[Greenbuilding] PV Tracking

Haudy Kazemi kaze0010 at umn.edu
Sun Aug 7 19:46:21 CDT 2011


On 8/5/2011 1:05 PM, Ocean Swells wrote:
> I concur with Sacie, that your response was measured, well written,
> and thoughtful, however, like many well respected scientists, you have
> made the following assumptions, and by assumptions, I mean assumptions
> that have not been proven:
>
>> It is useful to keep in mind that the actual risk posed by a potential
>> danger is a function of:
>> 1.) peak dose
>> 2.) cumulative dose for things that accumulate
>> 3.) repair rate/damage tolerance
> I don't have the time to look up the studies, however, there have been
> studies, and theories, that suggest that amplitude (peak dosage,
> cumulative dosage) are not the only possible risks.  Studies have
> suggested that wave form and frequency (even in very small amplitudes)
> have caused biological effects, both positive and negative.

It would be more complete to list the dosing as a "dosing profile".  
That encompasses the actual dosing seen, peaks, cumulative, intervals, 
etc.  It is analogous to the chart you would get by graphing river flow 
rates and water levels, or personal food consumption, or electrical 
energy usage of a home) over time.  The locations of the various events 
on the profile can be used to determine whether flooding, 
starving/overstuffing, or brownouts/circuit failures occur (or whether a 
dose is too high).

More below.


On 8/5/2011 1:13 PM, Ocean Swells wrote:
> Let me rephrase that: high dosage has been proved to be harmful.  The
> assumption that has not been proven is that high dosage is the only
> harmful effect of EMF on biological systems.
>
>> >  made the following assumptions, and by assumptions, I mean assumptions
>> >  that have not been proven:
>> >
>>> >>  It is useful to keep in mind that the actual risk posed by a potential
>>> >>  danger is a function of:
>>> >>  1.) peak dose
>>> >>  2.) cumulative dose for things that accumulate
>>> >>  3.) repair rate/damage tolerance
>> >


One must be careful about the conclusions one draws about the exposure 
risks other species face vs the risks humans face.  We use other 
organisms as test subjects to check on the danger that might be posed by 
a new medicine or other suspected threat.  Not everything that affects 
them affects us in the same way.

A short list of some items we have all around us, and some of which we 
eat, that are known to be bad news for other species we keep as pets and 
farm animals:
Chocolate for cats, dogs, birds
Caffeine for birds
Onions for cats, dogs, horses, sheep and cattle
Wilted red maple leaves and yew parts for horses
Buckthorn for sheep



Another thing...everything is a chemical or composition of 
chemicals...water, salt, wine, vinegar, sugar, olive oil, steak, etc.  
Just because something is natural does not mean it is safe...arsenic and 
cyanide and scorpion/rattlesnake poison are all very natural.  The 
general term for fear of chemicals is chemophobia, and fear of 
technology is technophobia.

Chemical names:
water = dihydrogen monoxide (hydrogen + oxygen)
salt = sodium chloride (sodium + chlorine)
wine = water + ethanol + traces of other chemicals
drinkable alcohol = ethane alcohol = ethanol (hydrogen + carbon)
white salad vinegar = water + acetic acid (5%)
white sugar = saccharose; β-D-fructofuranosyl-(2→1)-α-D-glucopyranoside; 
β-(2S,3S,4S,5R)-fructofuranosyl-α-(1R,2R,3S,4S,5R)-glucopyranoside
olive oil = mostly oleic acid and palmitic acid
steak = water + multiple amino acids + multiple fatty acids + traces of 
other chemicals

I am not saying that all fears are unfounded; some fears are well 
founded and are backed by good, reproducible, demonstrable, and 
predictable science.  Some fears are based on intuitions that until 
given a solid basis remain unfounded fears.  It takes significant 
research to bridge the gaps.

I am saying that choosing moderation tends to result in better outcomes 
than choosing excess, whatever the item or topic of concern is.  
Moderation and balance, not excess and intolerance, is at the solution 
to many challenges.  Life can usually overcome innumerable small 
challenges; huge obstacles can overload the mechanisms that enable us to 
overcome obstacles in general and leave us stranded and permanently 
injured.  That applies to many poisons as well...in low dosages nothing 
happens, in higher dosages problems occur, and very high dosages they 
are fatal.  Apple seeds and cassava root (tapioca) contain a small 
amount of cyanide precursors, yet do not poison us when ingested in 
small quantities.  Water can also be toxic when drank in large quantities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110807/26b7e461/attachment.html>


More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list