7th October 2019
Insurance as a regulatory tool
Just like reputation places a very significant regulatory function, insurance plays (or can play) a significant role in ensuring good behaviour.
Short overview: How Insurance Substitutes for Regulation – Omri Ben-Shahar and Kyle D. Logue
Fuller academic article: Outsourcing Regulation: How Insurance Reduces Moral Hazard – Omri Ben-Shahar, University of Chicago Law School and Kyle D. Logue, University of Michigan Law School [PDF]
I believe dynamic and information-rich insurance and reputational mechanisms can be far more effective than static mechanisms like occupational licensing.
6th October 2019
More on Al Gore’s socialist agenda behind the climate alarm – in Maurice Strong’s words
Chanced upon this document (copy on my server). It is CLEAR BEYOND THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT that Maurice Strong the socialist was pivotal in bringing about the climate alarm. He and Al Gore had a very long relationship and Maurice explicitly said that he and Al Gore were not so much in the environment as in changing the way the economy and society is managed.
ADDENDUM
I’m reviewing the google version of Cloak of Green by Elaine Dewar.
Here’s an important piece of info on Strong’s mental development as a socialist:
Maurice founded an NGO,Manitou.
He seemed to have managed to get HUGE taxpayer funds for his pet projects which he used to propagate his agenda. Couldn’t locate the institute that’s mentioned below since the relevant page of the book is not visible in google.
The master manipulator Maurice Strong hijacked the democratic process in open daylight. TILL TODAY, NATIONS CONTINUE TO HAND OVER THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE CORRUPT UN/IPCC.
Maurice Strong’s demand for a tax to finance global institutions did come true. It’s fully in place now.
6th October 2019
More on Malthusian roots of climate hysteria
Noting here for my future reference: Channelling the Malthusian Roots of Climate Extremism
This confirms most of my findings at: Looking behind the scenes of the well-orchestrated climate hysteria
5th October 2019
Microplastics cause NO harm to life on earth! So take it easy.
The craze about microplastics has become a crescendo. Once again, there is a need for rational voices, which appear to be the rarest commodity on earth. See my note.
I have studied biology and know that there is NO WAY for large string molecules to be transported into cells. Only medium sized molecules, e.g. proteins that are broken down into components, can be transported. Even snake venom (a protein) can’t be ingested and can only affect us if it is directly injected into the blood stream where it must bond with specific receptors.
Unless someone injects plastic into our blood it can’t affect us. Moreover there are no mechanisms for plastics to bond various receptors, so it has ZERO EFFECT even if pumped into the body. It does have mechanical effects, as a piece of plastic, but we don’t ingest it (except for the most tiny particles – which, however do us no harm).
REGULATORS
The scientific evidence on potential exposures and health risks of microplastics in the food supply is still evolving. However, available scientific studies and reports suggest that:
a) Human exposure to microplastics from eating finfish is likely to be negligible. This is because the microplastics are found in the gills, liver and intestines of the finfish, which are organs that are not typically eaten.
b) Eating shellfish is a possible route of human exposure because bivalves are eaten without the removal of the gastrointestinal tract. However this exposure is also expected to be very low, e.g. the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) estimated that consuming 225 grams of mussels with the highest reported amount of microplastics would result in an exposure of about 7 micrograms of plastic.
c) Absorption of intact plastic particles from the gut is likely to be very limited (≤0.3 %). In addition, because of the small mass of plastic consumed it is expected that there is unlikely to be significant increases in exposures to environmental chemicals such as PCBs, PAHs or bisphenol A that may adsorb to the plastic surface.In light of this information, our current view is that plastic contamination of the food chain is unlikely to result in immediate health risks to consumers. This view is supported by EFSA, which considers that while further work is required, it seems unlikely microplastics are harmful to consumers.
GENERAL ARTICLES
Plastics in oceans are mounting, but evidence on harm is surprisingly weak