Every 'scientific' finding you hear on the news should always be taken with a grain of salt. Most of such 'news' (more than 95%) comes from the rejected scientist - those whose research was rejected to be published in a scientific journal. If you ever want to take something you heard seriously, just take some time and find out about the source. Then, take a look in which journal such study was published. If it wasn't published in a journal, yet was released to the general public, the value of what you've just heard isn't greater than zero - meaning, it's a bunch of b.s. If however, what you've heard was published in a journal, try to find its 'impact factor' (as all the journals are rated by how significant its published data is towards the biosphere - the world). For example, Nature and Science are the two journals with the highest impact factor (e.g. included the human genome project and Celera's decoding of the human genetic code). Therefore, anything else you hear from CNN (scientifically speaking) or any other broadcasting station is nonsense and is just a way to advertise some sort of product - whether it be survival gear or hybrid cars.
Example: lately, (if you've been following the news that is) you might have heard about Vitamin E and how 'too much' of it is a health hazard ... blah blah blah ... conclusion: the report says that beware of Vitamin E, it could kill you. What a bunch of bull! First of all, it is not exactly clear as to the actual amount (the 'too much' part) that the study refers to (an average recommended daily dose for Vitamin E is 400iu). Second of all, Vitamin E and Vitamin C are both antioxidants and act to prolong life (whether in the elderly or as food preservers - extend the expiry date on the cereal) - in chemical terms, these Vitamins trap the free radicals in the system that they're being used upon. So, if 'too much' is used, the maximum benefit would be achieved and the excess would not be digested (kind of like when you eat the steak and only a portion of it is digested by the system and the rest is unused and well ... you know what you do in the morning). For optimum effect, Vitamin E and C are used together (since each works in a different environment, yet give the same outcome). Also, too much of anything in a relatively short period of time is toxic ... whether it is Vitamin E or water (or Coke giving you cancer ... you'd have to drink Coke at the rate the 18-wheeler uses up diesel while it's travelling in traffic on a 10 hour trip - daily) ... hence, what you've heard on the news are inconclusive data with faulty conclusions. Basically, it (Vitamin E being 'deadly') isn't true and scientifically unsatisfied.
About Alaska's permafrost - the greenhouse gases collect at the North/South Poles ONLY - Alaska's geographic orientation and proximity to the collection of the 'gases' impacts its ecosystem. However, if you take and compare the rates in Toronto, or say Chicago, Detroit, etc... you will see that over the past decades, pollution has not contributed to the change in ecosystem in those places - what does contribute to the changes however, is the major logging operations - it is such businesses that destroy the environment more than the auto industry.
When it comes to politics, EVERYTHING is about money! Economics is its best friend - more like, the two are the happily married couple with politicians as their children and relatives. Now there's an analogy for you.
nice to hear your expertise again. How's studies?
