Home | About | Donate

Earth's Carbon Concentrations Have Soared to Levels Not Seen for 800,000 Years



Study of 10.9 million people over 17 years showing the numbers of people getting cancer from CT Scans.
Sorry you are so behind in your thinking you do not belong here. You should have died of ignorance long ago.



Thanks caseyf5 for your forward thinking.


Having kids is not tossing shade. More about diapers and cleaning up messes.


Well, you chose your lifestyle. perverse and against nature as it is.


It is very difficult to get people to change consumer habits and to have fewer kids in developed countries. In the US couples average about two children and many people do want to have only one child. The thing we can to is technological change and innovation. The US is very good at that. Look at these large wind turbines that have been developed and the improvement is solar panels. Also batteries have improved and there are other forms of energy storage. Energy efficiency of buildings has been greatly improved and so has vehicle efficiency. Similar success has not been achieved in agriculture and some breakthroughs are needed there. However, in the bigger picker a number of global ecosystems are in decline and it is less clear what to do about this. Modern human society is not sustainable yet people all over the world want affluence. As of now nobody seems to have good answers that would be politically acceptable.


I am well aware of this. It’s people like Discover and Lrx that are buried in the population myth. You should be responding to them. Incidentally, I highly recommend the website “Climate and Capitalism” as as resource for this kind of info.



Alternatives? Tokyo has oxygen bars! Um, why?

Why are we talking about CO2? The ocean’s
oxygen level in half of the world’s ocean’s areas too low to support life(not CO2). When you’re on a high mountain, you need oxygen. When breathing is difficult, you need oxygen. When the mine is polluted, you bring on oxygen. Diving? Oxygen.
Requirements for easy breathing, 19.5% percent oxygen… Death, at 6% for some, others with issues maybe less. Some large cities register 10% right now. The amount of CO2 doesn’t affect life. The amount of Oxygen does.


When you cant talk about something…it is clean AND dirty. And nothing changes.

  1. Dont talk about mercury in vaccines. The vaccination policy, on the surface it seems good to stop disease, but then companies get involved. They put mercury in the vaccines and it damages brains of a significant number of people. Ask why? And it goes nowhere. I
    read the mercury is to retard spoilage so that the vaccine lasts for more than a few days. But hey you know mercury is a heavy metal(read poison) and it is heavy (read sinks). So it gets poured and the last few vaccines are too overloaded with mercury. This is, all my guess. Thus autism.

  2. Dont talk about oxygen levels. Why do I get slammed when I say the cities oxygen levels are low? Why do they talk about CO2 instead of O2?
    Because the problem is very very clear when you talk about O2. Because weather is a huge problem and fixing it involves interfering with all kinds of big business: construction, car sales, oil, coal, immigration, birthrate, heating, warfare, real estate—almost everyone’s current livelihood AND lifestyle.
    Saying CO2 instead makes numbers and levels unclear and allows current activities to continue… Talking about oxygen levels is very clear.




Hello Frank95054, A simple solution to an extreme complex problem proves invaluable for the right wing mind set as it goes “does not compute” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBAijg5Betw when anything beyond a simple slogan is discussed. Using a simple brain scan the person can be identifies with around 75% accuracy as “conservative” or “liberal” or right wing/left wing. Since the brain is somewhat malleable a bit of change can occur but not by more than a small percentage. This bodes an ominous future as it is not only about carbon but methane and other problems. If we continue on the path of the majority of the people, inertia, we could easily become a hunter-gatherer society in which the human population could decrease to under 10,000 people. Examples of trying to change things was introducing non-native flora and fauna. It can easily take over and change the entire characteristics of an area. Kudzu in the US and Rabbits in Australia just to name a few of the many man-made problems that have occurred over time.


It’s not difficult at all to get people to change their consumer and breeding habits, that is, when they see their families starving to death in refugee camps caused by habitat collapse.


If this structure collapses, not only will there be no human life, but most other life will go as well.

Consider that the global structure maintains nuclear power plants, chemical plants, massive weapons, and other things that if left without maintenance, will poison everything around it.

Then you have all the structures of society collapsing at the same time causing even more habitat disruptions, while the climate continues to change.

Life can adapt, but usually not quickly and not in heavily poisoned and radioactive ecologies. Microbes will adapt, but not much else.

People are waking up to this, but now it’s time to have an adult debate about having more children and consumer habits.


It goes deeper than simple militarism. The oil cartels in the U.S. play a much more sophisticated game. The main thing is to not be under the thumb of OPEC and other market forces. To keep from being subject to embargo’s and shortages like we saw in the 70’s. The sad part is that us consumers just have to knuckle under to whatever gasoline prices are for the day.
These oil gurus have been at this for a long time, and until we are invited into the smoke filled good ole boys meetings, we just have to suck it up. $4 a gallon, $5, $6.
Yes, we will be were ever the oil is one way or another for another generation at least. G


1st the sun’s activity is at the lowest activity point at the moment and all other possibilities have also been eliminated as reasons. The real scientists have already factored all the possibilities into their calculations.
2nd historical records show CO2 to be affecting temperatures.
3rd the deforestation has been noted as it removes a large carbon sink, plus the burning of that forest contributes to CO2 increase. Increasing of tree planting will help reduce the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere. Most of the forest cutting is to increase grazing land for american beef.
4th As conditions worsen, most likely there will be large numbers of people dying from famine, war, disease, etc. And many of them will be children.Nature will cut our population more cruelly than trying to limit the population.
5th Our oceans are slowly dying, we get 50% of our food from them. Already we have lost 25% of the coral reefs which are nurseries for what we eat. Dead zones are increasing in size and numbers. Both are due to CO2 acidifying the oceans. And the temperature of the oceans is also increasing as heat is absorbed from the air.


Can I bury the nuclear waste in your backyard? Right now with the waste already produced, there is no safe storage area. No one want highly radioactive material buried near them.
Then add in that when something bad happens to a nuclear plant, radioactive material is released which has already happened a few times.
People don’t like glowing in the dark. Nuclear plants have leaks.
They also require a great deal of water for cooling systems. And in drought areas, that would certainly be a problem. Esp since that water is also radioactive.
The industry would have us believe it is as safe as drinking fracking water, which is also labeled safe.
Our government watchdogs over any of industrial pollution is poor. The laws are weak and the rules lax. You have people coming from the industry and work for the government, then they quit and go back to the industry. It doesn’t matter what industry it is, they all work the same.
No amount of radiation leaked is healthy and reports of leaks go unnoticed. We only hear about the major leaks. So far major leaks have cause health problems for people in the area.


No one is talking about oxygen levels in cities, because there is no difference from the cities to rural areas. Pollution is the problem for cities, not lack of oxygen. It isn’t because there is less oxygen, but more pollution which clogs the lungs and makes it difficult to breath.
And oxygen levels are not dropping dramatically as you are trying to claim. The loss is about 200PPM from 209000 PPM in 800K, we are in no danger of losing enough to worry about. Maybe at the rate it is declining we will have to sorry about it in 10-20 million yrs. I am sure we can solve that problem long before then. That is why you are being slammed, it is a non-issue just like your mercury in vaccines is. Cities that have oxygen bars do it because of the pollution. Which is clear when you see pics of large cities in china and other places. You are confusing pollution with oxygen levels. No large city measures at 10% oxygen. The only site claiming such a thing doesn’t seem to be really science at all. Not compared to all the other science sites which say it is pure BS.
They talk about CO2 because it is causing the temperatures to rise and for the oceans to be becoming acidic. It is not because CO2 is replacing oxygen. It is the heat that will cause us harm.
As for oceans, runoff from our farms cause the dead zones. But as CO2 warms the water, it holds less oxygen than cold water. Plus warm water interferes with the mixing of the water which brings oxygen to lower levels while the lower levels rise and become re-oxygenated when they come close to the surface.
As for mercury, they didn’t use actual mercury in vaccines. And the US doesn’t use the organic compound thiomersal in vaccines for children except for flu shots. And the US is still 2nd in the world for autism w/o using any type of mercury.
Quite frankly if people are worried about mercury exposure, eating seafood of any kind contains more mercury than any flu vaccine has of thiomersal. Which is why people are warned to eat certain fish like tuna only once a week. The same is true for freshwater fish regarding PCBs.


Not faster than the cancer it is used against. But I do know that radiation for cancer treatment is used as the smallest dose possible and targeted as much as possible because of the risk factors involved. Otherwise the cure is just as deadly as the cancer.
So it is a risk to use it since a 2nd cancer can occur from it.
Also the side effects of the radiation are nothing to be laughed at.

  1. “Can I bury the nuclear waste in your backyard?”
    This is a pretty ironic question when your backyard has always contained radioactive materials, and you have installed equipment in your house containing radioactive materials found in nuclear waste.

2.“No one want highly radioactive material buried near them”
Who are you talking to that considers 250-500 feet below the surface to be “near them”? Especially considering the fact that stored nuclear waste is stored in dry casks made up of reinforced concrete and steel to block radiation.

  1. “People don’t like glowing in the dark.”
    Radiation itself does not make objects glow in the dark. Objects that glow green and contain radioactive materials such as tritium watches are glowing because energy excites other chemicals and causes them to glow green. If you look only at radioactive material it does not glow. Similarly when you look at the deep blue glow of a nuclear reactor it is not the radioactive material that is glowing, but a distortion caused by Cherenkov radiation (a phenomena in which high energy particles are traveling faster than the phase velocity of light in that given medium- typically water. Note the particles nor the material itself is actually glowing).

  2. “They also require a great deal of water for cooling systems. And in drought areas, that would certainly be a problem”
    First of all nuclear reactors do not inherently require water for cooling systems. Conventional reactors do by their design, but since the 1950s we have developed many different models that operate without water as a coolant. You also don’t even require water for electricity production as all you are attempting to do is spin a turbine. In actuality gas-turbine configurations would lead to greater efficiency and larger electrical output with helium and supercritical CO2.

    Second of all there is no evidence that the consumption of water from a nuclear reactor has ever caused a water shortage. Furthermore many reactors including those in areas that experience droughts can use process sewage water, which you do not use for drinking or other necessary functions.

    Third of all the largest use of water by nuclear reactor is with UHS or Ultimate Heat Sinks, which are mandatory collections of water in case of an emergency that the nuclear reactor is unable to cool itself. However these are only used if the nuclear reactor experiences such an emergency. These collections are regulated by the NRC and require a nuclear reactor to maintain at least a 30 day supply of potential coolant. With the exception of plants that use UHS’s from major rivers or tributaries this supply is held onsite and is not removed from the public water supply.

  3. “Esp since that water is also radioactive.”
    This depends on what type of reactor you are talking about. Boiling Water Reactors cycle water into the core of the reactor, which is then produced into steam and travels to your turbine for electricity production. Pressurized Water Reactors (which make up the majority of reactors in the USA) have two separate loops, in which the water used for electricity generation never passes through the reactor core, but it heated due to thermodynamic equilibrium between the core system and the separate loop containing the water. The added benefit of PWRs is that they do not contaminate water with as much radioactivity during operation and through leaks.

    All nuclear reactors are required by law to maintain water treatment facilities, which process and “filter” radioactivity from water until it is below acceptable federal thresholds as managed by the EPA and NRC.

    The acceptable threshold of radiation dose from water is 25 mrem/yr for full body, and 75 mrem/yr for thyroid. Additionally, 40 CFR Part 190 species radioactivity acceptance for different isotopes including but not limited to: Krypton 85 (50000), Iodine 129 (.005), Plutonium 239 (.0005).

  4. “The industry would have us believe it is as safe as drinking fracking water, which is also labeled safe.”
    These levels that you are so adamantly concerned about are significantly lower than the annual exposure to background radiation, and the likelihood that they develop into medical concerns is statistically zero.

    Interestingly enough the majority of radioactivity you are exposed to in drinking water comes from Radon 226, which the earth has been emitting since before humans have even existed.

  5. “Our government watchdogs over any of industrial pollution is poor.”
    Clearly you are not familiar with the overwhelming about regulations and data produced on an annual basis by the NRC and EPA with regards to radiation doses and radioactivity.

  6. “The laws are weak and the rules lax.”
    Please provide an example of a weak law related to radiation doses in drinking water or other radioactivity exposure, and explain why you believe this law to be “lax”.

  7. “No amount of radiation leaked is healthy”
    If this were true then the majority of our cancer treatments should not only not work, but should actually being accelerating cancer growth. This is medically false.

    Additionally if this was true then it would be impossible to set safe standards for radiation, as we literally live on a radioactive planet. Every organism on earth contains radioactive material, and we are constantly bombarded with radiation from the earth, sun and other cosmic bodies.

  8. “No amount of radiation leaked is healthy and reports of leaks go unnoticed. We only hear about the major leaks. So far major leaks have cause health problems for people in the area.”
    If only major releases of radiation are used as evidence that health problems can occur, how do you have evidence that small amounts of radiation cause health problems?


You should learn to read.

I’m advocating solar and wind. Some other bozo is high in nuclear.