Weekend reflections

Weekend Reflections is on again. Please comment on any topic of interest (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). Feel free to put in contributions more lengthy than for the Monday Message Board or standard comments.

10 thoughts on “Weekend reflections

  1. John – I’ve just read the Long Tail article in the Fin. I enjoyed it. I’ll re-read it when I’m less tired.

    I’m curious as to why your blog isn’t namechecked at the end along with your details. Especially in this case when blogs were mentioned. Is it oversight, churlishness? I think Paul Monk’s website always gets a mention.

  2. Senator Gustavo Petro, leader of Colombia’s main opposition party, on Bush’s vist to the country and tour of Latin America this week:

    “I was accused of being a terrorist, because I was telling the truth, because I was helping to unveil one of the darkest stories in Colombian history, the relationship between the country’s rulers and drug trafficking.”


    News, anyone?

  3. FX, it’s slackness on my part really. I think it my link to the blog got cut at some point in the distant past, and I haven’t added it back. But it would make sense, at least in review articles.

  4. Kelvin Thomson has proven himself not only unworthy of being an shadow minister but as representative for Wills.

    His incompetence has been demonstrated and he has bought shmae onto his party and most importantly the people he seeks to represent.

    If he had the ethics he claimed he would resign immediately from Parliament and allow the people of Wills the chance to elect a judicious representative.

    The ALP has a rare chance to set an example, a rare opportunity to demonstrate it has changed. Local ALP members must remove Thomson if he refuse to resign.

  5. I know there are several Brisbane residents here.

    Am I the only personal who looked at the wretched sculptures in the forecourt of the extraordinarily ugly new Brisbane administration centre and thought “whAt a load of balls”?

    Which really sums up the whole project.

  6. Via Tim Lambert’s blog I became aware of the potential direct impacts of carbon dioixde on human health.

    It appears that there is at least some evidence that regardless of global warming impacts, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to 550 ppm or more will have a direct negative impact on human health.

    For example:

    Click to access 1607.pdf

    “Relationships between detrimental health effects and high indoor carbon dioxide concentrations have been studied. These studies were made in the range 300-700 ppm above ambient carbon dioxide levels. At a carbon dioxide concentration of 600 ppm in an indoor atmosphere, the occupants become aware of deterioration in the atmosphere. At and above this level, some occupants began to display one or more of the classic symptoms of carbon dioxide poisoning, e.g. difficulty in breathing, rapid pulse rate, headache, hearing loss, hyperventilation, sweating and fatigue. At 1000 ppm, nearly all the occupants were affected. These effects were observed in humans with only a transient exposure to an atmosphere containing increased levels of carbon dioxide and not a lifetime exposure. At present, the conditions giving rise to these symptoms can be readily reversed by moving into the outdoor atmosphere.

    In the event that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide reaches 600 ppm, the planet will have a permanent outdoor atmosphere exactly like that of a stuffy room. The conditions indoors in buildings of the type now available will become even more unpleasant and could easily reach 1000 ppm permanently with the results outlined above.”

    On the other hand the National Academy of Sciences apparent believe 90-day exposure to 5000 PPM is acceptable for submariners.


    Can anyone clarify this for me?

    Serious health impacts from C02 emissions above 550 ppm would seem to make the case for action to reduce emissions overwhelming. It would also suggest that even if geo-engineeering proposals such as injecting particulates into the stratosphere were feasible to address global warming they wouldn’t get rid of the health impacts of elevated carbon dioxide levels.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s