Thanks for the post, John; interesting info.
The point about coal versus natural gas, etc...
According to Williams and his input to Strategic Plan 2000,
the paper said that it was "World Class Science", or something
to that effect. Well, in science, there should be no ambiguity
as to terminology. Unlike vernacular language, where we all
tolerate a very loose usage of words and their meanings, in
science, words, - even words shared with common everyday
usage, such as 'clean' - should have an exact definition,
some set of measurements that is precisely established.
So what is 'clean' ? As I recall, ( and sorry I don't have
the reference here ) a sample of surface water from the
deep blue ocean, at furthest distance from land, is so
'clean' that it cannot be sampled without causing
contamination. This is because, the glass vessels used
to contain the sample, although made to the very highest
standards of purity that we can achieve, still contain some
infinitesimal amounts of contaminating chemicals, to
the extent and effect that, half of the phyto plankton are
immediately poisoned and die. I guess, that in this context,
that is a pointer towards a definition of what 'clean' means.
That's how 'clean' the biosphere was before we began to
pollute it. As I recall, even marine life from the deepest
ocean trenches now contains detectable traces of pecticides
and the anti-flammeability chemicals used in computer
cases and similar plastic devices; similarly the snow on
the highest mountains has traces of industrial muck.
Seems to me we are poisoning Mother Earth, and that is
most unwise.
C.L.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|