth' measures. It's all become so transparent they don't care anymore. Make as much money as possible before they are finally rumbled and ...? Murdered? Killed? Guy Fawkes... where are you?

Smart electricity meters

Installation (about £200 payable by householders has been suggested) charges for smart electricity meters? Something like £8 billion overall? Of course, only those who own their own homes and nobody else. Who profits? The foreign owned utility companies.

Later retirement in old-age

Apparently, 16% of older employees are willing to work on to a later retirement age. So devastated have retirement finances been manipulated, the prospects of a very difficult retirement have persuaded people to become compliant and accept a reduced retirement period before a 'natural' death. The upside for government by this manipulation is far fewer years if old-age-pensioner status ever gets attained.

Remember this: how long before fat is taxed. Otherwise it is another essentially waste product.

Smokescreens and the House of Lords

Prescott looks more like the smokescreen every day. Now that the nuclear 'debate' has been steamrollered through, Prescott can now very conveniently be lost in the wilderness. He will dissolve into the House of Lords very quietly, followed by that hypocrite Blair.

Perhaps the only way his woman can ever become a Lady?

True cost of going nuclear - to whom?

Goverment 'greed' thinking: who will profit from a nuclear base? Certainly the construction industry will. And who owns that?

The 'mug' consumer who was never consulted, and never will be concerning this dreadful move, will pay a tax for an attempted clean up. This can never be done, but nuclear takes the pressure off restrictions using fossil fuels. The inevitable argument is that zero emission of CO2 means more can be used. This pomotes greater revenue from oil taxation and it will run out even faster.

Daily E*****s - nuclear is great

The argument put forward by a mouthpiece in The Daily E*****s about the nuclear power issue conveniently ducks the obvious very major downside. Environmentally clean nuclear power? Clean, based on only the CO2 zero emissions, totally ignores the radioactive waste issue. Environmentally poisonous. It is clear about the political leanings of this newspaper.

Absolute disgrace and at the sametime rubbishing Green Peace and anyone who dares to oppose madness. Corrupt thinking. A pathetic attempt at mind control.

As a waste product, there will be a tax on it eventually. The tax payer will pay to clear up the mess he had no part in 'pushing' through. Profits are siphoned off to everybody, EXCEPT the tax payer.

International. Global.

Nobel Peace Prize (2007)

Got it yet? Have you woken up yet?

Zidane is just misunderstood

So, Zidane has been made man of the tournament even after the disgraceful violent assault whether justified or not (off screen). In front of millions of viewers around the world and in front of his own president (Chirac). Shames the French nation. But then... the message clearly is that general conduct earlier was fine and so excuses the final act. Everything is all right then. All is forgiven.

Human Rights for murderers

How long will it be before an unconvicted murderer (before the trial is concluded) asserts a contravention of Human Rights as simply being accused of murder is such a violation. The paradox: when convicted such a violation cannot occur. This makes accusation with respect to any crime against people such a volation.

Gentle English - no more

In 1955 anthropologist Geoffrey Gorer wrote that "the English are certainly among the most peaceful, gentle, courteous and orderly populations that the world has ever seen." Not now in 2006. Why? It's illusory. The true English still are. It's just we are no longer the true English anymore.

Cameron loves hoodies

Pillock Cameron. Dangerous smoothie. Be nice to hoodies because they need to identify with being loved. Try: just prevent being identified.

Selling England by the Pound

Britain's energy industry is increasingly at the mercy of foreign gas suppliers. Perhaps this has something to do with selling off British assets to foreign owned companies. Genesis: Selling England by the Pound? Energy prices are no longer controllable (?), but Council Tax hikes are within government control. Reduce them or confirm that the long-term aim is to bankcrupt the British or at least the English people.

Capitalism is good - the 'new' mantra

The future is capitalism. Make as much money as possible and that's it. That's how the current younger generation is being insructed. It's good to fuck everybody else as long as you don't get fucked yourself.

Nuclear smokescreen

Back to the construction game again. Where do the contracts go? Where else, but the US, of course: Bechtel, Fluor and CH2M Hill. British Nuclear Fuels recently disposed of nuclear reactor specialist Westinghouse to Toshiba of Japan. Inept or calculated sale? Perfect timing in view of 'proposed' building. Sell the expertise and then buy back to build. So, who buys (British tax payer) and who provides? Design of this scenario is quite clear.

Prescott may well be an arsehole, but he makes a great smokescreen. A diversion. Nobody notices that they are being fucked!

Nuclear power goes ahead

The push for nuclear power has gone ahead to "unveiling plans" this week (09.07.06). This means a fait accompli. What someone wants (Blair and 'friends') they will get and let's fuck 'em all, chaps. The provision of nuclear simply defers the decision of what to do in 20 years from now. By then oil supply will be an even bigger problem, if there is any. But, make a huge profit now and, anyway, who cares about the future? Maybe there is more than is communicated. If there was a glut enough for 1000 years, then it might get difficult to justify high prices. However, start a war and create instability. That usually works. True figures can be massaged to tell a depressing story to 'soften up' the consumer. Who do you trust?


Property: prices and mortgage term both on the up

If property prices continue to escalate, the mortgage term will doubtless increase. This will make repayments manageable, but increase interest revenue skywards. The Building Societies and Banks still cannot lose.

Controlling Weblogs

Weblogs will be regulated soon in an attempt to prevent blogs revealing important news that would otherwise not be reported in the conventional way. This demonstrates the leanings of newspapers and their owners.

"Terrorism": the latest cash cow

Remarkable how terrorism has become a cash cow. The amount of money made by various organisations and governments with the rider of "terrorism" diverting any reasonable questions.

Legally endorsed illegal parking

Disabled parking: double yellow lines are usually painted to avoid obstructions. To allow parking anywhere that there are double yellow lines is stupid. A obstruction endorsed as legal.

Under-reporting carbon emissions

Emissions continue to focus on CO2, CO2, CO2 and ignore methane. This is deliberate diversion tactics. Greenhouse gases involve CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. The calculation works by governments adding together estimated emissions from individual sources. This estimate has always been accepted by atmospheric scientists (why?), but never independently audited. Who sponsors these scientists. Methane appears to be the major concern. Convincing evidence now exists to point the finger at the UK (92% more than declared) and France (47%). Concentrations can vary widely depending on factors like weather.