More of course will be done as competitive forces keep driving down the cost of more efficient energy using devices. As an example an increase of efficiency in an electric motor of 10% will repay the owner of that motor the capital cost of the motor more than 20 times over its lifetime.

More can be done to solving the so called energy crisis by conservation than by any other means. One of the greatest scams perpetrated on America is the banning of PCB’s as a result of health concerns.

Because of this ban, the ability to transport electricity and increase and decrease its voltage has resulted in about a 40% increase in the amount of electricity wasted instead of put to use.

The reality is that there is no actual link between exposure of PCB’s at any levels below actually bathing in it and drinking it on a day to day basis for 20 to 30 years.

The EPA has, despite the fact that it cannot actually find a real link between exposure to PCB’s at reasonable levels has issued dire warnings about its ability to cause disease in humans.

While there is not doubt that if a rat is fed more or less 25% of its body weight of PCB’s per day some liver cancers result, rats are not humans.

In humans, only by working hard to ignore real-life evidence has it been possible for the EPA to claim that PCB’s are carcinogenic at all in humans. If one takes the time to actually review the literature, in the handful of cases where rare cancers have occurred in humans who where exposed to PCB’s over decades under conditions that could only be called idiotic (all from Japan and all from a time when health and safety of Japanese workers were not at all considered), one would find other more probable causes than PCB’s.

If the ban where lifted and reasonable worker hygiene and industrial hygiene to limit emissions, there would be little or no difference in the incidence of health related issues with PCB’s than there are now with the ban.

However America would consume a lot less oil, coal, natural gas, producing its power. Some estimates are that at least 2 million barrels a day of oil could be saved.

This is yet another example of how an entirely ignorant public has driven policy in an absurd direction.

Of course the ban was driven by the same people who are now telling us that there is an energy crisis in America and if there isn’t then there certainly is a climate change crisis. Neither are as factually conclusive as the average American has come to believe.

Attached is the fact sheet about PCB’s from the EPA. I suggest that one discuss this matter with an electrical engineer to see that what is claimed is true. In many cases you will find that many people who actually worked with PCB’s used it as a hand cleaner, because it was great at removing grease and it left their hands soft.

Some people, when splashed with hot PCB oils have experienced acne like rashes, these are both rare and heal completely and scar free. It is as likely that the heat itself causes the reaction as it is the PCB’s.

When you read the information below, carefully see that there is no proven link between PCB’s and cancer, only a very conservative position of there being a probability of cancer not as a result of any conclusive human study evidence but rather only from the results of rat studies.

Rat studies are not conclusive about cancer causality and are never used on their own to prove the effectiveness of cancer treatment drugs. So why all of a sudden are they good enough to have cost the US economy trillions of dollars?

Take care also to notice that only 15 people who are invested in being anti-PCB supported the EPA’s dubious claim of the carcinogenetic effects of PCB’s. It is not beyond the realm of reason that one could hand-pick 15 other experts who would not come to the same conclusion.

Health Effects of PCBs

Cancer

EPA uses a weight-of-evidence approach in evaluating the potential carcinogenicity of environmental contaminants. EPA's approach permits evaluation of the complete carcinogenicity database, and allows the results of individual studies to be viewed in the context of all of the other available studies. Studies in animals provide conclusive evidence that PCBs cause cancer. Studies in humans raise further concerns regarding the potential carcinogenicity of PCBs. Taken together, the data strongly suggest that PCBs are probable human carcinogens. 

PCBs are one of the most widely studied environmental contaminants, and many studies in animals and human populations have been performed to assess the potential carcinogenicity of PCBs. EPA's first assessment of PCB carcinogenicity was completed in 1987. At that time, data were limited to Aroclor 1260. In 1996, at the direction of Congress, EPA completed a reassessment of PCB carcinogenicity, titled "PCBs:  Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures" (PDF) (83 pp., 197K)  In addition to Aroclor 1260, new studies provided data on Aroclors 1016, 1242, and 1254. EPA's cancer reassessment reflected the Agency's commitment to the use of the best science in evaluating health effects of PCBs. EPA's cancer reassessment was peer reviewed by 15 experts on PCBs, including scientists from government, academia and industry. The peer reviewers agreed with EPA's conclusion that PCBs are probable human carcinogens.

The cancer reassessment determined that PCBs are probable human carcinogens, based on the following information: 

There is clear evidence that PCBs cause cancer in animals. EPA reviewed all of the available literature on the carcinogenicity of PCBs in animals as an important first step in the cancer reassessment. An industry scientist commented that "all significant studies have been reviewed and are fairly represented in the document". The literature presents overwhelming evidence that PCBs cause cancer in animals. An industry-sponsored peer-reviewed rat study, characterized as the "gold standard study" by one peer reviewer, demonstrated that every commercial PCB mixture tested caused cancer. The new studies reviewed in the PCB reassessment allowed EPA to develop more accurate potency estimates than previously available for PCBs. The reassessment provided EPA with sufficient information to develop a range of potency estimates for different PCB mixtures, based on the incidence of liver cancer and in consideration of the mobility of PCBs in the environment. 

The reassessment resulted in a slightly decreased cancer potency estimate for Aroclor 1260 relative to the 1987 estimate due to the use of additional dose-response information for PCB mixtures and refinements in risk assessment techniques (e.g., use of a different animal-to-human scaling factor for dose). The reassessment concluded that the types of PCBs likely to be bioaccumulated in fish and bound to sediments are the most carcinogenic PCB mixtures. 

In addition to the animal studies, a number of epidemiological studies of workers exposed to PCBs have been performed. Results of human studies raise concerns for the potential carcinogenicity of PCBs. Studies of PCB workers found increases in rare liver cancers and malignant melanoma. The presence of cancer in the same target organ (liver) following exposures to PCBs both in animals and in humans and the finding of liver cancers and malignant melanomas across multiple human studies adds weight to the conclusion that PCBs are probable human carcinogens. 

Some of the studies in humans have not demonstrated an association between exposures to PCBs and disease. However, epidemiological studies share common methodologic limitations that can affect their ability to discern important health effects (or define them as statistically significant) even when they are present. Often, the number of individuals in a study is too small for an effect to be revealed, or there are difficulties in determining actual exposure levels, or there are multiple confounding factors (factors that tend to co-occur with PCB exposure, including smoking, drinking of alcohol, and exposure to other chemicals in the workplace). Epidemiological studies may not be able to detect small increases in cancer over background unless the cancer rate following contaminant exposure is very high or the exposure produces an very unusual type of cancer. However, studies that do not demonstrate an association between exposure to PCBs and disease should not be characterized as negative studies. These studies are most appropriately viewed as inconclusive. Limited studies that produce inconclusive findings for cancer in humans do not mean that PCBs are safe. 

It is very important to note that the composition of PCB mixtures changes following their release into the environment. The types of PCBs that tend to bioaccumulate in fish and other animals and bind to sediments happen to be the most carcinogenic components of PCB mixtures. As a result, people who ingest PCB-contaminated fish or other animal products and contact PCB-contaminated sediment may be exposed to PCB mixtures that are even more toxic than the PCB mixtures contacted by workers and released into the environment. 

EPA's peer reviewed cancer reassessment concluded that PCBs are probable human carcinogens. EPA is not alone in its conclusions regarding PCBs. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has declared PCBs to be probably carcinogenic to humans. The National Toxicology Program has stated that it is reasonable to conclude that PCBs are carcinogenic in humans. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has determined that PCBs are a potential occupational carcinogen.

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/pcbs/pubs/effects.htm

American’s are paying much less for gasoline than nearly any other free-market country. Its northern neighbor Canada is energy independent and its gasoline costs are close to double those common in the US. Clearly chasing the dream of energy independence is not the answer to much of anything.

American’s need to remember that in 1975-76 everyone was telling us that we were out of oil or would be at some early future date, the one that sticks in my mind was 1980.

There are more reserves of petroleum now than there were in 1975-76. There is easily a 300 year supply of oil and gas in conventional forms. There is no structural shortage right now.

American’s should think back to the year 1980 when we were supposed to be out of oil and look at the real-dollar cost of crude back then. At one point in the year it was 9 bucks a barrel.

The biggest problem America faces is its continued inability to remember what happened last week or two decades ago. Instead any sign of a change in anything that negatively affects their pocket books is seen as a dire emergency and impending disaster.

Let the market do its job and stay out of its way. If the oil companies gave back all of their combined profits, the price of gasoline may drop by 30 or 40 cents.

They clearly are not the problem.

The reason oil was 9 buckish in 1980 was political. The same could be true of the high price today.

In 1980 President Reagan decided to crush the Soviet Union economically. He knew in his bones that all economic information coming from the Soviet Union was either an outright lie, or impossible for them to actually get.

He knew that the only way the Soviet Union could stay intact was to have a huge military to compete with America and NATO. The only way they could do this was to spend hard currency on military stuff.

The only real source of hard currency that the Soviets had was their vast supplies of oil that they exported for the market price of the day. They also gave loads of it away at below market cost to those in their sphere of influence.

So President Reagan took the well documented decision to drive the price of oil down to nothing. He knew it would kill the oil industry in America, but it would also destroy the Soviet Union. The oil industry would recover but the Soviet Union would be gone. In his mind a small price to pay.

It worked.

This time last year, everyone in the US was worried about how the trade balance with China was going to destroy the American economy.

China needs to generate US Dollars to purchase oil and a great deal of other commodities. If the price of oil keeps going up and the value of the US Dollar keeps going down, their economy will be seriously damaged.

China has a banking system that is bankrupt. The Renminbi is not tied to anything but the value the Chinese Government puts on it. Its real value is very much lower than that level.

If the Renminbi were tied to the US Dollar two things would happen; the cheap labor advantage would disappear and the Chinese banks would have an immense run on them. The savings of the Chinese peasantry is held in those banks. China has always been ruled at the pleasure of the peasantry.

Those peasants will not be at all happy when they find out that the value of those savings has been wildly reduced.

The banking system in China would simply implode. Growth of the Chinese economy would turn into a recession or possibly the deflation would be so large that it would turn into a depression. Projects in China that are now underway by being financed by its banks would inflate in cost to the point that they simply could not be sustained. Especially since its false cost advantage would have destroyed its ability to generate exports.

What could be taking place right now is a plan to bring about the downfall of the Communist government in China. Just like what happened to the Soviet Union.

The Chinese people would look to the success of large market economies in Europe, North America and Japan and conclude that their personal economic freedom is worth more than any promise the Communist Tyrants who rule now could possibly provide. The Army simply would be overwhelmed by the peasantry and could not retain the hold over the people they currently have. China is no stranger to bloody revolt by its peasants; this would simply be the continuation of its ancient traditions of the change of its government.

No one can predict what the results could be, but certainly the potential of freeing a billion people from oppression is a worthy goal.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Why would a "proud Liberal" be so consistently against the truth?

The word 'recession' has a meaning. The country is not even close to a recession. Hasn’t been since 9/11.

The press has continued for far too long to lie about what a recession is and the state of the economy in general.

You in particular and Liberals in general (I'm watching Alan Coomes doing it right now) can't seem to discuss any given topic based on any sort of normal rules of argument. Instead all discussion is reduced to logical fallacies (your red-herring here) or simply shouting down opposition.

Why lie? Isn’t his real record good enough?

I don’t think any major international corporation would hire him as lead corporate council worthwhile as CEO, yet American’s are in sheep-like fashion seriously considering electing this wildly left-wing man as their Commander-In-Chief.

The result will be the opportunity to see America lose its primacy on the world stage and bankrupt itself to boot.

If you took a few minutes to think about the formation of capital, how it is utilised and how fungible it is, you would not be so keen to think that taxing the brains out of rich people and corporations will yield lower GINI index numbers. The capital needed to continue the growth of America’s economy will be in places like Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada. Places that understand that the most important freedom they have is their economic freedom.

Look to Zimbabwe if you really want to get a glimpse of the glorious revolutionary ‘change’ that Obama really stands for.

Cheers,

Bloefeld