Archives for category: Greenpeace

– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
– – – – Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.

__________________________________________________________________
z-energy storage.png
Klik på tabellen for at få fuld størrelse.

Naturligvis både forskes og tales om Syntetisk Gas
Det er muligt.
Så længe man ikke taler om prisen er det en strålende ide.
http://news.mit.edu/2017/turning-emissions-into-fuel-1128

OG

Hvis gas købes i Rusland er det meget billigere.
Sådan kun 20 %

I forbindelse med en grundig vurdering af Intermittent Grid Storage fås at (syntetisk?) methane round trip:
Electric energy to gas and back to electric energy.
Efficiency would be ~31%

Der Spiegel giver 2019 følgende oplysninger:
Effektiviteten bliver under 40 % ved “Vind -> El. -> Hydro -> Metan.”
Derudover kommer et lidt større tab ved metan til El.

I alt skal man ikke regne med over 25 % effektivitet ved denne form for energilagring.
Dertil kommer forrentning og vedligehold af dyre anlæg.

Stråling og Enheder Se her
Fake News Se her
Dirty Bomb Se her
Personskader Se her
– – – Stråling og Cancer Se her
– – – Skader fra stråling Se her
– – – Næste generation Se her
– – – Why are you afaid ? Se her

Selv om 100 % sikkerhed er en illusion er der ikke megen tvivl om klimaændringen.
Det kniber en smule når vi skal sige hvorfor.
Men de fleste er alligevel enige om at den meget menneskabte CO2
er synderen – Helt eller delvis.
De fleste siger også at det haster og mange frygter at det er for sent.
MEN
Derefter er det svært at blive enige om hvad der skal gøres.

Gad vide hvor mange der vil spare så meget på den kostbare elektricitet at de sidder hjemme i mørket, med sivsko og overfrakke en kold vinteraften.
Ved vindstille også uden fjernsyn.
Vi forkælede europæere er så småt begyndt at forstå – lidt.
Men nok så mange orkaner vil næppe få den amerikanske præsident til at forstå.
Kina og Indien, der har problemerne helt anderledes ind på livet, siger: ”Alle mand til pumperne” med sol og vind samt en kraftig udbygning med atomkraft – både ”traditionelt” med uran og forsøg med thorium.

Man skal være både døv og blind for at tro at verdens problemer kan klares med sol og vind og lidt vandkraft.
Nogle naboer til store vindmøller ville måske håbe at de var døve.

Lille Danmark kan klare sig – foreløbigt – med betalelig hjælp fra gode naboer.

  • Vi var de første til at bygge vindmøller og bliver nok de sidste til at forstå at der er hundrede dage om året hvor der er næsten vindstille.
    Meget få vil eller kan forstå at når vindhastigheden halveres, ja så vil vindkraften falde til en ottendedel.

Til gengæld er det kun et spørgsmål om tid før vor sydlige nabo må smide håndklædet i ringen og genstarte den forkætrede atomkraft.

  • Januar 2018 besluttede Tyskland at opgive klimamålene i stedet for at genstarte atomkraften.

En meget lang artikel på The Energy Collective behandler emnet.
Det er vist tilstrækkeligt at læse det første afsnit om Grundlast og det sidste, der konkluderer at Tyskland er rigt på penge og manpower og kan klare meget.
Dette er grundigt behandlet på netavisen The Energy Collective
German Renewable Energy Generation October 1, 2016

Og så alligevel

Er kampen for klimaet blevet en ny form for religionserstatning?
Et langt indlæg i Kristeligt Dagblad kommer med det kætteriske spørgsmål og går imod den grønne folkestemning. (Juli 2019)

MEN
Sandhed kan bøjes.

Trump og Putin var uenige om, hvilke biler der var bedst – amerikanske eller russiske – og blev enige om at køre om kap.

Trump vandt stort.

Næste dag kunne man i de russiske aviser læse følgende:

”I et dramatisk bilvæddeløb kunne vores ærværdige præsident Putin høste en ærefuld andenplads – den amerikanske præsident måtte tage til takke med en skamfuld næstsidste-plads!”
___________________________________________________________________-

For at komme til mit emne starter jeg med slutningen.

Fremadrettet

Hvis vi skal have en mulighed for at nå Det Grønne Mål som er både rigelig, billig og forureningsfri energi, ja så er det nødvendigt at standse den skadelige propaganda fra Greenpeace og eftersnakkere.
Jeg har parøvet med siden Greenpeaces Troværdighed er en Myte og haft næsten 1000 besøg og fået en del ros.
Lige meget hvad, så hjælper det ikke ret meget.
FORDI
Tilsyneladende er det Greenpeaces politik aldrig af svare eller gå i dialog.

Altså
Vi (REO) skal have fat i meningsformidlerne Journalisterne.

Jeg mener at kunne se at

  • Når en journalist har travlt eller måske er doven og nu skal skrive lidt om energi eller atomkraft.
    Ja så ringer han “sådan bare” til Greenpeace og får noget fint og brugbart.
    Kvit og lige til at bruge.
  • Ærlige journalister giver kildehenvisninger.

Børge Outze (første chefredaktør på Information) fortalte at han, for længe siden og i anden sammenhæng, blev lokket til noget tilsvarende.
Jeg mener også at vide at vide at Scanlines har fastansatte medarbejdere, der kun laver lobbyarbejde.
Altså

  • Vi i REO skal abonnere på alt om Greenpeace og få kopier af det man finder.

Jeg ved at Peter Prinds, der bekæmper vindstøj, har abonneret på alt med vindkraft eller støj og prøver at svare.
Han er vist nok alene.
Selv om jeg er gammel og har få kræfter, så mener jeg at

  • Der vil sikkert være flere, der kan og vil give et pænt svar når lejlighed gives.

Det behøver ikke at være koordineret og vil kun være godt hvis, flere forskellige, kommer med noget næsten enslydende.

  • Men der skal være en koordinator der videresender modtagne skriverier til “De Aktive”.

Slut med slutningen.

Lidt baggrund

Hvis man læser dene side fra The Guardian om Greenpeace og Thorium og specielt kommentarerne får man et interessant billede af manglende oplysning.¨
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Efter flere forgæves anmodninger om kommentarer/rettelser til min blog ”Atomkraft hvad er forkert”, fik jeg i 2012-01-20 et “intet-svar” fra Mads Christensen, koordinator for dansk Greenpeace.
I dette svar henvises til et utal af sider på internettet.

  • De fleste af disse kan bedst beskrives som ”Præsten holdt en tale, han sagde ingenting.”
  • Enkelte startede med at forudsætte noget forkert.
    For så at bevise noget, der er oplagt forkert. Men udledt på grundlag af den forkerte forudsætning.
  • Derimod fik jeg intet som svar på det jeg oprindeligt spurgte om.
  • Formentligt ved en fejltagelse blev der henvist til en artikel i Information. (2009)

Jeg citerer lidt fra denne artikel:
Det Finske bidrag til Fremtidige Klimaprojekter satser markant på den atomkraftudbygning, som Finland i dag har en vis gang i som et af de få lande i Europa.
Og
”Hvis Tyskland skal reducere udledningerne med mere end 50 %, så bliver det meget dyrt”. Vurderer Klaus Riedle, formand for den tyske Ingeniørsammenslutning VDI.
Ifølge planen kan Tyskland skære CO2-udledningerne med 75 % i 2050, men det forudsætter at man ikke skrotter atomkraften, men tværtimod bygger hele 35 nye reaktorer og samtidigt investerer betydelige beløb i omstilling af transportsektoren.”

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
In connection with election of an anti-nuclear president in Korea (2017) har Greenpeace has launched a film.
In The Energy Collective.com it is described with the telling subtitle: “Greenpeace Greenwashes Dirty Energy.”
MEN
Greenpeace is a dangerous enemy.
The organization generates nearly $400 million in annual revenues from sources it refuses to disclose.
The comments in this long link are questioning Greenpeace’s commitment to a clean world.

Historisk tilbageblik – mest om OOA

1979/1980 udsendte OOA, en pjece på 12 sider i farver.
Den havde overskriften:
”OOA’s FOLKEPJECE: Danmark uden atomkraft.”
I pjecen hedder det: ”Danmark har masser af olie og naturgas”, og ”Kul til flere hundrede år”.
– – – ”For at kunne dække mere end 1/3 af strømforbruget med vindkraft, må man kunne oplagre energien.
Det kan man bl.a. gøre med trykluftlagre, som vi kender allerede i dag. Eller med svinghjul, som nu er under udvikling.”
MEN
Nu 40 år senere må vi indse at teknologi til lagring af vindkraft i stor skala stadigvæk ikke er lige om hjørnet.

Greenpeace går helhjertet ind for grøn energi.

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
_______________________________________________________________
The debate on genitically modified organisms (GMO) is apparently due to have sharpened and last a group of noble laureates have stated that

It is a crime against humanity to reject the development and use of crops developed using GMO

Although it sounds bombastic the following will justify this opinion.

Background

  • Knowingly selecting better plants and animals have been known for millennia and should actually be called the first green revolution.
  • Introducing industrially produced nitrogen extended the First World War but it also came to be what in reality was the second green revolution.
  • In the period around 1960 clever and dedicated plant breeders prevented a lurking crisis on world food supplies.
    This major step in the development was the result of a targeted selection and cross-breeding of suitable varieties. This has been a lengthy proses, of course it still continues.
  • By all accounts there is a need for a new green revolution that can not be accomplished by only using the previous methods.
    Thus, much work is in progress in order to develop new and improved varieties, not only providing better yields, but also able tho withstand drought and can grow in saline soil.
    This is not possible without a large team of experts who have access to expensive equipment.
  • Much progress and new medication are alleredy in the pipeline as the result of a change of the genetic structure, most in plants, but now also in unicellular organisms and animals.
    Gnetic Manipulation !
  • There is much talk of GMOs is an interference with nature.
    For this reason it has been difficult for small business to survive long enough to show results.

In this way, the large international company Monsanto had to “bear the brunt” of the critisism.
At an early stage Greenpeace chose to follow their old tradition and simply say
“No – No – No”
Perhaps without considering anything except publicity and an alleged protection of nature.

Gradually, the crusade against GMO changed character to include a fight to protect small farmers against big capitalists.
Because of this, it has been necessary to abandon projects that could be beneficial to all.

It should of course be unsaid whether GMO could be potentially damaging to the environment. It obviously depends on the actual GMO.
Therefore it would be totally irresponsible to lump everything together.
The starting point is that millions of people – perhaps an entire billion – are using GMOs in their daily food, with no apparent injuries.

  • Additionally, it can not be stressed enough that the use of GMOs has never prevented the use of traditional crops.

Gylden Ris

Golden Rice

Most damaging to a beneficial development has probably been the resistance to what is called Golden Rice.
Some researchers, not having these heinous economic motives, developed the so-called Golden Rice, which can cope with a shortage of vitamin A.
Without, it will result blindnes in children.
Pictured you see young people from the city who were brought in buses to “demonstrate” against an experimental field with golden rice. (2013)

Crowd breaking through fence in prior to destroying field of gol

Patent holders make golden rice freely available for small farmers in developing countries and neither golden rice nor other GMO crops stands in the way of other solutions.

More than 250,000 children become blind – Yearly – due to the lack of vitamin A
Of course, nobody knows how many could have maintainet ther sight if Golden Rice had received the support it deserved, and how much of this is due to the unjustified hostility from Greenpeace.
Yet, I ask:

Why should Greenpeace be so busy trying to stand in the way of this use of the green revolution?

Of course there is talk about that you can ‘just’ grow some vegetables – especially carrots.
Apparently the following is ignored:

  • The plots in the affected areas are usually very small and that there is little room for new and ‘mysterious crops’.
  • For these people it is important to get the stomach filled – here and now – There is not much strength for more.
  • I have lived a very long time in Africa and has seen how difficult it is to introduce new eating habits:
    bla “Maybe these pale faces can eat something like this – – –
    bla But me, luckily I know what is good food.”

    In my case: The use of beans that could have prevented lack of proteins with subsequent reduced development.
  • Unlike so much else: Golden rice could easily be marketed under the theme
    Golden Rice for Golden Health

So I ask:

How many more children have to go into adult life as blinds before Greenpeace abandon their hysteric crusade against GMOs?

Already here it is easy to see how the harsh accusations, mentioned at the beginning, rests on a factual basis.

More output

Again, rice comes forward with good opportunities for improvement.
Here with opportunities for higher yields.

Worldwide 700 milion tons of rice is consumed, mostly in China, and a team of researchers from the United States, China and Sweden have developed a new variety by inserting a single gene from another grain (barley). This new variant is referred to at many places and will provide better yields and even less pollution with methane.

In China, where there is a desperate need for more food to feed the hungry people, Greenpeace has fortunately not been able to destroy the development.
In Africa the developmented was supported by Kofi Annan.
Perhaps the resistance will be overtaken by reality.

Other Crops

bommuldFor example, genetically modified cotton has prevented much use of harmful chemicals.
Simultaneously, increased yield has raised poor farmers out of poverty so that they can afford school, hospital and better nutrition.

Genetically modified tobacco is in the pipeline for better production of the enzymes necessary for the production of bioethanol from waste.
In this way you may continue.

Corn as Feedstok

There is some evidence that GM corn at times has been grown in an irresponsible manner resulting in traces of harmful pesticides in the crops.
Some, apparently dubious, feeding trials should thus show terrible damage to the animals that were fed GMOs.
At the same time, it can not be ignored that millions of people – perhaps an entire billion – are using GMOs in their daily food.  Without harmful effects.
So I ask:
How many more tests shall we wait for?

Terminator Gen

Originally it was intended to reduce the risk of accidental spillage of gens into nature, something you were worried about – at least at Greenpeace.
But suddenly this resistance turned around 180 degrees, because Greenpeace realised that it simultaneously would mean that users could not ‘just’ cheat and use the previous crop as seeds for the new harvest.

Of course it should  be allowed to cheat the eavel Monsantos, although it still would result in more of the hated GMO.
Thus the struggle against ‘the big international companies’ became more important than the desire to protect nature.
Of course there is much more publicity in protecting ‘small farmers’
against those capitalists, only making more money and maybe developing more GMO.
Then it was in silence forgotten that this terminator gene automatically would have reduced the use of this otherwise hated technology.

Hybrid Corn

Meanwhile, work is done to develop hybrid corn.
This we we can well eat, together with hybrid chickens.
Although also this can be said to be unnatural result of human development of the breeding stock.
However: Here it is a necessary part of the technology to buy new material after each harvest.
Still, in reality it works as another form of this terrible Terminator Gen.
But here it is the technology that necessitates that even small farmers become dependent on these international suppliers to get good seed for next year’s crop.
Although, of course, there have been cases of vandalism against
Hybrid Corn, still Greenpeace has been almost silent.

Avian Flu


Fugleinfluensa
It is attempted to use genetic engineering to prevent spread of a possible epidemic of avian flu so that the infection can not be transmitted to humans.
Should it be stopped?

Next step

Research with the aim to understand the structure of the genetic material is in a rapid development and the resistance grows.

  • Organic farming can benefit by embracing new and precise genetic technologies that can restore original robust properties in plants, where it has been lost through traditional breeding.
    Yet the idea is rejected  – Almost per automatik.
  • In China, where it apparently is not a crime to change “God’s Creation”, work is going on to develop methods that can be used to improve the genetic material in animals and in humans.
    Designerbabies!
    But it’s not that fun to be an albino in Africa.
  • It is difficult to “draw a line in the sand” and for many “God’s Creation” is untouchable.
  • Quite a long time ago an English archbishop wanted that children with serious injuries should not ‘be selected not to born’ (by early abortions.)
    Because: “If there are more people with disabilities, it will be easier to live for those who are disabled.”
  • However, we must realize that the development can not be stopped.
    If nothing else, it will continue in China and in other countries.
    Meanwhile, we sit on our hands and just say:
    “NO, this you can not do.”
    Of course, without explaining what the two small words “this” and “you” actually covers.
  • Anything goes on and opponents are using absurd tecnicallities to stop a sientifically acurate article about golden rice.

Labeling of GMO

From many sides it is required that all food based on GM crops must be labeled.
Here it would be fair if GM opponents labeled their products as “free of GM” and of course cover the costs that would otherwise be passed over to the ordinary consumer.
Here I ask: Should I pay extra just because some are fighting a determined struggle against self-invented ghosts.

The Result

Popular resistance induced by some – perhaps well-intentioned – activists, demonstrates a lack of cohesiveness as soon as it comes to logic.
Here the short conclution is that poor people should go hungry to bed and children should grow up in poverty and perhaps as blind.

Politicians

Apparently, the livelihood of several “green organizations” depends on them to appear as those protecting humanity from something dangerous.
If there can not be found a factual danger to protect against, so an imaginary danger can very well be used – as described above.
At the same time it must be understood that it will be a political death sentence for a politician, if he be accused of exposing people to danger. So it is better to howl with the wolves you are surrounded by and “just” say NO.
Greenpeace, whose annual revenue is $335 million, is obviously a dangerous opponent.

Postscript

Also see Greenpeace and Nuclear
And, of course: Where is the read line?

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Og.klik påb Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.
__________________________________________________________________
Senere tilføjelse (2019 april)

  • 15 af 16 medlemmer i Etisk Råd går så langt, at de i en ny rapport siger, at det ikke alene er etisk forsvarligt at bruge genteknologien på afgrøder.
    Det vil ligefrem være uetisk ikke at gøre det, mener rådets formand, professor Anne-Marie Gerdes.
  • Videnskab.dk finder man November 2019 et meget langt indlæg hvor det diskuteres om lovgivning er en vigtig beskyttelse eller er unødvendig.
    Jeg går så vidt at jeg vil hævde at lovgivningen, som det er nu, er skadelig og sender uskyldige mennesker sultne i seng.
    Eller lader børn gå ind i voksenlivet som blinde.

__________________________________________________________________

Genteknologi Designerbabyes


GMO
Meget tyder på at det ikke vil vare længe inden man, på godt og på ondt, vil manipulere / forbedre også menneskelige gener.

De følgende henvisninger er det nyeste jeg har fundet.
Det koncentrerer sig mest om de positive aspekter i forbindelse med genmanipulation – også af mennesker.

Men


GMO Defination.png
I praksis er det umuligt at define ”GMO’s”
En lang og argumenterende artikel fremhæver at næsten alt hvad vi putter i munden i realiteten er GMO. (Dec 21, 2015)
Som pornografi, også GMO undviger en klar definition.

Jeg vil tilføje at
både æbler og appelsiner er fra podede – altså manipolerede – træer.

Lars Kongsbak

En meget lang artikel på Ingeniøren (2015) prøver at gøre op med nogle af de mange modsigelser der dominerer debatten.
(Lars Kongsbak er molekylærbiolog og administrerende direktør i firmaet Exiqon, der arbejder i markedet for genetisk analyse.)

The Economist


Designer Babies
20 August 2015 behandles emnet med en leder-artikel: Editing humanity.
Her diskuteres de praktiske og filosofiske aspekter, der naturligt fremkommer i forbindelse med brug af CRISPR-teknologien og det kontroversielle emne: Designer Babies.

I samme udgave er der to andre meget interessante, men for mange også alarmerende artikler:
The age of the red pen.
Her beskrives hvorledes kun tre års udvikling har vendt op og ned på mulighederne for at behandle nedaravede sygdomme.

The most selfish genes. Eller Gen Drive.
Her beskrives hvorledes det er muligt at indsætte gener, der hurtigt vil sprede sig i naturen og fx kan bevirke at ALLE moskitoer ikke kan sprede malaria eller vil blive totalt udryddede!
Dette ville da være fantastisk!

MEN
Det skal naturligvis omgives med megen forsigtighed fordi man herved arbejder med noget, hvor man omgår Mendels Love og hvor der tilsyneladende ikke er nogen vej tilbage.
Ovenstående link fører til en god vurdering af de etiske problemer.

Kristeligt Dagblad beretter (may 2017) at Etisk Råd principielt går ind for teknologien.
Med en artikelserien Det Etiske Kompas har Kristeligt Dagblad (2018) vist at det er muligt at se både pro og kontra.
Fra en af disse artikeler citerer jeg
To patienter med alvorlige, arvelige sygdomme er åbne over for teknologi til genmodifikation.
Bivirkningerne bliver næppe værre end min sygdom, siger en patient.

Også fagfolk er positive.

BBC
der ikke er bange for at fremhæve problemer, skriver September 2016 at Vi kan undlade og blive overhalet.
Eller gå videre og lide de moralske konsekvenser.

Kræft

Der tales om GMO-teknik til kræftbehandling.

Videnskab.dk

December 2015 finder man på Videnskab.dk et kontroversielt indlæg, der konkluderer at:
Vi er moralsk forpligtede til at genmanipulere mennesker.
Følgende uddrag er naturligvis præget af mine holdninger.

  • Vi er stort set alle positivt indstillede, når det gælder teknologiske fremskridt, der kan mindske lidelse, fremme sundhed og forebygge sygdom.
    (Fx vaccinationer og bedøvelse ved operationer.)

    MEN nye fremskridt i teknikken, der roder med de menneskelige arveanlæg. Der er der en undtagelse.
  • Det er uoverskueligt og farliget.
    Det er umuligt at vide præcis, hvad redigering af genomer i menneskefostre kan medføre. Det er først efter, barnet er født, man kan se, hvilken effekt det har haft.
    MEN strengt taget er risiko og usikkerhed to forskellige begreber og det er imod logikkens regler at kræve 100 % sikkerhed.
    Redigering af genomer kan nemt føre til flere, delvis uforudsigelige, fordele end skader.
    Det betyder ikke nødvendigvis, at det er farligt – snarere at det er uforudsigeligt og at vi skal lære at vurdere de muligheder vi har fået.
    OG Hvis du laver et barn på ”naturlig måde” kender du heller ikke resultatet.
    Her er der også en risiko / usikkerhed, som vi accepterer.
    Naturligvis skal resultater af dyreforsøg indgå i vurderingen.
  • Det er på vej ud på et skråplan, på vej mod racehygiejne og designerbabyer.
    Spørgsmålet kan faktisk vendes på hovedet og man kan sige:
    Hvis man kunne designe sunde og raske babyer.
    Hvor er den moralske retfærdiggørelse for ikke at gøre det?
    Hvis man kan hjælpe kommende generationer til at undgå alvorlige lidelser: fx blødersygdomme eller anlæg for at blive albino.
    Hvad så?
    Frygten for “et skråplan” er i sig selv et skråplan, der ofte benyttes til at hindre fremskridt.
    Hvis der findes et skråplan, der fører til bedre liv for mennesker, burde vi ganske forsigtigt kante os langs det.
    Og
    Racehygiejne praktiseres allerede.
    Sæddonorer får deres gener og familie vurderet.
    De bliver afvist hvis – – –
  • Det blander sig i naturens gang og spiller gud.
    Men vi både vaccinerer og bygger dæmninger for derigennem at ændre naturens gang og guds skaberværk.
  • Det vil forværre social ulighed.
    Vi ønsker at vore børn skal have en god fremtid ved fx at give dem en god skole.
    Selv om vi derigennem øger vi den eksisterende ulighed, er der få der er imod.
  • Vi skal holde os tilbage og se tiden an.
    I mellemtiden vil uskyldige mennesker fortsat leve med unødige afsavn eller lidelser.
    Samtidigt vil uansvarlige kliniker, eller stater, benytte tomrummet og misbruge teknikken.
  • Jeg spørger: Hvor vil det ende?
    Og vil børn med et hadikap bebrejde deres forældre at det ikke blev repareret allerede før fostertilstanden?

Til alt dette kommer naturligvis en advarsel, der viser at der er forskellige, delvis ukendte, faremomenter.
Det bekymrende er måske at problemet først omtales når man mener at der er en løsning på vej.
Senest har Videnskab.dk tilbagekaldt et studie om potentielle farer ved CRISPR.

GM mennesker
Til Videnskab.dk har jeg følgende link, der også spår at vi er tæt ved at kunne genmanipulere menneske-fostre.

Forestil dig, at vi kombinerer fremgangsmåderne for en patient, eksempelvis en kvinde med en sygdomsfremkaldende mutation som hun ikke ønsker at overføre til sit barn.
Man begynder med at tage en af hendes hudceller, som omprogrammeres til en primordial kønscelle, hvis DNA efterfølgende redigeres, så mutationsgenet fjernes.
Den primordiale kønscelle udvikles til et æg og senere et embryon, som efter screening transplanteres tilbage i livmoderen.
Barnet og efterkommerne er nu ikke bærere af det muterede gen.

November 2017 spørger man:
Vil børn med en ubehandlet genetisk fejl bebrejde deres forældre?
Og nu, kun et år senere, får man at vide at de første to børn er født i Kina.
Som forventet er der megen kritik og endog tvivl.
Men også en debat om Hvad kan man tillade sig?

Som det kan forventes er man fra kristelig side forsigtigt imod.

Der tales naturligvis meget om det ufødte barns ret til liv.
MEN
Efter mange år i Afrika vil jeg tilføje at første prioritet burde gå til de desværre mange børn der allerede er født og derefter bliver overladt til et liv, der bestemt ikke er værdigt for mennesker.
Mange vil ‘sådan bare’ dø.
Måske er det de heldige – De vil få fred i deres grav, selv om de måske ikke får en grav.
Jeg har gjort lidt og prøvet meget, men ikke mødt meget andet end et “Gud hjælpe dig – jeg vil ikke.”
Generelt har jeg erfaret at jo mere man har, jo sværere er det at give slip på bare lidt.
Naturligvis er det fristende at referere til Matthæus 19:22

Erhvervede egenskaber nedarves!

Lushenko og StalinMåske husker man hvorledes Stalins yndlings-biolog Lysenko fornægtede eksisterende videnskab og hævdede at havde påvist at erhvervede egenskaber kunne nedarves.

Dengang var hans ’forskningsresultater’ politisk motiveret falskneri og blev meget skadeligt for udviklingen.

Og så:
I 2015, kommer der resultater om noget, der malende betegnes som Spøgelsesgener.
Det ansete tidsskrift TheScientist og mange andre, behandler emnet og refererer forsigtigt til tilfælde, hvor erhvervede egenskaber, fx fedme og post traumatisk stress; men ikke alle erhvervede egenskaber, nedarves ikke bare fra moderen, men også gennem faderens sæd og uden anden kontakt!

Både i dyreforsøg og hos mennesker.
– – – – Krigsfanger fra den amerikanske borgerkrig.
– – – – Børn af krigstraumatiserede.
– – – – Et svensk studie
– – – – Og børn efter hungervinteren i Holland 1944–45
– – – – Nu også fra videnskab.dk (03 maj 2014)
– – – – 2019 læser man på BBC.com at det (mest) nedarves fra far til søn.

Epigenetik er således blevet en realitet.
Også selv om en forklaring tilsyneladende mangler.
Diskussionen, både teknisk og moralsk, arbejder for højtryk.
For at få plads i cellekernen er generne foldede og det antydes
at denne foldning bærer den epi-genetikske information.

Hvornår er det GMO ?

Jeg gentager det indledende dilemma:“Like porn, GMOs defy strict definition.”
Men sultne munde er ligeglade med definitioner.
GMO-development
Klik på diagrammet for detaljer. 

Jeg spørger hvorfor ikke i Afrika.
Maize in USA, Kina og Afrika

De frygtelige realiteter

Fra en udsendelse fra BBC radio, erindrer jeg følgende:
En Engelsk kvinde skulle modtage et befrugtet æg.
“Jeg vil have et hvidt barn.”
” – – Men du er jo sort, så du skal da have et sort barn.”
“Nej, jeg vil ikke have at mit barn skal blive diskrimineret imod som – – .”
Jeg ved ikke mere.
MEN
Overvej selv konklusionerne

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
______________________________________________________________________

Greenpeace’s Credibility is a Myth

This is a tough accusation.
But if you read below you will understand.

Crew of PHYLLIS CORMACK. 1st Greenpeace trip to Amchitka Isl. to protest USA nuc. testing From the start Greenpeace was an anti nuclear-energy movement that demonstrated against US nuclear testing.
Already at that time (1971), one could easily see that nuclear bombs nowhere in the world had been a result of, or a further development of nuclear power.

Yet this confusion of concepts is maintained uncompromisingly by Greenpeace and has been the cornerstone of what has gradually developed into an overwrought campaign where everything associated with radioactivity is distorted so that it is perceived as a high risk.

The motives for this confusion are lost in the Cold War.
But in the following you will see some of the methods used by Greenpeace and followers.
The result can not be discussed:
More greenhouse gases and higher costs – both human and financial.

On the Danish language website “Safe nuclear power is a myth” the attentive reader will get a good insight into the methods used to spread incorrect “information” by writing something, quite naturally seen in the intended way.
Vindkraft i DK Fløjtespilleren2
But by clever use of the language it is prevented to write something that is factually wrong, if taken strictly, using an almost legal interpretation.
Thereafter the debate will quickly be taken over by numerous followers who will soon transfer a clever hint into an undisputed fact.

I will settle for a few typical details:

One reads:
Nuclear facilities and terrorism is a dangerous cocktail

Although it has never been explained how this cocktail might be composed, ‘ordinary people’ will automatically think of a “Dirty Bomb”. Something like the following:

A terrorist breaks in and take possession of radioactive material and use ordinary explosives to spread it out in an area that will be uninhabitable for a long time.

BUT

  • You may need more than a standard wheel loader, or even a hijacked airplane, to penetrate into the critical place behind the
    about 1.4 meter thick reactor containment.
  • If it should have any effect beyond the psychological, you will need a fairly large amount of radioactive material.
  • Long before this terrorist will have collected just one percent of the required, he will die a miserable, but not that glorious death from acute radiation sickness.

A Dirty Bomb, which to available knowledge only is known in connection with horror stories, is something quite different:

An “ordinary” nuclear bomb, surrounded by a substance, eg Cobalt.
It will then be radioactive by absorbing some of the neutrons left over from the bursting of the real nuclear bomb.

Same place we read the following:
Highly enriched uranium and plutonium can be used for nuclear weapons
Factually this is true.
But when it is presented in an article entitled “Safe nuclear power is a myth”, it will, at the best, be nonsense if you look at the context:

  • Highly enriched uranium is not used in connection with nuclear power. Here uranium is enriched to less than five percent.
    More in submarines but not highly enriched.
  • The plutonium generated in the nuclear reactors is contaminated with another isotope, making it unusable for nuclear bombs.
    However, with the exception of the dangerous reactor type at Chernobyl.
  • But even if a terrorist mysteriously obtains some plutonium of ‘weapons-grade’, he will hardly be able to develop the very special initiator required.

The Waste Ghost
Of course you will not avoid the following:

Until now there has not been found any viable solution to the final disposal of highly radioactive waste despite 50 years of trying.
These are high-level radioactive waste, which must be kept totally separate from all living in up to ¼ million years – a totally unacceptable problem.

Although this has been repeated countless of times, it will not be true.
Everything indicates inability or unwillingness to communicate the realities.

Therefore, the following:

  • Apart from countries where Greenpeace has succeeded in putting a spoke in the wheel, there are good and longtime approved depots for the final disposal of what is still called waste.
  • Thus, the Swedish waste scheme was approved in 1979 as a condition for start of the last six reactors.

Of course it is ignored that actually it is not that urgent:
The spent fuel rods from the reactors are stored under water.
First three years on the power plant and thereafter at an intermediate storage for up to 30 years.
This is because one will wait for final disposal, or reprocessing to reuse, until it has “cooled down”.
(Atoms with relatively short half-life will decay into harmless atoms.)

However, this material, still classified as waste, is a valuable future resource that contains huge amounts of useful energy to be used in the future.
Thus the former “final depots” are now rebuilt to be “safe but accessible depots”.

At the same time it is bypassed that:Kulokraft
The coal, which is a result of the persistent resistance to nuclear, will, in addition to the discharge of radioactive substances in the smoke, result in over two thousand annual deaths in coal mines and well over two million due to air pollution.

Contrary to an imaginary fear of something, thousands of years into the future, it would be wise to concentrate on the imminent danger from the real waste problem:
The greenhouse gases, leading to an imminent danger of catastrophic climate change.

You read about
High-level waste
to be kept totally separate from all living for up to ¼ million years

BUT

  • If a radioactive substance is highly radioactive, then of course, it means that the material will exploit its resources in a short period of time.
    Thereafter it will not highly radioactive.
    In reality not radioaktive.
  • However, if a material is radioactive for a very long time, as for instance Thorium, the radioactivity will be so weak that it only has academic interest and may be difficult to measure.
  • In between you find the very much talked about substance Plutonium.
    Here we have a half-life of 24,100 years.
    This means that 90% of what may be absorbed, it will, quite naturally, be deposited in the cemetery long before it will do any harm.
  • By the way
    All writing about plutonium being The world’s most dangerous substance is nothing but falsehood.

The much-discussed waste from nuclear plants

  • will have lost much of its radioactivity after 50 years.
    After 400 years, the waste will have the same radioactive level as uranium ore.
    After 600 years, it will be as radioactive as garden soil.
    However
    If one decides not to recycle the spent fuel from nuclear power plants, it will be radioactive for a longer time.
  • Although 600 years is a long time, it is not even half of one procent of what Greenpeace imagined about.

By ‘scrolling down’ to the third page, you will find what might be called
‘The Usual’:
No more Chernobyl
“It is now more than 20 years since the Chernobyl nuclear accident, which affected millions of people in western Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
The disaster was the fault of a hundred times more radiation than the nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Today, more than twenty years later, the nightmare continues for thousands of people. “

However

With a minimum of investigative journalism you will know the following:

  • Although the Danish Broadcasting Corporation reported on 1,000 dead.
    There were only five who died in the disaster.
    Later 26 more died, most rescue workers who died from burns and radiation.
  • There have been numerous reports of radiation sickness, but the few other deaths were not from radiation sickness.
    There was no permanent damage – apart from suicide and psychological damage.
  • There were not distributed iodine tablets – Perhaps because it was believed that the disaster could be kept hidden.
    Therefore, there were many cases of thyroid cancer, something that can be easily treated.
    Thus, there were only nine who died of thyroid cancer.
  • There has been many horror stories about countless future cases of cancer.
    However, the experiences from survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks in Japan show that there will be very few extra deaths due to cancer, if any.

All this is nothing compared to the damage due to radiation at the nuclear bomb attacks where radiation sickness killed 60,000 alone in Hiroshima.

Thus, it is difficult to understand how there could be a hundred times more radiation than the nuclear bombs.

Even the title “No more Chernobyl” is misleading:

  • This design, which is unstable and without a usual reactor containment, has been abandoned and has never been considered in the context of nuclear energy outside the old Soviet.

The motives?

After looking at all this obvious falsehood, you ask yourself why?

  • Can it be explained by assuming that Greenpeace is so incompetent that they have not seen the realities?
    The answer must be no.
    A worldwide organization, such as Greenpeace, does not consist of only of incompetent followers.
  • Has Greenpeace reached the stage where the intention justifies the means?
    Is the intention to stop development (in the West)?
    Although many from Greenpeace are “Politically Red”.
    The answer will be no.
  • Or is it money and craving for money?
    Greenpeace, whose annual budget is more than $ 350 million will of course try to keep the generous contributors.
  • I guess:
    It’s difficult to “Lose your Faith” – Just ask apostate priests.

An apostate:
Patric Moore
was one of the founders of Greenpeace and was elected president of Greenpeace Foundation in early 1977.
Later he left the organization to criticize its anti-human agenda and development with the statement:
Patric More – – “In the mid 1980s, the environmental
– – movement has left science and logic for
– – the benefit of emotions and sensational
– – journalism.”

Moore was active against nuclear power in the 1970s when he thought that
– – “Atomic power was similar to nuclear
– – bombs and holocaust”

and
– – “Everything with atom was of evil” .
Later, he came to support nuclear power.

The result

of this confused opposition to everything that begins with Nuclear, has left its deep marks:

Oversvømmelse– Expensive and unstable
energy.
– A looming climate
catastrophe.
– Many unnecessary deaths in
coal mines.
– Injuries and countless
deaths as a result of air
-polutimmm.mmmmmmm.mmmmmmmmmm pollution.
– Sleep disorders and other ailments among neighbors of wind turbines.Vindmøller skygger for freden
.
.
A heavy responsibility rests on the shoulders of Greenpeace and other
no-sayers.

.
.
.
Greetings and good reflection from Thorkil Søe

I ask – – Can you give an answer ?

Why is it necessary for Greenpeace to give falsified “Information”?
Write to me on thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Postscript
You ask – – Try to find answers

In connection with the sometimes hot debate about nuclear power, I am often met with what I, a bit churlish, call “the usual misunderstandings.”
Instead of asking me the usual “But what about – – – – ”
So I ask you to consider if you do not get a response by one of the following posts:

About nuclear power and the many falsified pieces of “information”:
http://wp.me/p1RKWc-cM

Thorium has been touted as a future energy source.
Sure, it is.
But perhaps it will be an excuse to delay the expansion of traditional nuclear power and ‘just wait’ until it’s too late and the climate change is rampant. http://wp.me/p1RKWc-DC

About Chernobyl.
An irresponsible reactor was tested in an irresponsible way.
Even the media coverage was irresponsible:
http://wp.me/p1RKWc-Dg

About the accident at Fukushima and the exaggerated / false “information”.
Also about the unnecessary evacuations: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-yI

Despite repeated “Mis-information” / horror stories, you can see that there is very little correlation between radiation and cancer.
Instead of just brushing this off as being nonsnese, have a look at http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1iq

The assumption “no matter how little, then all radiation will always be harmful” (LNT) is frequently used.
But this initial assumption has long since been overtaken by realities.
See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1lF

Sometimes one hears how terrorists will acquire radioactive material and make large areas uninhabitable.
Although a “Dirty Bomb” sounds terrifying, the first and probably only victim will be this aspiring terrorist.
See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1uK

Children born to parents who have been exposed to even very strong ionizing (radioactive) radiation, have shown no more cases of birth defects / deformities: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-ea

Despite decades of misleading propaganda, it can be seen that
The Waste Problem
is not a problem: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-LC

In Europe, new nuclear power plants tend to be prohibitively expensive.
But not in Russia, China and Korea.
See why: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-11D

Greetings from Thorkil Søe,
who can not resist the temptation to go a little back in history.

Down-with-fire-300x225