The school dunce has no relevant comments on the dishonesty of Julian’s article, so goes off topic, to raise the question of problems experienced by
“ the hormonal (endocrine) systems of wildlife species “
The paper to which he provides the link says” Feeding strategies (herbivores, carnivores, deposit feeders, suspension feeders) in relation to uptake of endocrine disruptors are also discussed.”.
Nothing of any relevance, but what do we expect of the dunce?
He even raises a problem with polar bears. Reminiscent of the climate liar, Al Gore.

Max Green (is that's not a pseudonym then it shows remarkable prescience from his parents) wrote:

"The logical fallacy you have just used is called a Bulverism" and then proceeded to offer no evidence for the claim....ummm.

Cribb asserts there's 8000+ extinctions a year which I think is an outrageous exaggeration. In support MG finds 42 extinctions in the 20th century. 8000 a year is 800,000 a century. 42 compared to 800,000 - only the numerically challenged would think they are similar.

To be clear, the IUCN thinks there's been around 1000 extinctions over the past 500 years. They say and I agree that that is probably an under-estimation so its perhaps in the region of 2- 3000....in 500 years. So 8000 a year is, to say the least, a stretch. But the committed want it to be true and thus, for them its true, data or no data.

One more point on this silly scaremongering thesis.

The author writes: "No wonder resources are becoming scarce...".

We've never run out a resource but the claim is made with abandon.

A resource is only a resource because humans made it so. Oil is just some stuff that fouls land until someone works out how to use it. An arrow is just a stick until someone puts a point on it. So a resource needs to be evaluated based on the human need for it.

If you evaluate our need for or demand for a resource as compared to its supply by checking the price, no resources are becoming scarce. Julian Simon taught that to the world back in the 1980s but it takes some a little longer to learn

Hi Mhaze,
well I’m glad your dropping your ancient religions schtick and are starting to talk numbers for once. Yay for science. But when you can tell me how you think they should estimate the number of animals we destroyed that we didn’t even get to meet and categorise in the first place, then maybe we can discuss estimates. The number of unique insects and bugs and little mammals and things we’ve unknowingly ploughed up for ever expanding farms is ridiculous. How many had nature’s answers to questions we don’t even know how to answer yet? How many unique soil microbes that might have helped cure cancer, terraform Mars, provide the next liquid energy solution, clean up industrial waste sites? How many little critters that performed unique ecological roles and may have led to biomimicry and the next raincoat, wearable organic jumper that never needs washing, whatever?

What would be your methodology? Guess how many species there might be out there, and then divide by the number of unique ecosystems we’ve already ploughed up for farmland? (We now use about HALF the land surface of the earth to feed and clothe ourselves).

“"Scientists were startled in 1980 by the discovery of a tremendous diversity of insects in tropical forests. In one study of just 19 trees in Panama, 80% of the 1,200 beetle species discovered were previously unknown to science... Surprisingly, scientists have a better understanding of how many stars there are in the galaxy than how many species there are on Earth." -  World Resources Institute (WRI).”
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/

So what studies into this DO you respect? And why do I hear a little triumphalism in your tone at losing the critters I mentioned in the last post to you? Aren’t those losses grounds for weeping, not “Ha, only 42!” Forty two of the most majestic animal species, not 42 different micro-fungi in the soil! (Which themselves, as I mentioned, might contain some miraculous industrial purpose).

//But what about the new? What about endocrine disruptor's as just one example?//

I think toxicologists and public health officials probably worry about new ones as well as old ones, and try to protect us from anything known to be very dangerous regardless of when it was discovered.

Of course, they run into the problem that newly discovered compounds do not come with SDS detailing all their toxicological data. Sometimes it takes a while to figure that out, and sometimes people suffer as a result. Thalidomide springs to mind. But given our ever increasing lifespans, it would seem that they are winning the war even if they occasional battle goes against them.

Or maybe they're all in league with the Freemasons too, and dooming us all to have our endocrine system disrupted and sicken and die in this supposed toxic mire. Still, doesn't seem probable, does it?

//While I'm a fan of nuclear power, what about nuclear bombs?//

There's this saying, I don't know if you've heard it...

BAN THE BOMB!

And recycle their innards for power generation. Swords into ploughshares.

//What about open air testing of a few decades ago that has left every generation since with a legacy of a certain amount of fallout in their bones?//

The fallout that contributes about 15 microSieverts of radiation to your annual radiation dose? Yeah, that sure does suck. But not as much as the 350 uSv you get from naturally occurring isotopes like Potassium-40 in your body, which you'd have still got if you lived in the good old days. Or the average 300 uSv you get from what you eat and drink (people who eats lots of Brazil nuts will have a much higher dose, they're quite radioactive). Or the 700 uSv you'd get if you took regular showers using bore water. Or the 260 uSv you'd get from cosmic rays if you lived at sea level; add an extra 0.2 uSv for every meter of altitude above that.

There are more sources of radiation than that, of course. I've left out the dangers of living in a region where's there's lots of granite, the radiation your house emits (wood is better than brick), and the considerable doses received from X-rays, CAT scans etc.

As an Australian, your average annual dose is about 2 mSv, which is a good deal more than the 0.015 mSV received from fallout but somewhat less than the 200 mSv or so it would take to cause you any measurable damage.