Skip to main content

I recently wrote a diary in this space on the subject of polychlorinated biphenyls and their effect on killer whale RNA in the Northeastern Pacific.   In it, I made reference to polybrominated diphenyl ethers, PBDE's, which are flame retardands that were widely used in a variety of consumer goods, including electronics, and plastic formulations of various types as well as textiles.

An electronic stuff salesman showed up in that diary to inform me that electronics have stopped using PDBE's, but that has had no effect on the concentrations of this class of compounds in the hair of residents in Zhejiang Province in China where the "green" e-waste recycling industry is located.   (cf.  Sci.Tot.Environ. 397 (2008) 47-56)   Similarly in that same province residents show PDBE concentrations in breast milk and in children's blood, unsuprisingly.  I, um, wouldn't mention this, except that I know the electronics saleman mostly as a rote anti-nuke of the worst sort and couldn't help myself from pointing out that these people are very, very, very, very, very bad at science, especially when their pocketbooks are involved.


Lest anyone think this is just a Chinese problem, they are also found widely in, um, Norwegian fish, and in fact, lots of other kinds of fish.

A paper in the recent issue of Environmental Science and Technology, a publication of the American Chemical Society, gives an excellent view of the mechanism by which PBDE's attack DNA, and thus give rise to cancers, and other diseases and syndromes related to DNA and RNA.    The paper I will discuss from the primary scientific literature is this one:

New Evidence for Toxicity of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers: DNA Adduct Formation from Quinone Metabolites,"New Evidence for Toxicity of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers:
DNA Adduct Formation from Quinone Metabolites."

Quinones are widely known in nature, by the way, and some are, in fact, essential to life.    Coenzyme Q - which is important to cellular respiration - is an example.    The structural features of quinones usually involve one or more six membered carbon rings having two double bonds and two doubly bonded oxygens attached to them.    They generally form from hydroxyquinones, which have one or more six membered carbon rings and three double bonds internal in the ring as well as two hydroxy atoms attached to them.

Most (but not all) physiologically important quinones (such as coenzyme Q) have the oxygens in the quinone or hydroxyquinone form located with 1,4 geometry, with two carbons (in either direction) between the carbons bonded to oxygens.    However some quninones are 1,2 quinones.

Rather than read my laborious description, one can look at pictures, which is the other reason that God invented Google, besides the more popular role of providing anti-nukes from Greenpeace misinformation proving that everyone in Japan was recently killed by Fukushima, although no one was injured at all by, um, falling buildings, collapsed dams or residence in coastal cities.

Anyway. 1,2 quniones (also known as catechols) can be bad for you because their geometry is such that they can react with bases in DNA or RNA, and this sort of thing is thought to be related to certain kinds of estrogen metabolic systems that result in breast, ovarian and related prostate type cancers.  

The paper attached does not invoke a quinone mechanism, that is similar is some ways.

Some excerpts from the paper:

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been used as flame retardants in many commercial and household products including polyurethane foam, textiles, furniture, and electronics.13 The noncovalent binding of PBDEs in polymers allows the chemicals to enter the environment easily from the product surface during use.4 PBDEs have become contaminants of worldwide concern because of their widespread use, ubiquitous environmental distribution, great bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity.5

I hope no electronic salesmen are offended by this note from the introduction of the paper.   Whatever the source, the paper continues:

It is of particular worth to note that the concentrations of PBDEs in human blood, breast milk, and other body tissues have been increasing with a doubling time of approximately 46 years over the last 30 years.6,7...

Now that electronics are "green" again, maybe the rate will slow.   I doubt it, but it could happen.

...It is of particular concern to note that metabolic activation of PBDEs could result in hydroquinone and catechol metabolites(diOH-PBDEs with two hydroxyl group at para and ortho positions) that might possess more toxic effects than PBDEs and OH-PBDEs. However, little attention has been paid to the toxicity of hydroquinone and catechol metabolites. Hydroquinone metabolites might undergo peroxidase-catalyzed oxidation to quinones that could create a variety of the hazardous effects in biological systems, including acute cytotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and carcinogenesis.20 The structure change of DNA as a result of covalent binding to carcinogens or their active metabolites was considered as an early critical step in chemical carcinogenesis. If
not being repaired before DNA replication, DNA adducts can cause misrepairing, resulting in mutations and chromosomal alternations.21

Speaking of DNA repair, there was an interesting paper published about DNA and radiation in the famous and important scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on radiation and DNA that suggests that the so called "linear hypothesis" - on which so many anti-nukes hang their ignorance - about the effects of low level radiation is, um, garbage, but the biological effects of low level radiation is not the topic here.  

E-garbage is the topic, even if electronic stuff is, um, "green."

The authors fo the paper followed DNA using ESI-MS-MS which is an extremely sensitive method of analysis that can detect picograms, billionths of a gram, of various compounds and convey not only their concentration, but considerable information about their structural features.

They note in passing that PAH's - which are the products of combustion of dangerous fossil fuels and um, renewable wood - split wood not atoms some people (not me) say - are known to cause cancer via a catecholic/quinone mechanism.

Nobody gives a rat's ass if millions of people die from combustion related cancers each year, which in fact they do every damn year, but a large, if dumb, portion of humanity will scream at the top of their (carbonized) lungs for decades if even one person gets cancer from Fukushima over the next 50 years, not that anyone has (yet).

To take as an example of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) carcinogenesis, it has been shown that metabolic activation of PAH occurred via a two-step process involving cytochrome P450-mediated formation of hydroquinone metabolites and their further peroxidase-dependent oxidation conversion to PAH-derived quinones. The formed PAH quinones played a critical role in the initiation of cancer by covalent binding to DNA.20 Based on the mechanism for PAH carcinogenesis, it was postulated that PBDE-derived quinones (PBDEQs) might covalently bind to DNA, and the DNA adducts might become biomarkers for the potential of PBDEs to initiate cancer.

Some very cool chemistry follows, with all sorts of cool mechanisms showing how, in fact, PBDE's react with the guanidnyl moiety in DNA.    If you're interested, get access to the paper at a good scientific library and at least look at the pictures.

The authors deliberately synthesized a number of guanosinyl/PBDE derivatives and characterized them structurally using NMR as well as mass spectroscopy.

Unsuprisingly they found that indeed found that the purine ring system (which contains two fused heterocyclic rings) and the "guanidnyl" nitrogen external to this system  can react with various classes of PBDE's to give two types of ring systems with four fused rings.

What a mess!

Quoth the authors:

After the analysis of dG adducts of PBDEQs was completed, the adduct formation in calf thymus DNA was examined. The generated DNA adducts were not detected in Q-TOF-MS analysis, probably due to the problem of detection limit. UPLC-ESI/S/MS analysis, however, provided good detection on the DNA adducts because much better sensitivity was obtained compared to Q-TOF-MS/MS. The UPLC-ESI-MS/MS analysis of the digestion mixture of DNA treated with PhO-6-BrBQ, 40BrPhO-
6-BrBQ, and 2040BrPhO-6-BrBQ revealed that only one type I adduct was detected and confirmed (Figure S17 in the Supporting Information), probably because the substituted bromine exists at the C-6 position of the quinone ring in these PBDEQs. On the other hand, one type II adduct was observed for 2040BrPhOBQ that does not have bromine on the quinone ring (Figure S17(F) in the Supporting Information). Thus, PBDEQs with a
substituted bromine on the quinone ring is favored for forming a type I adduct, while the absence of bromine on the quinone ring resulted in a type II adduct.

Oh, well then.

Have a great day tomorrow.


Originally posted to NNadir on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:30 PM PST.

Also republished by SciTech.


Is it, um, in your DNA?

7%1 votes
7%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
7%1 votes
7%1 votes
0%0 votes
7%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
15%2 votes
0%0 votes
46%6 votes

| 13 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The accumulation of PBDE's in fat tissue, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Horace Boothroyd III, palantir

    including the fat head and fat gut of NNadir, the liar, extra hairy stuff hanging off my DNA, PDBE's in my hair, my kid's hair, my kid's blood, my dog's hair, my dog's blood, the fact that nothing in the world has caused cancer except Fukushima, and the bullshit claim that electronics can be bad for you, the hidden fact your swell renewable fireplace being just like a pack of cigarettes, electrophilic hide rates, and perfectly grooved genetically interesting troll rates all go here.

  •  Hard-to-follow post. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir, bnasley, kurt, gzodik

    But I gather that PDBEs have been (newly?) found to chemically combine with DNA (using calf thymus DNA as a model), and that they seem to now be endemic in the environment.

    Other chemical mutagens have been found to react with DNA, and some planar ones intercalate into the DNA, acting as a base pair. In either case, tumor ingenuity results from DNA damage or misreading that causes loss of proteins responsible for cell cycle control, control of cell attachment to extra cellular matrix, or both.

    Interesting post, though.

    We reach for the stars with shaking hands in bare-knuckle times.

    by TheOrchid on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:50:14 PM PST

  •  As a former fisherman (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir, bnasley, kurt

    I have often wondered about PCB's, which were present in many marine species along the east coast. Worse, the FDA standards are less restrictive than EPA's, so for years people were eating fish they assumed were safe ( like winter flounder, which is now disappearing from overfishing ) when EPA knew all along they weren't. On the other hand, linking actual cancer cases to fish consumption is very difficult to do. It would involve following a a group of fishermen or others who consume fish over decades, which is just about impossible, especially in NJ where the cancer rate is so high there are far too many other variables. Plus, we know some of these compounds are in other foodstuffs. I don't know how you can avoid some of these risks, except by eating vegetables grown in your own garden. And even that isn't risk free; an exterminator told me my garden was too close to my house, which had been treated for termites numerous times ( unsuccessfully I might add ) I said well ,since the termites are in the garden and actually eating some of my eggplants ( entomologists and chefs take note; termites will eat eggplant; so itmust taste like wood when raw...) i guess the poison isn't in the garden in any significant the way the NJ authorities don't worry about PAH' can purge themselves of these they say; studies of fish where there were oil spills show this they say. True?

    •  alot of research on PCB's and the Inuit. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      none of it seems to bode well.

      for some reason alot of chemical gunk seems to wind up in the arctic.

      •  Several diffferent theories (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt, gzodik

        On why the stuff ends up in the arctic.  One is wind transport, but many of the more chlorinated compounds are not particularly volatile and tend to be dust suppressants when present in high concentrtions.  One is biological transport, such that migrating fish eating birds carry the compounds in their bodies and poop and die in the arctic.  A third favors that some of these compounds are less likely to degrade in the arctic because of the generally lower light and temperature levels so what gets there doesn't degrade as readily.  I suspect some combnation of these factors plus others that have not been identified.  One key point when looking at the Inuit population is that they tend to traditionally ingest marine mammals which are notorious bioaccumulators of many types of hydrocarbons, including the blubber where much deposition occurs.  

        Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

        by barbwires on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:53:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Read in Sierra mag about mercury in Tuna (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    causes nerve damage

    especially bad for young children

    mother eating fish as a good thing, very troubled that it caused all kinds of problems in her child

    we know so little about all the chemicals we are dumping into the environment

    thanks for the article

  •  If it gets there (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it could do damage.  The paper you cite presents an interesting hypothesis but you should note it was an in vitro experiment, ie. the quinone metabolites are added to DNA and resulting adducts examined.  Quinone metabolites are usually pretty reactive beasties, and would likely bind to any protein in the vicinity in a living system before they made much contact with DNA.  So you would really need to know how much PBDE (and which type) produced the quinone metabolites and whether this actually resulted in DNA adduct formation in a living (ie in vivo ) system before drawing conclusions regarding carcinogenic risks.  Fortunately DNA does have repair mechanisms (which can be overwhelmed by excessive insults) and it is not unreasonable to postulate exposure thresholds (as opposed to the "one-hit" theory opf carcinogenesis.

    Note my opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

    Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

    by barbwires on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:42:45 PM PST

  •  While I'm flattered to be the subject (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indycam, synductive99, Pizzapotamus, kurt, FG

    of your diary, I'd point out that you made the initial ignorant statement in the previous diary:

    These are commonly used in electronic devices, like, um the computer that I am using to write this diary ...

    They are not commonly used in electronic devices, because (present tense) they have been effectively outlawed. They may be in your computer if it's 5 or so years old. I'm not embarrassed because you're ignorant - I've never been impressed with your credibility anyway.

    Had you asked about why levels might be high in China, it's fairly simple to explain. The industry you refer to in China is not legitimately recycling. It's largely criminal activity where electronic devices are removed from circuit boards using techniques virtually guaranteed to damage the parts and expose the worker to high levels of lead vapor - likely in much higher concentrations than PBDE. And the items being salvaged pre-date RoHS regulations which outlaw PBDE.

    The devices aren't reusable because they have tin-lead solder contamination, and tin-lead solder is also banned under RoHS regulations. Instead, the devices are relabeled and resold in the US and Europe as non-functioning counterfeit parts - approximately a $7 billion industry. The Chinese government is certainly aware of the problem (the US Department of Defense has prosecuted counterfeiters in the US), but does nothing about it. Sale of counterfeits is illegal in China - exporting them isn't. Worker safety also appears to have a fairly low priority in China, since they could easily regulate the hazards out of existence.

    This also isn't news - it's been going on for more than 10 years, although the scale has increased.

    And I'm quite proud to be a salesperson (although actually my wife does all the sales and I handle everything else - I did sales for a while elsewhere). Our business helps locate obsolete and hard-to-find components and extends the life of designs and keeps production lines in the US operating. We operate ethically and fairly and make a nice living (and pay taxes) doing it.

    It's never too late to have a happy childhood - Tom Robbins

    by badger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:15:54 PM PST

    •  And I'm sure that all the electronic junk you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      sell is run on electricity provided by ethically fracked gas and ethically mined coal from ethical green coal mines, except when its powered by that next electronic waste problem, solar cells.

      I'm impressed.

      Westerners are always impressed with themselves when they make the "only in China" argument.     It's only in China, for instance, that lanthanide mining is such a disaster because China mines almost all of the lanthanides used in our Priuses, other hydbrids and windfarms.

      Western bourgeois types are so shallow and so delusional.

      By the way, flattery was decidedly not my intent, but I'm not surprised to have been misinterpreted.

      Have a nice ethical day.

      •  I saw a good quote in another diary today (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Karl Rover, Iron Spider

        All extremes have one thing in common. They are rooted in stupidity.

        You're clearly extreme. I don't think you're stupid. You are ignorant.

        You're ignorant about the use of PBDEs in electronic products in the present tense.

        You now choose to double down on ignorance by pretending the situation with counterfeit electronic components is some fantasy rooted in antipathy towards China.  

        If you chose to look into the matter, for example by reviewing the Congressional hearings a month or so ago, or by examining the huge amount of evidence that's easily discoverable on the web (even on YouTube), you'd find out that in fact it is significantly only in China. Chinese counterfeiters have driven most of the other crooks out of business - they're that efficient and good at it. And it's why some Chinese are exposed to things like lead or PBDE  to further criminal enterprises.

        For example, from CNN:

        For months, the U.S. has said it's aware that counterfeit electronic parts, usually from China, posed a serious and growing problem for the U.S. military.

        It hasn't been a problem just for months - one company recently convicted has been selling Chinese counterfeits to the military for years. It also is a more severe problem in commercial and industrial electronic products.

        One example of the problem parts mentioned in the Commerce study was microcircuits. Over the span of the four years studied, the most common abuse was selling used microcircuits that were relabeled as higher-grade products.

        You choose to wallow in your ignorance, and insult and attack anyone who attempts to remedy it. You certainly provide ample evidence of your own delusions.

        It's never too late to have a happy childhood - Tom Robbins

        by badger on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:46:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If this is true (0+ / 0-)

    and were actually at work in biological systems, then PBDEs would show up as mutagens in direct bacterial testing or so-called Ames (liver enzyme activated compound) testing.

    Having to go this far out of their way to show potential mutagenicity in vitro in a strained way suggests they're not pursuing the biology at work in vivo.  

    My own view of this class of compounds (I find e.g. dioxins, PCBs, and benzene more persuasive) is that they probably act on signaling pathway proteins rather than DNA.  A classic example of this type of carcinogen are the phorbol esters.  These mimic the biological 'second messenger' DAG (diacyl glycerol).  My current work is on a molecular signaling pathway which can be partially blocked by various phenyl moeity-containing compounds.  Depending on cell type the cell can respond to blockage of this pathway by secreting cell growth factors.  Which does not generate cancer per se but 'promotes' cancer, i.e. speeds up tumor formation and the generation of cancer cells from precancerous ones by accelerating their growth.

  •  reference? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Speaking of DNA repair, there was an interesting paper published about DNA and radiation in the famous and important scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on radiation and DNA that suggests that the so called "linear hypothesis" - on which so many anti-nukes hang their ignorance - about the effects of low level radiation is, um, garbage, but the biological effects of low level radiation is not the topic here.

    Bond, Benary and Sondhaus 1991? Or something more recent?

  •  Does PBDE break down in the presence of lye? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Lutefisk for everyone!

  •  Having worked on this type of stuff in the past, (0+ / 0-)

    showing that smth reacts with DNA is interesting but not very meaningful. The question is whether it is active enough to do so at physiological concentrations (as PAHs are), how easily are the adducts repaired etc. N2 guanine adducts are usually not that bad although it depends. Btw, this reaction involves 1,4 quinone so I'm not sure how 1,2 quinones are relevant here. They really need to do some biology if they want people to look at it at smth beyond cool chemistry.

  •  I guess you can't help yourself from lashing out (0+ / 0-)

    at people who don't share your true believer credentials but every time you present some unique information you turn around and inserrt crap like this:

    I, um, wouldn't mention this, except that I know the electronics saleman mostly as a rote anti-nuke of the worst sort and couldn't help myself from pointing out that these people are very, very, very, very, very bad at science, especially when their pocketbooks are involved.

    Republicans aren't so bad as long as they don't move next door, try to marry my child, or run for public office.

    by OHdog on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 04:44:04 AM PST

    •  I have made no secret of the fact that I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      absolutely depise rote anti-nukes.

      I consider them murderers, given that nuclear energy does not kill anything like the two million people who die each year from dangerous fossil fuel related pollution, not even counting the coming and present disasters associated climate change.

      Every nuclear power plant that operates saves lives overall.    More people will die from the unavailabilty of the reactors at Fukushima than will die from all the radiation that has leaked from them.

      I consider support for nuclear energy to be one of the most important moral issues of our time, and have never been shy about saying as much, and do say as much as often as is possible.

      •  No room for error (0+ / 0-)

        same reason I hate flying...i've survived an oil refinery explosion ( Bayway, Linden NJ 1971 ) which blew out windows for miles around. In 1990 they were still using the reparations money to buy new windows at an urban middle school I taught in. Of course, the air nearby stinks and I'm sure it's slowly killing people. But an explosion at a nuclear plant? Don't wanna find out.

        •  A nuclear plant DID blow up. (0+ / 0-)

          It was the plant at Chernobyl.    When Chernobyl blew up, I was an anti-nuke.

          I changed my mind, as a result of Chernobyl,

          Chernobyl was deliberately operated outside of all design parameters and had an intrinsic design floor that had been obvious to most western nuclear engineers.   (We had one reactor in this country with the same set of flaws, the N-reactor at Hanford.)


          Chernobyl, with all of its design flaws - including a positive void coefficient - exploded at the end of its fuel cycle and its entire inventory of radionuclides was therefore at a maximum.    Moreover the core was flammable graphite and burned uncontrollably for weeks, with the majority of the accumulated fission products at their Bateman maxima.

          It could not have possibly been worse than that.


          The dogmatic liars in the anti-nuke cults, not one of whom demonstrates even a shred of scientific literacy, want to tell you that everyone in Ukraine died from Chernobyl, which is something of a surprise to, um, people living in Ukraine, who are in fact, discussing building more nuclear reactors, because so many people in their country have died from coal.

          The death toll - spread over the last 25 years since the reactor exploded is according to almost every reputable epidemiologist on the order of one thousand people, with less than 40 dying in the immediate aftermath of the accident.

          By contrast, at the Piper Alpha oil platform explosion, 167 human beings were incinerated in a matter of minutes while still alive.

          At the collapse of the Banqiao dam in the same year as that explosion, 200,000 people died in a matter of days, producing not a wimper of protest against hydroelectricity specifically, and renewable energy in general.

          Every year, like clockwork, over two million people on this planet die from air pollution according to the World Health Organization, not from accidents or incompetant operations, but from normal operations:    The World Health Organization Web Page On Air Pollution  

          Why is it that these deaths are ignored while Chernobyl deaths are the subject of amoral and immoral comment and "crockadile tear" outrage?


          In my mind the only reason for this can be a kind of fetishism, an arbitrary sort of mass hysteria that has no basis in reason, no basis in ethical analysis, and no basis in reality.

          Nuclear power need not be totally without risk to be vastly superior to all other althernatives.   It need not be perfect to be vastly superior.    It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.

          If Fukushima proves that nuclear energy is unsafe, then it proves that buildings, cars, dams, and beaches and coastal cities and farms are unsafe, since infinitely more people died from these things than died from the reactor.

          In the last 25 years, motivated by Chernobyl, I have spent the majority of my free time learning about nuclear science and engineering.   It has proved to be a very beautiful undertaking, indescribably beautiful.    The opposition to nuclear enegy appalls me as a human being, as a scientist, and as an environmentalist.  

          My love of beautiful things aside, I have been reduced to overall cynicism.   I believe that humanity is killing itself through appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition, which has always represented the worst with which humanity injures itself.   Ironically at this time, in the age of information, things are in fact, worse then ever.    Within two to three years we will record the first 400 ppm reading for the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the planetary atmosphere.    This could have been avoided, but it wasn't, and a part of the reason is the bizarre calculation that one nuclear related death is far worse than millions of deaths related to other forms of energy.

          How awful!   How horribly awful!

          Have a wonderful day tomorrow.

          •  Let me just say... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Iron Spider, jim in IA, HamdenRice

            You might want to approach this MORE like a scientist. This rant is about as contrary to scientific presentation as you can get. What do you think you are accomplishing? You certainly are not convincing anyone to support nuke power. Quite the opposite. Your main argument seems to be that other things are really bad so nuke power is good and anyone who criticizes nuke power is poo-poo head. How is that a valid scientific argument? How is that convincing to anyone?

            FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

            by mole333 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 06:05:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Feline hyperthyroidism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Feline hyperthyroidism, caused by a thyroid tumor, was a previously rare disease which appeared suddenly about the time PDBE flame retardants came into common use:

    If it can do that to cats, what's it doing to us?

    GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

    by gzodik on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:18:53 AM PST

    •  probably the same thing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      there was an increase in dog and lymphomas right around the time people started using services like Chem Lawn more ( now called True Green, I shit you not ) and also an increase in human non-Hodgkins lymphoma. My friend mentioned his neighbor going thru lymphoma...I asked if he used lawn chemicals. But of course he did, he worked for Chemlawn....

  •  Weird (6+ / 0-)

    So...what was your point? This all seems to be claiming that being anti-nuke is somehow bad because certain chemicals unrelated to nukes are bad. Is that supposed to convince me of something?

    I have to say, the more I have interacted with the "there is no way Fukushima will melt down and you are stupid to think it will" pro-nuke folks the more suspicious I become about nukes. The level of corruption, lies and outright hubris of the nuke industries around the world is sufficient for me to be wary. And the vitriol and arrogance shown by pro-nuke advocates anytime someone expresses concern or criticism of the industry just further convinces me to be suspicious of everything they say. And let me say this isn't just the nuke industry I feel that way about. But the nuke industry is as bad in their lies and corruption as any other corporation so I see no reason to treat it with any more respect or trust than any other bloated, lying, corrupt corporation out there, no matter how many times you jump up and down and shout.

    Want to advocate for something? Try showing some respect for those you are trying to convince.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

    by mole333 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 05:58:22 AM PST

    •  You are assuming that I am trying to convince (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      people of something.

      I am not.   I consider that the people I address with due contempt are in fact closed minded and know very, very, very, very little about nuclear science, nuclear engineering and start with the assumption that those who do know are inherently liars.

      I would no more try to convince them to do the right thing with energy than I would try to convince Pat Robertson to do the right thing

      Nuclear was the science of Fermi, the science of Seaborg, the science of Weinberg, the science of Meitner, all of whom were people of deserved great fame and great integrity.

      Seaborg in particularly, Nobel winning scientist, Chancellor of UC, negotiator of the atmospheric test ban treaty, and administrator of the Atomic Energy Commission was responsible for the construction of more than 70 nuclear reactors.

      Now he was a gracious man, too gracious in my opinion.    Anti-nuke ignorance and viciousness was allowed to run wild in an orgy of stupidity for more than 40 years, while the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste pushed toward 400 ppm and 2 million people died each year from air pollution.

      Where are the two million people who died from nuclear energy this year, this decade, last decade, or in the last 50 years of nuclear energy commercial operations?


      You want me to send you flowers because you don't trust an industry you know nothing about, mostly because you assume out of the box that they're all liars and don't meet your lofty standards?

      Good luck with that.    I'm a little short on the roses budget this week.

      You think that the origin of contempt lies with the pro-nuke community?

      Hardly.   Look at your own words above, and if you can't see that there is nothing that can be said to open your mind, well, then, I won't believe you.

      Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be better than everything else.    It only needs to be better than everything else.   There are many very, very, very smart people saying the same, but you're clearly not interested in anything they say.

      The vicious and unwarranted assumption of venality on the part of the nuclear energy community is a big part of the problem, and a big reason that the planetary atmosphere is collapsing.  

      I've spent a lot of time in the primary scientific literature studying the issue of life cycle analysis of energy.   The more I read, the deeper grows my contempt.

      I am turning over a destroyed planet to my two teenaged sons.    I'm a little bitter about it, if you must know.

      What I say here will change nothing, but at least it will do something to vent my anger and frustration at the ignorance that brought us here.

      Have a great day.

      •  Well (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HamdenRice, Melanie in IA

        If you aren't trying to convince anyone or advocate for anything why the hell are you posting? I didn't even bother reading beyond your first full paragraph in your comment because the level of arrogance and foolishness it shows is mind boggling. You pretty much tell me right off to not bother reading because all you are doing is massaging your own inflated sense of superiority. If that's all you are doing (and you pretty much SAY that's all) then maybe you should just label your diaries as masturbatory so we all know not to bother reading and engaging. Echo chambers are boring to me but seems to be all you want.

        FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

        by mole333 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 07:35:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really? I'm arrogant? I have an inflated sense (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          of superiority?

          You're the one who announced confidently that the more than 2 million highly trained nuclear professionals on this planet are all liars.

          Um, that's a pretty sweeping statement.

          Don't read my diaries.   I couldn't care less either whether you read them, since, like I say, I would hardly characterize you as having anything interesting to say on this topic.

          •  You already admitted it (0+ / 0-)


            The Nuclear Shill Apologizes.

            by NNadir
            Oh well.  I am who I am.
            Here is the problem with my tone: I am extremely arrogant, extremely conceited, dismissive, insulting,...

            Why are you arguing with the commenter and denying what you yourself say about your tone and arrogance?

            •  Well, if it isn't Dr. Phil... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Still practicing internet psychological diagnoses without a license, or did you try to get a real job?

              Good luck to you on that, if you are trying to do something useful.

              Have a great day.

              •  Your own words, not mine (0+ / 0-)

                Maybe I should reprint them yet again with  a link to your own diary:


                The Nuclear Shill Apologizes.

                by NNadir
                Oh well.  I am who I am.
                Here is the problem with my tone: I am extremely arrogant, extremely conceited, dismissive, insulting,...

                I don't get it.  Having written that, how can you now claim not to be arrogant?

                •  You seem to be spending a lot of time... (1+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:
                  Melanie in IA

                  ...reading my diaries and quoting them chapter and verse.

                  I regret, um, to say that I've only read (parts of) one of yours, which was about the importance of snow removal in Queens to Presidential politics, if I recall correctly.   It wasn't very interesting frankly, and was a little far fetched if you want my opinion, but maybe you don't want my opinion on snow removal in Queens and its relationship to Presidential politics.

                  This diary is not, at least if one knows how to read, a diary about wild speculations about say, um, obsessive compulsive disorder, but had another topic, about which you have nothing to say, as usual.

                  That's OK.   I understand completely.

                  My advice to you is to get a life, but I'm not actually in the counseling business, and have never claimed to be so.

                  Be sure to check in two years from now when I write a diary about the happy circumstance of the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste in planetary atmosphere reaching 400 ppm, in which, I'm sure, you'll discuss my decidedly contemptuous personality and its effect on the planetary climate, including of course, freezing precipitation in Queens.

                  Have a great day.    It was, as always, a real pleasure to chat with you.

                  •  Your arrogance and ego strike again (0+ / 0-)

                    You think I spend a lot of time reading your diaries?  Like once every couple of months is a lot?

                    You're not that interesting or important and down right counter factually non-informative on most issues.

                    It's just that when I run across some nut job on the subway babbling about talking to martians through his dental fillings and claiming to be able to save the world, I'm often amused, and the same can be said for my reactions to your diaries on the rare occasions when I come across them.

                    •  Um, um, um... (0+ / 0-)

                      Well Hammy, I never seek you out.    There's no reason I would do so, since I consider you a dullard.

                      The sum total of our very unpleasant interactions seem to involve you showing up in my diaries with some complaint about how unpleasant you find my personality to be.

                      As I recall the last one involved you arguing that I couldn't possibly, um, be in a library.   I really, really, really enjoyed that one, since it would seem to involve a claim of omniscience on your part.


          •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Yes you are arrogant and have an inflated sense of superiority. Pretty much shows in every statement you make. But hey, if you're happy with it, sit alone in your echo chamber.

            FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

            by mole333 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:36:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Echo chambers (0+ / 0-)

              involve multiple people all repeating the same thing. As Wikipedia puts it: "One purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again ..."

              For example, see the comments by happy camper, HamdenRice, and mole333 in this diary. ;-) It is this kind of back-and-forth, with everyone nodding their heads in agreement, that makes for an echo chamber.

              To say someone is sitting alone in an echo chamber is a kind of oxymoron.

              Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
              -- Albert Einstein

              by bryfry on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 05:29:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hmmm... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Actually an echo chamber is really an enclosure specifically designed (usually for recording purposes) to create an echo, so I always, based on the real thing, assumed the slang term meant a chamber where you could hear the echo of your own voice. That seems to fit with the real definition, however perhaps the slang term has deviated from the original, so you may be using the slang version more accurately than I am.

                Interesting thing about your assumption (also made by NNadir) is that I am anti-nuke like happy camper and HamdenRice. I expressed considerable SKEPTICISM regarding the whole industry because of the lies and corruption that industry is known for around the world, but I did not say whether or not I am anti-nuke (Just to be cleaer: I lean anti but don't consider the idea of closing existing plants a priority as long as safety is taken into account and though I doubt new plants will help much given the 10 year construction period I am not solidly against it as long as it doesn't interfere with funding other alternatives that I consider as good or better and will come on line faster). So I actually think I am coming from a very different angle than happy camper and HamdenRice, but that may not have been apparent in our interaction because we all were basically commenting on the weird, illogical rantings of NNadir.

                FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

                by mole333 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 06:59:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Interesting thing about your assumption (also made by NNadir) is that I am anti-nuke like happy camper and HamdenRice.

                  I'm beginning to realize that you are one of those people who only listen to what they want to hear.

                  No, I didn't assume anything, nor did I say anything close to what you claim. I merely pointed out that you were one of the "echos" in the mini-chamber that formed in this diary.

                  Perhaps you should stop casually using terms (slang, technical, figures-of-speech, or otherwise) that you don't fully understand. Pleading ignorance only undermines whatever confidence that your readers might have that you have any clue whatsoever.

                  Just some friendly advice, offered with the realization that you might not want to hear it. ;-)

                  Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                  -- Albert Einstein

                  by bryfry on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:25:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Um, um, um... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Speaking of wierd illogical rantings, is there anyway that you can account for the fact that over 400 nuclear reactors were built in the period between 1960 and 1980?

                  How is it that you declare yourself "logical" when you insist that what has already been done - many times over, all around the world - is impossible?

                  The first commercial nuclear reactor in this country, oh logical one, was built in under three years in the mid 1950's.   It operated until the 1980's without a single loss of life, and its site is now a park.

                  In the period between 1960 and 1980 the United States constructed more than 100 reactors, the majority of which still operate.

                  I might add that in the period in which those reactors were built, this was a nation of engineers and scientists of the first order, a country that sent spacecraft to the outer planets, that created whole new industries, like the computer industry, a country that eliminated scourge diseases like polio and tuberculosis.

                  What have we now?   A nation of navel gazing whiners and complainers who lie around on their fat lazy asses, picking lint out of their navels and complaining insipidly about "corruption and lies?"

                  The legacy of the engineering geniuses who built the American nuclear industry between 1960 and 1980 is this:

                  Nuclear energy is, and has been, for over 40 years, the world's largest source of climate change gas free primary energy, despite bitching and moaning by twits who complain endlessly about subjects they know nothing about.

                  You come here with unreferenced claims, rote claims, that the nuclear industry is known for "lies and corruption" around the world.

                  By whom?  You?   What makes you an expert on lies and corruption, especially since you are clearly lying when you claim that nuclear reactors take ten years to build.

                  They take ten years to build in some places, usually because of stupid delaying tactics by people who know even less about nuclear energy than you do, and you clearly don't know much.

                  The World Nuclear Organization maintains a database on every damn reactor in the world.   Here's Lingdong 3, for instance, among many

                  The reactor is now operating, and in one small building is producing more energy than all the wind turbines in that offshore oil and gas drilling hellhole, Denmark.

                  It started construction in December of 2005 and was connected to the grid in July of 2010.

                  Just to check, what would you suppose 2010-2005 would be?  Ten?

                  Here's a list of reactors now under construction around the world.

                  It would appear that the world doesn't give a rat's ass about what a loud mouthed crank thinks about nuclear professionals and his stupid blanket condemnation of their difficult and highly productive work.

                  I don't claim that you're a corrupt liar.   I just claim that you are abysmally misinformed and are shooting off your mouth ignorantly on topics you clearly know nothing about.

                  Then you have the nerve to talk about "logic?"

                  You make these self declared "logical" claimss on a computer that is undoubtedly partially powered by coal and natural gas, unless you live in Vermont, and, um, you don't.   You're probably one of those assholes who waxes romantic about wind and solar while not giving a rat's ass about the fracking on which they depend for their next to useless contribution to ameliorating this crisis.

                  Have you checked recently on your bizarre fantasy that after 50 years of insipid cheering that wind power (for example) matters?  

                  Spare me.

                  Unlike you, I actually know where to find data on where electricity comes from.

                  So much for the so called "renewable" fantasy.   The entire renewable energy industry can't even keep up with the growth in natural gas.

                  Now.  More than 50% of the electricity running my computer tonight is nuclear electricity.   I'm pretty happy about that, but I regret that 50% of it isn't.

                  Despite all the mindless cheering in my state, and oodles of money being thrown down the renewable fantasy rabbit hole while our school budgets are being cut, while our infrastructure rots, while our excellent mass transit system is being priced out of existence, we still burn too much natural gas.

                  What's natural gas?   It's the industry for which the renewable toys act as a fig leaf.

                  You quack like an anti-nuke, and waddle like an anti-nuke because you are an anti-nuke, and are as abysmally informed as any anti-nuke.    Your rote nonsense doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny.

                  In the next month or two, NOAA will release the QC checked figures for accumulation of dangerous fossil fuel waste in Earth's atmosphere.   Of the five greatest yearly increases, four of them have taken place in the last 10 years.   It will be interesting to see what exactly the 2011 figures will be.

                  Heckuva job.

                  You must be very proud of wailing and ranting against the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.

                  You must be very proud.   Heckuva job, genius.

                  Have a nice weekend and a happy new year.

                •  He's wrong about me also (0+ / 0-)

                  But these guys are counter factual to the point of being psychotic.  I'm not anti-nuclear, as I've pointed out many times.

                  But for Nnadir and bryfry (if they are even different posters), the issue isn't whether you're anti nuclear; it's whether you are pro-nuclear enough -- and to avoid their kind of childish, foolish, counter-factual rantings, you have to be against every other form of energy, including renewables.

                  These guys are basically crackpots, and not really worthy of notice other than the kind, as I mentioned earlier, you give to the nutcase on the subway ranting about talking to martians through his dental filings.

                  •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    bryfry comes off far more reasonable than NNadir, at least at first. But he then started acting just like NNadir even though I admitted I was probably wrong about the slang version of "echo chamber" and that my views on nukes may not have been apparent. I have quite enjoyed cases where I discuss nuke energy with intelligent, respectful pro-nuke folks. Problem is too many consider the tiniest disagreement or even suspicion towards nuke energy to be unacceptable.

                    Ah well. I already started ignoring NNadir's ranting because he himself admitted he had no interest in discussion or convincing. Since he doesn't post as a way of engaging people I am willing to leave him in his metaphorical equivalent of the genuine acoustic (not slang) echo chamber. I was disappointed that bryfry went so quickly from being reasonable to being insulting.

                    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

                    by mole333 on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 11:19:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, NNadir's bff ! (0+ / 0-)

                Really, you two should get a room.

                " people (and the) political class..cannot be rich and do politics without us..They have no skills that we depend on; they have no control of anything except through paper. "To keep you is no benefit; to destroy you is no loss." Visceral

                by ozsea1 on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 01:04:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  This guy (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pot, HamdenRice, Melanie in IA

          should have been banned long ago, IMHO, regardless of his expertise or lack thereof on any topic. He wants no discussion, his contempt for people he considers less informed than himself (or who even dare to disagree) is breathtaking, and he always gets HRed in his own diaries for unwarranted personal attacks and over the top dickishness.

          I don't know why he bothers to post.

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 08:28:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  To understand the nuttiness, you might check this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happy camper


            The Nuclear Shill Apologizes.

            by NNadir
            Oh well.  I am who I am.

            This is a serious diary.   I've spent some serious time conceiving it.

            For the months I've had this diary around - I originally constructed it to apologize to Meteor Blades and Adam Siegel not for my ideas, but for my tone - it has been called "The Nuclear Shill Apologizes."

            Here is the problem with my tone: I am extremely arrogant, extremely conceited, dismissive, insulting, fierce and rude.  
            In my most recent diary someone speculated in the comments section that I was "sick," and that I "needed" help, i.e. that I was crazy.  

            In full exercise of my inflated ego, I say that the diaries I write are not fluff.   Although almost all of my diaries are about nuclear energy, I claim that I also include subtexts about the entire range of human experience, including history, war, suffering, injustice, poverty, science, art, failure, triumph, deceit, honesty, philosophy, faith, cynicism, betrayal, loyalty, suspicion and trust.  
            Let’s turn once more to this question of whether or not I am a nuclear shill.   I claim that if I published this diary several months ago when it was first written in palimpsest, I did not know personally a single person in the nuclear industry.    Now I do.   Last week, on Friday, I traveled to Washington and I met with a few representatives of the nuclear industry.   Nice guys, by the way.    They bought me lunch.   I made a point of not ordering the cheapest thing on the menu by the way and it was a nice restaurant.    The nuclear industry gave me a wonderful golf shirt and several very nice trade show trinkets.
            Why did the nuclear industry buy me lunch?   Because they like what I write.    

            Now.    When the nuclear industry bought me lunch, this had no effect on anything I have ever written here.  

            The part in this bizarre rambling diary about being conceited and having an inflated ego and here:

            I claim that I also include subtexts about the entire range of human experience...

            reminds me of a certain politician in the Republican primary who described himself as:

            “Advocate of civilization, defender of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who form civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, and leader ‘possibly’ of the civilizing forces.”
          •  Presumably (3+ / 0-)

            Presumably he posts because he loves the sound of his own voice. Certainly there is no other purpose to his posting than patting himself on the back for his cleverness. Pretty pathetic if you ask me, but if he's happy with it I guess it beats doing drugs.

            FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

            by mole333 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:38:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Btw, this summary is terrific (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      This all seems to be claiming that being anti-nuke is somehow bad because certain chemicals unrelated to nukes are bad. Is that supposed to convince me of something?

      That kind of illogic is basically what almost every single diary of his comes down to; yet it's impossible to point out to him or for him to remotely grasp, that this kind of argument is utterly illogical.  OK there's a bad chemical unrelated to nuclear power or for that matter any other kind of power, and therefore anyone who questions nuclear power is bad.  It's borderline psychotic as are his rantings about Greenpeace wanting to kill millions of people, etc., etc., etc.  

  •  Congratulations! (0+ / 0-)

    You managed to put together a slightly less-rambling and fairly informative diary.

    No more difficult to wade through than the interminable college lectures conducted by TIA-affected professors playing out the string til their retirement, resentful of the young fresh faces before them.....

    Damn near recced it, too. I must be in a good mood. Happy New Year.

    " people (and the) political class..cannot be rich and do politics without us..They have no skills that we depend on; they have no control of anything except through paper. "To keep you is no benefit; to destroy you is no loss." Visceral

    by ozsea1 on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 12:49:40 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site