28 Jun 2017

All beefs come back to climate change - even when they don't at first appear to have a connection. At ... the issue, or the big beef, is how dangerous is radiation. In a nutshell, levels of radiation differ. What level is tolerable and what level is intolerable. This is an interesting debate as at students in the US have been conducting experiments with baloons that rise into the upper atmosphere to measure radiation levels. They have found that as a result of the relatively quiet nature of solar activity at the moment more cosmic rays are succeeding in their bombardment of the Earth's magnetosphere, and getting through the barrier to reach the surface of the Earth. Obviously, this has been going on for eons. Therefore, how dangerous is radiation?

At 21st century science and technology the beef is concerned with low levels of radiation which humans may have adapted to live with, a not unreasonable deduction if cosmic rays have been bombarding the atmosphere over thousands and millions of years. In other words, not all radiation is dangerous - yet alone highly dangerous. On realising this fact they set about trying to find out how the dangerous radiation meme came about and traced it back to Herman Muller, in 1946. He was a Malthusian - and a geneticist. However, not the modern kind of geneticist, involved in DNA analysis for example, but one educated in eugenics. You will probably need to research eugenics a bit as it is now regarded as a flawed hypotheiss, but one that was dominant in the pre-WWI period, rather like AGW in current times. It would take too long to describe the thought channels behind eugenics but it involved a fear of rising human numbers - especially rising numbers of plebs (or the intellectually challenged, as they saw them). Eugenics is not exactly your politically correct view nowadays but surprisingly eugenics has a pedigree that permeats global warming and climate change as Malthusians are dominant in the movement. In other words. Muller's ideas have been rampant for the last 70 years - and have never been challenged. Why might that be so?

The second beef tirade is aimed at the organic movement and unsurprisingly comes from ... the link is worth reading in full to get a flavour of the double standards served up by environmentalists and the compliant mass media. The organic lobby have been very successiveful in loudly lobbying the EU bureaucrats for example, the number one beef of Risk Monger - but he has a point. The fact is that both beefs come back to a state of mind that desires to see a reduction in global population levels - the Malthusians. In their bleatings to the EU they appear to have succeeded and hampered farmers ability to cope with pests and diseases. You might not agree but the argument is pretty compulsive. The drivers of the organic lobby have expanded since the heady days of the 1960s and include the Metropolitan elite (it's no accident Jeremy has an allotment), weekend gardeners and even those with just a windowbox. They are all united in thinking they know more about agriculture than farmers - who are the recipients of generations of knowledge. It is presented by environmentalists and the organic lobby as a war between good and evil (it seems that the middle class left has this residue of old fashioned religion in the framework, going back to the Puritan revolution) and on the good side we have the organic people (definitely no slug pellets or Growmore pellets) and on the other the demonised farmer who sprays his crops in order to achieve maximum crop load. My simpathy is with the latter as they seek to use science to advance their aim to increase profitability by increasing crop size etc. The more that regulations are heaped upon them the more likely it is they will seek out solutions to make up for the losses incurred by that regulation. It's like traffic signs. The more you put up will not cause a halt to accidents - but the less you erect might mean less distraction and therefore less accidents. What is the right way to go about this? All manure does is provide bulk to the soil, making it friable and more likely to attract microbial life. Fertilisers provide nutrients - in  chemical form. It is therefore obvious that farmers will latch on to the latter. In reality farmers both employ manuring, bulk or green, as well as fertilisers. The idea that farmers are creating a rural wasteland is obviously not true if you visit the countryside. There are fields bursting with crops of barley and wheat, and very clever ways of growing and cropping potatoes and sugar beet. The reality is completely different to the rhetoric of the environmentalists and the organic lobby. Who should you believe - a bunch of fundamentalists (the Green Blob) or the people that actually are out in all weathers, doing the farming. The Risk Monger is on the side of the latter - and he has a good point to make. Nice read - but something of a rant.