Wal-Mart always corporate greed. Always.

Back in September I had to make a video about Wal-Mart for my Sociology class. Needless to say here are the results. It’s entertaining and radical!

Global Warming: How we’ve all been mislead.

Ask any one about global warming and they will tell you it exists, and that it is man made. People such as Al Gore want you to think that the world is getting hotter, the ice caps are melting, and you’re to blame because you drive an SUV. Well, this is where it is going to come as a shock to a lot of people. We don’t have as big an effect on the world getting warmer as we would all like to believe. In this paper I hope to provide some of the facts that are often left out when talking about global warming. Accordingly, after reading this paper I hope people become more subjective when listening to the arguments concerning global warming.

"It is a cold fact: Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenges we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. “Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976. Lowell Ponte wrote the book “The Cooling” (Ball). Just like now, where global warming is the consensus, in the 70’s it was global cooling. However global warming isn’t really a consensus at all. It in fact has many critics including 4000 scientist 63 of which are Nobel peace prize winners who signed the Heidelberg appeal, l10 climatologists who signed the Leipzig declaration in response to the Kyoto protocols, and the 19,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon petition also in response to the Kyoto protocols (Ball). With examples such as this you think would make people more subjective when dealing with such issues as global warming, but it doesn’t. People readily believe the scientific consensus on global warming as truth where that is very far from the truth.

The Global warming alarmists want you to accept something as fact, the world is getting warmer. I concur with this statement due to the fact, scientific data has shown that the world is getting warmer. Now ask yourself; “How much has it warmed and why has it?” According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is in charge of determining the effects of human involvement on the environment, it has only increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. This is not as drastic a change as many people lead you to believe. During what is know as the little ice age around the 1650’s the global tempter suddenly dropped by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (Mandia). Furthermore, it should also be noted that the Earth has always had a fluctuating climate. Moreover, The Earth has continuously had ice ages and times of great warmth. The answer to the second question however, is a little bit trickier.

As previously mentioned, proponents for global warming such as Al Gore want you to believe that the green house gases you give off when driving your car is what is causing this so called “way of life” threatening temperature increase. Again I argue this is grossly exaggerated in several ways. Most importantly, many of the charts and graphs used to show how much green house gasses are given off by human sources often neglect water vapor. Water vapor is earth’s most significant green house gas accountable for about 95% of the green house effect, 99.999% of water vapor is from natural causes (Montie). So if you were to look at a graph or figure looking at the percent of green houses gas caused by humans that wasn’t taking into account water vapor “most do not”, human contribution would be exaggerate. Without Water Vapor humans are responsible for about 5.53% of green house gases in the air, when taking into account water vapor only .28% (Montie). Humans only have a marginal effect on how much Green Houses gases in the atmosphere including Co2.

To be more specific Co2 is the gas that is released when we drive are car. There is 368,400 parts per billion of Co2 in our atmosphere 11,880 of theses parts per billion are from human causes (Montie). That’s about 3 % we contribute, hardly anything in the grand scheme of things. However Co2 is considered to be the main culprit of man made global warming, even when there are other gases in the atmosphere such as methane that are 50 times more potent then Co2 (Montie). Professor Tim Patterson a paleoclimatologist from Carleton University stated before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” He then asked the committee "On the basis of this evidence, it seems inconceivable that anyone could still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" (Harris).

Sulfate aerosols are very thin, solid particles comprised of sulfuric acid that are suspended in the atmosphere (Charlson 48). What most people do not know is that when you burn fossil fuels they give off this substance, sulfate aerosol. Other natural accruing aerosols are fog and volcanic ash. The majority of the Sulfate aerosols in our atmosphere derive from oxidation of sulfur dioxide produced in the combustion of fossil fuels. These levels of fossil fuel produced sulfate aerosols have greatly increased in our atmosphere since the 1950’s. Sulfate aerosols cool the earth. They directly reflect solar radiation back into space, indirectly, by increasing the reflectivity of clouds (Sulfate Aerosols and global warming, Pathbreakers, 1996d). In short, while burning fossil fuel produce green house gases, the burning also producing sulfate aerosols which cool the earth.

Today, there is a lot of convincing evidence that discus the sun’s contribution to the warming of the past 100 years. Solar variation itself is the natural changes of radiation emitted by the sun and many scientists have considered that increased sunspots cause an increase in temperature here on earth. (Changing Sun, Changing Climate?, Theodore S. Feldman (PSDI, Bedford, Mass), august 2007). This idea also collaborates with the study done by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland found that sunspots had been more frequent since the 1940s than in the previous 1150 years hence contributing to the slight temperature increase in the past 100 years.

Accordingly, though the global climate is getting warmer, the involvement of humans is very much exaggerated. There are many things that we need to take in to account, such as sulfate aerosols, solar variation, as well as an understanding of just how little of an effect Co2 truly has on our atmosphere. People should also remember that 30 years ago many believed the world was cooling. By noticeably understanding the clear differences between the two schools of thought, people will then be better suited to form a decisive opinion on this important issue.

"ALIEN" A review by some one born post 1985

For a movie that was released in theaters almost 30 years ago, Ridley Scott’s Alien holds up to the test of time. Not just a sci-fi flick or simply a horror gore fest, Alien transcends and combines both genres and creates what is known today as “sci-fi horror”. In this review I will discuss the acting, special effects, plot, and convey my overall opinion of the motion picture.

The plot of Alien is simple. A small crew is woken from cryogenic sleep aboard a vessel retiring from a mining operation by an SOS message. When they go and investigate the source of the message, they find an exotic extraterrestrial craft. Upon investigation, they find some sort of alien parasite that after laying eggs in one of the crews stomach explodes from his abdominal area and tries to kill the rest of the crew. Simple yes, but so entertaining to watch!

Let’s get one thing straight it should be understood that the special effects in alien are amazing. In some cases better then in some of today’s movies. The Alien was not computer generated but looked real. The special effects also added to the mood of the movie in the sense that the scenery was very gritty and dark just like the movie. The mood created a veil of mystery surrounding the planet and the alien itself thus making the movie scarier.

The acting in Alien was also top notch. Sigourney Weaver played a very strong independent lead female role named Ripley. Also some other note worthy names were John Hurt as “Kane” and Tom Skerrit as “Captain Dallas” (imdb.com). Most of the Actors were unknown at the time however Alien is considered a break through movie for actress Sigourney Weaver who went on to also play in well know movies such as Aliens (Alien’s sequel) and Ghostbusters.

Overall Alien was a very enjoyable experience all the way through. In 1979 I’m sure alien was one of the most horrifying flicks audiences had ever seen. However I feel that is where alien's age shows through. I didn’t scare more and I highly doubt it still scares the majority of audiences. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t see Alien, it still consider a classic and fans of “Sic-fi Horror” shouldn’t miss the one that started it all. Just remember “In space no one can hear you scream”.

Shedding a little light on CFLs

We are in a recession right now. Our heating bill is through the roof, gasoline prices are outrageous; the money we make just doesn’t seem to go as far as it use to. On top of that, every time we burn that over priced gasoline or turn that thermostat up another degree, the world gets a little bit warmer, the ice cap recedes another inch, and a polar bear dies. Well maybe that last part was exaggerated, but it doesn’t change the fact that to a point, that is the reality we are living in right now. So, what could a family of six possibly do to change all that? What would you say if I told you that saving money and the environment was as easy as changing a light bulb? Well in this case 43 light bulbs, considering that’s how many light bulb sockets are strewn about our home. The way I suggest we do this is, simply, by replacing our old incandescent light bulbs with new compact fluorescent lights or CFLs.

Currently incandescent light bulbs are the ones we have in the house, generally coming in 40, 60, or 100 watts and becoming very hot to the touch when on. The light bulbs heat up because they generate their light from heat. An electric current is run through a thread of metal until it becomes so hot, that it produces light. The light bulbs are not very energy efficient. However they are extremely easy and cheap to manufacture, thus why they have stayed popular in the majority of homes since they were first invented (Really more efficient?).

A compact fluorescent light is a light bulb that can fit in most incandescent light fixtures though it’s extremely different then its incandescent brother. A fluorescent light uses a very different method to produce light. There are electrodes at both ends of a fluorescent tube, and a gas containing argon and mercury vapor is inside the tube. A stream of electrons flows through the gas from one electrode to the other. These electrons bump into the mercury atoms and excite them. As the mercury atoms move from the excited state back to the unexcited state, they give off ultraviolet photons. These photons hit the phosphor coating the inside of the fluorescent tube, and this phosphor creates visible light (Really more efficient?). What does all this mean? It means compact fluorescents are more expensive to produce, but much more energy efficient then incandescent light bulbs because they do not depend on heat to produce their light.

However, to really appreciate and grasp the advantages of fluorescent lights over incandescent ones, you need to compare them. Fluorescent bulbs run on average 20 to 25 percent of the energy it takes to light an incandescent bulb with the same lighting capabilities (Hodges). So, if we were to measure the amount of light given by each bulb using the standard lumen unit, a regular 75 watt bulb would produce 1150 lumens. As a result, it would only take an 18 watt fluorescent light bulb to produce about the same amount of light, “about 1100 lumens”, as a 75 watt incandescent light. In our house, the majority of our light bulbs are 60 watts. To have one 60 watt incandescent bulb on for 5 hours a day, every day, for a year uses about 109.2 Kwh in energy. According to an associate I spoke to on the phone PPL charges around 9 cents per Kwh so one incandescent bulb would cost you $9.63 per year in energy costs. One fluorescent bulb only takes about 32.76 Kwh a year, costing around $2.95 a year. However, we have 43 Incandescent light bulbs in our house each costing $9.63 a year equaling a grand total of $414.09. The 43 fluorescent light bulbs cost much cheaper at $126.85 a year. That’s $287.24 you would save alone every year on your electric bill if you switched over to compact fluorescent bulbs.

I know what you are thinking: Aren’t Fluorescent lights more expensive to buy then incandescent ones? So how much money would I really be saving? Well to answer your first question, yes, CFLs are more expensive. Nevertheless, they are a lot cheaper then they were just a few years ago, and their prices are always coming down. Now to answer your second question, the costs of the CFL we will need in our home is approximately $6.89 (bulbs.com). A normal 60 watt incandescent bulb will only cost you 55 cents, but it only has a projected 750 hour life span where as the 7 dollar CFL has a projected 10,000 hour life span before it burns out (Hodges). So for every one compact fluorescent bulb you buy, you would have to buy 13 incandescent ones. The cost of these 13 incandescent bulbs would run you a total of $7.15. As a result, in the long run an incandescent bulb will cost you about 26 cents more then the initially more expensive fluorescent bulb. That’s a grand total of $11.18 we would actually save in bulb costs when taken in to account the other 43 bulbs in the house. Now add that 11 dollars to the almost $300 a year in energy cost you’re saving, and it becomes very obvious, for our coupon cutting family, to leap on the opportunity to save on this economical venture. Incandescent light bulbs are a money draining pest we can no longer afford. With the economy the way it is right now that 300 dollars could be spent more wisely.

Florescent light bulbs are not just green in the economic sense they are also green when it comes to the environment. The largest producers of green house gases in America are our own power plants. Therefore by saving energy and costing less, were also saving the environment. In fact, according to an article in Fact Company magazine, if every household in America just replaced one incandescent bulb with a fluorescent one, the amount of energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million (Fishman). So imagine the amount of energy that could be conserved if every home in the United State replaced all of their old bulbs with new fluorescent ones. When you buy a fluorescent bulb you are buying an investment share for the future. Its one of those ways as a family we can give back to the planet without really having to give anything.

Compact Florescent bulbs have been around since the 80’s and while they do have many benefits they have never really taken off. The reason for the slow adoption rate is for a number of reasons. Until recently, Compact Florescent bulbs were expensive, extremely expensive. In fact they were around 20 dollars a bulb compared to 7 dollars a bulb in which they now cost today. Older models of CFLs would emit a low buzzing noise and some times would have a slight flicker. This has been resolved in new models by creating solid state ballasts and running the bulbs at such a high frequency the eye is unable to detect any flicker of light (Hodges). Also, older models would occasionally take about 15 seconds to turn on. This again has been remedied in the new models by adding rapid starters to make them turn on almost at once (General Electric). The hard white light that many people define fluorescent light by is no longer completely true, many CFLs now have phosphors inner coating that creates a softer light more inline with an incandescent bulb (General Electric). However CFLs aren’t meant to completely replace Incandescent bulbs. CFLs do not really work well with dimming switches or i in vibrating environments like a ceiling fan. You would have to by a special bulb to work with the dimming switch and vibrating environments tend to shorten the life of CFLs (General Electric). CFLs have also received some bad press recently in the news about containing the chemical mercury. However, the bad press is for the most part unwarranted. CFLs contain about 5 milligrams of mercury where as old model thermometers contained about 500 milligrams (General Electric). According to General Electric CFLs are indeed safe to use. Despite this, they continue to note that one should take precaution when installing and removing CFLs. G.E. also gives instructions on their web site as to how to properly clean up and discard a CFL if it were to break.

While compact fluorescent lights are not perfect, the negatives seem very much trivial when thinking about the benefits. By simply changing our light bulbs, we will be doing our part to help save those dying polar bears, and making 300 bucks a year to boot. Three hundred dollars is a substantial amount of money in which could be used in numerous ways other than needlessly wasting it on our electric bill. After reading this, I hope you have come to the same conclusions I have that to simply ignore the monetary and ethical benefits of CFLs would be unintelligent. We should waste no more time in switching to Compact Fluorescent bulbs, every second longer we burn one of our old incandescent bulbs, it’s costing us money and hurting the environment.