Secret Squirrel On The Banana As A Measure Of Radiation Levels

Secret Squirrel recalls the ever changing levels of radioactivity at Fukushima,
and the also ever changing go around concerning what levels of what were measured in whatever and what were the safe levels then and the ever increasing upwards safe levels the government of Japan announced as things got ever worse.Well Secret Squirrel has pondered things and has considered that perhaps the Japanese government and others, were not actually lying to the people but just confused not only at the rising levels of radiation in the midst of the finally admitted three nuclear meltdowns,but to the actual ways and means of measuring things in a proper light so all things seemed to be pretty good all round. Well let's first start with the actual definitions and measurements of radioactivity.

Now...

1) The amount of radioactivity emitted by a source is measured in Becquerels or
Curies. The SI unit the becquerel (Bq), one decay per second. The traditional unit
Curie (Ci) is 3.7 × 1010 Bq and is about the radioactivity of a gram of radium.

2) The amount of radiation received by a source is measured in grays or rads. The
SI unit Gray (Gy) corresponds to one joule of energy absorbed by one kilogram of
matter. The traditional unit rad is 0.01 Gy.

3)The biological effect of radiation is measured in Sieverts or rems. Biologically
effective dose is the amount of radiation received multiplied by the relative
biological effectiveness (RBE) of the type of radiation source. For x-rays, the
RBE is 1. For alpha rays, the RBE is 20. The SI unit of effective dose is the
Sievert (Sv), which corresponds to one Gy of x-rays. A rem is 0.01 Sv.

In short it's coming at us every which way at the same time,and going in each and
every direction as well,so for some reason unbeknownst to us all, we have
Becquerels,Curies,Grays, Rads,Sieverts and Rems.Things have to be made much more simple, easier, we must simplify,and we can simplify things in such a manner that everybody can understand what's going on concerning emitted, received and
radiation absorbed biologically. Of course this has been beyond the ken and
abilities of nuclear scientists and politicians, it's rocket science it seems to
them all.Well, not so to Squirrel,nay, Squirrel has a solution. We must come up
with a suitably acceptable name and measure of radiation acceptable and easily
understood by all.and we have it, the Banana is proposed, the banana equivalent
dose, abbreviated BED to put it in simple terms that the lay men can understand
quite easily, as well as scientists and politicians as well. Besides bananas,
other foods that are rich in potassium (and therefore in 40K) are potatoes, kidney
beans, sunflower seeds, and nuts; especially brazil nuts, which may have up to 444
Bq/kg (12 nCi/kg) — four times the radioactivity of bananas.But I have selected
the banana since it is therefor a much finer form of measurement,much more
sensitive and therefor meaningful in a scientific measurement sort of way.

A banana equivalent dose (abbreviated BED) is a unit of radiation exposure,
informally defined as the dose a person will absorb from eating one banana,one
(1,and not more than one at any given time) Banana Equivalent Dose, 1 (One)
BED.The concept is based on the fact that bananas, like most organic material,
naturally contain a certain amount of radioactive isotopes—even in the absence of
any artificial pollution or contamination. The banana equivalent dose was meant to
express the severity of exposure to radiation, such as resulting from nuclear
power, nuclear weapons or medical procedures, in terms that would make sense to
most people,even politicians.

Specifically the BED is based on the banana itself, internally,having radioactive
potassium 40.The banana equivalent dose is the radiation exposure received by
eating a single banana. Radiation leaks from nuclear plants are often measured in
extraordinarily small units (the picocurie, a millionth of a millionth of a curie,
is typical). By comparing the exposure from these events to a banana equivalent
dose, a more realistic assessment of the actual risk can sometimes be obtained.

But why bother converting this to bananas? Partly because it's hoped BED is
friendlier than sieverts and grays and rads and rems, and all the other
paraphernalia.But  the BED is useful for several reasons.

First, it reminds us that radiation is commonplace. You can't get much more
ordinary than a banana.

Second, we know eating one banana won't kill us.

Third, think about eating 20 million bananas, equal to a dose causing severe,
sometimes fatal, radiation poisoning. You'd probably die from something other than
the radiation well before you were anywhere near 20 million. Please do not attempt
this at home. Even over an 80-year lifetime it's nearly 700 a day.At low doses the
bananas come in bunches, then rise through the thousands to the millions,
corresponding to micro-sieverts, milli-sieverts and sieverts, the SI
unit.Generally 1 banana equates to .1usv.(The standard measure of the biological
effect of radiation is the sievert. One sievert is a heck of a big dose, but one
tenth of a millionth of a sievert, or 0.1 micro sieverts, is roughly the dose from
eating one banana.)

Imagine newscasts and public information bulletins using the BED
unit............let's have a look say at a Japanese broadcast of say the Fukushima
situation.....

Here is a report from Japanese newsanchor of a government annoucement by Japanese Politician, I Fook Yew
    "Monitoring of radiation levels on the spot is ongoing. At point MP4, where a
reading of 1,015µSv was detected yesterday, a radiation level of 44.6µSv was
recorded at 00:30 this morning, and a level of 36.7µSv at 6:00am. After the start
of venting around 9:20, a reading of 76.9µSv was recorded at 9:20 and of 70.3µSv
at 9:30."

Now imagine the say, equivalent, but rather expressed in the much simpler and
easier to understand, Banana Equivalent Units....

"The radiation spiked up to 30 bananas a day (2 days ago) and then fell back down
to 1 to 2 bananas per day."

Now isn't that much more sane,simpler and easier to understand.Politicians and
government officals should love it, they could still lie by using incorrect BED
unit statements.

Now,what is it's relationship with standard units of radiation?Well the BED is a
radiation dose equivalent unit; that is, a unit for measuring potentially damaging
radiation absorbed by body tissue, rather than the total radiation (of any kind)
emitted by a source or absorbed by matter. The corresponding SI unit is the
sievert (Sv), defined as a radiation dose biologically equivalent to one joule of
absorbed gamma-ray energy per kilogram of tissue. In the U.S, an older unit, the
roentgen equivalent man (rem), equal to 0.01 sieverts, is sometimes used.
The absorbed radiation dose depends on the type and energy of the emitted
particles, as well as on the location of the source in the body (external,
inhaled, ingested, etc.). According to the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the conversion factor (CEDE) is 5.02 nanosieverts over 50 years for each
becquerel of isotopically pure potassium-40 ingested by an average adult.[7] Using
this factor, one banana equivalent dose comes out as about 5.02 nSv/Bq × 31 Bq/g × 0.5 g ˜ 78 nanosieverts = 0.078 µSv. In informal publications one often sees this estimate rounded up to 0.1 µSv.After the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the NRC detected radioactive iodine in local milk at levels of 20 picocuries/liter, a dose much less than one would receive from ingesting a single banana. Thus a 12 fl oz glass of the slightly radioactive milk would have about 1/75th BED (banana equivalent dose).

Here is a table of the number of bananas exposure, and the event that it results
from

500 million Bananas
Ten minutes next to Chernobyl reactor core after explosion and meltdown

80 million  Bananas
Fatal dose even with treatment

20 million Bananas
Severe radiation poisoning, fatal in some cases

500,000 Bananas
Maximum legal yearly dose for a US radiation worker

70,000 Bananas
Chest CT scan

40,000 Bananas
Ten years of normal background dose, 85% of which is from natural sources

4000 Bananas
Mammogram

1000 Bananas
Approximate total dose received at Fukushima Town Hall in two weeks following

accident

400 Bananas
Flight from London to New York

300 Bananas
Yearly release target for a nuclear power plant

200 Bananas
Chest X-ray

50 Bananas
Dental X-ray

1 Bananas
Eating a banana

0.5 Bananas
Sleeping with someone


Ah but what if politicians sense that we've gone bananas and all we understand and convert everything to is the singularity of the banana?

The answer is obvious; they'll say bananas should be banned.

Secret Squirrel,
MRL
MP,Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.

Secret Squirrel Comments On Massive Radiation Increases In Food.

Secret Squirrel has considered that it is time to remark on radiation,
radiation  which has found it's way in to food,food you may eat, due to such
events as Chernobyl,and Fukushima, the levels of radiation that the government,
in ever changing fashion,considers acceptable for YOU,and the measurement of
the self same said and stated radiations. Well, consider this, what with
Fukushima, as it developed, and develops, radiation levels have been detected
in such things, in Japan as tea,and various other foods, foods exported to
other countries,and fish, every and all fish, fish such as tuna.Well, the
governments had studied things and all things considered, they do actually
monitor imported foods for radiations,and have released guidelines,based on
scientific studies of what is termed to be, or were termed to be, safe levels of
radiation. Well lo and behold, what with Fukushima, they have,strangely,
upwardly raised levels of what they term to be acceptable levels of radiation
in YOUR foods, food YOU eat, everywhere and particularly from there, Japan in
these times. Europe has reacted so, America has reacted so. Well let us snicker
and look at their strangely termed and explained reasonings of the day.

PAGs (Protective Action Guides) being proposed by the EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency),specifically, deal with how the EPA should enforce laws such
as the Clean Air and Water Act in relation to disasters, and particularly now,
with respect to Fukushima,the present massive nuclear disaster. Although PAGs
had already been established by the EPA in 1992, the agency now plans to amend
these guidelines to much higher levels of acceptable radiation,that would raise
the acceptable levels of radiation allowed in the environment, food, and even
the general public themselves in the event of a nuclear emergency,though based
on what is anybody's guess you know, take one yourself,why not......like
inflation, as the number of nuclear accidents increase, so too will,and do,
acceptable levels of radiations in foods,and people for that matter,in the eyes
and minds of governments, of politicians.So much for all the studies that
originally medically and scientifically,based on their studies at the time, their
actual realistic findings,set the safe limits lower than the ones the
government now wishes, on the basis of.....well,what really, their thoughts on
things.....?

No congressional approval is legally needed to makes such changes, because the
EPA is a regulatory agency that sets “policy” and, although these types of
agencies can be directed by congress or the president, they often form their
own policies. All that is required when agencies such as the EPA wish to change
their policy is that they first publish the proposed changes in the Federal
Register for a designated period of “public comment.”So it seems scientifically
gathered evidence on which the earlier lower guidelines were based, are now as
nothing, as nothing as and as valued as, public opinion.according to PEER
(Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would
result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to
100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for
exposure to radioactive nickel-63” in drinking water.

Now in Europe,the new EU mirror of EPA policy,actually set as far back as 1989
(by amending standards set in 1987)EU ordinance 297/2011 raises the Maximum
Levels of radiation and radioactive isotopes for food and feed to rather
serious levels. In some cases, such as the case of Cesium-134 and Cesium-137,
the levels are actually twice the amount of previously acceptable levels. Many
of these increases are allowed in products such as infant formula and baby
foods.

It should be noted that the new EU changes only apply to food imported from
Japan. The justification behind this is that in the event of a nuclear
emergency the traditional levels of acceptable radiation should be ignored so
as not to cause a food shortage as a result of legal constraints.The European
Union has authorized radioactive load in foods in Japan has increased
substantially. Until now, a maximum of 600 becquerels of radioactivity (cesium
134 and cesium 137) per kilogram allowed, but since last weekend for example
oil or herbal suddenly 12,500 becquerels per kilogram, more than 20 times as
high. The increase was recorded in Emergency Ordinance 297/2011 on March 27 and was in force.

While politicians talk about “enhanced control measures” and “special
protection standards” they are universally silent on explaining,rationally,if at all, the huge increase in the allowable limits of radiation in food in,and FROM, Japan. Nevertheless we are reassured with the assurance that we have no worry about radioactive products from Japan,or the presence of elevated levels of radiation in food,especially coming from Japan.Curious,an increase, then increase the allowable(err "allowable"?) level of radiation in food.Much similar in fashion to rape as a crime, decriminalize it and then there's no problem.

Explain why a 20 times as high value allowable of radiations in food would make no difference for the consumer safety.

(EU-Verordnung 733/2008) applies to food and food imports
for cesium-134 and 137 and typically limits of 370 becquerels per kilogram for
infant formula and milk products and 600 Bq / kg for other foods (EU regulation
733/2008). The Emergency Ordinance 297/2011, which entered into force on March
2011, has increased the European Commission of these borders to products from
the affected regions Japanese clear: to 400 becquerels per kilogram for infant
formula, to 1000 Bq / kg for milk products and to 1250 Bq / kg for other foods.
Certain products such as fish oil or spices may even exceed this value by ten
times, ie up to 12,500 becquerels per kilogram to be charged – a 20-times the
previous limit.


Now,that you understand what's going on, and who's doing what to YOU and the
food YOU eat,or rather, must eat,very much similiar to forced to eat.

 I've saved the very best,for last........

Background for the increase is about the Chernobyl disaster in 1987 adopted EU
Regulation 3954/1987. Accordingly, in the event of a “nuclear emergency” to be
raised the ceiling on allowable radioactive contamination of foods to prevent
food shortages. ‘These rules now to bring into force is absurd, because in
Europe there are no nuclear emergency, and certainly no shortage of food’.
Imports from Japan to play for the security of European citizens not matter,
“said Thilo Bode and Chris Hacker.Fascinating isn't it, the reasoning. In the
event of a nuclear disatser,there is an emergency,even with no food
shortages,what with food being available worldwide, procureable,purchasable,
importable,and so you just have to eat food with higher levels of radiation,
from any particular place where and said stated nuclear explosive event
occurred.

Wonderful?No.Reasonable?No.Justifiable?No.Intelligent?No.Logical?No.
Scientific?No.Are politicians sane and intelligent? No.Vote for insanity,you
know it makes sense.

Secret Squirrel Comments On Anti Swearing Laws.

It has come to the attention of Secret Squirrel that there have been and are and are being made, certain laws, laws concerning profanity, in short swearing. Lets' examine some specific developments of laws concerning swearing, and the issue of swearing as such.

Residents of Middleborough, Massachussets were fed up with swearing in public.  So, by a vote of 183 to 50, they decided in a public meeting to impose a fine of $20 for public profanity.   How do you think such a regulation might go over in your locality?

Apparently the law must still be approved by the state's attorney general before it goes into effect.  If approved, local police could issue tickets to offenders -- just as for other minor infractions.

One big hurdle the law will likely have to surmount is determining which words are actually swearing.  Is that something which individual police officers may constitutionally be permitted to determine?

As Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in the case of Cohen v. California,  "One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric."
Well what is swearing, what is profanity?Profanity,is also known as swearing, cursing, foul speech, strong language, dirty words, cussing, bad words, bad language, adult language, or simply language, is pejorative language that shows disrespect, desecration or debasement. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures (such as flipping the middle finger), or other social behaviors that are construed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, obscene, obnoxious, foul, desecrating, or other forms.Profane language is by no means a recent phenomenon. The Bible sometimes uses strong language, such as mention of men who "eat their own dung, and drink their own piss" in the Authorized King James Version of 1611's close translation of Hebrew text of 2 Kings 18:27.

Shakespeare is replete with vulgarisms, though many are no longer readily recognized. Even the oldest traces of human writing include swear words.

There is a certain four-letter word that evokes much emotion, is often uttered by mothers giving birth, and whose usage by humans is thought to be evolutionarily adaptive: f___!

According to a new study by British researchers, saying the F word or any other commonly used expletive can work to reduce physical pain — and it seems
that people may use curse words by instinct. Indeed, as any owner of a banged shin, whacked funny bone or stubbed toe knows, dancing the agony jig —
and shouting its profane theme tune — are about as automatic as the response to a doctor's reflex hammer.The joy in unleashing an artful string of profanity is something that great minds have always relished, none less than Mark Twain who said "If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there."

Twain knew that abuse is a high art, an alchemy of timing, intonation and le mot juste.Start with Shakespeare by all means,billed as the most artisicly intellectual master of the english language, swore like a sailor's parrot, and his plays contained the same as well,indeed the Globe Theatre was where it was due to the use of swearing by all the actors. In those days swearing was of a religious nature, not mostly as a sexual one is nowadays. For example they used ,as well still do but have forgotten, zooks,speficaly gad zooks, which in Shakespeare's day was the horrific God's Hooks as it were, referencing the nails of Jesus....and there was Swblood or God's Blood.The Frenchmen of the day are mostly religious oriented with words like Tabernac, referring to Tabernacle,the alos use colloquials such as moudzy fou as it is pronounced, actually meaning maudit fou,or in translation simply badly spoken of mental case,but to THEM it is a horrific swearing expression.Words words words.....swear words, what actually constitutes a swear word and
when.......by definition.
Years ago, a missionary shared the following story with me. He was at a service in Australia, and his wife was sick. He simply told the congregation that his wife was “under the weather.” The congregation looked shocked, so he immediately retorted “but she’s perking up now.” At that point the pastor of the church (who had spent time in the US) got up and told the guy, “In Australia, ‘under the weather’ means that she is slobbering drunk, and ‘perking up’ means that she is throwing up.”In another story a woman from the states had gotten a hotel room and the bellboy
asked if she wanted him to knock her up in the morning. Which meant to give her a wake up call or knock on the door to wake her up but of course to her that meant to get her pregnant.A missionary from the states was in Australia and he’d had a great meal with his hosts. Afterward he said, “I’m stuffed!” and they laughed at him because to them stuffed meant pregnant.Americans use the term fanny pack for a pack worn about the waist to carry things in, but for them too fanny means arse,in Britain and Australia, fanny means a woman's genitals.So swearing goes by definition of acceptability and shifts from one persons version of english to another dependant on the nation one is or is not in,and, of ourse, each has words and phrases unique to their cultural environment which constitute swearing as such.The bottom line is profanity laws differ by state,by nation,and what's acceptable in one state,or one nation, may land you in jail in another.Who knows, who knew...In early America, laws banning profanity were based on religion. Back
then, serious infractions involved breaking the biblical commandment to honor God's name and laws against profanity often banned using God's name "in vain."

In 1775, General George Washington banned cursing among his troups and required church attendance. Demands like this prompted Judge Zephaniah Swift, in
1796, to declare the government unable to punish a person on religious violation alone, that person must be disturbing the peace as well.Is 'No Cussing' Law Constitutional?The following is the text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the context in which the allegedly profane language is spoken generally decides whether the language
is protected by the First Amendment.Acceptance of profanity evolves over time,and so too does it evolve and change definitionally, What was once a bad
word may now be common language.However, cursing is still not considered socially acceptable. ABC's John Stossel reports 48% of Americans are still offended by profanity,but then 52%,the majority,there for,aren't.

Growing up, they teach you that swearing is a bad habit — but no one ever explained why it was a bad habit for so many people. If swearing has negative
social repercussions — and certainly in some social situations it still does — then why are people compelled to do it?

Well Police in Middleborough won’t be able to write tickets for swearing in public until the state attorney general’s office determines if the new bylaw is constitutional. That process could take months, and at least one person thinks the new bylaw might not go into effect.

Selectman Stephen McKinnon told The Enterprise of Brockton that his gut feeling was that the attorney general wouldn’t OK the bylaw. He said good behavior and common courtesy can’t be legislated.

Residents in Middleborough last week voted to approve a proposal from the police chief to impose a $20 fine on public profanity.Officials say the proposal wasn’t intended to censor casual or private conversations, but instead to crack down on loud, profanity-laden language used by teens and other young people in the downtown area and public parks.

But swearing does have a place in the psyche of man.In July 2009, scientists at Keele University in the UK concluded that swearing can help reduce pain. In fact, it was found that those who swore in reaction to pain could endure pain 50 percent longer than those who didn’t swear.But there is opposition to swearing so much so there are laws against it.

There's more though to be consdiered.If you visit Virginia Beach today, you’ll along Atlantic Avenue, its main strip, signs that say “No Swearing” or “No Profanity.”These signs aren’t just friendly reminders—they are actually the law!

The “No Cursing” Law was put in place in the early 1990’s in Virginia Beach as part of a “Beach Behavior Campaign” meant for the community and local police to keep a handle on any wild behavior.

When you’re vacationing in Virginia Beach today, you’ll see police chaplains patrolling the Oceanfront, the boardwalk, and Atlantic Avenue areas to ensure that youth and teens are following the No Cursing or No Profanity Law.

One example we found of an enforcement of this rule, known as a Class 4 misdemeanor: A 15-year-old girl who had been caught using a four-letter word
stringed multiple times throughout a sentence received a ticket: $250 and 10 days of community service.

A hundred year old Michigan state criminal law against cussing in front of women and children.All states have laws concerning and dealing with profanity,used,abused and or ignored dependant on whatever,wheresoever and however.

Based on a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s, it is clear that the use of profanity is protected speech under the First Amendment, at least when the profanity is used as part of the political message. The most famous of these cases was Cohen vs. California, in which a man was prosecuted for walking through the courthouse wearing a jacket that said "F*ck the Draft," referring to the military draft during the war in Vietnam. The Court held that the profanity used in that case was protected speech. In the other cases, the Court left open the possibility that the government could properly criminalize offensive profanity not connected with a particular message, but the Court overturned the specific convictions for generalized profanity because the government had not sustained its heavy burden of writing a law that would not apply to and chill protected speech. Such legal drafting is so difficult that, in practice, it is probably impossible to criminalize plain profanity without restricting protected speech that contains profanity.

In Victoria, Australia, State legislature passed an anti-swearing law.Critics of the law say it is an attack on free speech, a revenue raising and an attempt to act to bolster the Government’s law and order credentials allowing police to issue on-the-spot fines of up to $A240 (£158) for language that is indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening. 

The anti-swearing legislation doesn't define what a 'swear-word' actually is. This gives the police extraordinary power to use these laws in discriminatory way.However the laws are much too broad,and what is disturbing they can be used, and abused. While they define profanity and swearing and the laws reference to that definition,one man's swear word is another man's ordinary,everyday. Ponder for example, a Disney character, the Genie, in,the film,cartoon,Alladin...he frequently uses the expletive, but evidently acceptable term, word,"Crimmini........the name of a mushroom, but the obvious taken reference in his use of the expletive, is as.a swear word. The series Battlestar Galactica, made up it's own for use as well,"Fellgercarb." So is and ,are ,those included in the definition, legal, of swearing, The laws define, but fail to.provide and exact list of terms and words, which constitute swearing, terms which would be in violation of and said and stated law.in short, either the law is clear and well and properly defined for all to see and know, including the list of violating "swear" words, or there had best be no law at all.

Secret Squirrel Comments On The Unwise Banning Of Plastic Bags

Secret Squirrel has noticed some cities have begun to ban the plastic bag, unwisely so,the self same, highly useful,recyclable,plastic bag found in virtually all stores,noticing that in Toronto,Canada, a strange event occurred with respect to the plastic bag. The Mayor wished City Council there to remove a 5 cent fee ordered to be charged by stores for plastic bag use, well, council then strangely turned around and came up with a plastic bag ban. Well plastic bags are not actually the horrible monster they are made out to be. Did you know that it takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag.
In 1999, 14 million trees were cut to produce the 10 billion paper grocery bags used by Americans that year alone and paper sacks generate 70% more air and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.It takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper and plastic bags are in fact fully recyclable. Many households even yet do use the bags as garbage bags, placing kitchen wastes in them and then placing them in garbage.
Yes, indeed, it is much more sanitary to use these bags in such an environmental use, indeed they prevent many germs and smells, by containing them.Indeed though these bags ,the store bags, won't be able to be used for that purpose, having been banned in any stated city, the people will continue in sanitary fashion to use other plastic bags, so called garbage bags you know, for the same qualities that they have in the field of sanitation purposes, so the bags do end up in the landfill after all, just replaced by other plastic bags under a different name. Now, they claim that the plastic bags don't break down,well, they do, in the landfill, yes indeed,they do.
I have plastic pails left outside and after the year these pails are breaking down and apart, hardly durable, you know. they are disintegrating.Current research demonstrates that paper in today's landfills does not degrade or break down at a substantially faster rate than plastic does. In fact, nothing completely degrades in modern landfills because of the lack of water, light, oxygen and other important elements that are necessary for the degradation process to be completed. A paper bags takes up more space than a plastic bag in a landfill, but because paper is recycled at a higher rate, saving space in landfills is less of an issue.
http://www.biofuelswatch.com has some nice data concerning plastic bags, of the type used in stores.
1. First, most of the plastic bags in common usage are made from polyethylene-a type of plastic. Polyethylene is good, because it can, in its raw form, be manipulated to assume any colour, shape, form or size desired. It is inherently versatile.
2. Polyethylene is also very durable and watertight, making it an ideal carrier of heavy goods, especially tins bottles and cans being carried in bulk.
3. Despite the fact that it is not endlessly recyclable, polyethylene can be re-used again and again.
4. Plastic bags can be melted and remoulded, and can subsequent be remoulded and made into plastic lumber in order to be used on such things as park benches and in fencing material.
5. Studies into the effects on energy consumption and pollution effects have shown that the polyethylene used in the manufacture of plastic bags requires far lower levels of energy than those paper bags made form 3-% recycled fibres.
6. Similar studies have indicated that plastic bags also emit lower levels of both solid waste and greenhouse gases. We also know that any collected plastic bags are capable of being burned in order to generate electricity, which can contribute to lowering sulphur emissions produced by burning fossil fuels like coal.It's a question of use, collect for recycle, recycle, or burn for energy generational uses.
There are yet more arguments for plastic bags (against a ban)
- Low production costs, only a few chemicals are needed - Production requires little energy and generates only low emissions
- Low weight, high strength
- Resistant to water and chemicals
- Easy to process, can be sealed
- Fundamentally recyclable
Let's compare to paper bags using government data.... The United States Environmental Protection Agency says paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic. Plastic bags require much less energy to manufacture, ship and recycle and because of this plastic generates less greenhouse gas. Plastic bags cause less air and water pollution. They compress to a small size in landfills.They are a known sterile method for transporting food products and preventing food borne illness( especially used as garbage containment bags,as plastic bags or other designated types will continue to be used for, face it, garbage is not messy,es smelly, and if not used, garbage trucks will revert to their horrendously smelly nature, speeding through the streets as the sanitation workers attempt to escape the horrific smell of their own slimy,sloppy,disease ridden smell generating truck.)
To go on about the subject of plastic bags....
Light weight nature requires less energy consumption during transportation compared to paper with a 7:1 advantage. Many studies comparing plastic bags versus paper bag show that plastic bags have less net environmental effect than paper bags, requiring less energy to produce, transport and recycle; however these studies also note that recycling rates for plastic are significantly lower than for paper. Plastic carrier bags can be reused as trash bags or bin bags. According to the Australian government most bags are reused as bin liners. Plastic bags can be recycled through some grocery store take-back programs When it comes to concerns about their impact on the environment The EPA was quoted in an interview saying…”consumers shouldn't stress too much, as long as they're recycling or reusing store bags, said Chris Newman, an environmental scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”
Further plastic is a green alternative at the checkout. Plastic bag manufacturing is often mistakenly identified as having a larger carbon footprint than paper bag manufacturing. As confirmed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, plastic bags actually have a lower carbon footprint than paper ones – which use 17 times more water to produce and create five times the pollution. Moreover, plastic bags generate 80 percent less waste than paper bags, and take up less space in landfills. Secret Squirrel feels very strongly that it is unwise to ban plastic bags, and that it is environmentally unsound showboating by city governments in attempts to show themselves as being "green" in nature through a very unwise environmentally unfounded decision.

Secret Squirrel Comments On New York Mayor's Intentions To Ban Large Sugary Drinks.

Secret Squirrel has noticed the New York Mayor, Mike Bloomberg, taking a very odd tangent with respect to the freedoms of Americans concerning their drinks, their sugary drinks,what and how much they drink and has taken it upon himself, in what he states is their own good, to restrict their freedom and ban the sales of large sized sugary drinks.
The Guardian headline reads........

A soda ban in New York City? Mayor's latest anti-obesity plan angers some

Mayor Mike Bloomberg's plan to ban over sized, sugary drinks in New York City has soda lovers up in arms

(at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/31/soda-ban-new-york-mayor?newsfeed=true)

Secret Squirrel finds that the New York Mayor,The Hizzoner ,Mike Bloomberg, is to attempt to ban what he calls over sized soft drinks in his war on fat........wonderful a war on fat, a war on Americans becoming obese, and attempting to slim those who are fat, obese.He has stated intent, .......that the ban on selling sugary drinks over 16oz could be in place by March..banning the so-called Big Gulps, and....shudder...Slurpees. It would not not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks or alcoholic beverages. The ban also would not include drinks sold in grocery or convenience stores – unless they're the type of store that's classed as a "food-service establishment".The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.

Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.

At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.

Corner stores and bodegas would be affected if they are defined by the city as “food service establishments.” Those stores can most easily be identified by the health department letter grades they are required to display in their windows.

Any outlet that flouts the ban would be subject to a $200 fine.
 But this infringes on the individual right of Americas,the very civil liberties of Americans,the great right  to go to war, to go to war against Fat, against obesity, and it infringes on their right to civil dissent and NOT join the war on fat, the war on obesity,does it not. Americans have the right to choose what is offered, to decide on the size of their soft drink, to pay less for more. They can, alternately order more soft drinks in the smaller sizes to quench their thirst, what they see as their pleasure, their need, their necessity.Will the Mayor indeed even yet THEN order a limit on the sales of soft drinks, a limit on what one may drink.The Mayor admitted he occasionally sips a diet soda on a hot day, but argues that there won't be any laws restricting the amount of small sodas one can purchase.

'Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,' he (Mayor Bloomberg)said.So quite clearly such a ban, besides being what it is,Draconian, is also ridiculous, useless and fruitless, and so very then, unnecessary,is it quite clearly not?



Recall, though, that the Mayor has not seen fit to declare prohibition, to limit the size of beers, or drinks in bars,or at public sports events,and other public events and gatherings.He does not seem to see a need there.Previously Bloomberg suggested a sate wide tax on sugary drinks, but that didn't fly.He also attempted a ban on using Food Stamps concerning the purchase of sugary drinks.Clearly he is himself very much against the consumption of sugary drinks, or else attempting to decide for Americans what is the proper quantity of said sugary drinks that they should of could consume, perhaps next an unenforceable draconian prohibition in general on sugary drinks, to the same extent that the original Prohibition took away the right of Americans to consume alcoholic beverages, or perhaps an actual law enacted to limit the amount of sugary drinks an American may consume in a day or on said stated day.IT IS NOT FOR THE NEW YORK MAYOR TO DECIDE WHAT AND HOW MUCH ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD DRINK.If petty local Mayoral tyrants like Bloomberg can tell you how much you can weigh and how large a cup of soda you can drink, do you have any personal liberty whatsoever? Is there any intrusion into your personal business the sanctimonious Mayor  won’t feel entitled to inflict? And he can, you know, unopposed. With his machinations to change State dictims,however, he lost, lost because there it must go through due process of Senatorial like processes, not an easy thing when a majority of a large group of citizenry is required,something lacking in his mayoral processes.It’s almost as if Bloomberg doesn’t understand the obvious question, “By what right?”Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday.With the new proposal, City Hall is now trying to see how much it can accomplish without requiring outside approval. Mayoral aides say they are confident that they have the legal authority to restrict soda sales, based on the city’s jurisdiction over local eating establishments, the same oversight that allows for the health department’s letter-grade cleanliness rating system for restaurants.  How then can he really be opposed.His ridiculous previous proposals were attempts at State Wide bans,which of course were and are moderated by the State Government.This proposal affects only New York City (oft known as Gotham City)itself. Oh where oh where is the Batman, the obviously unopposable New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, has revealed himself as being Schrecklich ,as Schrecklich as a Max Schreck.

Secret Squirrel On The American right To Keep And Bear Arms

I ,Secret Squirrel have decided to enter the fray in the attempts by the American government to erode the rights, the stated, and guaranteed Constitutional rights, of all America, specificly with respect to the Second Amendment which is, and states, quite plainly The Right To Keep And Bear arms.Now we're sure it's
Keep and Bear,and most definitely Keep and Bear as it is so written, yes, it is written,enshrined.And you(they,the Americans) should be entitled to that right, to keep that right,sacred,never be ashamed of who you are... You're
warriors... be proud.Of course we, the British, may question their right to Keep and Bear arms,we question this stated right of theirs,the entitlement to the right to Keep and Bear arms, by themselves,considering the war of independence,being what it is and was,and whence they,the colonists, the Americans, decided to leave England, this nation Britain, and all it entailed.But it seems they did and have decided to retain the right to Keep and Bear arms, and enshrined the right to Keep and Bear arms, and, well, rightly so.

We the British, and Scots, and welsh, and Irish, have our arms, and we do keep them.From the beginning of the 15th century laws were passed by rulers in Europe forbidding anyone to display arms unless he had them by right of ancestry or by the grant of lawful authority. In England the right to display arms only
by inherited right or by grant of lawful authority was established by a writ of Henry V in 1417.Indeed we're very proud of them, Americans should be also,yet we don't notice them all exercising their right to Keep And Bear arms,their is no proud display of this, the arms.The right to Keep And Bear arms came to be hereditary as
early as 1390,in England.By the 16th century, it was the rule practically everywhere in western Europe that new arms could be displayed only by grant of the sovereign,indeed out with the old and in with the new was the order of rule in the rest of Europe, but we, the British, proudly ran about the city streets, the countryside, the nation, proudly carrying our arms. This was translated to the Americas, the colony as it were, and so it was their right,at the time, in keeping with the times, at all times, and anytime.

Most Americans have only a hazy understanding of the original significance of arms, and no appreciation of how they are regarded elsewhere, and hence the problem in modern times with the Second Amendment Right To Keep and Bear Arms,a constitutional right virtually constantly under attack and erosion.However,the
habit of displaying Arms in American homes is not likely to disappear in the near future, and hardly anyone in America regards this as a serious matter.Indeed we do see arms on the walls of many American homes, hanging here and there, usually on top of a mantlepiece, or above the fireplace, warms the cockles of the heart it does.

There were glitches with respect to the Right To Keep and Bear Arms, as a study of American History reveals the colonists agreed to forever give up the right to Bear arms.But there was much laxity involved, as they were attracted,still, very much, to the Arms.However,The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791,
along with the rest of the Bill of Rights,and so it is enshrined, the controversial Right To Keep and Bear Arms.I encourage the Americans to challenge their own government's erosion of said stated and supposedly enshrined and guaranteed right,hold your arms high, proudly place your arms above the mantlepiece, above your fireplace, attach them to your walls for all to see. Be proud of them,for you
have a noble British heritage to keep.I commend you, I salute you, I encourage you,stand up for your rights, stand up and be counted, stand up to your Right To Keep and Bear Arms.

Yes, the right to Keep And Bear Arms,a sacred right, an enshirined right, a right guarentanteed by the American Second Amendment, a right given by The Constitution of the United States of America, so do view your entitlement..

http://www.houseofnames.com/bear-coat-of-arms
http://www.houseofnames.com/Bear-family-crest

http://www.houseofnames.com/keep-coat-of-arms
http://www.houseofnames.com/Keep-family-crest


Secret Squirrel,
MRL,MP(Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For ReDeranged ReEngineering.

Secret Squirrel On Politicians

The time has come for I ,Secret Squirrel, MRL member and politician, the rightwise M.P,(that's Member Of Parlament in case you were unaware), for Her Majesty's enclave in the colony of Canada, of Dunny On The Wold,elected by the voter
by a margin of 16,454 to zero,to comment on the quality of, meself being a politician, on the politicians of the day, on the politics of the day,and whom and what they exactly are, as being revealed by the events of the day.
Now let us consider the political issue of global warming.The politicians of the day generally stand against global warming, preferring the freezing effect of global cooling. Indeed, we, the people, are men indeed, and men in need, of global
warming, but the politicians of the day are anti global warming. Well if there was pasta,they'd be anti pasta, if there was pasto, they'd be anti-pasto, and they are,and the reverse when challenged on that,backwards,forward, inside,out,whenever as always, men for all season, men for all reasons, men for all the issues,pro and con, and at the reverse times, otherwise, to please yourself.

Are they doing anybody any favors? Are they for doing anybody any favours, except, of course for themselves and in the best interests of themselves?Indeed no. You see they wish to end global warming,as an examplary issue to be
considered. Now consider, the climate warms up, no more winter, no snow, no cold, year round warm,balmy(not barmy), temperatures, year round growing season for farmers, people would have food past their behinds, they would happily bask in the sun, enjoy swimming year round, no snow to shovel, no freezing cold to endure, a climate just like Australia. But do the politicians want that for you? Nay!Nay they say! Swinery it all is, they're not in politics for you, they're not doing you any favors. They claim that global warming will flood Holland.Well, it wouldn't flood
anything else, so what of the Dutch, let'em learn to swim, let'em live in houseboats, or let'em immigrate to Australia,that's the solution, and all would be well for we, the people.

Well what of the economy, where do the politicians stand on the economy?Right on top of it they say,getting to the bottom of it they say, top,bottom everything's uncovered and the people get the shaft.I Squirrel in the course of my economic research discovered a direct an dindisputable correlation between the height
of skirts, and the economy.Short skirts great economy, long skirts bust economy, but did you see any politicians wearing skirts, short skirts in an attempt to get the economy to imporve, to wax fat, to grow, to expand? Nay, not they,except of course, for Sean Connery and the rest of the Scottish politicians,but then again they're always running madly about in skirts.

Well now, what are then the actual components of being what they are,the politician? For one thing, politicians are never really for the people, they're for themselves,very much you see, and for.those known as lobbyists, those
contributing to their campaign election fund, which politicians have learned how tap for various other things, such as junkets with their goumars or whatever their bedroom girlfriend intern groupie secretaries are called,buying a house out in the country, and apartment in the city etc etc etc. Of course this means these contributions are in fact, bribes.So you,the politician, work for their interests which is in your interest as they provide you will all that readily available and spendable money.If you get high enough, that's also cash for honors,being a Honorable Member,the biggest member in the House so to speak,until the public decides to castrate you.

So what else are you, the politician? You,sir, are a liar, a pinnochio, or whatever it is called,your pants are on fire(also for any available interns or secretaries or whatever else happens along).If you want to get elected you have to say, or do, whatever it takes,and in and after the same fashion, to stay so. It helps to disregard the facts, disregard the truth, disregard right and wrong, disregard what's good for the people you represent … and lie, lie, lie. Lying is what works. Lying is what gets you elected. And re-elected. A successful politician is a successful liar.

As a politician, rules and laws and morality do not apply to you. As a politician, feel free to do whatever you want; hire hookers, have affairs, hire a car and driver at taxpayers' expense, go on expensive junkets at taxpayers' expense, take bribes, drive drunk, cheat on your taxes and behave as badly as you wish. Not to worry, no matter what sins and crimes you commit, you won't go to jail and you won't lose your incredibly generous government pension and benefits. Remember, as a politician you are above the law. You don't have to follow the laws… you MAKE the
laws!American politicians are most successful at it, openly so, in and about the media and the press, they are survivors, it is expected of them.British politicians, on the other hand, are much more discrete, they are rarely found out, but in difference to their American cousins, usually do suffer ejection from the government, or the House for it,sadly, but such is the success of a failure.Of course, throughout, you are happily spending,spending spending, the taxpayers money,amnd you are always voting yourself increase to cover your many many expenses,.Remember to always claim all your expense, who,after all, reads the expense sheet and whom are you responsible to? You're responsible to
nobody as it were, as the past has shown many many times,And remember, always vote to raise taxes, everybody does, as it supplies them,and you, with more of the taxpayers money.
Remember also, that you are, above all things two faced, as two faced as an indian basket.As a successful politician you have to be ready to change your mind at the drop of a hat, depending on which way the wind blows. As a politician
you need only pay attention to the polls and, whatever viewpoint is winning in the polls, start spouting that viewpoint ASAP. Then go and do whatever you want. Never listen to others, never listen to what the voters want,but tell them you do,and never ever listen to your conscience,a politician never ever has a conscience , and never listen to your heart (if you even have a heart). Never admit when you're wrong and never let doing the right thing get in the way of playing politics.

Narcissism is an occupation for political leaders. You have to have an outsized ambition and an outsized ego to be a politician,think of yourself as master of your own universe and your own set of ethical structures, your own sense of decision-making. If this is you, then you are a bona fide died in the wool tried and true, politician.And if you're pondering being a politician, and any of the above aren't you, then you will never ever be a politician.

Sceret Squirrel,
MRL,MP(Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.