Egyptian Eyeliner May Have Warded Off Disease

Katie Cottingham
Science Now
January 8, 2010

Clearly, ancient Egyptians didn’t get the memo about lead poisoning. Their eye makeup was full of the stuff. Although today we know that lead can cause brain damage and miscarriages, the Egyptians believed that lead-based cosmetics protected against eye diseases. Now, new research suggests that they may have been on to something.

Previous work indicates that the Egyptians added lead to their cosmetics on purpose. When analytical chemist Philippe Walter and colleagues at CNRS and the Louvre Museum in Paris analyzed the composition of several samples of the Egyptians’ famous bold, black eyeliner in the Louvre’s collection, they identified two types of lead salt not found in nature. That means that ancient Egyptians must have synthesized them. But making lead salt is a tricky, delicate process that requires tending for weeks–and unlike other common makeup components, the salts are not glossy. So why did they bother?

Ancient manuscripts gave the scientists a clue. It turns out that in those days, people made lead salts and used them as treatments for eye ailments, scars, and discolorations. When Walter told analytical chemist Christian Amatore of the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris about the findings, Amatore says he was intrigued because lead is now known to have so many toxic effects.

To see if the lead might confer any health benefits, Amatore, Walter, and colleagues added lead salts to human skin cells called keratinocytes, which were grown in the lab. The researchers hypothesized that the lead would stress the cells and cause them to make hydrogen peroxide, nitric oxide, and other compounds involved in the body’s immune response. And indeed, cells treated with lead began pumping out more nitric oxide than did control cells, the team reports online in Analytical Chemistry.

Amatore says that nitric oxide sets off a series of biochemical processes in the body that ultimately send immune cells called macrophages to the site of infection, where they engulf invading organisms. That’s probably not what’s happening in keratinocytes, says immunologist Martin Olivier of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, who was not involved in the study. It’s unlikely that macrophages or other immune cells would exit the body and burst through the skin to fight off infectious agents at the surface, he notes. Instead, nitric oxide released by keratinocytes could directly kill eye-disease-causing bacteria on the skin or near the eye by breaking down a bacterium’s structure or DNA. Another plausible scenario, says Olivier, is that lead itself could directly stimulate immune cells already present in the eyelid.

This potential benefit of lead is contrary to everything we know about the substance, but it could fit the model of hormesis, says epidemiologist Jennifer Weuve of Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois. “The premise behind hormesis is that, for certain exposures, there might be a window where the exposure is harmful but also one where it’s helpful,” she explains.

Still, Weuve cautions against adding lead to the eyeliner in your makeup case. Modern people live a lot longer than did the ancient Egyptians–many of whom died in their 30s–and the dangers of prolonged lead exposure outweigh any antimicrobial benefit, she says. Indeed, the Egyptians’ eyeliner strategy would have backfired on them if they had lived long enough, she notes, as long-term exposure to lead may increase the risk of developing cataracts.

Read the original article here

Posted in Hormesis | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.

The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”

Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”

The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found here.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, June 07, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Lauding low doses

(Jun. 5, 2010) A revolutionary field called hormesis shows that dangerous substances can be beneficial at low levels. Continue reading

Posted in Hormesis | Leave a comment

When climate, public relations meet

CLIMATE COVER-UP: THE CRUSADE TO DENY GLOBAL WARMING

By James Hoggan, with Richard Littlemore

Greystone Books, $15

240 pages

REVIEWED BY ANTHONY J. SADAR

(Jun. 4, 2010) Environmentalism may be the world’s fastest-growing religion. Continue reading

Posted in The Deniers | Leave a comment

When climate, public relations meet

Anthony J. Sadar
The Washington Times
June 4, 2010

CLIMATE COVER-UP: THE CRUSADE TO DENY GLOBAL WARMING

By James Hoggan, with Richard Littlemore

Greystone Books, $15

240 pages

REVIEWED BY ANTHONY J. SADAR

Environmentalism may be the world’s fastest- growing religion. And, like other religions, its ability to win converts often relies on crises. After the scare over the coming ice age failed to materialize in the 1970s, environmentalism was given a real boost when the global warming crisis revved up.

To manage a crisis well, you need good public relations. Enter the PR gurus and their revelation “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.” The authors of “Climate Cover-Up” and the associated website DeSmogBlog.com do some crusading of their own for the cause of the faith.

The sinners are easy to spot: Any individual or think tank supported by the usual evil-industry suspects, “Big Oil,” “Big Coal,” “Big Tobacco,” and the like. In addition, anyone who dares to question “Nobel laureate Al Gore,” “best in the world” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate scientists, and other such saints, or the anthropogenic global warming orthodoxy in general, will be subject to exposure, ridicule and enthusiastic belittlement by the ever-vigilant guardian angels.

If even half the sins exposed in “Climate Cover-Up” are true (and I suspect more than half are), the contrarian camp has some serious penance to deal with. However, the authors imply that such conditions (like Big Energy funding, shaky credentials and Orwellian language games) make the contrarian position a weak one. Note, though, such arguments go both ways. Volumes have been written wedding the same faults to the “consensus” position.

But some of these foibles, as identified by “Climategate” for instance, are actually defended or mitigated by “Climate Cover-Up” and DeSmogBlog. And, what about funding? Because “Climate Cover-Up” looks at Big Energy as something akin to inherent evil, Big Energy’s money is dirty. However, its contributions to its causes are quite small by comparison with that of say “Big Government” largesse, which “Climate Cover-Up” seems to favor, at least when it comes to IPCC research and forcing people to cut their carbon emissions.

Regarding the IPCC, note that its role is “to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” Thus, as Mr. Gore has referenced Upton Sinclair’s quote, so do his disciples in “Climate Cover-Up,” proclaiming “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it.”

All this aside, I believe the authors would agree that it’s the truth that matters, not the fallible evangelists of it. Here is where the authors, neither of whom has even an undergraduate degree in science, have to take the science of human-caused climate change on faith. They believe their faith is well grounded, since it is in “incredibly intelligent people who are doing a Nobel-prize winning job.” And, there is some reliance, for example, on climate-science training by Nobel laureate Al Gore. Such training apparently trumps an education and subsequent career in a science field either in, or closely related to, climatology.

Nevertheless, it should take only a little education in science and perhaps a lot of common sense to see through the billowing incense when anyone or any group, no matter how intelligent, saintly and sincere, assures you it sufficiently deciphered the mysteries of climate to be able to confidently foretell global conditions 10, 20, and even 100 years from now.

I certainly agree with the authors that “you should read up on climate science.” Perhaps you should start with a book that was misread and subsequently mischaracterized in “Climate Cover-Up.” The book is “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution and Fraud” by Lawrence Solomon. In “Climate Cover-Up,” the authors state that “Solomon admits [on page 45 of ‘The Deniers’] that none of his subjects were deniers. Not a single one.”

Unfortunately for “Climate Cover-Up,” Mr. Solomon was clearly referring to the few climate scientists with whom he began his book. Mr. Solomon was saying that those several scientists were skeptical of the conclusions of consensus climate science in their own specialized area, but rather convinced of man-made global warming outside their own area. Thus, not being true deniers.

This is a very strong defense of the fact that many people, even specialized climate researchers themselves, rely on others’ expertise. Mr. Solomon then focuses primarily on true skeptics in the remainder of his work. But, the subsequent couple dozen highly qualified, climate-related scientists biographied by Mr. Solomon are then conveniently dismissed by “Climate Cover-Up” as being included in the “Not a single one” category.

By the way, while “The Deniers” may well be at least a partial justification against some of the sanctimony in “Climate Cover-Up,” try the website icecap.us against DeSmogBlog.com.

Finally, we can prophesize stepped-up and even more-bizarre PR spins in hyperdrive for impertinent skeptics of the consensus view. “Climate Cover-Up” was “recommended reading” in the substantial cover-story special report in the May 15, 2010, issue of New Scientist, where one of the book’s authors also had a sidebar piece. The New Scientist collection of feature articles under the title “State of Denial,” began with, “From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march. Why are so many people refusing to accept what the evidence is telling them?” Of course, in the magazine’s coverage, climate-change contrarians are also lumped in with Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers.

Skeptics of consensus climate science should consider themselves forewarned: You have been psychologically profiled. And, as you can see, environmentalism does not take too kindly to unbelievers.

Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and primary author of “Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry” (CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, 2000).

Posted in Energy Probe News, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: Call off the evacuation: Pacific Islands are expanding

Contrary to the warnings of global warming alarmists, most islands in the Pacific are stable or expanding, according to a study published last month in Global and Planetary Change. While 14% of the islands studied showed a decline in area, 43% were stable and 43% expanded in size. None of the changes in area were dramatic.

Islands are dynamic, the study found, akin to organisms that are continually adapting to the environment. As seen by examining satellite images and historical aerial photography over a 19 to 61 year period in 27 atoll islands, islands continually changed form and tended to grow because they are composed of coral debris. Because corals are living creatures that propagate themselves, islands are continually replenished with new landmass. Islands can also increase by accumulating debris from storms. Tuvalu’s main island increased by 10% in 1972, when hurricane Bebe deposited 140 hectares of sedimentary debris onto its eastern reef.

The feared erosion of Pacific Islands from rising sea levels that climate scientists warned about, in other words, was based on abstract climate change theory bereft of an understanding of the formation and ecology of islands. Pacific islanders will not be forced to evacuate their homes, as the world’s media has many times reported.

The study, The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific, was conducted by scientists at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji and the School of Environment at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. It presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 60-year period.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, June 03, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: Sunspots may predict hurricanes as well as global warming and coooling

Sunspots may have a more profound effect on Earth’s climate than previously understood, according to new research published in the scientific journal, Geophysical Research Letters, and presented to the American Meteorological Society.

The research, by Robert Hodges and Jim Elsner of Florida State University, looked at the frequency of hurricanes and sunspots from 1851 to 2008 during the Sun’s 11-year cycles. During periods of low sunspot activity, the researchers discovered, the probability of three or more hurricanes hitting the United States increases dramatically.

“With fewer sunspots, there’s less energy at the top of the atmosphere,” Elsner explained, making for a cooler atmosphere above the hurricane. This differential fuels atmospheric instability, propelling tropical storms into hurricanes.

Sunspots have long been implicated in the global climate: During protracted periods of high sunspot activity, such as occurred in the Medieval Warm Period and the last century, global temperatures rose. During the low points in sunspot activity, such as in the Little Ice Age, temperatures declined.

A warming or cooling globe in itself, however, does not seem to be a factor in hurricane activity, according to earlier research conducted at Florida State University by Chris Landsea, a former researcher with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Landsea was one of the first scientists associated with the UN panel to blow the whistle on the IPCC’s fraudulent claims.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, June 01, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: And then there were three: Britain’s Royal Society rejects alarmism

Financial Post
Britain’s Royal Society, the UK’s preeminent scientific body, has joined national science bodies in India and France in validating the views of global warming sceptics.

The Royal Society’s decision, which follows a revolt by 43 Fellows of the Royal Society, will see it rewrite its position on climate change in a tacit admission that it and in particular its previous president, Lord May, had been acting more as lobbyists for a cause than as agents for scientific reason. Without canvassing his membership, May had famously stated that “The debate on climate change is over” and that “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”

Following the revolt over the society’s recent history of alarmism and hyperbole, the current president, Lord Rees, by no means a sceptic, has nevertheless decided to take a more balanced view:  ”Climate change is a hugely important issue but the public debate has all too often been clouded by exaggeration and misleading information,” he said. “We aim to provide the public with a clear indication of what is known about the climate system, what we think we know about it and, just as importantly, the aspects we still do not understand very well.”

The Royal Society review of its position, expected this summer, comes at the same time that France’s National Academy of Sciences has asserted that it has taken no position on climate science, that it respects the views of both camps, and that, in the interests of furthering understanding, it will sponsor a high-profile debate this fall. This decision by the National Academy of Sciences has distressed the country’s manmade global warming camp, which had lobbied the Academy and the French government to denounce and even expel the sceptics.

India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, published in 2008, was the first official national study to deny that the science was settled on climate change. “No firm link between the changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established,” the scientific report stated, before proceeding to list the many areas in which the science is not settled.

High scientific bodies in other countries, such as the National Academies of Sciences in the U.S., have also taken positions on global warming without canvassing their memberships to ensure that they reflected their memberships’ views. The decisions by these academies were typically made at the executive level, on a non-scientific basis. The case of Britain’s Royal Society has been especially egregious, given the organization’s long tradition of being above the fray, as seen in a statement that for two centuries graced its house journal, Philosophical Transactions: “… it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always adhere, never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject, either of Nature or Art, that comes before them.”

To see the extent to which the Royal Society departed from its love of truth, see its notorious 2005 document, “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change.”

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, May 31, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Green elites meet the people

(May 28, 2010) On Wednesday evening, as part of a panel of energy insiders, I spoke in Toronto’s financial district before an audience of some 150, most of them professionals interested in the clean-energy industry. On Thursday evening, I spoke to some 300 of their victims, in a school auditorium in a residential neighbourhood 15 miles away. Continue reading

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Forum blows hot over Scarborough wind farm

(May 28, 2010) Opponents of a proposed wind farm off the Scarborough Bluffs have adopted the old Bob Dylan folk classic, with their own spin, as a rallying cry: ‘the answer is not blowing in the wind.’ Continue reading

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment