Jump to content

Don Hudson

Donating Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Don Hudson

  1. Congratulations to Spacex and the first private, commercial crew for a safe flight and spectacular return. <iframe width="476" height="267" src="https://abc7news.com/video/embed/?pid=23377" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  2. We all know that many (not all) here have been vaccinated against small pox, polio, measles, tetanus, perhaps yellow fever, cholera for those flying to Asian countries, (India, for me), & maybe some took cloroquinone to reduce the effects of malaria as there is still no vaccine against it. Let me ask then, of those who do not desire to accept COVID-19 vaccines, be they Astrazenica, J&J, Pfizer or Moderna, do you regret taking any of the above, or have any long-term effects from any of these above-mentioned vaccines which are both ongoing (present today) and significantly affecting normal life for you. The Canadian Dept. of Health long ago issued their yellow vaccine record booklet and some here have mentioned that they still have theirs - I still have mine. I would not equate outcomes from taking the above vaccines but I seek a pattern of science-based evidence about how our potpourri...the millions of wonder drugs available to all of us today, came about - I mean, we injest artificial & biochemical molecules sold by the thousands to each and we do so every waking moment and never think twice about the long term risks of say, smoking (normal tobacco, or weed), for example, or megadoses of Vitamin D. Why is this? If we mandated say, Vitamin D because not enough sunlight is getting through for some reason, (I know...?), would the same resistance obtain? Is it that we don't like a mom-or-pop gov't telling us what we already know, or is it a more intellectually-mature comprehension of such an order, where we have done lots of homework and examination and then made up our own mind, to Vit B or not 2B? I'm nearly 74 and like many here can recognize forms of argument whether calling on evidence/experience or one rumour/ideology or another and generally make up my own mind. I am not persuaded by the raised eyebrow & a "Surely, you don't think that..., etc.", arguments and I think most of us are like that and wish to be left alone. But by definition, we do not have the privilege of being alone in a pandemic and as a member among millions, (or billions) of potential carriers of disease, we must encounter and then confront the question of personal responsibility to ourself and to others. We will come up with an answer - we always do but when a disease threatens life, and we, each of us, can threaten the life/lives of others, our answer to this question must account for this risk no matter what we happen to believe in. The difference arrives either as a descriptive or a prescriptive approach. Whether voiced or not, we must each give an accounting of our decision, first to ourselves and our loved ones, whether implied by our behaviours or by our various arguments for or against. I have good friends who are heading out with their two small children, (2 & 5) to sail the Caribbean for a year. They are not vaccinated and do not intend to do so. Science and empirical evidence provides ample basis for caution and prophylactics, notwithstanding what we want or feel we must do to retain some semblance of self-consistency and self-respect for our own ideas. There it is - a decision and an accounting. We visited with them, outside & distanced to learn of their plans and wished them well. As always, we never know what is just around the corner in life. I thought the following might be of interest on the "mandate" question, from The Economist. Don Sep 16th 2021 ON SEPTEMBER 11TH 2001, when al-Qaeda attacked America, almost 3,000 people died. In response the government overhauled national security and, for better or worse, struck a new balance between liberty and security. On the 20th anniversary of 9/11 roughly 3,100 people in America died because of covid-19. Another 3,100 died on September 12th. And again on the 13th. Listen to this story Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android. By our estimates, based on excess deaths, the pandemic has claimed 860,000 lives in America. Yet measures to curb the virus by mandating vaccination, which the Biden administration announced on September 9th, are being treated by senior Republicans as a terrifying affront to liberty. “This is still America,” tweeted Tate Reeves, the governor of Mississippi, “and we still believe in freedom from tyrants.” That is fatally wrong-headed. The details of the Biden mandate could be improved on, but in democracies public health sometimes requires some coercion. Across the world, governments from France to Australia are using pressure of one sort or another to boost vaccination. That should be no surprise. Ever since vaccines were invented, the state has asked some people to be jabbed to keep viruses such as yellow fever at bay. The justification for this intrusion was set out by America’s Supreme Court as long ago as 1905: even if in most cases you are free to refuse treatment, you are not thereby free to infect other people. The question is whether each country’s requirement is proportionate. That depends on the threat and the costs and benefits of pressure. The calculus differs from one place to another. What should not be in doubt is the danger posed by the Delta variant of covid-19. It is too infectious to be stopped simply by tracking cases. Vaccinated people, especially the elderly, gradually lose protection. If infected they can die, albeit at only one-tenth the rate of the unjabbed. Waves of infection overwhelm hospitals. Treating the unvaccinated cost $3.7bn in America, or $20,000 a patient, in August—a waste of resources. For all these reasons, your choice over vaccination is everyone’s business. It matters that only 63% of Americans aged over 12 have had two doses of a vaccine, compared with 76% of French and 85% of Danes. Delta’s rapid spread through the population can be slowed by vaccination, sparing hospitals from overload and protecting vulnerable vaccinated people—for instance, the residents of old-people’s homes. Academics worry that mandates merely sort the hesitant from the hardliners. You get a rapid increase in vaccination, but only to a level at or below what it would anyway have reached. One reason for this is that those convinced of a government plot see coercion as proof. That is why it is wise to keep punishments light and to offer free tests as an alternative to jabs—something the Biden plan fails to provide, but should. However, the evidence from France is more encouraging. In July, to much grumbling, the state required a vaccine passport or negative test for a range of activities, including visiting bars, restaurants, sports stadiums and shopping centres (see Europe section). A month later nearly 10m people had rushed to be vaccinated—and today the total share is 20 percentage points higher. Our World in Data reports that the share of French who say that they definitely will not be vaccinated fell from 35% in mid-June to 23% in mid-August, the most recent figures. A survey of over 50 countries in August by Johns Hopkins, an American university, found that over half of unvaccinated respondents said they definitely or probably will not get a jab. Governments cannot rely on mandates alone to get them to change their mind. Instead they also need to focus on their country’s particular hang-ups: Turks doubt covid-19 vaccines will work, Czechs don’t like vaccines in general, Americans worry about side-effects. The one thing elected officials should not do is to reinforce vaccine hesitancy by falsely presenting all mandates as an attack on constitutional liberties. ■ Dig deeper All our stories relating to the pandemic and the vaccines can be found on our coronavirus hub. You can also find trackers showing the global roll-out of vaccines, excess deaths by country and the virus’s spread across Europe.
  3. Hi J.O. There is a moral failing in such a charge [in a mere charge of negligence], I think - it is much deeper, not apprehendable by normal legal/quasi-legal or even philosophical means, (or if one reaches it, it is essentially meaningless to do advance for one must weep first, by no means for the first time...). One cannot be charged for an absence of humanity and empathy with the present human condition for lack of anything better to describe it. There is no "moral high ground here", nor is there its opposing "low" ground, but only an absence of awareness of "the other" - it is as though we were all an "it" because that is the way "the enemy" must be believed to be before dismissing it in favour of one's own. One can't castigate, blame, target or empty one's feelings towards such pedantry that forms such incapacitious thought; it just "is". But it is having an effect on our chances here, and elsewhere, for thriving and emerging. With response and outcomes varying across the country and some here attuned to our southern neighbour hardened against science-based human health initiatives with known benefits of preventing one's death, what defence is mustered by a continued anti-vax stance? According to the CDC latest, the unvaccinated are 4.5 times more likely to contract COVID-19, 10 times more likely to be hospitalized and 11 times more likely to die. These are moms and dads, (leaving children with one/no parent...), husbands, wives & grandparents, not "faceless" humans. I concur with mandates because all of us are more important than any one of us. Yes, in the end it is still a choice but it IS a choice with requirements which are just the same as those that accompanied previous highly-communicable diseases that killed like AIDS. You had to be honest. If one is unvaccinated, one must care for others as best as one can by distancing, masking and staying away from large, unmasked groups. Republican Jordan for one of many proselytizers, who is characterizing vaccination as "un-American". Really? So, how many deaths will come from Rep. Jordan's statement? How to count, how does one & one's loved ones defend themselves? But for the sore arm for a few days, it is as simple as washing one's hands. I understand the exceptions.
  4. Two vastly different responses to the current pandemic: - First, BC, showing our vaccine passport, (just like the one we were issued when an applicant had to prove s/he had been vaccinated for small pox, tetanus and so on, before say, going to school, joining the airline, travelling to a foreign country known for cholera or yellow fever, etc. - Second, the Great State of Idaho, just south of Alberta, where they are discussing the need for "Death Panels" and where the concept of "triage" takes on a whole new "life-or-death" meaning: British Columbia https://www2.gov.bc.ca/vaccinecard.html Last updated: September 13, 2021 English | 繁體中文 | 简体中文 | Français | ਪੰਜਾਬੀ | فارسی | Tagalog | 한국어 | Español Everything you need to know Get the BC Vaccine Card Places your vaccine card is required for entry Vaccination key dates Privacy and your vaccine card I need help Personalized information for: Families and caregivers Students and youth Canadian Armed Forces People who don't have B.C. ID Businesses and organizations Get the BC Vaccine Card You can save the digital version to your phone or tablet or print a paper copy to carry in your wallet. Both options are accepted everywhere. Step 1: Log-in securely To log-in securely, you need to provide your: Date of birth Personal Health Number (PHN) Date you got dose 1 or dose 2 If you already have a Health Gateway account, log-in with your BC Services Card App. Step 2: Save or print After you've securely logged in, you have 2 options: Save a digital copy to your phone or tablet. We recommend taking a screenshot, then saving to your photo album or downloads folder Take a screenshot and then print it out. Don't fold or crease the QR code portion of the card You can save or print a card for yourself or someone else, like a youth or parent. Step 3: Show your card Have your card ready when entering a business. They'll look at your vaccine card and also check your government ID. Enjoy events, businesses and services in B.C. Feel safe knowing that everyone around you is vaccinated. I don't have access to a smartphone, computer and printer Places your vaccine card is required for entry This content is a summary of the PHO order — Food and Liquor Serving Premises (PDF, 402KB) and PHO order — Gatherings and Events (PDF, 417KB) documents. It is not legal advice and does not provide an interpretation of the law. In the event of any conflict or difference between this webpage and the order, the order is correct and legal and must be followed. By order of the Provincial Health Officer (PHO), proof of vaccination is required to access some events, services and businesses. You must have at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. By October 24, you must be fully vaccinated. The requirement is in place until January 31, 2022 and could be extended. The requirement applies to all people born in 2009 or earlier (12+) and covers: Indoor ticketed sporting events with more than 50 people Indoor concerts, theatre, dance and symphony events with more than 50 people Licensed restaurants and cafes and restaurants and cafes that offer table service (indoor and patio dining), including liquor tasting rooms in wineries, breweries or distilleries Pubs, bars and lounges (indoor and patio dining) Nightclubs, casinos and movie theatres Gyms, exercise/dance facilities/studios and these activities happening in recreation facilities Businesses offering indoor exercise/fitness Indoor adult group and team sports for people 22 years old or older Indoor organized events with 50 or more people. For example: wedding and funeral receptions (outside of a funeral home), organized parties, conferences, trade fairs and workshops Indoor organized group recreational classes and activities with more than 50 people like pottery, art and choir Post-secondary student housing Spectators at indoor youth sporting events with more than 50 people Note: Proof of vaccination is not required to vote in-person in the September 20 federal election or at advance polling places. Examples of places that don't require proof of vaccination You don't have to show proof of vaccination at places like: Grocery stores, liquor stores and pharmacies Unlicensed restaurants that don't offer table service For example: fast food, coffee shops, food courts, food trucks and takeout Tasting rooms without seating attached to wineries, breweries or distilleries Local public transportation (BC Transit, TransLink, BC Ferries) Salons, hairdressers and barbers Hotels, resorts, cabins and campsites Unless it is a setting or event covered by the PHO order. For example a licensed hotel restaurant, wedding reception or conference Does not include exercise/fitness facilities in hotels that are for guests Swimming pools (unless it’s the location of an event) and skating rinks (unless being used for adult sport) Banks and credit unions Retail and clothing stores Public libraries, museums, art galleries (unless they are the location of an event) Food banks and shelters Escape rooms, laser tag, indoor paint ball, arcades and bowling alleys (if they are unlicensed or don't offer food-related table service) Post-secondary on-campus cafeterias Airport food courts and restaurants Health care services, rehabilitation or exercise therapy programs, and drug and alcohol support group meetings Social services provided to people in need You don't have to show proof of vaccination at events like: Worship services Indoor youth recreational sport for people 21 years old or younger Before and after school programs for K to 12 students Student events and activities in K to 12 public and independent schools Indoor organized events with less than 50 people, except adult sports Vaccination key dates September 13: Partially vaccinated You must now be partially vaccinated to access some events, services and businesses. You're partially vaccinated with 1 dose. October 24: Fully vaccinated By October 24, you must be fully vaccinated to access some events, services and businesses. You're fully vaccinated with 2 doses. I'm not vaccinated yet You won't be able to access some events, services and businesses. I need to get vaccinated Privacy and your vaccine card Every BC Vaccine Card has a unique QR code Every BC Vaccine Card comes with a unique QR code. B.C. is using the SMART Health Card QR code format, a requirement of the federal government. This means the QR code only stores the absolute minimum level of information and is not connected to other health records. What information is included in your QR code The QR code contains your: First and last name Date of birth Dates of vaccination Type of vaccine The lot numbers of the doses you received The clinic location where you received your doses Why this information is included The information in your QR code will be required as borders around the world reopen to fully vaccinated travellers. Having it in your QR code ensures the long-term validity of your BC Vaccine Card. In B.C., businesses are required to use the BC Vaccine Card Verifier app to scan the QR code. This app can only read: your name whether you are fully or partially vaccinated Businesses are not allowed to keep a copy of any proof without your consent. Don't share your QR code on social media. This is a personal document. Keeping your BC Vaccine Card secure is key to keeping your information under your control. Partially vaccinated Fully vaccinated No record found Checking ID Events, businesses and services will ask to see your BC Vaccine Card and a piece of valid government photo ID, for example: B.C. driver's licence or BC Services Card Passport Photo ID issued by another province or territory Vaccine card transition period to September 26 To give everyone time to get their BC Vaccine Card, up to and including September 26, you can show other forms of proof of vaccination: Wallet-sized immunization record card (given out at vaccine clinics) Printed immunization record from Health Gateway Immunization record from your pharmacy (AstraZeneca/SII COVISHIELD) National Defence Canada COVID-19 vaccine record or card Provincial Immunization Registry record (used by Interior Health and others) ImmunizeBC record (used by First Nations Health Authority and others) Health authority immunization records: Fraser Health Vancouver Coastal Health Northern Health Families and caregivers You can share copies of your vaccine card with your family and loved ones. We recommend emailing copies to family members or printing multiple copies. Parents should carry a copy of their child's vaccine card with them. You are allowed to have multiple copies. Students and youth Post-secondary students Proof of vaccination is also required for some on-campus housing. Out-of-province students You can use your provincial/territorial or international proof of vaccination. We recommend you get a BC Vaccine Card. To get a card, you have to get your immunization record added to the provincial system. Submit your information as soon as you arrive in B.C. Youth aged 12 to 18 Youth aged 12 to 18 can carry their own BC Vaccine Card, or have a trusted adult carry it for them. Youth are not required to show valid government photo ID. Canadian Armed Forces Members of the Canadian Armed Forces don't need to get a BC Vaccine Card. You can use your National Defence Canada COVID-19 vaccine record or card and your National Defence ID card. People who don't have B.C. ID People who don't have a B.C. ID are also required to show proof of vaccination. You might not have B.C. identification if: You're visiting from another place You just moved here People from other provinces or territories People from other Canadian provinces or territories must show: Provincially/territorially officially recognized vaccine record Valid government photo ID International visitors International visitors must show: Proof of vaccination they used to enter Canada Passport -----The second story: The Great State of Idaho, U.S.A., where healthcare measures including personal hygiene habits are either banned outright or shamed-and-shunned by anti-vax/anti-mask adherents as one might experience in a religious community, for example, and which brings to fever-pitch, the "clash of rights" now experienced on both sides of the vaccination issue. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/sophies-choice-over-and-over-death-panels-are-the-new-phase-of-the-pandemic/ (my bolding, where seen in the article? ‘Sophie’s choice, over and over’: Death panels are the new phase of the pandemic Sep. 11, 2021 at 6:00 am Updated Sep. 11, 2021 at 3:26 pm (Photo) Registered nurse Jack Kingsley attends to a COVID-19 patient at St. Luke’s Boise Medical Center in Idaho on Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2021. St. Luke’s Health System has paused... (Kyle Green / The Associated Press) By Danny Westneat Seattle Times columnist Remember “death panels”? Well, they’re back, and this time, they’re real. “Death panels” was a phrase coined by Sarah Palin, the folksy-talkin’ former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate. She imagined that Obamacare would cause health bureaucrats to ration out medical care, after first sitting in judgment of who was most deserving to receive it. This was awarded the “Lie of the Year” in 2009, as it was nowhere in any legislation. It was a right-wing fever dream. But now a version of it has come true — in Idaho. Hospitals in northern Idaho are so flooded with COVID-19 patients that the state has declared an emergency, called “crisis standards of care.” It means when you show up to the emergency room, you may get treated based preferentially on who is most likely to live. “If your mother has a heart attack, someone will have to assign her a point score designating how likely she is to survive,” the Idaho Falls Post Register wrote, describing the scheme last winter when it was first being contemplated. “If it isn’t high enough, she might not get an ICU bed, and a COVID patient will get it instead. “We will ask the nurses and doctors who’ve broken their backs trying to save us to make that Sophie’s choice over, and over, and over.” This past week the 200-bed hospital in Coeur d’Alene had 218 patients — so many it was treating patients in hallways and running out of oxygen to help them breathe, The Associated Press reported. “What about the people who need emergency care but, because of the exploding COVID crisis here, can’t get it?” asked the Coeur d’Alene Press. “Do we just let them die?” The answer to that is: “Yes.” Letting them die is actually the plan. The GOP governor of Idaho said it was “an unprecedented and unwanted point in the history of our state.” But he made no moves to try anything else, such as requiring vaccinations for anyone (he earlier had banned the governmental use of “vaccine passports” in the state). It’s a red state, and so for the most part they’re letting the virus rip and run. Remember years ago when a tea party debate audience cheered the idea of letting someone without insurance die? What’s happening in Idaho is even worse because it’s so preventable. Doctors in Idaho have said their COVID-19 patients are almost all unvaccinated. “We don’t have any vaccinated patients here,” an ICU doc in Boise told The Associated Press. “Misinformation is hurting people and killing people.” Idaho ranks last in the percentage of its population having at least one dose of coronavirus vaccine, at only 45%. The U.S. is about 63%; Washington state 69%. But Idaho is not the only place where the “death panel” concept is creeping into the conversation. The main hospital in Yakima is seeing a record number of COVID-19 patients, almost all unvaccinated. They’re raising the specter of rationing care there, too — something the chief medical officer said has never happened at the hospital. “I sure hope we don’t get there, but that’s where we’re heading,” he warned in The Yakima Herald-Republic on Wednesday. When I wrote last week about a COVID-19 skeptic and anti-vaxxer who had died of the disease, asking whether society should care, I heard from a slew of readers furious because their own medical care is being delayed or cut off — a diffuse version of the triage going on in Idaho. “Am I angry? You bet I am,” wrote Mike Morrissey, of Snohomish, who says his cardiac surgery has been put off indefinitely due to a flood of COVID-19 patients. “My heart is failing without intervention. I can’t walk a block without stopping. But their choice [to not get vaccinated] just negated my urgent need.” Echoed a nurse at a regional hospital: “They’re dying of stupidity by choice, but at the same time taking up space in the hospital and displacing stroke, cancer and cardiac patients.” “Do I care what happens to those who won’t take a simple step to end this nightmare?” asked reader Jon Kraus, who said his brother-in-law had a surgery to fix a painful back condition put on hold due to COVID-19 levels. “I’m tired of catering to people who don’t care about anyone but themselves.” This is why Gov. Jay Inslee and President Joe Biden suddenly feel more comfortable mandating the vaccine for groups of workers and businesses. Yes, the right-wing flank of the GOP will sue, march around in tri-corner hats and scream at their local school boards. But people are done. The vaccinated — the majority in most states — have had enough. Now, as the workplace vax wars rev up, the best point to keep in mind is offered up by reader Michael Andreoni: “Who I DO feel sorry for are the medical personnel who have to deal with this mess,” he wrote. It’s the story of our time, how a pandemic that was visited upon us, through no fault of our own, ended up morphing into such a self-inflicted wound for America. It didn’t take a tyrant or a deep state or a committee of banal bureaucrats to bring death panels to life, as Sarah Palin imagined in her fever dream. We willingly did it to ourselves. Danny Westneat: dwestneat@seattletimes.com; Danny Westneat takes an opinionated look at the Puget Sound region's news, people and politics. Disclosing my bias: Like some others here who have family in the healthcare system, we have a daughter who is an Emerg Nurse in a local hospital. They have three young children, (6 & under); her husband is a firefighter. Both of them see the severe results described here and elsewhere of the choice to not vaccinate. Both see a system under strain. Many are leaving the healthcare profession due to burnout in the ICU. People with other health issues are having critical surgeries foreshortened or cancelled. We are appealing to you: Please reconsider your choice not to vaccinate as the decision has a material, extremely deleterious effect on many others.
  5. https://www.amazon.com/Canadair-North-Star-Larry-Milberry/dp/0969070314
  6. Hi UD; Re, Well thanks, you said it far better than I was capable of at the time - this was what I was trying to convey with the objection I made earlier in the thread. It had nothing to do with the actual discussion about Ivermectin or asking reasonable questions about it. On ingesting other compounds, as a BC resident I take Vitamin D just like my damp friends do, based on what probably are a number of myths as in BC the sun is mostly an apparition. But taking compounds to keep one as healthy as possible as one ages, a process which I am striving to continue, are a doctor's perview, period, and the decisions and choices are indeed private.
  7. The above statement is misinformation, and is on a public forum. As a member of the AEF I object to the use of this forum for this purpose. Don Hudson From Health Canada: From the U.S. FDA
  8. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/global-frontline-nurses-rally-1.5868794?fbclid=IwAR2NB1Keih-vDLYLSmThFlKp6MNuhA5GJoohpW9fsV9x7tKaIRj0pPQrxkk Colin Butler is a veteran CBC reporter who's worked in Moncton, Saint John, Fredericton, Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton and London, Ont. Email: colin.butler@cbc.ca Regulator investigating 2 Ont. nurses who travelled to D.C. rally promoting 'COVID fraud' conspiracy Kristen Nagle and Sarah Choujounian are under investigation by the College of Nurses of Ontario Colin Butler · CBC News · Posted: Jan 11, 2021 5:13 PM ET | Last Updated: January 12 Ontario's nursing regulator says it is investigating two nurses who travelled to Washington, D.C., last week to attend a rally by a group of their peers that has made unsubstantiated, conspiratorial claims about "COVID fraud" and hospitals' alleged role in misrepresenting the coronavirus pandemic. Kristen Nagle, a neonatal ICU nurse from London, Ont., and Sarah Choujounian, a registered practical nurse from Toronto, travelled to the United States last week despite current public health directives to avoid all non-essential travel in order to help mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus. The College of Nurses of Ontario confirmed the two nurses, who have participated in events protesting COVID-19 public health measures in Canada, were already under investigation and said it is aware of their recent trip to D.C. to attend an event organized by Global Frontline Nurses (GFN). The group's members claim hospitals around the world are misreporting cases of the virus and needlessly placing patients on ventilators and diagnosing people with COVID-19 in order to make money off the crisis. "I can advise that CNO is investigating these members and that we are aware of the information indicated," said spokesperson Angela Smith in response to CBC News questions about the investigation. Smith said regulations prevent the college from providing details on the status of the investigation. 'It's shocking' Doris Grinspun, CEO of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, calls the views promoted by Global Frontline Nurses "pure conspiracy theory." "It's damaging because what people need is factual information," Grinspun, who has filed a complaint against Nagle with the college over her past activities, said in an interview. "When you hear this from one of your own, and in this case, two of our own, one RN and one RPN, it's shocking." GFN's members gathered on the steps of Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 hours before thousands of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump descended on the Capitol to try to stop the certification the presidential election results by violently overwhelming police and storming into the building. According to a press release issued ahead of the GFN event, the intent was to "share insight about COVID fraud and corruption inside hospitals." Attended past anti-mask events Nagle and Choujounian have attracted the attention of American media for attending the GFN event at a time when the U.S.-Canada border is supposed to be shut to all non-essential travel. The two nurses are no strangers to public controversy. Both have participated in rallies against wearing masks and government-mandated lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nagle, who works as a neonatal nurse at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC), was one of the organizers of an anti-mask rally in Victoria Park in November that resulted in a number of charges being laid under the Reopening Ontario Act. Since that rally, Nagle has been placed under investigation by the college and her employer. A spokesperson for LHSC said she will remain on unpaid leave pending the results of the hospital network's probe. Erinor Jacob-Levine told CBC News in an email that LHSC is aware of Nagle's trip south of the border. "We want to assure our community that we take this situation and the new events that have come to light very seriously," Jacob-Levine said. "While we are not able to address the specifics of an internal investigation due to privacy, safeguarding the health of our patients and their families, staff and physicians is of the utmost importance and remains our top priority." Nagle, left, and Choujounian, far right, seen with another member of Global Frontline Nurses in January 2021, have both participated in past events in Canada that have opposed COVID-19 public health measures such as mask wearing and lockdowns. (Sarah Choujounian/Instagram) Toronto nurse says she was fired from nursing home Choujounian currently works for S.R.T. MedStaff, according to the Ontario College of Nurses. The company describes itself as "a leading provider of nursing and personal support services to over 30 hospitals in the Greater Toronto Area." Carolyn Acton, vice-president of patient services and operations at S.R.T. MedStaff, said in an email that the company could not discuss Choujounian's travels because of privacy considerations. However, she said policies are in place to prevent staff who have travelled outside the country from coming in contact with patients. "Currently, any staff who has travelled outside of Canada is required to self-isolate for 14 days and to contact Public Health," Acton wrote. "At the end of the 14 day isolation period, we re-screen staff and also require that they are cleared by Public Health prior to being reinstated for work." A YouTube video shows Choujounian telling a crowd at an anti-lockdown rally in Toronto in November that she was fired from her job at Norfinch Care Community, a nursing home in the North York neighbourhood of Toronto, for "speaking the truth" and sharing her opinion about the pandemic online. Sienna Senior Living, the company that owns Norfinch Care Community, confirmed to CBC News on Monday that Choujounian is "no longer an employee" at the nursing home but wouldn't provide further details, citing privacy reasons. Nurses facing 'death threats and harassment': GFN Jeff Louderback, a spokesman for Global Frontline Nurses, confirmed the two Canadian nurses attended the Jan. 6 event but told CBC News via text message that Nagle and Choujounian were "not available for interviews" because they have been subject to "death threats and harassment." CBC News attempted to contact Choujounian on social media and received no reply. Ottawa to introduce legislation to close loophole for quarantining travellers As airlines entice travellers, health expert says gov't must enforce stronger travel rules Attempts were also made to reach Nagle through her social media accounts and through her brother on social media but were unsuccessful. The nurses documented their trip and the GFN event on social media. Ontario nurses travelled to Washington D.C. 8 months ago 1:58 A group of nurses, including two who are now under investigation by Ontario's nursing regulator, gathered in Washington D.C. last week. Video captured from the Instagram account of Kristen Nagle of London, Ont. 1:58 They were seen together with other GFN members in one video posted on Nagle's Instagram account last week. The video was made private following media reports about the trip but was seen by CBC News while it was still public. In the video, Nagle and Choujounian are seen with at least five other people, none of whom are wearing masks, inside what appears to be a hotel room. They recount attending a Trump rally that was held last Wednesday south of the White House before some of the supporters moved to the Capitol. "I keep getting messages wondering if we're OK. We are all safe," Nagle says in the video before passing her phone to Choujounian, who talks about carrying a pro-Trump flag for fear of being mistaken for a supporter of the far-left group Antifa because she was dressed all in black. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Colin Butler Video Journalist Colin Butler is a veteran CBC reporter who's worked in Moncton, Saint John, Fredericton, Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton and London, Ont. Email: colin.butler@cbc.ca
  9. It is disturbing when, in a still-highly-experimental test regime, established procedures regarding such warnings were, in my view, almost certainly ignored by an experienced, highly-trained crew in favour of not disappointing the important & powerful rider in the back. Why else would the red "cone" warning be ignored after the engine was kept running for a second longer? This isn't a mechanical or structural matter, it is a discipline & performance matter. Stucky has already left, indicating that his services were no longer valued. That's a really bad sign and signal to send but there it is. Stucky appears to have been the lone restraint with the experience & position that this organization has benefitted from, to tone down Sir Branson's penchant for showmanship. The FAA, maybe still smarting from recent history, has grounded Branson and so it should and so should he be. The organizational factors were dismissed in favour of the "bad apple" (once-off) theory, a statement likely made under great pressure, but in fact this has characteristics reminiscent of the Challenger and Columbia shuttle accidents. All in my opinion.
  10. Following on Airband's post, this is from "The New Yorker": The Red Warning Light on Richard Branson’s Space Flight The F.A.A. is investigating the ship’s off-course descent. By Nicholas Schmidle September 01 2021 On July 11th, nearly a minute into the rocket trip carrying Richard Branson, the British billionaire, to space, a yellow caution light appeared on the ship’s console. The craft was about twenty miles in the air above the White Sands Missile Range, in New Mexico, and climbing, travelling more than twice the speed of sound. But it was veering off course, and the light was a warning to the pilots that their flight path was too shallow and the nose of the ship was insufficiently vertical. If they didn’t fix it, they risked a perilous emergency landing in the desert on their descent. Riding rockets is dangerous stuff. Around 1.4 per cent of Russian, Soviet, and American crewed spaceflight missions have resulted in fatalities. The foremost commercial space companies—Branson’s Virgin Galactic, Elon Musk’s SpaceX, and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin—must, over the coming years, bring that number down. Their profits depend on making frequent and safe human spaceflight a reality. “A private program can’t afford to lose anybody,” Branson has said. And yet, perhaps more than any of its competitors, Branson’s company is already hard at work fashioning its identity as a luxury life-style brand. Virgin Galactic is marketing its space-tourism business but for the time being remains an experimental flight-test program. I’ve been covering this company for almost seven years, reporting on its triumphs and tragedies, and on the disconnect between its lofty rhetoric (“Virgin Galactic’s mission is to democratize space,” Branson has said) and its supersonic risks. This account was informed by discussions with eight people knowledgeable about the program. Virgin Galactic’s space vehicle is unique among its competitors. Whereas SpaceX and Blue Origin operate traditional, vertical-launch rockets that are automated by engineers, Virgin Galactic uses a piloted, winged rocket ship. Every test flight is crewed, which makes each one a matter of life and death. (SpaceX, on the other hand, completed scores of launches before it flew with a human onboard; Blue Origin completed more than a dozen launches before it did the same.) The success of Virgin Galactic’s program, therefore, will ultimately depend on its pilots, high-calibre but nonetheless fallible, making the right decisions and adjustments in specific moments—like when a yellow caution light comes on. Alerts on the console can be triggered by any number of issues. On the July 11th flight, with Branson on board, it was a trajectory problem, or what’s known as the “entry glide cone.” The ship uses rocket power to get into space, but glides back to Earth and lands on a runway, like the space shuttle would do. This method, mimicking water circling a drain, enables a controlled descent. But the ship must begin its descent within a specified, imaginary “cone” to have enough glide energy to reach its destination. The pilots basically weren’t flying steeply enough. Not only was the ship’s trajectory endangering the mission, it was also imperilling the ship’s chances of staying inside its mandated airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration regulates the private space industry and sets aside airspace for each mission, seeking to prevent collisions with general air traffic, including commercial airliners, and to limit civilian casualties in the event of an accident. The regulator uses formulas detailed in a hundred-and-twenty-one-page document—including an equation for calculating expected casualties—to assess the safety of a given spaceflight. According to the F.A.A., an acceptable Ec, as the equation is called, involves no more than one expected casualty per ten thousand missions. The agency designates airspace for flights with that equation in mind. The rocket motor on Virgin Galactic’s ship is programmed to burn for a minute. On July 11th, it had a few more seconds to go when a red light also appeared on the console: an entry glide-cone warning. This was a big deal. I once sat in on a meeting, in 2015, during which the pilots on the July 11th mission—Dave Mackay, a former Virgin Atlantic pilot and veteran of the U.K.’s Royal Air Force, and Mike Masucci, a retired Air Force pilot—and others discussed procedures for responding to an entry glide-cone warning. C. J. Sturckow, a former marine and NASA astronaut, said that a yellow light should “scare the **bleep** out of you,” because “when it turns red it’s gonna be too late”; Masucci was less concerned about the yellow light but said, “Red should scare the crap out of you.” Based on pilot procedures, Mackay and Masucci had basically two options: implement immediate corrective action, or abort the rocket motor. According to multiple sources in the company, the safest way to respond to the warning would have been to abort. (A Virgin Galactic spokesperson disputed this contention.) Aborting at that moment, however, would have dashed Branson’s hopes of beating his rival Bezos, whose flight was scheduled for later in the month, into space. Mackay and Masucci did not abort. Whether or not their decision was motivated by programmatic pressures and the hopes of their billionaire bankroller sitting in the back remains unclear. Virgin Galactic officials told me that the firm’s top priority is the safety of its crew and passengers. Branson, however, is known for his flamboyance and showmanship. On the morning of the flight, Branson, an outspoken environmentalist, appeared on the “livestream” arriving at the spaceport on a bicycle. But this turned out to be false: Branson did not pedal to work that day; the bike ride was filmed a week earlier and then made to look like it happened that morning. When Reuters called out the company, an anonymous official said, “We regret the error and any confusion it may have caused.” Although Mackay and Masucci attempted to address their trajectory problem, it wasn’t enough. And now they were accelerating to Mach 3, with a red light glowing in the cockpit. Fortunately for Branson and the three other crew members in the back, the pilots got the ship into space and landed safely. But data retrieved from Flightradar24 shows the vehicle flying outside its designated airspace. An F.A.A. spokesperson confirmed that Virgin Galactic “deviated from its Air Traffic Control clearance” and that an “investigation is ongoing.” A Virgin Galactic spokesperson acknowledged that the company did not initially notify the F.A.A. and that the craft flew outside its designated airspace for a minute and forty-one seconds—flights generally last about fifteen minutes—but said that the company was working with the F.A.A. to update procedures for alerting the agency. Virgin Galactic has faced close calls and calamities in the past. In 2011, with the company contracting its flight-test program to Scaled Composites, a boutique aviation firm, a crash was narrowly averted when the spaceship got into an inverted spin. And in 2014 an accident killed one pilot, badly injured another, and left their spaceship in ruins. Two recent episodes are perhaps more revealing. In July, 2018, Mackay and Masucci were conducting a test flight thirty miles above the Earth when the ship got away from them, spinning and tumbling in the thin air. Virgin Galactic’s lead test pilot and flight-test director, Mark Stucky, was monitoring the flight from mission control, fearful that if Mackay and Masucci didn’t steady the ship soon, their off-kilter descent could seriously damage the vehicle and put the pilots in danger. They landed safely, though a post-flight inspection exposed manufacturing defects that required months of repairs. Seven months later, in February, 2019, Mackay and Masucci flew again, this time with an engineer in the back. They reached space, as planned, but the ship sustained significant damage when a bond holding the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer came unglued. “I don’t know how we didn’t lose the vehicle and kill three people,” Todd Ericson, a retired Air Force Colonel and Virgin Galactic’s then vice-president of safety and test, told me in a 2020 interview. When, in Ericson’s view, management tried to keep the problem quiet, his concerns grew. “This should have been a come-to-Jesus moment, not the kind of thing you brush under the rug,” he said. The maintenance crew had supposedly inspected the ship and verified that it was safe to fly when it demonstrably was not, and Ericson was worried that the company was treating an organizational failure as an isolated incident. (The company disputed this account.) Eventually, Ericson shared his concerns with members of the board, which hired a retired Boeing executive to conduct a safety review of the flight-test program. Ericson resigned from his post in frustration, disillusioned by the company’s safety culture. (In a recent e-mail exchange, Ericson declined to comment on the company’s safety practices, or on his resignation.) The former Boeing executive spent weeks interviewing pilots and engineers, before filing a forty-page report with observations and recommendations. Virgin Galactic, citing confidentiality agreements, declined numerous requests to share the document with me but said that it concluded it was safe to fly. Stucky, the flight-test director, told me that neither the former Boeing executive’s report, nor his observations, were ever shared with him or his team. Stucky, a pillar of Virgin Galactic’s program and a legend in the flight-test community, had issued his own warnings about protecting the integrity of the flight-test program. In a 2017 e-mail to his team, he wrote, “We must stop de-scoping timelines because we are overworked and understaffed and instead should be jumping up and down on senior management’s desks saying exactly what contractor support, new hires, redistribution of effort, or whatever else is required.” In another e-mail, in 2019, he urged his fellow test pilots to be more transparent: “Failure to admit mistakes in flight test is a cancer that must be nipped at the bud.” Stucky, whom I wrote about in the magazine in 2018, had been particularly troubled by Mackay and Masucci’s unwillingness to take responsibility for what he perceived to be their mistakes on the July, 2018, flight. Some of Stucky’s criticisms appeared in the book I wrote about him and Virgin Galactic’s rocket ship-program, “Test Gods: Virgin Galactic and the Making of a Modern Astronaut.” After the publication of my book, in May, Stucky was stripped of his flight duties and excluded from key planning meetings ahead of the July 11th event. He watched Branson’s flight from the runway; it was the first mission for which he had no responsibilities after more than a decade on the program. Eight days after Branson’s flight, an H.R. manager booked time on his calendar, and then fired Stucky over Zoom. His departure—coupled with Ericson’s, two years earlier—leaves the company without important internal voices for accountability. In a recent meeting, when an attendee suggested that Mackay and Masucci were lucky to have escaped serious problems after the entry glide-cone warning, the pilots grew defensive. A source inside the company said of Mackay, the pilot, “He should man up, own his mistake, and admit that he pooched the profile.” A senior company official told me that the flight path trajectory was acceptable but not optimal, nor what they intended, and that the incident was being reviewed. In a written statement, Virgin Galactic described the July 11th flight as “a safe and successful test flight that adhered to our flight procedures and training protocols.” The statement added, “When the vehicle encountered high altitude winds which changed the trajectory, the pilots and systems monitored the trajectory to ensure it remained within mission parameters. Our pilots responded appropriately to these changing flight conditions exactly as they have been trained and in strict accordance with our established procedures.” Last month, Virgin Galactic’s C.E.O. announced that, beginning in October, it would ground its fleet for eight months to work on the mothership that carries its space plane aloft, and then put a new space ship through a rigorous flight-test program—all of this without Stucky, the seasoned director of flight test. In 2018, after Stucky flew Virgin Galactic’s first successful space mission, a mentor of his from NASA wrote to congratulate him on “a job well done: as a Test Pilot and as a Program leader—in the face of significant technical and organizational challenges.” Sturckow, the former marine and current Virgin Galactic test pilot who’s flown to space twice with the company and four times with NASA, once commended Stucky for doing “an excellent **bleep** job as flight-test director, keeping this team of innocents from wandering in the woods endlessly.” Stucky has spent the days since his departure mostly at home. He has received job offers, and former colleagues have stopped by bearing gifts and condolences. “What a loss for us, and what a way to treat someone who has been here since the beginning,” one engineer wrote to him. Others have come by asking for advice, which Stucky admits puts him in an awkward position. “I want to help my friends,” he told me. “But by the same token, I don’t think I should be helping a company that didn’t see any value in me.” In late September, before overhauling its fleet, Virgin Galactic is scheduled to fly its next test flight, carrying several members of the Italian Air Force to space. The company spokesperson said Virgin Galactic “is guided by a fundamental commitment to safety at every level.”
  11. Seeker, how far does the database of posts go back? I've been able to search up to 2003! Great place as always - good thermometer for the health of the industry & those who make it happen or made it happen and are now in Kip's "dotland"! ?
  12. Hi Skeptic - thanks, yes, I do recall that decision now and wondered about that statement; still, in Canada & the U.S., it is illegal to open & consume one's own alcohol on board an aircraft.
  13. . . . and hopefully then, arrests. Carriage of alcohol across provincial/state/country borders is an illegal act and warrants arrest at destination, or, where physical abuse threatens the flight's progress and/or passenger safety, whereever the captain deems is the nearest suitable airport to land the aircraft. Such landing at an unscheduled airport can have unanticipated, serious personal/legal outcomes for individuals who may also have immigration, arrest-warrant, tax or other such outstanding matters which could be of interest to authorities in that country. Life can rapidly become very complicated these days for a momentary loss of personal control. Further, to counter any abusive behaviour that threatens flight safety, IATA needs to implement a worldwide "No-Fly" roster so that those committing the most serious offences involving physical attacks on crews, even just once (first time), are banned from all air travel everywhere and not just the country in which the aircraft is registered.
  14. For those hesitant due short approval time for emergency use, and research work, this TedTalk might help understand the rapid development of the mRNA vaccine. I asked about this, thinking that it was "unexpected" and a "eureka" moment but no... From last year when the mRNA vaccinces were becoming public knowledge: Observation: "The Pfizer vaccine (now touted at 95% effective...), & Moderna news is unexpected and very good." Response: "Yes, it is very good and wasn't unexpected. BioNTech and Sahin know what they are doing. Sahin won the German Cancer Prize last year for BioNTech's approach to anti-cancer drugs.", etc. From the TED Talk site: As COVID-19 spread, BioNTech cofounders Uğur Şahin and Özlem Türeci had one goal: to make a safe, effective vaccine faster than ever before. In this illuminating conversation with head of TED Chris Anderson, the immunologists (and married couple) share the fascinating story of how their decades of mRNA research powered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine -- and forecast what this breakthrough science could mean for the future of vaccines and other immunotherapy treatments:
  15. Hi Jaydee; While what you say may be true or not, it is a far less serious question, even during an election, than the more important point is raised above in deicer's first paragraph. The rest outlined in his post merely follows as a result of that fateful and proven-incorrect decision which Bush made in November 2001 in response to 9/11. The decision, popular with the crowd, was confusing and reckless even at the time, was heat-of-the-moment, "revenge-politics", with Cheney & Rumsfeld at the helm. Afghanistan had no connection to 9/11, nor did Iraq. Nevertheless, the decision to invade Iraq in March of 2003 was equally wrong and I (unimportantly, but nevertheless), said so at the time as well. American Exceptionalism was at work - we can achieve where the Brits & Russians could not. That they could not was clear in about the same time both those governments took to leave: ten years, but "the war" dropped from the American psyche and they kept sending their sons & daughters. Perhaps Biden has made what is the most important decision of his life and his presidency, but really, he is just responding to what the American people wanted and have been demanding of their president for years: Get Out of Afghanistan. Well, they're doing it. Even Trump made the correct decision but, perhaps distracted at the time, never followed through - it was and IS time to leave. Without continuing the trillion-dollar+ bad decision any further, there was never going to be a time to go. Government troups outnumbered the Taliban 300,000 to about 50,000, but had lost heart and direction, while the Taliban saw victory coming. The pace was not (and should not have been) a surprise, nor is this "Saigon". The question of immigration must be dealt with certainly. Let us see how the Canadian public reacts and engages each of their candidates' in their riding, and the leaders of the parties running. Let us hear from them regarding Canada's immigration policies & standards and how they are preparing to govern for demographic changes. For those who think an election is a waste of time, act on your frustration and put your shoulders into it to make the best of the opportunity to render your box-tick meaningful and those elected accountable.
  16. Still is, even here. George Will is well worth reading, but that has nothing to do with agreeing/disagreeing with him - understanding something is different than holding/defending a point of view. He provides some worthwhile datapoints in his discussion on Koonin, (who I had not heard of). Jaydee, good questions, observations - worth some thought. We know by now that climate change isn't hotter or colder days - even a few years' worth of record-breaking events. I recall fires and extremely hot days as child in BC with huge snowdrifts in Vancouver. Vancouver experienced Hurricane Freda, (1962) at a time when climate change was the last chapter in a tired social studies textbook on "pollution", with the hackneyed, terrible black-and-white images of smoke stacks. Today it would be "evidence"... As Will would agree, most don't think of any of this as "climate change". I think it is more fruitful to examine trend & stability of atmospheric temperature with available long-term data and evidence in geological sources, ans well as compositional changes of the atmosphere. If it is creeping, Venus-like, then we must examine whether "our" environment will be congenial to "us", (and our food sources!), or not, over time. Moon, I think most grow quickly weary of the debate-style win-lose motif. The trend in how discussion unfolds is troublesome - Will states this quite well: ", . . . but science has limited ability to disentangle human and natural influences on climate changes". So it makes it very difficult to separate opinion from fact, given the sometimes-similarity between them! This thread is six years old now and merits a re-read from the beginning to sense the character of the conversation as it unfolds. Almost everyone here is "busy"/really-busy earning a living, raising families, dealing with what life throws at us, aging, financial as well as what I could call "geological" security, (a long-term place to live) - so this is complicated, frustrating stuff to be sure and there isn't much left in the tank to deal with stuff we can't control. But the change, regardless of how/why, must be dealt with, even if the decision is to privilege economic activity over all else.
  17. Hi Jaydee - I think we agree - China is important to have on board, but just because it isn't on board and their carbon emmisions eclipse the ROTW combined doesn't mean serious, immediate efforts to stop the global temperature trend shouldn't be undertaken where we can, simultaneously. That's my point, and, I suspect, yours as well. Surely, the Chinese and other contributors must comprehend the precarious position they are in even just for their own economic & social health. If not,
  18. "Unless China is on board..." isn't an argument against acting, it is just citing one impediment among many to humankind's survival. History is replete with the same lessons, from unsinkable ships to O-ring failures to single-point-of-failures in the design of critical flight control systems and the lead-up is always the same quality of defence - the institutional ignoring of inconvenient facts in favour of short-term, picayune gain. They belong to the same category of thinking that makes the following "sign-o'-the-times" disturbingly comprehensible: There are no boats or helicopters and Mars is not an option yet! As Feynman wisely stated, "...nature cannot be fooled." There remains only our own sensibilities, ingenuity and imagination. The risks in being wrong and not trusting what is demonstrable and repeatable science outweigh maleable, even capricious public opinion in favour of a course of action recommended by the IPCC. Nature can't read or even think; we can.
  19. Tx, A330, that approach was really pretty to watch. Very professional work.
  20. Hi Jaydee - Keep the home at 1.5C or permit >=3C? It's the pandemic question on steroids, no? Vax or no vax? The social-construction of the answer is maleable, the scientific answer is not. The NP article states the obvious, of course because at present, no one can seriously argue that the addiction to fossil fuel will stop "cold turkey". The incredible hardship for the world's population & damage to economies would be at least equal to "the cure", so to speak. The only difference could be our survival or not; the "Sixth Extinction" notion has been around for decades. The Museum of Natural History at Chicago has an entire section dedicated to its study. But the fact that it is an ancient "meme" & question on numerous fronts on numerous tongues over centuries doesn't invalidate the question, it only situates it in time. But, certainly here in Vancouver the air did clear measurably during the pandemic when the streets & freeways were empty. So it can be done again, but at a far, far greater price extracted without malice, a thought or a care from Ms. Nature, because the only zero-sum game are the laws of the universe that govern our two or three second-long, (in geological time), experiment. And it's decades, not centuries away. As a species, we are amazingly creative with solutions. Faced with an asteroid-hit say two years from now, I suspect we would be especially creative, many, not a little panicked. Well, the "asteroid" is a couple of decades away, when, the Report says, the average temp will exceed 3C and likely (though not assuredly yet), become negatively stable (runaway case). All we can realistically discuss are the details of what is coming but not the "if", long past the point at which, I'm sure you know the story, a floating log, a boat and a helicopter will have been useful. The only response that matters if we matter, is a radical one. ?
  21. Off the cuff... Politics and its practitioners, no matter what we believe or who we trust with our lives, oddly enough do not have the power to stop the tides, repeal gravity, change the character of natural, physical laws including the laws of thermodynamics. We are "believing" creatures, (Homo Credo), we grant them that power through magical thinking but that thinking has only one outcome. Let’s turn the phrase around, "I'll believe it when I see it" to gain an idea how the mind works: "I'll see it when I believe it". The earth took a breather from human activity last year. We can imbue such natural phenomena with our own interpretations, but, like evolution itself, natural laws do not anticipate, they just "are" and behave inexorably, without malice-of-forethought. Belief systems end at one's eyes, ears & brain. We saw, smelt and enjoyed clear fresh air in many parts of the earth. So it can be done, but the economic lessons of the pandemic were and remain equally clear; we have built life based upon fouling our nest. In the very best sense of the term, our "closed system", the cost of what has been extracted from the ecosystem of human activity is now being paid. Science is not the enemy just because it changes. Healthy systems adapt. Logical, critical thinking is unequal to the awesome power of personal delusion and memory-holing inconvenient facts. That is why the notion of "heresy" is so fascinating. The raised eyebrow saying, "Surely you don't think that...", (complete the sentence); social control of thought & belief are human traits but have no place in scientific work. The pandemic is sufficient a lesson in science & natural law vs. a demon-haunted, political world. The same principles apply to our "ecology of mind" and our stewardship of the natural world, over time. This kind of writing always looks like a chastisement. It isn't. Nor is this a revelation, a confession, a "new turn" or even an epiphany. Yes, I had different views when earning a living as a pilot - self-preservation and preservation of the family, (economically), was paramount. Most here I suspect are "in that mode" and it is completely understandable/comprehensible. I didn't know what to do then, and I don't know what to do about now. I can only write. These days there is much talk about accountability, but it is always about someone else. The ball's in our court now. In two decades the earth will have exceeded the 1.5C average temperature increase, making it a positive feedback loop. As George Carlin said many years ago, "Earth ain't going anywhere; we are.", and here we are. Our grandchildren are 6, 4, & 2. Wither grandchildren, and their children? We still have time to alter behaviour, says the IPCC Report. So...each of us has our "sacred cows" - the "I'll do anything, but not..." 's. Such individual changes can alter outcomes in a blink of geological time. Let us imagine how it can be and how it should be to sustain all life. Language affects behaviour. Rephrase the term "our environment" to "the enviroment" because it is not just "ours". "Our" environment is disappearing, but "the" environment may be congenial to other life forms...we can change, adapt, or not. "What's a typewriter?" is today an honest question but in Grade 7, (1960), I typed all my assignments on a Remington...(still have it). I have been a non-veggie all my life but now another seriously-economically-threatening, "heretical" question must be asked: What is the real cost of the beef / chicken industry? What are alternatives to habit? Let us write our own history and not have it ultimately written by "the environment".
  22. The Sixth IPCC Report was issued today: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ (last report was eight years ago). From the Report: "Widespread devastation and extreme weather is likely to become inevitable within the next two decades thanks to human behaviour causing rising temperatures, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned. "Only rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases in this decade can prevent such climate breakdown, although some climate changes are “irreversible”, the world’s leading climate scientists have said. A major climate change report published on Monday, eight years in the making, found that human activity was “unequivocally” the cause of rapid changes to the climate, including sea level rises, melting polar ice and glaciers, heatwaves, floods and droughts."
  23. Hi A330 - no, don't recall he ever used "RS" in that sense.
  24. A favourite expression of one Harold Pickavance...(AC, ret'd).
  • Create New...