by Michael Smith
Innocuous looking and originally inoffensive tools are here becoming defensive tools for the operative.
This is a DIY article as to how to make your own defensive tools without needing much outlay and especially under conditions where going to a specialist store would not be possible.
I do not mean that the article is DIY but we are talking here about DIY in regards to making your own defensive weaponry, such as kubotans and other such from stuff that could be regarded as trash even.
I am sure that the experienced field operative and protection operative will have his own ideas once I have been able to stimulate the thoughts here with this little piece.
The Defense Pen
This is either a real pen, but one that, ideally, is not needed for the purpose of writing, or a specially made or machined device, so to speak, that, to all intents and purposes, it looks like a pen when carried. In fact, the truth is that an ordinary pen can be used for this purpose as well.
However, I prefer to have a separate defense pen for the task. There are, in some places, such defense pens available to purchase but there are a number of ways that one can be improvised for use by the operative by employing simple DIY and it makes a nice project to wile away some spare time, if you happen to have some.
The Defense Stick
Now this is NOT a baton of a large scale but more like a homemade kubotan, the little martial arts too that can also be bought, obviously.
I found an ideal improvisation and that is the use of the musical percussion sticks that are used in music teaching at schools. They can be bought for a couple of bucks as a pair and only one of them is needed to make into the “defense stick”. In fact, you don't have to do anything to it; it is ready as it comes. You will need to know, however, as to how to use such a defensive tool effectively.
The defense stick can be employed somewhat like a kubotan but, in my view, is probably more versatile still in its uses and deployment.
Defense sticks can be bought, factory made, from metal but it does not have to be, as it is not difficult to make one from the aforesaid musical percussion sticks. So why fork out quite a sum of money if you can “improvise” it for far less?
The other thing with such tools that might be referred to by some as weapons is that they doe not look anything like it and hence are not picked up too easily by those that are not in the know.
The defense stick, obviously, could also be made from a piece of branch wood from this or that hardwood tree and either turned or hand carved into what one may want it to be like. This is not a difficult operation either and it is also cheaper even though the percussion sticks are only a few Euro.
The Kubotan
This little device was – so rumor has it – invented and devised by an instructor for the Japanese police and has found its way into many martial arts disciplines by now. While, originally, the kubotan – at least nowadays – is of hardwood or metal even it should be most easy to make one from some length of bamboo and, as far as I know the qualities of bamboo, it would surpass both hardwood and metal. Made from bamboo will also make it undetectable. That, I know, is also true for the wooden kubotan but... not everyone can use a turner's lathe.
On the other hand bamboo is, in my opinion at least, a material that is stronger than wood and less prone to breakage in use than some woods might be. Also, bamboo has what could be called natural grooves that do away with the need for turning anyway.
Blackjack or Slapper
This too is a tool that can be made by the operative himself and with a little skill in working leather it can look quite nice too.
The ideal way of making such a tool is using a spring, a fishing weight of the right kind, whether lead or bismuth, and some leather in which to case the contraption.
My suggestion would be to “screw” the pear-shaped lead (or bismuth) weight into the spring that I mentioned (a gate spring will do nicely) and then “wrap” the thing in two bits of leather.
Once sewn up it is trimmed to shape, the edges of the leather cleaned up, sanded and then sealed with leather oil.
A nice, simple and effective defensive tool that costs little to make but would cost well over $20+ to buy, as far as I have seen.
The list above is, obviously, in no way exhaustive and I am sure that many a reader would be able to add to this. All I am trying to do here is provide you with some food for thought.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Reuses for Errant Mittens
by Michael Smith
I do not think that there is any winter that is going by here where I do not see an orphan mitten or glove lying in the snow or mud, or otherwise lost, in the parks or countryside. And, as I hate anything going to waste I tend to collect those.
I also have rather a collection of orphaned socks of different sizes and many woolly hats. What people lose is amazing at times and how anyone can lose a hat on a cold day beats me every time. But, eh, I am not complaining.
But back to the gloves in hand, so to speak...
There have been times when the gloves that have been found have been a pair even and those were of the Thinsulate brand as well... nice one, thanks. But most mittens and gloves are orphans, missing their mate.
In some instances I have made up a pair, especially for the rough outdoors stuff, from those single orphans but it does not always work and especially not with mittens that are child or even baby sized ones.
Here are some suggestions for mitten reuse. Some of these suggestions here will only work with mittens that are your size while others, such as the drawstring bag idea work also with child and baby mitts.
Drawstring Mitten Bag
You can create a drawstring bag from a mitten and use it to store marbles or drawstrings. Thread a piece of nylon cord through the mitten's cuff. If the mitten is lined, you should be able to use the lining as a drawstring channel. Otherwise you may have to build a channel. Such a drawstring mitten is also great as a money bag or purse, primarily for coins.
N.B. For more information check out a tutorial somewhere online or in books on making a drawstring bags.
You don't, necessarily, have to put a drawstring into the mitten. I have made a purse from a small child's mitten by using an elastic cord of the kind that is found in windcheater fleeces nowadays and a locking toggle. Works great.
Ice Scraper Mitten
Get a drill, a punch or an awl and a nylon cord. Drill a hole in the bottom of your ice scraper. Thread the cord through. Attach the cord to the mitten. The scraper is now attached to the mitten. You will never find yourself without a mitten when you need one.
Mitten Duster
Use that mitten as a duster. It's reusable and washable and it fits conveniently on your hand. It's not so hard to clean corners any more.
iPod Pouch
Especially the child mittens lend themselves, much like small socks that also can be found in abundance in local parks, to the use for and making of iPod pouches.
USB Sock
Well, small mittens work for that as well as small socks and their use is a lot cheaper than buying a so-called USB sock. Mind you, most USB drives nowadays are so small that they might get a little lost in such a bag, but whatever... they are kept clean and well this way.
As far as I am concerned orphaned mittens like orphaned socks can have many uses and I am sure there will be many more uses turning up in the end and many a reader will have his or her own ideas and – hopefully – suggestions which they, so I hope, will share with us.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
I do not think that there is any winter that is going by here where I do not see an orphan mitten or glove lying in the snow or mud, or otherwise lost, in the parks or countryside. And, as I hate anything going to waste I tend to collect those.
I also have rather a collection of orphaned socks of different sizes and many woolly hats. What people lose is amazing at times and how anyone can lose a hat on a cold day beats me every time. But, eh, I am not complaining.
But back to the gloves in hand, so to speak...
There have been times when the gloves that have been found have been a pair even and those were of the Thinsulate brand as well... nice one, thanks. But most mittens and gloves are orphans, missing their mate.
In some instances I have made up a pair, especially for the rough outdoors stuff, from those single orphans but it does not always work and especially not with mittens that are child or even baby sized ones.
Here are some suggestions for mitten reuse. Some of these suggestions here will only work with mittens that are your size while others, such as the drawstring bag idea work also with child and baby mitts.
Drawstring Mitten Bag
You can create a drawstring bag from a mitten and use it to store marbles or drawstrings. Thread a piece of nylon cord through the mitten's cuff. If the mitten is lined, you should be able to use the lining as a drawstring channel. Otherwise you may have to build a channel. Such a drawstring mitten is also great as a money bag or purse, primarily for coins.
N.B. For more information check out a tutorial somewhere online or in books on making a drawstring bags.
You don't, necessarily, have to put a drawstring into the mitten. I have made a purse from a small child's mitten by using an elastic cord of the kind that is found in windcheater fleeces nowadays and a locking toggle. Works great.
Ice Scraper Mitten
Get a drill, a punch or an awl and a nylon cord. Drill a hole in the bottom of your ice scraper. Thread the cord through. Attach the cord to the mitten. The scraper is now attached to the mitten. You will never find yourself without a mitten when you need one.
Mitten Duster
Use that mitten as a duster. It's reusable and washable and it fits conveniently on your hand. It's not so hard to clean corners any more.
iPod Pouch
Especially the child mittens lend themselves, much like small socks that also can be found in abundance in local parks, to the use for and making of iPod pouches.
USB Sock
Well, small mittens work for that as well as small socks and their use is a lot cheaper than buying a so-called USB sock. Mind you, most USB drives nowadays are so small that they might get a little lost in such a bag, but whatever... they are kept clean and well this way.
As far as I am concerned orphaned mittens like orphaned socks can have many uses and I am sure there will be many more uses turning up in the end and many a reader will have his or her own ideas and – hopefully – suggestions which they, so I hope, will share with us.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Lords issue warning regarding the 'surveillance state'
by Michael Smith
Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, Members of the House of Lords have warned. And rightly so, one can but hasten to add.
The proliferation of CCTV cameras and the growth of the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, so the Lords constitution committee said.
Those subject to unlawful surveillance should be compensated while the policy of DNA retention should be rethought.
Too many times local authorities also have been making use of RIPA, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which was never intended to be used in the way that so many councils are employing it, such as spying on people as to what rubbish is put out when incorrectly and by who, and such like.
The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential crime fighting tools", but this has, in fact, been disproved by senior police officers who have stated not so long ago that CCTV is useless in most cases. So why the continuation of the lie to the people.
The only answer here can and must be that the government of the UK is hellbent on “people control” and nothing else.
'Orwellian'
Surveillance and data collection, so the Lords' committee says, must be proportionate.
What, however, is proportionate in this instance and who decides this and who monitors this on behalf of the people?
Civil liberties campaigners have warned about the risks of a "surveillance society" in which the state acquires ever-greater powers to track people's movements and retain personal data.
Controversial government plans for a database to store details of people's phone calls and e-mails were put on hold late last year after they were branded "Orwellian".
Ministers are currently consulting on the plan, which would involve the details but not the content of calls and internet traffic being logged, saying it is essential to fighting terrorism.
While we are being told that this database will not contain the details of phone calls and emails who is to say that this is going to be thus and, yet again, who, on behalf of the people is going to monitor this.
None of these methods will aid in the fight against crime nor in the fight against terrorism. Only one things will: proper policing; one that is NOT target driven but one that uses the old-fashioned ways of investigations of officers with common sense and a nose for spotting things that are wrong.
In its report, the Lords constitution committee said growth in surveillance by both the state and the private sector risked threatening people's right to privacy, which it said was "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom".
The public were often unaware of the scale of personal information held and exchanged by public bodies, it said.
He only reason I can see for all those intrusive measures is that the governments are, in fact, frightened of the people and of the power the people have nowadays with the Internet. For the very same reason that they, in Italy, are trying to outlaw the citizen journalist, the Blogger and Blogs.
Instead of alienating the people by such measures the governments should empower the people to take part in the enforcement of the laws that there are and to be the eyes and ears as far as crime and terrorism is concerned and empower the people also the properly, as individuals, to hold the police to account when they do not deal with crime in the proper way.
Target-driven policing is leaving people frustrated and worse. You cannot tell a crime victim that they must book an appointment with an officer to take a statement or too tell Park Rangers when there are hoodlums rampaging through a park, threatening people, that local officers will be made aware and will attend to take a statement in a couple of days.
The reason for such replies is the target culture and the wish to appear to solve everything to which officers are being dispatched. So, if you don't send a response vehicle then that is not logged as such an incident and hence the possible lack of a result in an investigation does not reflect (badly) in the league tables. This is what it is all about and, as far as the government is concerned, “people control”
here is so much misuse of the powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for instance, that it is hardly surprising that people, and especially organizations that try to protect the civil liberties in the UK, are getting concerned.
Orwell was right only a little too early in the date.
There are and estimated 4,000,000 (in words: four million) CCTV cameras in the UK and often they are used by local councils to simply spy on people over issues such as littering and such like.
The Conservatives said the government's approach to personal privacy was "reckless".
"Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people," said shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve.
The government and the police, as said previously, are alienating rather than making friends out of the public but then they do not seem to care. They rather see anyone and everyone as a criminal and terrorist until proven otherwise. It used to be “innocent until proven guilty” but that was a long time ago.
When the “Miranda” warning in the UK was changed from “you have the right to remain silent but anything you may say will be taken down and given in evidence” to “you have the right to remain silent but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court”, the goalpost was moved and it became a “guilty until proven innocent”. In the same way as anyone carrying a knife may be considered automatically to carry it will ill intentions, for instance. A knife is a tool and not a weapon, primarily, and while there are people who carry a knife as a weapon the emphasis should still be, also with children and young people in the possession of a knife, that there is another purpose there for that knife than as a weapon of offense or defense. Guilty until proven innocent, and in the knife instance often it simply is guilty, whether guilty or not. You do not solve crime that way.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, Members of the House of Lords have warned. And rightly so, one can but hasten to add.
The proliferation of CCTV cameras and the growth of the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, so the Lords constitution committee said.
Those subject to unlawful surveillance should be compensated while the policy of DNA retention should be rethought.
Too many times local authorities also have been making use of RIPA, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which was never intended to be used in the way that so many councils are employing it, such as spying on people as to what rubbish is put out when incorrectly and by who, and such like.
The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential crime fighting tools", but this has, in fact, been disproved by senior police officers who have stated not so long ago that CCTV is useless in most cases. So why the continuation of the lie to the people.
The only answer here can and must be that the government of the UK is hellbent on “people control” and nothing else.
'Orwellian'
Surveillance and data collection, so the Lords' committee says, must be proportionate.
What, however, is proportionate in this instance and who decides this and who monitors this on behalf of the people?
Civil liberties campaigners have warned about the risks of a "surveillance society" in which the state acquires ever-greater powers to track people's movements and retain personal data.
Controversial government plans for a database to store details of people's phone calls and e-mails were put on hold late last year after they were branded "Orwellian".
Ministers are currently consulting on the plan, which would involve the details but not the content of calls and internet traffic being logged, saying it is essential to fighting terrorism.
While we are being told that this database will not contain the details of phone calls and emails who is to say that this is going to be thus and, yet again, who, on behalf of the people is going to monitor this.
None of these methods will aid in the fight against crime nor in the fight against terrorism. Only one things will: proper policing; one that is NOT target driven but one that uses the old-fashioned ways of investigations of officers with common sense and a nose for spotting things that are wrong.
In its report, the Lords constitution committee said growth in surveillance by both the state and the private sector risked threatening people's right to privacy, which it said was "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom".
The public were often unaware of the scale of personal information held and exchanged by public bodies, it said.
He only reason I can see for all those intrusive measures is that the governments are, in fact, frightened of the people and of the power the people have nowadays with the Internet. For the very same reason that they, in Italy, are trying to outlaw the citizen journalist, the Blogger and Blogs.
Instead of alienating the people by such measures the governments should empower the people to take part in the enforcement of the laws that there are and to be the eyes and ears as far as crime and terrorism is concerned and empower the people also the properly, as individuals, to hold the police to account when they do not deal with crime in the proper way.
Target-driven policing is leaving people frustrated and worse. You cannot tell a crime victim that they must book an appointment with an officer to take a statement or too tell Park Rangers when there are hoodlums rampaging through a park, threatening people, that local officers will be made aware and will attend to take a statement in a couple of days.
The reason for such replies is the target culture and the wish to appear to solve everything to which officers are being dispatched. So, if you don't send a response vehicle then that is not logged as such an incident and hence the possible lack of a result in an investigation does not reflect (badly) in the league tables. This is what it is all about and, as far as the government is concerned, “people control”
here is so much misuse of the powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for instance, that it is hardly surprising that people, and especially organizations that try to protect the civil liberties in the UK, are getting concerned.
Orwell was right only a little too early in the date.
There are and estimated 4,000,000 (in words: four million) CCTV cameras in the UK and often they are used by local councils to simply spy on people over issues such as littering and such like.
The Conservatives said the government's approach to personal privacy was "reckless".
"Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people," said shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve.
The government and the police, as said previously, are alienating rather than making friends out of the public but then they do not seem to care. They rather see anyone and everyone as a criminal and terrorist until proven otherwise. It used to be “innocent until proven guilty” but that was a long time ago.
When the “Miranda” warning in the UK was changed from “you have the right to remain silent but anything you may say will be taken down and given in evidence” to “you have the right to remain silent but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court”, the goalpost was moved and it became a “guilty until proven innocent”. In the same way as anyone carrying a knife may be considered automatically to carry it will ill intentions, for instance. A knife is a tool and not a weapon, primarily, and while there are people who carry a knife as a weapon the emphasis should still be, also with children and young people in the possession of a knife, that there is another purpose there for that knife than as a weapon of offense or defense. Guilty until proven innocent, and in the knife instance often it simply is guilty, whether guilty or not. You do not solve crime that way.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Secateurs used as wire cutters
by Michael Smith
Time and again I see this and cringe. People, whether pruning roses or people pruning vines, they need to cut some wire, often just tying wire but at times also some slightly stronger ones, resort to the pair of secateurs that they are using rather than going and getting the proper tool. Using the hardened cutting blade of a pair of secateurs to cut wire not just dulls the blade; it can, in fact, cause nicks to be broken out of the blade and with that the blade be ruined irreparably.
Now there is no more need to worry and do that for all secateurs in the Ergo range from Bahco have a special aperture at the heel of the blade which, in fact, is a wire cutter. Very clever, methinks. Only shame that until my recent visit to the Garden Press Event 2009 at the RHS Halls in London's Westminster I, and more than likely many readers neither, did not know about this. I have reviewed two of the secateurs in that range last year after the Garden Press Event and even though this aperture was already part of those pruners then no one mentioned this and this was also not included in any of the press material.
As far as I am concerned, this is a feature that should be mentioned for now one no longer has to feel guilty when using one's secateurs with which to cut some tying wire or such, as long as one uses the right part of the blade and, obviously, one of the Ergo range of Bahco's pruning shears (secateurs) that have this facility built in.
While Bahco secateurs (pruning shears) of the Ergo range certainly are not cheap, they are the only ones that allow for the need to cut, say, tying wire without damaging the blades. Nice one.
© M Smith (Veshengro), March 2009
<>
Time and again I see this and cringe. People, whether pruning roses or people pruning vines, they need to cut some wire, often just tying wire but at times also some slightly stronger ones, resort to the pair of secateurs that they are using rather than going and getting the proper tool. Using the hardened cutting blade of a pair of secateurs to cut wire not just dulls the blade; it can, in fact, cause nicks to be broken out of the blade and with that the blade be ruined irreparably.
Now there is no more need to worry and do that for all secateurs in the Ergo range from Bahco have a special aperture at the heel of the blade which, in fact, is a wire cutter. Very clever, methinks. Only shame that until my recent visit to the Garden Press Event 2009 at the RHS Halls in London's Westminster I, and more than likely many readers neither, did not know about this. I have reviewed two of the secateurs in that range last year after the Garden Press Event and even though this aperture was already part of those pruners then no one mentioned this and this was also not included in any of the press material.
As far as I am concerned, this is a feature that should be mentioned for now one no longer has to feel guilty when using one's secateurs with which to cut some tying wire or such, as long as one uses the right part of the blade and, obviously, one of the Ergo range of Bahco's pruning shears (secateurs) that have this facility built in.
While Bahco secateurs (pruning shears) of the Ergo range certainly are not cheap, they are the only ones that allow for the need to cut, say, tying wire without damaging the blades. Nice one.
© M Smith (Veshengro), March 2009
<>
Managing your woodlot
by Michael Smith
In this current climate in Europe with the demand for firewood being at an all-time high anyone who has the slightest idea how to manage the woodlots on his property can make quite some money.
Many people in Britain and also elsewhere do have their own little or even not so little woodlots on their property but have no idea as to how to mange it for their own benefit and also for profit, as far as firewood and such are concerned.
In addition to that there are farms that have quite a bit of woodland, even to such an extent that those plots of woodland are being used for shooting and such like. Very often, however, the tress are left to their own devices, so to speak, and no real management is being undertaken.
The same, in a way, is true for wooded parks, municipal or otherwise, where trees that have fallen are, unless the pose a danger, left where they have fallen to just rot away.
In other cases, where trees are cut in countryside management and municipal and public parks the trees are often cut into lengths and then left as “habitat piles” laying about higgldy-piggledy piled up. This is lazy forestry practice in fact despite the claims that it is “for the wildlife”.
In years gone by when people has Estovers rights and such like and even when it was no longer used in such ways woods and forests – including parks – did not have any of such debris left laying about and neither were logs left, and still wildlife thrives. More at times, it would seem, that today with the “habitat piles”.
Many forestry authorities are now advising against such “habitat piles” and that for more than one reason. The main reason being that those higgledy-piggledy left piles cause diseases to spread amongst the trees and therefore the advice is no to build proper “habitat piles” where the logs are sunk into the ground some way. That, however, requires time and effort.
The other reason is that trees left to rot in the woods and forests are a CO2 hazard, do to speak, for int heir decaying process the wood that is left to rot releases the CO2 that it has absorbed during its growing process. Fart better, therefore, to use the wood, even if it is just for firewood. The release of CO2 if the same but the heating with wood is carbon-neutral.
Also to be considered is that during he decaying process of the wood left laying about not only CO2 is set free but also a much more dangerous greenhouse gas, namely methane. This does not occur when the wood is burned.
So, instead of leaving the wood to die out there in the bush it is time to bring it in and turn it into an income, even if it be just a small one, whether for a farm or a municipal and public park or those that manage the countryside areas.
With the current demand for firewood for homes and – it could soon be – power stations we cannot afford to leave wood too rot out there.
If the right methods be applied some of the country's heating needs and those of power stations could be met by that wood which no one wants for anything else or which has no other market.
The issue of the Dutch Elm Disease in Britain could also be solved – to a great extent if not entirely – by removing all dead and dying elm trees and burning the wood in homes or better still power stations. The reason I recommend power stations here is because the wood then is not going to sit on someone's porch or in someone's yard at home for the beetle to mature and swarm and infect further trees with the pathogen that the, inadvertently, carry about.
Within less than a generation, if done correctly, the Dutch Elm Disease could, I am convinced, be overcome, if the above be employed. Other diseases too could be dealt with in this way, e.g. felling the diseased trees and burning the wood.
This is a case of killing two birds with one stone: removing – hopefully – the disease and providing carbon-neutral energy.
From the woodland owner's side this, obviously, does require some more work than just leaving things to fall and then in situ as they are. It requires the active cutting and bringing in of the wood and then preparing and selling it. The reward, however, could and should be grater here than the outlay, in finances and time.
It can be done because it used to be done. We have but become lazy in our management of woods over the years as, to some extent, the market for firewood was not there and the demand was rather low, and also as we were told in woodland management by certain people with little knowledge who thought that they knew it all to leave the wood as “habitat piles”. This, however, has caused more problems than that it did good; something that anyone with just half and ounce of brain could and should have seen coming.
If you leave diseased wood out there to rot down then you will spread the disease to other trees. This is so obvious but those misguided environmentalists who thought that they knew it all did not care about the trees and the possible income from those; all they cared about was invertebrates and such like needing a place to be.
What did they think those creatures did before when all woods and forests were managed properly, including for firewood and very little debris was lost? They lived quite well on the forest floor without human interference of giving them piles of wood to chew.
We cannot afford this practice, and in fact never could, for it caused disease to spread. Today, however, we can afford this even less for it is not beneficial for anyone, not at least the environment, that we import firewood from as far field as Poland to satisfy the need in Britain, especially as we here waste such wood.
It is most urgent that we manage our own woodlots, whether on farms or elsewhere, in such a way that they benefit us all.
The use of firewood is, as I have said before, carbon neutral as the wood only releases the amount of carbon that it accumulated during its growth. The same carbon is also released while the wood is a “habitat pile”. So not all that good for the environment, is it now.
Much better, therefore, to burn the wood and to have carbon neutral energy rather that to waste it by letting it rot in the woods.
Managing woodlots for firewood, especially if only dealing with dying and fallen timber, is not rocket science and the market is out there, at least presently, for firewood, and if we keep on at the right people the market may even get bigger as time goes by, especially when everyone realizes the facts about carbon neutrality of firewood.
This does only, though, really work, as to locally harvested firewood and not too that that has been imported from nearly as far afield as Russia. That is not a sustainable way to go. Using homegrown wood, on the other hand, is.
While I have been addressing here the British market, the lesson applies also for other countries. I do know that in other countries this seems too be understood far better than in Britain, such as in those of Europe and especially in the USA and Canada, but still there are some people who have little idea of how to get people to buy firewood because some see the smoke as an issue, as far as being “green” is concerned. However, the carbon neutrality of firewood is what should be considered by all of us; the smoke is something that is secondary and negligible, especially as far as untreated natural wood is concerned.
So, let's hear it for local firewood.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
In this current climate in Europe with the demand for firewood being at an all-time high anyone who has the slightest idea how to manage the woodlots on his property can make quite some money.
Many people in Britain and also elsewhere do have their own little or even not so little woodlots on their property but have no idea as to how to mange it for their own benefit and also for profit, as far as firewood and such are concerned.
In addition to that there are farms that have quite a bit of woodland, even to such an extent that those plots of woodland are being used for shooting and such like. Very often, however, the tress are left to their own devices, so to speak, and no real management is being undertaken.
The same, in a way, is true for wooded parks, municipal or otherwise, where trees that have fallen are, unless the pose a danger, left where they have fallen to just rot away.
In other cases, where trees are cut in countryside management and municipal and public parks the trees are often cut into lengths and then left as “habitat piles” laying about higgldy-piggledy piled up. This is lazy forestry practice in fact despite the claims that it is “for the wildlife”.
In years gone by when people has Estovers rights and such like and even when it was no longer used in such ways woods and forests – including parks – did not have any of such debris left laying about and neither were logs left, and still wildlife thrives. More at times, it would seem, that today with the “habitat piles”.
Many forestry authorities are now advising against such “habitat piles” and that for more than one reason. The main reason being that those higgledy-piggledy left piles cause diseases to spread amongst the trees and therefore the advice is no to build proper “habitat piles” where the logs are sunk into the ground some way. That, however, requires time and effort.
The other reason is that trees left to rot in the woods and forests are a CO2 hazard, do to speak, for int heir decaying process the wood that is left to rot releases the CO2 that it has absorbed during its growing process. Fart better, therefore, to use the wood, even if it is just for firewood. The release of CO2 if the same but the heating with wood is carbon-neutral.
Also to be considered is that during he decaying process of the wood left laying about not only CO2 is set free but also a much more dangerous greenhouse gas, namely methane. This does not occur when the wood is burned.
So, instead of leaving the wood to die out there in the bush it is time to bring it in and turn it into an income, even if it be just a small one, whether for a farm or a municipal and public park or those that manage the countryside areas.
With the current demand for firewood for homes and – it could soon be – power stations we cannot afford to leave wood too rot out there.
If the right methods be applied some of the country's heating needs and those of power stations could be met by that wood which no one wants for anything else or which has no other market.
The issue of the Dutch Elm Disease in Britain could also be solved – to a great extent if not entirely – by removing all dead and dying elm trees and burning the wood in homes or better still power stations. The reason I recommend power stations here is because the wood then is not going to sit on someone's porch or in someone's yard at home for the beetle to mature and swarm and infect further trees with the pathogen that the, inadvertently, carry about.
Within less than a generation, if done correctly, the Dutch Elm Disease could, I am convinced, be overcome, if the above be employed. Other diseases too could be dealt with in this way, e.g. felling the diseased trees and burning the wood.
This is a case of killing two birds with one stone: removing – hopefully – the disease and providing carbon-neutral energy.
From the woodland owner's side this, obviously, does require some more work than just leaving things to fall and then in situ as they are. It requires the active cutting and bringing in of the wood and then preparing and selling it. The reward, however, could and should be grater here than the outlay, in finances and time.
It can be done because it used to be done. We have but become lazy in our management of woods over the years as, to some extent, the market for firewood was not there and the demand was rather low, and also as we were told in woodland management by certain people with little knowledge who thought that they knew it all to leave the wood as “habitat piles”. This, however, has caused more problems than that it did good; something that anyone with just half and ounce of brain could and should have seen coming.
If you leave diseased wood out there to rot down then you will spread the disease to other trees. This is so obvious but those misguided environmentalists who thought that they knew it all did not care about the trees and the possible income from those; all they cared about was invertebrates and such like needing a place to be.
What did they think those creatures did before when all woods and forests were managed properly, including for firewood and very little debris was lost? They lived quite well on the forest floor without human interference of giving them piles of wood to chew.
We cannot afford this practice, and in fact never could, for it caused disease to spread. Today, however, we can afford this even less for it is not beneficial for anyone, not at least the environment, that we import firewood from as far field as Poland to satisfy the need in Britain, especially as we here waste such wood.
It is most urgent that we manage our own woodlots, whether on farms or elsewhere, in such a way that they benefit us all.
The use of firewood is, as I have said before, carbon neutral as the wood only releases the amount of carbon that it accumulated during its growth. The same carbon is also released while the wood is a “habitat pile”. So not all that good for the environment, is it now.
Much better, therefore, to burn the wood and to have carbon neutral energy rather that to waste it by letting it rot in the woods.
Managing woodlots for firewood, especially if only dealing with dying and fallen timber, is not rocket science and the market is out there, at least presently, for firewood, and if we keep on at the right people the market may even get bigger as time goes by, especially when everyone realizes the facts about carbon neutrality of firewood.
This does only, though, really work, as to locally harvested firewood and not too that that has been imported from nearly as far afield as Russia. That is not a sustainable way to go. Using homegrown wood, on the other hand, is.
While I have been addressing here the British market, the lesson applies also for other countries. I do know that in other countries this seems too be understood far better than in Britain, such as in those of Europe and especially in the USA and Canada, but still there are some people who have little idea of how to get people to buy firewood because some see the smoke as an issue, as far as being “green” is concerned. However, the carbon neutrality of firewood is what should be considered by all of us; the smoke is something that is secondary and negligible, especially as far as untreated natural wood is concerned.
So, let's hear it for local firewood.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Bank of England Chief says Britain in deep recession
by Michael Smith
In a statement on Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Mervin King, the head of the Bank of England, said that Britain is in a deep recession but, it would appear, that like the politicians as well, he is not willing to accept the fact that it is a D and not a R; in other words, it is not just a recession, it is a depression. The governor might do well to have another look at the letters of the alphabet; depression is spelled with a “D” and in this case an uppercase one too.
Mervin King said further that the economy is going into the minus range, as if people hadn't realized that as yet. The only one that does not seem to be able to realize this and willing to accept it are the Labor regime of the UK and the state bank.
The Governor of the Bank of England also stated that other measures will have to employed, other than interest cuts, as the interest rate can basically be cut not much further, and are talking about the need to “print money”. This is NOT a good idea, as we have seen in places such as the former Rhodesia.
We need to find a new way and a new style of economy or the way things are for it is no longer going to work the way things are being done.
The present system is “kaput”, as they would say in German; it is broken, and the way I see it it is not fixable either. It if finished and we need to have a look at some new options. Some of those options are not, in fact, that new and are age old and well tested.
The system of buying on credit might be something that must be reconsidered as far as the individual consumer is concerned and either it is cash, check (though nearly no one wants to accept them bits of paper no more because of the costs of processing them) or debit card. In other words, if one does not have the money – saved – in an account or under the mattress – then one cannot buy the thing that one desires. A good was to be, methinks.
The greedy banks got us into this and we must never let them do this again.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
In a statement on Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Mervin King, the head of the Bank of England, said that Britain is in a deep recession but, it would appear, that like the politicians as well, he is not willing to accept the fact that it is a D and not a R; in other words, it is not just a recession, it is a depression. The governor might do well to have another look at the letters of the alphabet; depression is spelled with a “D” and in this case an uppercase one too.
Mervin King said further that the economy is going into the minus range, as if people hadn't realized that as yet. The only one that does not seem to be able to realize this and willing to accept it are the Labor regime of the UK and the state bank.
The Governor of the Bank of England also stated that other measures will have to employed, other than interest cuts, as the interest rate can basically be cut not much further, and are talking about the need to “print money”. This is NOT a good idea, as we have seen in places such as the former Rhodesia.
We need to find a new way and a new style of economy or the way things are for it is no longer going to work the way things are being done.
The present system is “kaput”, as they would say in German; it is broken, and the way I see it it is not fixable either. It if finished and we need to have a look at some new options. Some of those options are not, in fact, that new and are age old and well tested.
The system of buying on credit might be something that must be reconsidered as far as the individual consumer is concerned and either it is cash, check (though nearly no one wants to accept them bits of paper no more because of the costs of processing them) or debit card. In other words, if one does not have the money – saved – in an account or under the mattress – then one cannot buy the thing that one desires. A good was to be, methinks.
The greedy banks got us into this and we must never let them do this again.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Is reuse good for the economy?
by Michael Smith
The Financial Times has started using the word "austerity" in many of its headlines – and charity shops, the face of the second hand market in Britain, are experiencing a buying boom.
On the other hand a fair – though not so fair in other terms – of retailers, the purveyors of brand new things, have gone bankrupt, in liquidation or receivership, such as Woolworth, MFI and some other well known names.
Does this mean we are saturated with stuff?
The answer to this could be a probably maybe. But the truth, more than likely, is that people, that is all of us, are feeling the squeeze as with the recession and the prices for fuel and everything going up and up.
Do we still need to keep on spending on new things to keep the economy moving?
While the economic whizkids, who got us into this mess in the first place or who simply were so blind that they could not see it coming, and especially the powers that be, tell us to go and shop till we drop, basically, to help those ailing capitalist economies of ours, the truth is that we cannot do so. First off the environment must be considered for if we don't it does not matter what we do; we may no longer have a habitable planet. Secondly there is no money there and no credit to be had – not that one should work on the credit thing anyway – so how do the powers that be think that people can go out and spend, spend, spend.
Is designed obsolescence soon to be obsolete? Or should we keep on refreshing our material possessions to keep the economy moving?
In other words, the question is, "Is reuse good for the economy?"
I know that the government of this country – and, so it wold appear, also of other countries – is trying to create stimulus for us to keep on spending, and spending and spending; spending our way out of the recession, so they say. Personally I do not think that that will work.
Alternatively, maybe, just maybe, the economy is so far up the creek that we should consider building an alternative one and slowly migrate over to it.
There is no way, in my opinion, but then again I am no economist, that we can administer CPR to this troubled economy by spending as much as possible. It will not work and, well, do we have the money to do so, and, do we really need more stuff (only to throw other stuff into the garbage then).
Paul Smith of the Furniture Reuse Network (FRN) certainly advocates that reuse is a good thing but you might argue his focus is short-term and on real people rather than on the long-term health of the more abstract economy?
To some degree, methinks, the reason that the economy is in the dire straights that it is in because people and the planet were taken out of the equation by the the bankers and financiers and the big capitalists and especially the multi-nationals. As soon as you do that, that is to say to remove the people and the planet out of the equation as far as economy, and not just the economy, is concerned you head for severe trouble and so we did. Greed was all that fueled the banks and all that seems to have fueled industry and now we reap the whirlwind. But it is the little man an d the environment that suffers and not the fat cats. While we, the taxpayers, have to bail out the banks and certain sectors of industry, those who got everyone into that mess still award themselves fat multi-million pound bonuses and such payments. But I digressed somewhat.
Given that the governments of the world are doing everything they can to get spending going again it would seem that the powers that be certainly do not want reuse as a general practice, despite their “reduce, reuse, recycle” message about waste management, to take place. They want new cars, new houses, new washing machines, plasma screen TVs, MS Vista 09 and every other material (and immaterial thing) that generates jobs to start moving again. I mean, how many more sofas, TVs, etc. do we need. No, your old PC is not obsolete as yet, regardless of what the folks in Redmond try telling you. All you need is an operating system that works with less resources, e.g. lower processor speed, such as Linux.
There is no doubt in my mind that the economy is shrinking – and for everything that is reused that is one less thing that is made from scratch – environment 1 - economy nil. The same applies for re-purposing. But, as said, the powers that be do not seem to want this to happen, in all honesty, despite their pratter.
Artificially encouraging spending with the policy and print runs at the mint is only going to produce artificial demand – which in turn, produces artificial economy. It is the same as the alcoholic having a drink to get rid of the jitters - the junkie shooting up to avoid the come down. The example of Zimbabwe should also be obvious enough.
Grow your own, repair before replace, live lightly. Using and producing less is a global objective, or at least so it should be.
While it might be painful, painful for all of us, I do think that we have to go through this and kick the habit of waste and spend, spend, spend. I say reuse, don't refuse!
To some this may appear to be a stark choice between two paths, but is it really. We all know, at least those of us with some common sense, that business as usual will not be solving the problems we face. On the other hand, massive economic shifts in short periods of time seem to cause significant unrest and violence, do they not?
Then again, the choices here may not be as stark as some may think. Re-use often needs testing,such as in the case of electrical goods, and sometimes repair. These are key skills that allow re-use organizations to train and employ people. There is also a danger that the economic interest are short term. We live on a finite piece of rock with finite resources the longer we can keep items and resources in circulation the longer we will be able to have an economy at all. It is not a choice between the environment and the economy but a choice between short and long term thinking and, most importantly, survival.
Thus, in a reuse economy there are actually just as many jobs and transactions – just different skills and tills. An important thing wold be if we could but remember en mass some of the skills we have lost and then, maybe, get around to relearning some of those – all important, in my view anyway – skills and trades.
I would also like to add that I think that it would take us quite a while to use up what there is to reuse at the present time. It would be healthy to reuse as long as possible until we have thought up a way to a durable economy. It would also give the overexploited countries a chance to recenter themselves on their own needs and their own resources without having to hope that they can carry on pampering our so-called 'needs'. It is our own responsibility to live on what we have around us. We also have plenty of great skills and can learn some more too.
Being, as I said before, from a rather large Gypsy family, the reuse issue has always been part of us and that not just because we were a large family. In fact the Gypsy people recycled before the word was even invented. We made things from virtually nothing to sell at fairs, markets and door-to-door, and we reworked “trash” into goods people wanted to buy. Another kind of economy.
© M Smith (Veshengro) February 2009
<>
The Financial Times has started using the word "austerity" in many of its headlines – and charity shops, the face of the second hand market in Britain, are experiencing a buying boom.
On the other hand a fair – though not so fair in other terms – of retailers, the purveyors of brand new things, have gone bankrupt, in liquidation or receivership, such as Woolworth, MFI and some other well known names.
Does this mean we are saturated with stuff?
The answer to this could be a probably maybe. But the truth, more than likely, is that people, that is all of us, are feeling the squeeze as with the recession and the prices for fuel and everything going up and up.
Do we still need to keep on spending on new things to keep the economy moving?
While the economic whizkids, who got us into this mess in the first place or who simply were so blind that they could not see it coming, and especially the powers that be, tell us to go and shop till we drop, basically, to help those ailing capitalist economies of ours, the truth is that we cannot do so. First off the environment must be considered for if we don't it does not matter what we do; we may no longer have a habitable planet. Secondly there is no money there and no credit to be had – not that one should work on the credit thing anyway – so how do the powers that be think that people can go out and spend, spend, spend.
Is designed obsolescence soon to be obsolete? Or should we keep on refreshing our material possessions to keep the economy moving?
In other words, the question is, "Is reuse good for the economy?"
I know that the government of this country – and, so it wold appear, also of other countries – is trying to create stimulus for us to keep on spending, and spending and spending; spending our way out of the recession, so they say. Personally I do not think that that will work.
Alternatively, maybe, just maybe, the economy is so far up the creek that we should consider building an alternative one and slowly migrate over to it.
There is no way, in my opinion, but then again I am no economist, that we can administer CPR to this troubled economy by spending as much as possible. It will not work and, well, do we have the money to do so, and, do we really need more stuff (only to throw other stuff into the garbage then).
Paul Smith of the Furniture Reuse Network (FRN) certainly advocates that reuse is a good thing but you might argue his focus is short-term and on real people rather than on the long-term health of the more abstract economy?
To some degree, methinks, the reason that the economy is in the dire straights that it is in because people and the planet were taken out of the equation by the the bankers and financiers and the big capitalists and especially the multi-nationals. As soon as you do that, that is to say to remove the people and the planet out of the equation as far as economy, and not just the economy, is concerned you head for severe trouble and so we did. Greed was all that fueled the banks and all that seems to have fueled industry and now we reap the whirlwind. But it is the little man an d the environment that suffers and not the fat cats. While we, the taxpayers, have to bail out the banks and certain sectors of industry, those who got everyone into that mess still award themselves fat multi-million pound bonuses and such payments. But I digressed somewhat.
Given that the governments of the world are doing everything they can to get spending going again it would seem that the powers that be certainly do not want reuse as a general practice, despite their “reduce, reuse, recycle” message about waste management, to take place. They want new cars, new houses, new washing machines, plasma screen TVs, MS Vista 09 and every other material (and immaterial thing) that generates jobs to start moving again. I mean, how many more sofas, TVs, etc. do we need. No, your old PC is not obsolete as yet, regardless of what the folks in Redmond try telling you. All you need is an operating system that works with less resources, e.g. lower processor speed, such as Linux.
There is no doubt in my mind that the economy is shrinking – and for everything that is reused that is one less thing that is made from scratch – environment 1 - economy nil. The same applies for re-purposing. But, as said, the powers that be do not seem to want this to happen, in all honesty, despite their pratter.
Artificially encouraging spending with the policy and print runs at the mint is only going to produce artificial demand – which in turn, produces artificial economy. It is the same as the alcoholic having a drink to get rid of the jitters - the junkie shooting up to avoid the come down. The example of Zimbabwe should also be obvious enough.
Grow your own, repair before replace, live lightly. Using and producing less is a global objective, or at least so it should be.
While it might be painful, painful for all of us, I do think that we have to go through this and kick the habit of waste and spend, spend, spend. I say reuse, don't refuse!
To some this may appear to be a stark choice between two paths, but is it really. We all know, at least those of us with some common sense, that business as usual will not be solving the problems we face. On the other hand, massive economic shifts in short periods of time seem to cause significant unrest and violence, do they not?
Then again, the choices here may not be as stark as some may think. Re-use often needs testing,such as in the case of electrical goods, and sometimes repair. These are key skills that allow re-use organizations to train and employ people. There is also a danger that the economic interest are short term. We live on a finite piece of rock with finite resources the longer we can keep items and resources in circulation the longer we will be able to have an economy at all. It is not a choice between the environment and the economy but a choice between short and long term thinking and, most importantly, survival.
Thus, in a reuse economy there are actually just as many jobs and transactions – just different skills and tills. An important thing wold be if we could but remember en mass some of the skills we have lost and then, maybe, get around to relearning some of those – all important, in my view anyway – skills and trades.
I would also like to add that I think that it would take us quite a while to use up what there is to reuse at the present time. It would be healthy to reuse as long as possible until we have thought up a way to a durable economy. It would also give the overexploited countries a chance to recenter themselves on their own needs and their own resources without having to hope that they can carry on pampering our so-called 'needs'. It is our own responsibility to live on what we have around us. We also have plenty of great skills and can learn some more too.
Being, as I said before, from a rather large Gypsy family, the reuse issue has always been part of us and that not just because we were a large family. In fact the Gypsy people recycled before the word was even invented. We made things from virtually nothing to sell at fairs, markets and door-to-door, and we reworked “trash” into goods people wanted to buy. Another kind of economy.
© M Smith (Veshengro) February 2009
<>
Fragility of the power grid
by Michael Smith
The catastrophic failure of only two electricity generating plants in Britain, including the nuclear power station “Sizewell II”, in May 2008 should really have brought home to all and sundry but at least and especially to those in power that something must be done to protect the people and the country's infrastructure from such an event ever occurring again.
While I do know that there will always be the possibility of a fluke incident, as this may just have been one of, this, however, proves how extremely vulnerable we are in this country – and probably not just in this country alone – due to our highly centralized electricity generating industry.
Also to a degree the fact that most of our utility companies are foreign owned, and one is hard pressed to find one that is still a British one. Even “nPower” whose agents keep claiming that they are a green company and wholly British is foreign owned, namely by RWE of Germany.
The majority of our power stations are huge, not to say, gigantic, and far, far away from where people live and the power is actually consumed.
They, as individual stations, supply millions of households, as well as businesses, hospitals, schools, and so on.
The total failure of already only one of those can cause severe problems and also put a strain then of gigantic proportions onto the national electricity grid. If more than one station goes out then we are getting into serious trouble already and the power will, probably, go out to tens of thousands of homes, businesses and other places and this, obviously, can have rather serious impact on so many things. In some cases such failures can cause loss of life.
Fritz Schumacher in his books “Small is beautiful” suggested the things that we are, I know, finally coming to, namely localized power generating plants and people thought him crazy in those days of the 1960s when everything that was being build in that department had to be ever bigger and hence further away from the actual electricity consumer. And the fact that those stations then supply thousands upon thousands of homes, businesses, offices, and other establishment has then tremendous negative implications in the even of a failure.
Local power generating plants, as once advocated by F Schumacher and others, myself included, are now, finally, being looked at and they also make sense not just in the supply issue and the issue of a failure of the huge power stations.
Locally generated electricity can be of a lower voltage rating than that which is being generated far away and needs to travel a long distance. The power loss over the long distance in the cables is being compensated for by the extreme high voltages with which the electricity is leaving the power stations, in many cases those are 20,000 volts and more.
In order to generate that amount we waste a lot of resources and locally generated electricity would be better for everyone and here we could work on less than 1,000 volts and more than likely even directly at commercial and domestic current.
Both the environmental aspect of small local power plants and the savings in resources are important on the level of protecting the national infrastructure as well as the environment. Thus local CHP facilities, for instance, would kill two birds with one stone and also that many of those could be powered, say, by methane from sewerage plants or from waste wood and thus reduce the impact and also our reliance on oil and gas.
The fact is that those large power stations are not as economical as they once were tauted to be for they do waste a lot of resources in the production of the very high current that is required in order to transport the power over the long distance that it has to travel to its final destination, the end-consumer, to you and me at home, to our offices, factories, schools and hospitals, and everywhere else.
While the UK currently still produces oil and natural gas and is even a seller of same on the world market in the not so distant future Britain will have to become, once again, a net importer of oil and gas and then we are at the mercy of the likes of the Russian Federation and other such states and can be held to ransom over gas and oil supplies.
Smaller power stations, and here ideally local area CHPs, can go a long way towards this country's self-reliance as far as electricity is concerned, especially as other fuels can be employed here, as already indicated.
This would be good, as said, as regards the protection of the environment and the protection of the infrastructure of the nation.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
The catastrophic failure of only two electricity generating plants in Britain, including the nuclear power station “Sizewell II”, in May 2008 should really have brought home to all and sundry but at least and especially to those in power that something must be done to protect the people and the country's infrastructure from such an event ever occurring again.
While I do know that there will always be the possibility of a fluke incident, as this may just have been one of, this, however, proves how extremely vulnerable we are in this country – and probably not just in this country alone – due to our highly centralized electricity generating industry.
Also to a degree the fact that most of our utility companies are foreign owned, and one is hard pressed to find one that is still a British one. Even “nPower” whose agents keep claiming that they are a green company and wholly British is foreign owned, namely by RWE of Germany.
The majority of our power stations are huge, not to say, gigantic, and far, far away from where people live and the power is actually consumed.
They, as individual stations, supply millions of households, as well as businesses, hospitals, schools, and so on.
The total failure of already only one of those can cause severe problems and also put a strain then of gigantic proportions onto the national electricity grid. If more than one station goes out then we are getting into serious trouble already and the power will, probably, go out to tens of thousands of homes, businesses and other places and this, obviously, can have rather serious impact on so many things. In some cases such failures can cause loss of life.
Fritz Schumacher in his books “Small is beautiful” suggested the things that we are, I know, finally coming to, namely localized power generating plants and people thought him crazy in those days of the 1960s when everything that was being build in that department had to be ever bigger and hence further away from the actual electricity consumer. And the fact that those stations then supply thousands upon thousands of homes, businesses, offices, and other establishment has then tremendous negative implications in the even of a failure.
Local power generating plants, as once advocated by F Schumacher and others, myself included, are now, finally, being looked at and they also make sense not just in the supply issue and the issue of a failure of the huge power stations.
Locally generated electricity can be of a lower voltage rating than that which is being generated far away and needs to travel a long distance. The power loss over the long distance in the cables is being compensated for by the extreme high voltages with which the electricity is leaving the power stations, in many cases those are 20,000 volts and more.
In order to generate that amount we waste a lot of resources and locally generated electricity would be better for everyone and here we could work on less than 1,000 volts and more than likely even directly at commercial and domestic current.
Both the environmental aspect of small local power plants and the savings in resources are important on the level of protecting the national infrastructure as well as the environment. Thus local CHP facilities, for instance, would kill two birds with one stone and also that many of those could be powered, say, by methane from sewerage plants or from waste wood and thus reduce the impact and also our reliance on oil and gas.
The fact is that those large power stations are not as economical as they once were tauted to be for they do waste a lot of resources in the production of the very high current that is required in order to transport the power over the long distance that it has to travel to its final destination, the end-consumer, to you and me at home, to our offices, factories, schools and hospitals, and everywhere else.
While the UK currently still produces oil and natural gas and is even a seller of same on the world market in the not so distant future Britain will have to become, once again, a net importer of oil and gas and then we are at the mercy of the likes of the Russian Federation and other such states and can be held to ransom over gas and oil supplies.
Smaller power stations, and here ideally local area CHPs, can go a long way towards this country's self-reliance as far as electricity is concerned, especially as other fuels can be employed here, as already indicated.
This would be good, as said, as regards the protection of the environment and the protection of the infrastructure of the nation.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Waste Wood
Why waste wood at all, it is a valuable resource
by Michael Smith
First we have had a study that costs millions in which the British government discovered – well, so the press release said – that waste wood can be burned; something that the Neanderthals could have told them. Now they are talking of using waste wood, together with food waste, etc. and turning that into a biogas to heat homes and power electricity generating plants.
In Britain, we are told, well over ten million (10,000,000) metric tons of waste wood is chucked into landfills every year.
Now what kind of wood are we talking here? Brushwood and cuttings from agriculture and forestry, or from gardens? No. We are talking milled lumber that has been used in the building industry and elsewhere; shoring timber, joists, and other such that are removed after a building is erected and, because there are nails in the wood here or there and such it cannot, so the building industry says, possibly be reused. Other wood of this nature that is thrown away is wooden pallets and other packaging crates. All, theoretically, reclaimable lumber, ready for many DIY projects of, if need be, as solid fuel for the stove at home.
There used to be a time when pallets, for instance, had a deposit on them and were taken back by the suppliers of the goods delivered on them. No longer. It all goes too waste, and most of it ends up in landfill where it rots down releasing carbon dioxide. This same wood, however, as indicated, would never need to go that route in the first place and neither would it need to be burned (at least not most of it).
Wood, while burning, releases only the amount of carbon dioxide that it has absorbed during its growing process, hence heating with wood is, basically, carbon neutral. It does, however, release the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere when it is composing in landfill; no more, no less. It is therefore better to burn the wood than to “compost” it or have it decay somewhere but... this “waste” wood would and should never have to be “waste” in the first place.
Many years ago I had a book from the USA, the title and author of which I can no longer recall as some “kind” soul borrowed the book from me and forgot to return it, that dealt with the making of furniture from pallets and wooden packing cases, normally thrown into the trash. This book was one of the few proper books I have ever seen on the subject – it would be good to use those ideas and reclaim pallets for some new use and also other “waste” building lumber. There is, in my opinion, no need for any of this kind of wood to be destroyed in any way. Most of this lumber is too good, in fact, to end up being burned.
Lumber of this kind is far too valuable, in my opinion, a resource to be burned, whether in the stove at home or in power stations., and nor should it ever go to the landfill either. It should be reused in whichever way possible and only those bits that have no further use should then be put to use then for the purpose of generating energy, whether as heat at home or in some furnace to make electricity.
Wood is only “waste” then when it really has no other use and cannot be turned into anything other than a source of heat and there is enough of that kind of wood discarded in woods, forests and parks on an almost daily basis in tree operations, often left as “habitat piles” for the wildlife. This practice, however, is not only a waste of a valuable resource, it is a cause of diseases in woods and it is lazy forest management practice.
However, building lumber and the wood of pallets and packing cases should never be turned in to so-called waste, in the first place, and nor should the thought be given to burning this material. The first thought should be reusing it, and if not for their original purposes, as no one, nowadays takes back old pallets for their original use, then for something else, such as the making of small items of furniture and such like. Only, and only, when all avenues of possible reuse have been exhausted should the thought go to turning this wood into a source for energy; not before.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
by Michael Smith
First we have had a study that costs millions in which the British government discovered – well, so the press release said – that waste wood can be burned; something that the Neanderthals could have told them. Now they are talking of using waste wood, together with food waste, etc. and turning that into a biogas to heat homes and power electricity generating plants.
In Britain, we are told, well over ten million (10,000,000) metric tons of waste wood is chucked into landfills every year.
Now what kind of wood are we talking here? Brushwood and cuttings from agriculture and forestry, or from gardens? No. We are talking milled lumber that has been used in the building industry and elsewhere; shoring timber, joists, and other such that are removed after a building is erected and, because there are nails in the wood here or there and such it cannot, so the building industry says, possibly be reused. Other wood of this nature that is thrown away is wooden pallets and other packaging crates. All, theoretically, reclaimable lumber, ready for many DIY projects of, if need be, as solid fuel for the stove at home.
There used to be a time when pallets, for instance, had a deposit on them and were taken back by the suppliers of the goods delivered on them. No longer. It all goes too waste, and most of it ends up in landfill where it rots down releasing carbon dioxide. This same wood, however, as indicated, would never need to go that route in the first place and neither would it need to be burned (at least not most of it).
Wood, while burning, releases only the amount of carbon dioxide that it has absorbed during its growing process, hence heating with wood is, basically, carbon neutral. It does, however, release the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere when it is composing in landfill; no more, no less. It is therefore better to burn the wood than to “compost” it or have it decay somewhere but... this “waste” wood would and should never have to be “waste” in the first place.
Many years ago I had a book from the USA, the title and author of which I can no longer recall as some “kind” soul borrowed the book from me and forgot to return it, that dealt with the making of furniture from pallets and wooden packing cases, normally thrown into the trash. This book was one of the few proper books I have ever seen on the subject – it would be good to use those ideas and reclaim pallets for some new use and also other “waste” building lumber. There is, in my opinion, no need for any of this kind of wood to be destroyed in any way. Most of this lumber is too good, in fact, to end up being burned.
Lumber of this kind is far too valuable, in my opinion, a resource to be burned, whether in the stove at home or in power stations., and nor should it ever go to the landfill either. It should be reused in whichever way possible and only those bits that have no further use should then be put to use then for the purpose of generating energy, whether as heat at home or in some furnace to make electricity.
Wood is only “waste” then when it really has no other use and cannot be turned into anything other than a source of heat and there is enough of that kind of wood discarded in woods, forests and parks on an almost daily basis in tree operations, often left as “habitat piles” for the wildlife. This practice, however, is not only a waste of a valuable resource, it is a cause of diseases in woods and it is lazy forest management practice.
However, building lumber and the wood of pallets and packing cases should never be turned in to so-called waste, in the first place, and nor should the thought be given to burning this material. The first thought should be reusing it, and if not for their original purposes, as no one, nowadays takes back old pallets for their original use, then for something else, such as the making of small items of furniture and such like. Only, and only, when all avenues of possible reuse have been exhausted should the thought go to turning this wood into a source for energy; not before.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Pandering to Muslim radicals yet again!
A sad day for Britain
by Michael Smith
Denying entry to the UK by the Dutch MP is political correctness gone mad and is probably against the European laws that Britain has signed, as well.
Pandering to Muslim radicals is NOT going to help the so-called “war on terror” because by doing what was done again on Thursday, February 12, 2009n at Heathrow Airport on orders of the British Home Secretary is in fact allowing the Islamist terrorists to win.
While Britain seems to be unable rid itself of hate speech Islamic preachers, some of which have been jailed for a variety of reasons, anyone, however, wishing to speak up against the violent Islam – and no, it is not a religion of peace – far from it – are being forbidden to do so an are silenced.
Freedom of Speech, however, in Britain, and that is what the majority of British subjects do not understand, is, in fact not a freedom at all and not a right but a granted privilege, as one Home Secretary has stated in public, and can be removed as and when the regime of the UK will feel like.
Why is it that Muslim radicals can scream hate and murder against Jews – though the Zionist have a lot to answer for that themselves – and Christians but when others speak out against Islam they are not permitted to even if they speak the truth.
You cannot win the “war on terror” by being afraid of what those Muslim radicals will do if they may feel offended by what someone may say about Islam. The Christian faith is not protected in such a way in the UK, though according to the statute book there is a “Blasphemy Law”, which is only relevant to the Christian faith but whatever is thrown towards the Christians nothbing ever happens. It appear to be one law for the Muslims and one for others.
The British government is pandering to the Muslims and this is giving victory to the enemies of that country and the enemies of the West per se.
The score, for the record is, Muslim terrorists ONE, British government NIL. And this is going to get worse the more we pander to radical Islam.
Maybe if members of the government had actually taken a look at the film by the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders and listened to the speeches by those preachers captured on film where Muslims are called upon top take over the USA, Britain, and Europe and turn all those countries into Islamic states with Sharia Law by force they might have understood what is happening rather than listening to the so-called moderate Muslims who may also but be agents of this kind of Islam – who knows.
The radical Muslims that want to turn Britain into an Islamic theocracy with Sharia Law should be told in the same uncertain terms as the former Australian Prime Minister told the Muslims in that country, namely that no one asked them to live here, in a predominately Christian country and if it does not suit them they are free to leave to countries that are governed by Sharia Law. No one is stopping them from doing so. However, while they are in this country and while they have the right to follow their religion – to an extent, and this country has already gone too far in accommodating them – they do not have the right never to be offended.
If they have a problem with Christmas or such like then that is their problem and, as said, they are free to leave. If they wish to advocate a violent overthrow of the countries of the West then I am sure we can find an answer to that and that is to be shot on sight.
Terrorism is not fought by pandering to their followers; it can only be overcome by getting rid of the cancer. The very safety and security of this country and our civilization is at stake.,
The safety and the security of the British Realm was not under threat from Mr. Wilders comin g to the U but by the very acts of stopping him entering the country and allowing him to make his point against Islamo-Fascism.
This kind of world view as espoused by those Muslim hate-mongers in the garb of Mullahs and Imams is nothing but another form of Fascism and as dangerous as was that of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and Mosley, or the imperialism of Japan in the 1940s. In those days the countries rose up and fought against the onslaught. Nowadays everyone seems afraid and wants, yet again, appeasement, in the same way as before the Nazis began their real sweep across Europe, which nearly caused the fall of Britain too.
If we do not stand up to the threat and are prepared to combat it with the same resolute spirit that John Howard of Australia portrayed when he told those people where to get off then we will be made to regret that soon when we find ourselves all of a sudden under Islamic rule, by the back door, and before that totally paralyzed by fear of possibly offending the Muslim minority in this country.
No one ever worries about offending the Romani minority, for instance, and all told their might be more people of Romani-Gypsy descent in Britain than there are Muslims. But dare anyone mention anything against Islam and the Koran. Twenty years ago things were different when Salman Rushdie was wrote the “Satanic Verses” and received round the clock protection and all that. Freedom of speech they said then. How things have changed.
As I said before, the safety and security of our society and of each and every one is at stake here and our freedoms.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
by Michael Smith
Denying entry to the UK by the Dutch MP is political correctness gone mad and is probably against the European laws that Britain has signed, as well.
Pandering to Muslim radicals is NOT going to help the so-called “war on terror” because by doing what was done again on Thursday, February 12, 2009n at Heathrow Airport on orders of the British Home Secretary is in fact allowing the Islamist terrorists to win.
While Britain seems to be unable rid itself of hate speech Islamic preachers, some of which have been jailed for a variety of reasons, anyone, however, wishing to speak up against the violent Islam – and no, it is not a religion of peace – far from it – are being forbidden to do so an are silenced.
Freedom of Speech, however, in Britain, and that is what the majority of British subjects do not understand, is, in fact not a freedom at all and not a right but a granted privilege, as one Home Secretary has stated in public, and can be removed as and when the regime of the UK will feel like.
Why is it that Muslim radicals can scream hate and murder against Jews – though the Zionist have a lot to answer for that themselves – and Christians but when others speak out against Islam they are not permitted to even if they speak the truth.
You cannot win the “war on terror” by being afraid of what those Muslim radicals will do if they may feel offended by what someone may say about Islam. The Christian faith is not protected in such a way in the UK, though according to the statute book there is a “Blasphemy Law”, which is only relevant to the Christian faith but whatever is thrown towards the Christians nothbing ever happens. It appear to be one law for the Muslims and one for others.
The British government is pandering to the Muslims and this is giving victory to the enemies of that country and the enemies of the West per se.
The score, for the record is, Muslim terrorists ONE, British government NIL. And this is going to get worse the more we pander to radical Islam.
Maybe if members of the government had actually taken a look at the film by the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders and listened to the speeches by those preachers captured on film where Muslims are called upon top take over the USA, Britain, and Europe and turn all those countries into Islamic states with Sharia Law by force they might have understood what is happening rather than listening to the so-called moderate Muslims who may also but be agents of this kind of Islam – who knows.
The radical Muslims that want to turn Britain into an Islamic theocracy with Sharia Law should be told in the same uncertain terms as the former Australian Prime Minister told the Muslims in that country, namely that no one asked them to live here, in a predominately Christian country and if it does not suit them they are free to leave to countries that are governed by Sharia Law. No one is stopping them from doing so. However, while they are in this country and while they have the right to follow their religion – to an extent, and this country has already gone too far in accommodating them – they do not have the right never to be offended.
If they have a problem with Christmas or such like then that is their problem and, as said, they are free to leave. If they wish to advocate a violent overthrow of the countries of the West then I am sure we can find an answer to that and that is to be shot on sight.
Terrorism is not fought by pandering to their followers; it can only be overcome by getting rid of the cancer. The very safety and security of this country and our civilization is at stake.,
The safety and the security of the British Realm was not under threat from Mr. Wilders comin g to the U but by the very acts of stopping him entering the country and allowing him to make his point against Islamo-Fascism.
This kind of world view as espoused by those Muslim hate-mongers in the garb of Mullahs and Imams is nothing but another form of Fascism and as dangerous as was that of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and Mosley, or the imperialism of Japan in the 1940s. In those days the countries rose up and fought against the onslaught. Nowadays everyone seems afraid and wants, yet again, appeasement, in the same way as before the Nazis began their real sweep across Europe, which nearly caused the fall of Britain too.
If we do not stand up to the threat and are prepared to combat it with the same resolute spirit that John Howard of Australia portrayed when he told those people where to get off then we will be made to regret that soon when we find ourselves all of a sudden under Islamic rule, by the back door, and before that totally paralyzed by fear of possibly offending the Muslim minority in this country.
No one ever worries about offending the Romani minority, for instance, and all told their might be more people of Romani-Gypsy descent in Britain than there are Muslims. But dare anyone mention anything against Islam and the Koran. Twenty years ago things were different when Salman Rushdie was wrote the “Satanic Verses” and received round the clock protection and all that. Freedom of speech they said then. How things have changed.
As I said before, the safety and security of our society and of each and every one is at stake here and our freedoms.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Lords issue warning regarding the 'surveillance state'
by Michael Smith
Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, Members of the House of Lords have warned. And rightly so, one can but hasten to add.
The proliferation of CCTV cameras and the growth of the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, so the Lords constitution committee said.
Those subject to unlawful surveillance should be compensated while the policy of DNA retention should be rethought.
Too many times local authorities also have been making use of RIPA, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which was never intended to be used in the way that so many councils are employing it, such as spying on people as to what rubbish is put out when incorrectly and by who, and such like.
The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential crime fighting tools", but this has, in fact, been disproved by senior police officers who have stated not so long ago that CCTV is useless in most cases. So why the continuation of the lie to the people.
The only answer here can and must be that the government of the UK is hellbent on “people control” and nothing else.
'Orwellian'
Surveillance and data collection, so the Lords' committee says, must be proportionate.
What, however, is proportionate in this instance and who decides this and who monitors this on behalf of the people?
Civil liberties campaigners have warned about the risks of a "surveillance society" in which the state acquires ever-greater powers to track people's movements and retain personal data.
Controversial government plans for a database to store details of people's phone calls and e-mails were put on hold late last year after they were branded "Orwellian".
Ministers are currently consulting on the plan, which would involve the details but not the content of calls and internet traffic being logged, saying it is essential to fighting terrorism.
While we are being told that this database will not contain the details of phone calls and emails who is to say that this is going to be thus and, yet again, who, on behalf of the people is going to monitor this.
None of these methods will aid in the fight against crime nor in the fight against terrorism. Only one things will: proper policing; one that is NOT target driven but one that uses the old-fashioned ways of investigations of officers with common sense and a nose for spotting things that are wrong.
In its report, the Lords constitution committee said growth in surveillance by both the state and the private sector risked threatening people's right to privacy, which it said was "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom".
The public were often unaware of the scale of personal information held and exchanged by public bodies, it said.
He only reason I can see for all those intrusive measures is that the governments are, in fact, frightened of the people and of the power the people have nowadays with the Internet. For the very same reason that they, in Italy, are trying to outlaw the citizen journalist, the Blogger and Blogs.
Instead of alienating the people by such measures the governments should empower the people to take part in the enforcement of the laws that there are and to be the eyes and ears as far as crime and terrorism is concerned and empower the people also the properly, as individuals, to hold the police to account when they do not deal with crime in the proper way.
Target-driven policing is leaving people frustrated and worse. You cannot tell a crime victim that they must book an appointment with an officer to take a statement or too tell Park Rangers when there are hoodlums rampaging through a park, threatening people, that local officers will be made aware and will attend to take a statement in a couple of days.
The reason for such replies is the target culture and the wish to appear to solve everything to which officers are being dispatched. So, if you don't send a response vehicle then that is not logged as such an incident and hence the possible lack of a result in an investigation does not reflect (badly) in the league tables. This is what it is all about and, as far as the government is concerned, “people control”
here is so much misuse of the powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for instance, that it is hardly surprising that people, and especially organizations that try to protect the civil liberties in the UK, are getting concerned.
Orwell was right only a little too early in the date.
There are and estimated 4,000,000 (in words: four million) CCTV cameras in the UK and often they are used by local councils to simply spy on people over issues such as littering and such like.
The Conservatives said the government's approach to personal privacy was "reckless".
"Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people," said shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve.
The government and the police, as said previously, are alienating rather than making friends out of the public but then they do not seem to care. They rather see anyone and everyone as a criminal and terrorist until proven otherwise. It used to be “innocent until proven guilty” but that was a long time ago.
When the “Miranda” warning in the UK was changed from “you have the right to remain silent but anything you may say will be taken down and given in evidence” to “you have the right to remain silent but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court”, the goalpost was moved and it became a “guilty until proven innocent”. In the same way as anyone carrying a knife may be considered automatically to carry it will ill intentions, for instance. A knife is a tool and not a weapon, primarily, and while there are people who carry a knife as a weapon the emphasis should still be, also with children and young people in the possession of a knife, that there is another purpose there for that knife than as a weapon of offense or defense. Guilty until proven innocent, and in the knife instance often it simply if guilty, whether guilty or not. You do not solve crime that way.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, Members of the House of Lords have warned. And rightly so, one can but hasten to add.
The proliferation of CCTV cameras and the growth of the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, so the Lords constitution committee said.
Those subject to unlawful surveillance should be compensated while the policy of DNA retention should be rethought.
Too many times local authorities also have been making use of RIPA, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which was never intended to be used in the way that so many councils are employing it, such as spying on people as to what rubbish is put out when incorrectly and by who, and such like.
The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential crime fighting tools", but this has, in fact, been disproved by senior police officers who have stated not so long ago that CCTV is useless in most cases. So why the continuation of the lie to the people.
The only answer here can and must be that the government of the UK is hellbent on “people control” and nothing else.
'Orwellian'
Surveillance and data collection, so the Lords' committee says, must be proportionate.
What, however, is proportionate in this instance and who decides this and who monitors this on behalf of the people?
Civil liberties campaigners have warned about the risks of a "surveillance society" in which the state acquires ever-greater powers to track people's movements and retain personal data.
Controversial government plans for a database to store details of people's phone calls and e-mails were put on hold late last year after they were branded "Orwellian".
Ministers are currently consulting on the plan, which would involve the details but not the content of calls and internet traffic being logged, saying it is essential to fighting terrorism.
While we are being told that this database will not contain the details of phone calls and emails who is to say that this is going to be thus and, yet again, who, on behalf of the people is going to monitor this.
None of these methods will aid in the fight against crime nor in the fight against terrorism. Only one things will: proper policing; one that is NOT target driven but one that uses the old-fashioned ways of investigations of officers with common sense and a nose for spotting things that are wrong.
In its report, the Lords constitution committee said growth in surveillance by both the state and the private sector risked threatening people's right to privacy, which it said was "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom".
The public were often unaware of the scale of personal information held and exchanged by public bodies, it said.
He only reason I can see for all those intrusive measures is that the governments are, in fact, frightened of the people and of the power the people have nowadays with the Internet. For the very same reason that they, in Italy, are trying to outlaw the citizen journalist, the Blogger and Blogs.
Instead of alienating the people by such measures the governments should empower the people to take part in the enforcement of the laws that there are and to be the eyes and ears as far as crime and terrorism is concerned and empower the people also the properly, as individuals, to hold the police to account when they do not deal with crime in the proper way.
Target-driven policing is leaving people frustrated and worse. You cannot tell a crime victim that they must book an appointment with an officer to take a statement or too tell Park Rangers when there are hoodlums rampaging through a park, threatening people, that local officers will be made aware and will attend to take a statement in a couple of days.
The reason for such replies is the target culture and the wish to appear to solve everything to which officers are being dispatched. So, if you don't send a response vehicle then that is not logged as such an incident and hence the possible lack of a result in an investigation does not reflect (badly) in the league tables. This is what it is all about and, as far as the government is concerned, “people control”
here is so much misuse of the powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for instance, that it is hardly surprising that people, and especially organizations that try to protect the civil liberties in the UK, are getting concerned.
Orwell was right only a little too early in the date.
There are and estimated 4,000,000 (in words: four million) CCTV cameras in the UK and often they are used by local councils to simply spy on people over issues such as littering and such like.
The Conservatives said the government's approach to personal privacy was "reckless".
"Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people," said shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve.
The government and the police, as said previously, are alienating rather than making friends out of the public but then they do not seem to care. They rather see anyone and everyone as a criminal and terrorist until proven otherwise. It used to be “innocent until proven guilty” but that was a long time ago.
When the “Miranda” warning in the UK was changed from “you have the right to remain silent but anything you may say will be taken down and given in evidence” to “you have the right to remain silent but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court”, the goalpost was moved and it became a “guilty until proven innocent”. In the same way as anyone carrying a knife may be considered automatically to carry it will ill intentions, for instance. A knife is a tool and not a weapon, primarily, and while there are people who carry a knife as a weapon the emphasis should still be, also with children and young people in the possession of a knife, that there is another purpose there for that knife than as a weapon of offense or defense. Guilty until proven innocent, and in the knife instance often it simply if guilty, whether guilty or not. You do not solve crime that way.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Independence from gas and oil imports
by Michael Smith
As we have spoken about in the article as to Russia and its gas the western developed nations – the UK, the EU, etc., must become – largely – independent from foreign gas and oil to safeguard our countries' infrastructure.
This can, I think, be done but it will require a new way of thinking and especially the political will to do so. For starters we must get away from gas for heating and cooking and electricity generation, at least too a large extent.
The biggest problem is the political will. The latter always seems to be missing, it seem, for it is the large petrochemical companies that seem to hold sway somewhere and somehow in all the developed nations and it is very much also that governments are worried about the revenue they lose from the taxes on the oil and gas if a switch would be made.
In Britain, and other countries, it would appear that the people themselves are beginning to vote with their feet ;as far as heating is concerned for sure.
Presently those that can, it would appear, in the British Isles are rediscovering the wood-burning stove, at least for heating. The cook stoves that can use wood, nowadays, are mostly of the expensive AGA and Rayburn – now one and the same company anyway – which are well out of the financial reach of most ordinary people, and are also far too heavy for the floors of many homes.
The demand for wood for burning in stoves and fireplaces in Britain int his current financial, economic crisis and that of gas supply from the Russian Federation, way outstrips supplies and, as we have learned, wood sellers go to great length, even to the countries of Eastern Europe, in order to bring in wood. This also now pushed the price of firewood up a tremendous level.
Other means of independence from oil and natural gas and petroleum-based gas are available and also possible, but again as far as the nations are concerned at a government level, local and central, the political will is missing again.
There is, aside from the use of wood for heating homes, also the possibility to use timber, and here especially the waste lumber from the building industry to run power stations and combined heat & power plants (CHPs).
Then there is the possibility to use waste incineration as a source for to run CHP facilities though I am well aware of the fact how often that idea runs foul of the NIMBYs and also – strangely enough – the likes of Friends of the Earth, who will come out ranting and waving arms that we must recycle all rubbish and not burn it. Shame that they have not understood that there will always be some rubbish left over that cannot be recycled and it would be, in my opinion, much better to burn that and use it to power the nation rather than to tip it into holes in the ground, the latter of which we are running out of rapidly anyway.
Gas from waste is another way and means and then there is the humble methane gas that is released from landfills and from sewerage works. That too could be used for heating and cooking but, ideally, for the running of electricity generating plants.
I say the latter simply because methane gas happens to be a bit on the explosive side and even though it is used in many countries on farms and homesteads for heating and cooking it might not be the best idea to pipe it through towns and cities and have it used by people who might just be a little careless.
We must not forget that the first electricity power stations were not run on oil of the petroleum kind but on methane gas in fact. Mind you, the same is true for the first motorcars of the Ford “Tin Lizzy” variety. It was not until gasoline became cheaply available that the car was changed.
But back to the subject in hand, namely that of national independence from imported oil and gas.
We can no longer afford the luxury of oil and gas being brought in from far away, especially not from areas over which politics we have no control, whether this be the Russian Federation or the Ukraine or the seaways from the Persian Gulf to the West.
Our countries must look at ways to become if not self-sufficient than some way self-reliant as regards to oil and gas imports.
While I can suggest that we must do this I, as an ordinary writer, cannot, obviously, come up with all the possible suggestions as to how this may be done, but doing it we must.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
As we have spoken about in the article as to Russia and its gas the western developed nations – the UK, the EU, etc., must become – largely – independent from foreign gas and oil to safeguard our countries' infrastructure.
This can, I think, be done but it will require a new way of thinking and especially the political will to do so. For starters we must get away from gas for heating and cooking and electricity generation, at least too a large extent.
The biggest problem is the political will. The latter always seems to be missing, it seem, for it is the large petrochemical companies that seem to hold sway somewhere and somehow in all the developed nations and it is very much also that governments are worried about the revenue they lose from the taxes on the oil and gas if a switch would be made.
In Britain, and other countries, it would appear that the people themselves are beginning to vote with their feet ;as far as heating is concerned for sure.
Presently those that can, it would appear, in the British Isles are rediscovering the wood-burning stove, at least for heating. The cook stoves that can use wood, nowadays, are mostly of the expensive AGA and Rayburn – now one and the same company anyway – which are well out of the financial reach of most ordinary people, and are also far too heavy for the floors of many homes.
The demand for wood for burning in stoves and fireplaces in Britain int his current financial, economic crisis and that of gas supply from the Russian Federation, way outstrips supplies and, as we have learned, wood sellers go to great length, even to the countries of Eastern Europe, in order to bring in wood. This also now pushed the price of firewood up a tremendous level.
Other means of independence from oil and natural gas and petroleum-based gas are available and also possible, but again as far as the nations are concerned at a government level, local and central, the political will is missing again.
There is, aside from the use of wood for heating homes, also the possibility to use timber, and here especially the waste lumber from the building industry to run power stations and combined heat & power plants (CHPs).
Then there is the possibility to use waste incineration as a source for to run CHP facilities though I am well aware of the fact how often that idea runs foul of the NIMBYs and also – strangely enough – the likes of Friends of the Earth, who will come out ranting and waving arms that we must recycle all rubbish and not burn it. Shame that they have not understood that there will always be some rubbish left over that cannot be recycled and it would be, in my opinion, much better to burn that and use it to power the nation rather than to tip it into holes in the ground, the latter of which we are running out of rapidly anyway.
Gas from waste is another way and means and then there is the humble methane gas that is released from landfills and from sewerage works. That too could be used for heating and cooking but, ideally, for the running of electricity generating plants.
I say the latter simply because methane gas happens to be a bit on the explosive side and even though it is used in many countries on farms and homesteads for heating and cooking it might not be the best idea to pipe it through towns and cities and have it used by people who might just be a little careless.
We must not forget that the first electricity power stations were not run on oil of the petroleum kind but on methane gas in fact. Mind you, the same is true for the first motorcars of the Ford “Tin Lizzy” variety. It was not until gasoline became cheaply available that the car was changed.
But back to the subject in hand, namely that of national independence from imported oil and gas.
We can no longer afford the luxury of oil and gas being brought in from far away, especially not from areas over which politics we have no control, whether this be the Russian Federation or the Ukraine or the seaways from the Persian Gulf to the West.
Our countries must look at ways to become if not self-sufficient than some way self-reliant as regards to oil and gas imports.
While I can suggest that we must do this I, as an ordinary writer, cannot, obviously, come up with all the possible suggestions as to how this may be done, but doing it we must.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Home fires are burning again
With wood stove sales and use up in UK logs having to be imported from as far as Eastern Europe in order to satisfy demand
by Michael Smith
Considering the global recession and, more recently, conflict over natural gas flowing into Europe from Russia, this was probably something that should have been expected.
Sales of wood-burning stoves in the UK, as well as the use of existing wood-burning stoves, have risen recently, which in turn is causing shortages of firewood. This is forcing some suppliers to go so far as Eastern Europe to find good seasoned wood.
In medieval England, peasants were allowed to collect as much deadwood as they wanted from the royal forests - just so long as they could reach it "by hook or by crook". But the rapidly rising number of households now turning back to the forest for fuel, to protect the environment, or to simply make a lifestyle statement are finding a supply chain of this renewable, carbon-neutral fuel far more complex. Others may not try to make a lifestyle statement at all but are returning to wood out of bare necessity as heating fuels had become rather expensive and many rural households reply on heating oil rather than gas for hating home and farm.
Gas supplies have become a little – now this is an understatement – uncertain with Russia every now and again throwing a wobbly and a tantrum and oil seems to be going on a high every few minutes and when the prices do fall again to quite a low, as happened recently, the oil companies are in no hurry whatsoever to pass the reductions on to the consumer.
Sales of wood burning stoves in the UK are up 50% in the last three months of 2008 compared to 2007 and, according to forestry consultant Vince Thurkettle, demand for wood is currently increasing 25-30% a year. This on an island that is a bit more than 10% wooded and produces about 1 million tonnes of firewood a year, according to the Forestry Commission.
This proves, yet again, that we must bring the old coppice woodlands back into production – this has to happen anyway if we do not want the coppice stools to fall apart – for the production of small lumber and especially the production also of firewood. About time too.
This rising demand is causing a shortage of good logs, which combined with prices as high as £95 ($139) per load of wood in the north and west of the Britain is causing some wood sellers to import wood from hundreds of miles away; from inside the UK from countries as far away as Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Those are listed as “favorite hunting grounds” for wood sellers but they even (have to) go as far as Eastern Europe in order to get wood for resale.
So, some people are apparently driving wood, presumably in diesel-powered trucks, across all of Europe, to be burned in wood stoves and fireplaces in Britain.
Is importing logs from the other side, the far side, of Europe really a good idea? Personally I do not think so. And would it really be necessary? It would not if Britain had kept up with the demand that was coming – and it was obvious that it was coming – for wood.
Even though the information officer at the Forestry Commission’s Biomass Energy Centre described the effects on the environment of burning wood, compared to oil or natural gas, as “negligible”, even if that wood has been transported by road or sea, that is really something that I do not buy – as yet – and would have to see the numbers for that first. I have a very hard time believing that trucking in wood from Poland or even further afield to the British Isles to burn for heat makes environmental sense.
The good thing about burning wood for hear though is that it is – theoretically – carbon neutral, in comparison to so-called fossil fuel, which includes the likes of coal, oil and even natural gas, as wood only releases that much carbon as it has taken up during it lifetime as a tree. Nice one there. Just something that some environmentalists have problems understanding because of the fact that wood releases visible smoke and, depending in how well the wood has been seasoned, or not, as the case may be, the smoke can be quite dense.
There are two woods, however, that are best burned unseasoned on a base of other wood that has started the fire and that is beech and birch. Those two initially release a gas when burned in their green state that makes for a very hot fire.
"The dramatic upturn in demand for firewood is fantastic news in many senses because, in theory, we have so much of this resource that it is hard to see it ever running out," Thurkettle says. "Yet after so many years of relying on coal and gas to provide most of our energy needs, we have lost the art of effective woodland management. Until we relearn how to assess, manage, cut, store and burn exclusively local wood, we will continue to squander the potential of our woodlands."
The problem is that he is so very correct with that statement and speaks about just the issue that I keep mentioning as well.
We must get back to proper woodland and forest management, also as regards to firewood, and get away from the wasteful practice of the habitat pile. The habitat does very nicely without them things too, thank you. It has done so in the times of the use of the Estovers rights and will do so still today.
I have seen well managed woodlands where little if any debris was left where there was more wildlife – including invertebrates and fungi – than in many of those places that are full of those habitat piles. On the other hand those places that have clean forest floors have fewer diseased trees, especially as to fungal and pathogen problems.
On the other hand all that wood that is used – misguidedly too often – in habitat piles (while some are a good idea to leave all wood lying about or that purposes causes problems) could find a much better use to heat homes or even power turbines. The wood that is left too rot also releases the came carbon that the one that is being burned releases; so why waste the material and allow it to rot away.
Bringing in firewood from as far afield as Poland and elsewhere should not be necessary and certainly is not a practice that should be encouraged. It should be discouraged, in fact, for this can lead to destruction of woodlands and forests in Poland and other such countries to fill the UK demand.
While it is said to be still better for the environment to burn wood that has been trucked or otherwise shipped to the UK it is not ethically the right thing to do.
Time we got back to proper woodland management and relearned the old skills of how to manage woods and forests, aside from all the other reasons, for firewood. The trees that need to be removed every now and then, and presently, because of the bleeding canker infections of Horse Chestnut and similar diseases in other species of trees, those are quite a few, have to be removed from municipal parks and especially the country parks and such like, should also be entering this “food chain” of firewood instead of being allowed to be left on site to rot away.
If this means training municipal park gardeners, foresters, wardens and rangers in the appropriate chainsaw skills and allocating one or two members of staff to the logging up of any such trees into firewood then so be it. This could be a way for such places to create a little source of income. And while this may not be a very regular income of the same amount year in year out it nevertheless should be something that should be pursued.
Now let's hear it for local firewood.
I rest my case...
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
by Michael Smith
Considering the global recession and, more recently, conflict over natural gas flowing into Europe from Russia, this was probably something that should have been expected.
Sales of wood-burning stoves in the UK, as well as the use of existing wood-burning stoves, have risen recently, which in turn is causing shortages of firewood. This is forcing some suppliers to go so far as Eastern Europe to find good seasoned wood.
In medieval England, peasants were allowed to collect as much deadwood as they wanted from the royal forests - just so long as they could reach it "by hook or by crook". But the rapidly rising number of households now turning back to the forest for fuel, to protect the environment, or to simply make a lifestyle statement are finding a supply chain of this renewable, carbon-neutral fuel far more complex. Others may not try to make a lifestyle statement at all but are returning to wood out of bare necessity as heating fuels had become rather expensive and many rural households reply on heating oil rather than gas for hating home and farm.
Gas supplies have become a little – now this is an understatement – uncertain with Russia every now and again throwing a wobbly and a tantrum and oil seems to be going on a high every few minutes and when the prices do fall again to quite a low, as happened recently, the oil companies are in no hurry whatsoever to pass the reductions on to the consumer.
Sales of wood burning stoves in the UK are up 50% in the last three months of 2008 compared to 2007 and, according to forestry consultant Vince Thurkettle, demand for wood is currently increasing 25-30% a year. This on an island that is a bit more than 10% wooded and produces about 1 million tonnes of firewood a year, according to the Forestry Commission.
This proves, yet again, that we must bring the old coppice woodlands back into production – this has to happen anyway if we do not want the coppice stools to fall apart – for the production of small lumber and especially the production also of firewood. About time too.
This rising demand is causing a shortage of good logs, which combined with prices as high as £95 ($139) per load of wood in the north and west of the Britain is causing some wood sellers to import wood from hundreds of miles away; from inside the UK from countries as far away as Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Those are listed as “favorite hunting grounds” for wood sellers but they even (have to) go as far as Eastern Europe in order to get wood for resale.
So, some people are apparently driving wood, presumably in diesel-powered trucks, across all of Europe, to be burned in wood stoves and fireplaces in Britain.
Is importing logs from the other side, the far side, of Europe really a good idea? Personally I do not think so. And would it really be necessary? It would not if Britain had kept up with the demand that was coming – and it was obvious that it was coming – for wood.
Even though the information officer at the Forestry Commission’s Biomass Energy Centre described the effects on the environment of burning wood, compared to oil or natural gas, as “negligible”, even if that wood has been transported by road or sea, that is really something that I do not buy – as yet – and would have to see the numbers for that first. I have a very hard time believing that trucking in wood from Poland or even further afield to the British Isles to burn for heat makes environmental sense.
The good thing about burning wood for hear though is that it is – theoretically – carbon neutral, in comparison to so-called fossil fuel, which includes the likes of coal, oil and even natural gas, as wood only releases that much carbon as it has taken up during it lifetime as a tree. Nice one there. Just something that some environmentalists have problems understanding because of the fact that wood releases visible smoke and, depending in how well the wood has been seasoned, or not, as the case may be, the smoke can be quite dense.
There are two woods, however, that are best burned unseasoned on a base of other wood that has started the fire and that is beech and birch. Those two initially release a gas when burned in their green state that makes for a very hot fire.
"The dramatic upturn in demand for firewood is fantastic news in many senses because, in theory, we have so much of this resource that it is hard to see it ever running out," Thurkettle says. "Yet after so many years of relying on coal and gas to provide most of our energy needs, we have lost the art of effective woodland management. Until we relearn how to assess, manage, cut, store and burn exclusively local wood, we will continue to squander the potential of our woodlands."
The problem is that he is so very correct with that statement and speaks about just the issue that I keep mentioning as well.
We must get back to proper woodland and forest management, also as regards to firewood, and get away from the wasteful practice of the habitat pile. The habitat does very nicely without them things too, thank you. It has done so in the times of the use of the Estovers rights and will do so still today.
I have seen well managed woodlands where little if any debris was left where there was more wildlife – including invertebrates and fungi – than in many of those places that are full of those habitat piles. On the other hand those places that have clean forest floors have fewer diseased trees, especially as to fungal and pathogen problems.
On the other hand all that wood that is used – misguidedly too often – in habitat piles (while some are a good idea to leave all wood lying about or that purposes causes problems) could find a much better use to heat homes or even power turbines. The wood that is left too rot also releases the came carbon that the one that is being burned releases; so why waste the material and allow it to rot away.
Bringing in firewood from as far afield as Poland and elsewhere should not be necessary and certainly is not a practice that should be encouraged. It should be discouraged, in fact, for this can lead to destruction of woodlands and forests in Poland and other such countries to fill the UK demand.
While it is said to be still better for the environment to burn wood that has been trucked or otherwise shipped to the UK it is not ethically the right thing to do.
Time we got back to proper woodland management and relearned the old skills of how to manage woods and forests, aside from all the other reasons, for firewood. The trees that need to be removed every now and then, and presently, because of the bleeding canker infections of Horse Chestnut and similar diseases in other species of trees, those are quite a few, have to be removed from municipal parks and especially the country parks and such like, should also be entering this “food chain” of firewood instead of being allowed to be left on site to rot away.
If this means training municipal park gardeners, foresters, wardens and rangers in the appropriate chainsaw skills and allocating one or two members of staff to the logging up of any such trees into firewood then so be it. This could be a way for such places to create a little source of income. And while this may not be a very regular income of the same amount year in year out it nevertheless should be something that should be pursued.
Now let's hear it for local firewood.
I rest my case...
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Lakeland Potato Bag – Product Review
Review by Michael Smith
Potato Bag
Lakeland ref. 12377
Price: £5.86 (and it would appear that it might be worth every penny and more in time to come)
As readers will know from an earlier article I received a sample of the Potato Bag together with some “Stay Fresh Longer” bags earlier in January 2009 and I have begun using the Potato Bag in order to test it.
As far as I can ascertain the bags are made of polycotton – a mix of 75% polyester and 25% cotton – in a canvas weave. They are a real nice design and a nice earth brown color. I love earth colors hence my liking for the way those bags look.
I have now had potatoes in this bag, finally, for about more or less fortnight and the fact has to be considered that it was not until a few days later – when I put the taters into the Potato Bag – that I actually removed them from their plastic bag. I know, I really should buy potatoes loose and not pre-packed as that also means that they are washed.
Well, OK, having that out of the way what I am saying is that even after such a treatment they are still as good as the day they came out of the plastic bag and bar one very tiny sprout, or eye, to be precise, that was showing on one potato that I used out of this bags all are firm, including the one with the eye. In my previous “open” box storage in the larger cupboard that I previously used the potatoes would by now have definite shoots and would have started to become soft. So, it definitely appear that the Potato Bag is doing the job it is designed for.
The truth be told, I am impressed in the way it keeps the potatoes fresh and, may I hasten to add, I do not impress easily.
To sum up I would say as far as potatoes and the Potato Bag from Lakeland are concerned the bag is well worth its price just to protect the potatoes from going off too fast and to waste. I love taters and, although there is still really nothing wrong them even if they are a little soft and having sprouts, as far as I understand their nutritional value is diminished then. They also peel so much easier when then they are not full of sprouts and wrinkled.
So, therefore, let's hear it for the Lakeland Potato Bag. (And no, I am not getting paid for this review – chance would be a fine thing).
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Potato Bag
Lakeland ref. 12377
Price: £5.86 (and it would appear that it might be worth every penny and more in time to come)
As readers will know from an earlier article I received a sample of the Potato Bag together with some “Stay Fresh Longer” bags earlier in January 2009 and I have begun using the Potato Bag in order to test it.
As far as I can ascertain the bags are made of polycotton – a mix of 75% polyester and 25% cotton – in a canvas weave. They are a real nice design and a nice earth brown color. I love earth colors hence my liking for the way those bags look.
I have now had potatoes in this bag, finally, for about more or less fortnight and the fact has to be considered that it was not until a few days later – when I put the taters into the Potato Bag – that I actually removed them from their plastic bag. I know, I really should buy potatoes loose and not pre-packed as that also means that they are washed.
Well, OK, having that out of the way what I am saying is that even after such a treatment they are still as good as the day they came out of the plastic bag and bar one very tiny sprout, or eye, to be precise, that was showing on one potato that I used out of this bags all are firm, including the one with the eye. In my previous “open” box storage in the larger cupboard that I previously used the potatoes would by now have definite shoots and would have started to become soft. So, it definitely appear that the Potato Bag is doing the job it is designed for.
The truth be told, I am impressed in the way it keeps the potatoes fresh and, may I hasten to add, I do not impress easily.
To sum up I would say as far as potatoes and the Potato Bag from Lakeland are concerned the bag is well worth its price just to protect the potatoes from going off too fast and to waste. I love taters and, although there is still really nothing wrong them even if they are a little soft and having sprouts, as far as I understand their nutritional value is diminished then. They also peel so much easier when then they are not full of sprouts and wrinkled.
So, therefore, let's hear it for the Lakeland Potato Bag. (And no, I am not getting paid for this review – chance would be a fine thing).
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Virus Warning Emails
Unsubstantiated rumors that are being passed on
by Michael Smith
Time and again we see the Internet being swamped with people passing around “virus warnings” by email, as well as on the non-tech forums of various kinds, that state that they have had this information from this or that anti-virus software company or that one of their associated got that from there and that this report also is Snopes verified, and then always claiming that, if one clicks on a link in this or that titled email a virus is released that wipes all the contents of the computer.
Those are then headed as “Computer Danger – Please Read!” or other such like and, as mentioned above, make those claims, and claims that the information, as said, came from this or that company and that it is verified on “Snopes”.
Such emails are like the chain letters the the “Bill Gates wants to share his billions with you” and clog us the systems like all spam mail does.
The truth is that while it is very possible indeed to release a virus, Trojan, worm, or other kind of malware by clicking at links in emails, or even simply by opening an email that comes with a payload, the virus that is designed to destroy hard drive contents is hardly ever seen nowadays– in fact there has not been one of those for years now.
The aim of today's virus and malware creators is not to show what they can do by destroying a PC and its contents but their aim is to extract data from personal computers and especially company networks for financial gain, such as passwords, and complete identities.
Thus the malware creator of today is not interested in destroying the contents of your computer; far from it. The primary thing that he is interested in is that his little program can remain on a PC or a network undetected for as long as possible in order too phone home with the information it is programed to gather. It is this information that the writers, or those that the writers sell the virus kit to, are interested to gather to sell on too other criminals to exploit.
The virus writer of old often had only one intention and that was to get his virus noticed, after it had gotten through onto the computer(s), by the program destroying information or holding information captive, as in some cases, and for those that wanted the information back to pay a ransom. This is no longer the case today. Hence anyone talking about viruses being in the wild that are out to destroy your PC are talking a lot of bull dust, as the Australians would say.
Most infections today also no longer – though some people still try – on emails but on “drive by shootings” where the infection is downloaded automatically by simply visiting a website, genuine or spoof.
Even one or two anti-virus software companies' own sites had been injected with malware that would download to computers in such a manner when people visited their, totally legitimate, sites.
So, the adage must remain to “be careful out there” on the Net and to have adequate protection software and, and this is most important, such software that is updated on a daily basis.
Anti-virus software, firewalls and other such programs are a must.
While some people keep on about the need to keep the Windows system always patched with the latest patches from Microsoft I have found that many of those downloads have caused havoc to my system and rather keep ports secure and run all the protection software that I can run (and all of it is free), updated as regularly as possible.
Both BitDefender and ThreatFire, for instance, check for updates at two-hourly intervals, and while this can be annoying as, while such checking and updates are applied the system may run a little sluggish, it ensures that the system is protected.
If one would want to avoid the possibilities, to a 99% chance, of virus and malware attacks to a computer one best run an operating system that is not Microsoft.
I know that people will now look as say “but Apple Mac is too expensive”, to which I say (1) you are right and (2) those that know me will know I am not talking Apple Mac. I am talking Linux and all Linux distributions, whether Ubuntu, Fedora, or whichever, are free to obtain. In the case of Ubuntu the distributor, Canonical Ltd., will even send you a CD free of charge, if you do not wish to download the ISO and burn it yourself.
Yes, Linux does not – as yet – work with every bit of hardware and software but we are getting there, slowly but surely.
In conclusion let me stress once again that while we must be careful on the Net and especially not to open any emails that we are not sure about, if they are downloaded onto the PC via an email client, viruses that destroy your hard drives are nowadays about as rare as gold dust on the streets of London.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
by Michael Smith
Time and again we see the Internet being swamped with people passing around “virus warnings” by email, as well as on the non-tech forums of various kinds, that state that they have had this information from this or that anti-virus software company or that one of their associated got that from there and that this report also is Snopes verified, and then always claiming that, if one clicks on a link in this or that titled email a virus is released that wipes all the contents of the computer.
Those are then headed as “Computer Danger – Please Read!” or other such like and, as mentioned above, make those claims, and claims that the information, as said, came from this or that company and that it is verified on “Snopes”.
Such emails are like the chain letters the the “Bill Gates wants to share his billions with you” and clog us the systems like all spam mail does.
The truth is that while it is very possible indeed to release a virus, Trojan, worm, or other kind of malware by clicking at links in emails, or even simply by opening an email that comes with a payload, the virus that is designed to destroy hard drive contents is hardly ever seen nowadays– in fact there has not been one of those for years now.
The aim of today's virus and malware creators is not to show what they can do by destroying a PC and its contents but their aim is to extract data from personal computers and especially company networks for financial gain, such as passwords, and complete identities.
Thus the malware creator of today is not interested in destroying the contents of your computer; far from it. The primary thing that he is interested in is that his little program can remain on a PC or a network undetected for as long as possible in order too phone home with the information it is programed to gather. It is this information that the writers, or those that the writers sell the virus kit to, are interested to gather to sell on too other criminals to exploit.
The virus writer of old often had only one intention and that was to get his virus noticed, after it had gotten through onto the computer(s), by the program destroying information or holding information captive, as in some cases, and for those that wanted the information back to pay a ransom. This is no longer the case today. Hence anyone talking about viruses being in the wild that are out to destroy your PC are talking a lot of bull dust, as the Australians would say.
Most infections today also no longer – though some people still try – on emails but on “drive by shootings” where the infection is downloaded automatically by simply visiting a website, genuine or spoof.
Even one or two anti-virus software companies' own sites had been injected with malware that would download to computers in such a manner when people visited their, totally legitimate, sites.
So, the adage must remain to “be careful out there” on the Net and to have adequate protection software and, and this is most important, such software that is updated on a daily basis.
Anti-virus software, firewalls and other such programs are a must.
While some people keep on about the need to keep the Windows system always patched with the latest patches from Microsoft I have found that many of those downloads have caused havoc to my system and rather keep ports secure and run all the protection software that I can run (and all of it is free), updated as regularly as possible.
Both BitDefender and ThreatFire, for instance, check for updates at two-hourly intervals, and while this can be annoying as, while such checking and updates are applied the system may run a little sluggish, it ensures that the system is protected.
If one would want to avoid the possibilities, to a 99% chance, of virus and malware attacks to a computer one best run an operating system that is not Microsoft.
I know that people will now look as say “but Apple Mac is too expensive”, to which I say (1) you are right and (2) those that know me will know I am not talking Apple Mac. I am talking Linux and all Linux distributions, whether Ubuntu, Fedora, or whichever, are free to obtain. In the case of Ubuntu the distributor, Canonical Ltd., will even send you a CD free of charge, if you do not wish to download the ISO and burn it yourself.
Yes, Linux does not – as yet – work with every bit of hardware and software but we are getting there, slowly but surely.
In conclusion let me stress once again that while we must be careful on the Net and especially not to open any emails that we are not sure about, if they are downloaded onto the PC via an email client, viruses that destroy your hard drives are nowadays about as rare as gold dust on the streets of London.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Children waving white flags were shot by IDF in Gaza
by Michael Smith
In one incident, according to information, three young girls we shot and then left to bleed for over two hours by IDF personnel. The shots were fired from the turret of a tank about fifteen meters away from the children coming out by an IDF soldier using a rifle.
Then again, from what we have seen over the years of the actions of many of the IDF soldiers and officers as to when it comes to dealing with Palestinian civilians it can only be said that some of the Wehrmacht may have been better behaved than they are.
Any soldiers that have done those acts should be facing a war crime tribunal in the same way that the likes of the rebel leaders of Rwanda and other areas are sent to face trial. However, as could only have been expected, the leaders of the Zionist entity have said that they will block any attempt to put any of its soldiers on trial for war crimes.
If such actions as shooting children who we visibly unarmed and under a white flag and the use of white phosphorus against the people of Gaza are not war crimes then, I must say, I do not know what is.
No doubt that Israel will also be still finding its backers amongst the right-wing so-called Christians in the USA and obviously amongst most of the Jewish community in the USA and elsewhere, Britain, no doubt, included.
It would appear that there are different international rules for, for instance, the leaders of the Serb forces in Bosnia and for the soldiers of the illegal Zionist state in Palestine. Not that that surprises me and I am sure will not surprise anyone who has watched this entire issue over the years and decades.
The lobby that there is will not allow anything said against Israel and those that are of the Zionist persuasion, even allowing them to claim that no one ever lived in Palestine before they, the Zionist Ashkenazim came to Palestine, and yes, I am referring to comments from Golda Meir. Rather amazing considering that Jews, Arabs and Christians used to live together in peace and as friends for centuries in Palestine until the days when the Zionists began to try to take the country by force.
We have been fielded a lie for decades about how things were in Palestine as regards the Jews that were living there before 1945 and this can be best seen in books like “Blood Brothers” by Fr. Elias Chacour, a Maronite priest from that region, or other accounts. Only when the Zionists were bringing in some of those Jews that survived the Holocaust things were becoming a problem and the likes of the Irgun and Haganah were definitely not helping in friendly relations.
When you take over other people's farms and lands by force and chase them out it is no surprise that you reap a whirlwind. But, I digressed.
The world must make representation that it insists that those members of the IDF that are guilty of war crimes are held responsible for the deeds in an international tribunal. If it was good enough for the likes of Waffen SS men then it is also so for those that behave in the same manner in the modern world. Period!
Time the world stood up against the lobby that is always making itself to out to be the victim in everything. Same as they claim that they are the only one that have a right to the Holocaust and the Gypsies, the Romani People, defile the memory of the Holocaust by “wishing”, as some said, “to be associated with it” and because of this, in the media, Gypsies are always mentioned under the “also ran” as victims of Nazi atrocities. The Romani People were not just victims of the Nazi atrocities but they were victims of the Nazi genocidal racial policies. But no one can be allowed to say that now, can they. The Holocaust must be a uniquely Jewish event. Well, folks, it was not.
Gypsies were the first used as Guinea pigs to test the carbon monoxide trucks, as well as later it was 250 Gypsy children from Czechoslovakia that were to test the Zyklon B gas. But, according to the world, on Jews were persecuted in that way for reasons of race by the Nazis. The truth cannot be told for fear of being called anti-Semitic. However, the truth must be told and someone has to do it and someone has to hold those killers to account as well. Do we have the guts to do so?
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
In one incident, according to information, three young girls we shot and then left to bleed for over two hours by IDF personnel. The shots were fired from the turret of a tank about fifteen meters away from the children coming out by an IDF soldier using a rifle.
Then again, from what we have seen over the years of the actions of many of the IDF soldiers and officers as to when it comes to dealing with Palestinian civilians it can only be said that some of the Wehrmacht may have been better behaved than they are.
Any soldiers that have done those acts should be facing a war crime tribunal in the same way that the likes of the rebel leaders of Rwanda and other areas are sent to face trial. However, as could only have been expected, the leaders of the Zionist entity have said that they will block any attempt to put any of its soldiers on trial for war crimes.
If such actions as shooting children who we visibly unarmed and under a white flag and the use of white phosphorus against the people of Gaza are not war crimes then, I must say, I do not know what is.
No doubt that Israel will also be still finding its backers amongst the right-wing so-called Christians in the USA and obviously amongst most of the Jewish community in the USA and elsewhere, Britain, no doubt, included.
It would appear that there are different international rules for, for instance, the leaders of the Serb forces in Bosnia and for the soldiers of the illegal Zionist state in Palestine. Not that that surprises me and I am sure will not surprise anyone who has watched this entire issue over the years and decades.
The lobby that there is will not allow anything said against Israel and those that are of the Zionist persuasion, even allowing them to claim that no one ever lived in Palestine before they, the Zionist Ashkenazim came to Palestine, and yes, I am referring to comments from Golda Meir. Rather amazing considering that Jews, Arabs and Christians used to live together in peace and as friends for centuries in Palestine until the days when the Zionists began to try to take the country by force.
We have been fielded a lie for decades about how things were in Palestine as regards the Jews that were living there before 1945 and this can be best seen in books like “Blood Brothers” by Fr. Elias Chacour, a Maronite priest from that region, or other accounts. Only when the Zionists were bringing in some of those Jews that survived the Holocaust things were becoming a problem and the likes of the Irgun and Haganah were definitely not helping in friendly relations.
When you take over other people's farms and lands by force and chase them out it is no surprise that you reap a whirlwind. But, I digressed.
The world must make representation that it insists that those members of the IDF that are guilty of war crimes are held responsible for the deeds in an international tribunal. If it was good enough for the likes of Waffen SS men then it is also so for those that behave in the same manner in the modern world. Period!
Time the world stood up against the lobby that is always making itself to out to be the victim in everything. Same as they claim that they are the only one that have a right to the Holocaust and the Gypsies, the Romani People, defile the memory of the Holocaust by “wishing”, as some said, “to be associated with it” and because of this, in the media, Gypsies are always mentioned under the “also ran” as victims of Nazi atrocities. The Romani People were not just victims of the Nazi atrocities but they were victims of the Nazi genocidal racial policies. But no one can be allowed to say that now, can they. The Holocaust must be a uniquely Jewish event. Well, folks, it was not.
Gypsies were the first used as Guinea pigs to test the carbon monoxide trucks, as well as later it was 250 Gypsy children from Czechoslovakia that were to test the Zyklon B gas. But, according to the world, on Jews were persecuted in that way for reasons of race by the Nazis. The truth cannot be told for fear of being called anti-Semitic. However, the truth must be told and someone has to do it and someone has to hold those killers to account as well. Do we have the guts to do so?
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Director-General of Security Service speaks on recession threat
by Michael Smith
Britain faces a new security threat as a result of the global economic crisis, the head of the Security Service, MI5, Jonathan Evans, has warned, in the first ever interview by a director general of the Security Service.
He said the international recession could be a "watershed moment" which will shift the balance of power away from the West and the way things are going he might well be right. If that is the case we are in trouble, on more than one level.
Despite MI5 achieving notable success against al-Qaeda in Britain, Mr Evans warned that with the decline in economic power of the UK, US and Europe, new threats to national security are likely to emerge.
"Where there have been watershed moments, there have often been national security implications from that, a new alignment," he said. "We have to maintain flexibility and respond to threats. The world will not stay the same."
MI5 has scored, so its Chief explained, significant successes against al-Qaeda in Britain in the last two years which was forcing terrorists to "keep their heads down." But he warned that not all potential extremists could be monitored by the security services.
But, scores of British Muslims are still traveling to terror training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan every year. Others are traveling to lawless areas of Somalia.
We also must not forget that the USA has “lost” a lot of young Somalis. They have all turned up in those lawless areas and are, apparently, going through some kind of training and fighting there.
And apparently the terrorists who launched the Mumbai attacks in November had indirect links to the UK. But what does he mean with “links to the UK?”
In addition to that, he said, the growth in the use of Internet telephone services may pose a "significant detriment to national security" as terrorists can communicate more freely.
Oh dear! The growth in the use of Internet telephone services may pose a "significant detriment to national security" as terrorists can communicate more freely, said the MI5 chief. Do I hear here the encoded call to limit the access of Brits to the likes of Skype?
Yes, Skype. That free Internet telephone service whose calls are end-to-end encrypted and cannot be intercepted very well. So, I guess, beside the new legislation that Internet Service providers in the UK have to have all email to be stored (and I do not believe for one moment that no contents of those emails are going to be held) for a year, they will now try to make the use of Skype illegal or limited or make it illegal for Skype to encrypt calls from UK IPs. You do not stop terrorists and terrorism that way.
But it is the economic turbulence that is gripping the world that is likely to present the security services with their latest challenge, Mr Evans said.
"Our focus in the next few years will be international terrorism, al-Qaeda and its associates, but we are also looking at the global economic crisis," he said at his Whitehall office.
Although Mr Evans declined to go into details, Britain has already experienced a surge in spying by the re-emerging economic powers of Russia and China.
This should be quite obvious to all bu the very blind seeing the recent and not-so-recent cyber attacks by Russia and China against British (and American) assets, which the MI5 chief, however, forgot to mention, it seems.
Countries which face economic and political meltdown, such as Pakistan and Somalia, are also emerging as bases for terrorism. And as global alliances are re-drawn there could also be threats from of state-sponsored terrorism, particularly in the Middle East.
"As the world develops there is a knock-on effect in terms of domestic extremism, global power and the relationship between states," Mr Evans added. "National security tends to be a spin-off issue from wider changes."
He said there was no direct relationship between economic fortunes and extremism but added that it was important to consider what would happen if the "West becomes less economically dominant."
"There is no single path that leads people to violent extremism," he said. "Social, foreign policy, economic and personal factors all lead people to throw their lot in with extremists."
Economic factors do not make people terrorists, at least not in the main. However, the kind of actions of countries with which this country is supposedly befriended and fact the actions that this country are not being condemned by the government of the UK is what breeds terrorists in this country. And yes, I am referring to the current murderous actions of the Zionist state against the Palestinian people.
If Britain wants to stop the growth of homegrown fundamentalism then its government will have to stop sponsoring the likes of regimes like that of the Zionist entity in Palestine and following the United States blindly into any action against anyone who just remotely might be interfering with US interests.
Mr Evans said that MI5 has succeeded in targeting homegrown fundamentalism, securing 86 successful prosecutions in the last two years and he described developments as "very encouraging" but warned "the networks have not gone away."
"There could easily be activities that we are not aware of," he added. "We don't have anything approaching comprehensive coverage."
No, MI5 does not have – as yet – anything approaching a comprehensive coverage but we can be sure that they are working on that. Why else are we headed for a total archiving of emails sent from and to Internet users in Britain.
Does that all make us safer in this country? It certainly does not but then again, it has nothing to do with safety of the people and the country but everything with people control, and control of the subjects of Her Majesty, for there is no such thing as a British citizen, whatever they may claim.
Back to the “Recession Threat”, however.
When it comes to the nation the threat is not from supposed Islamic terrorists or such but from other nations, such as Russia and China. I think we can safely forget about countries such as Pakistan and Somalia in this equation.
However, we must, on no account, not forget our supposed friends either. Someone once said “God defend me from my friends; from my enemies I can defend myself” and this is very true especially as regards to the “friend” across the big pond and also that one next to the big dessert.
Or does anyone really believe that they do not (1) spy on Britain and (2) would not act against our county should they feel threatened, economically or otherwise.
I am sure we remember Benjamin Nethanyahu who was abducted from Britain and then imprisoned in his country. Remember the one who told the world that Israel has nuclear weapons?
It is OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, WNDs, but when some other Middle-Eastern country wants to develop civilian nuclear programs they are being threatened by both the USA and also Britain. How can this be?
When it comes to this nation's security we should be careful who we go to bed with and what bugs they may carry.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Britain faces a new security threat as a result of the global economic crisis, the head of the Security Service, MI5, Jonathan Evans, has warned, in the first ever interview by a director general of the Security Service.
He said the international recession could be a "watershed moment" which will shift the balance of power away from the West and the way things are going he might well be right. If that is the case we are in trouble, on more than one level.
Despite MI5 achieving notable success against al-Qaeda in Britain, Mr Evans warned that with the decline in economic power of the UK, US and Europe, new threats to national security are likely to emerge.
"Where there have been watershed moments, there have often been national security implications from that, a new alignment," he said. "We have to maintain flexibility and respond to threats. The world will not stay the same."
MI5 has scored, so its Chief explained, significant successes against al-Qaeda in Britain in the last two years which was forcing terrorists to "keep their heads down." But he warned that not all potential extremists could be monitored by the security services.
But, scores of British Muslims are still traveling to terror training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan every year. Others are traveling to lawless areas of Somalia.
We also must not forget that the USA has “lost” a lot of young Somalis. They have all turned up in those lawless areas and are, apparently, going through some kind of training and fighting there.
And apparently the terrorists who launched the Mumbai attacks in November had indirect links to the UK. But what does he mean with “links to the UK?”
In addition to that, he said, the growth in the use of Internet telephone services may pose a "significant detriment to national security" as terrorists can communicate more freely.
Oh dear! The growth in the use of Internet telephone services may pose a "significant detriment to national security" as terrorists can communicate more freely, said the MI5 chief. Do I hear here the encoded call to limit the access of Brits to the likes of Skype?
Yes, Skype. That free Internet telephone service whose calls are end-to-end encrypted and cannot be intercepted very well. So, I guess, beside the new legislation that Internet Service providers in the UK have to have all email to be stored (and I do not believe for one moment that no contents of those emails are going to be held) for a year, they will now try to make the use of Skype illegal or limited or make it illegal for Skype to encrypt calls from UK IPs. You do not stop terrorists and terrorism that way.
But it is the economic turbulence that is gripping the world that is likely to present the security services with their latest challenge, Mr Evans said.
"Our focus in the next few years will be international terrorism, al-Qaeda and its associates, but we are also looking at the global economic crisis," he said at his Whitehall office.
Although Mr Evans declined to go into details, Britain has already experienced a surge in spying by the re-emerging economic powers of Russia and China.
This should be quite obvious to all bu the very blind seeing the recent and not-so-recent cyber attacks by Russia and China against British (and American) assets, which the MI5 chief, however, forgot to mention, it seems.
Countries which face economic and political meltdown, such as Pakistan and Somalia, are also emerging as bases for terrorism. And as global alliances are re-drawn there could also be threats from of state-sponsored terrorism, particularly in the Middle East.
"As the world develops there is a knock-on effect in terms of domestic extremism, global power and the relationship between states," Mr Evans added. "National security tends to be a spin-off issue from wider changes."
He said there was no direct relationship between economic fortunes and extremism but added that it was important to consider what would happen if the "West becomes less economically dominant."
"There is no single path that leads people to violent extremism," he said. "Social, foreign policy, economic and personal factors all lead people to throw their lot in with extremists."
Economic factors do not make people terrorists, at least not in the main. However, the kind of actions of countries with which this country is supposedly befriended and fact the actions that this country are not being condemned by the government of the UK is what breeds terrorists in this country. And yes, I am referring to the current murderous actions of the Zionist state against the Palestinian people.
If Britain wants to stop the growth of homegrown fundamentalism then its government will have to stop sponsoring the likes of regimes like that of the Zionist entity in Palestine and following the United States blindly into any action against anyone who just remotely might be interfering with US interests.
Mr Evans said that MI5 has succeeded in targeting homegrown fundamentalism, securing 86 successful prosecutions in the last two years and he described developments as "very encouraging" but warned "the networks have not gone away."
"There could easily be activities that we are not aware of," he added. "We don't have anything approaching comprehensive coverage."
No, MI5 does not have – as yet – anything approaching a comprehensive coverage but we can be sure that they are working on that. Why else are we headed for a total archiving of emails sent from and to Internet users in Britain.
Does that all make us safer in this country? It certainly does not but then again, it has nothing to do with safety of the people and the country but everything with people control, and control of the subjects of Her Majesty, for there is no such thing as a British citizen, whatever they may claim.
Back to the “Recession Threat”, however.
When it comes to the nation the threat is not from supposed Islamic terrorists or such but from other nations, such as Russia and China. I think we can safely forget about countries such as Pakistan and Somalia in this equation.
However, we must, on no account, not forget our supposed friends either. Someone once said “God defend me from my friends; from my enemies I can defend myself” and this is very true especially as regards to the “friend” across the big pond and also that one next to the big dessert.
Or does anyone really believe that they do not (1) spy on Britain and (2) would not act against our county should they feel threatened, economically or otherwise.
I am sure we remember Benjamin Nethanyahu who was abducted from Britain and then imprisoned in his country. Remember the one who told the world that Israel has nuclear weapons?
It is OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, WNDs, but when some other Middle-Eastern country wants to develop civilian nuclear programs they are being threatened by both the USA and also Britain. How can this be?
When it comes to this nation's security we should be careful who we go to bed with and what bugs they may carry.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Russia, it's gas and the West
by Michael Smith
What Russia is doing with regards to the issue over the gas transiting via the Ukraine is too let Western Europe and the West as a whole know that unless we in the West play ball they way Russia wants as regards the former Soviet Republics and such like issues then they may turn off the gas.
This is the second time that this has happened with regards to Russian gas on its way to Western Europe via the gas pipeline that goes through the now independent former Soviet Republic of Ukraine.
I do sincerely doubt, however, that it would be any different would the gas be going a different route, direct to the West through, say, Poland or the still Moscow line following Belarus.
This issue over the gas for heating and industry coming from Russia shows that we are all, all our countries, people and infrastructure, in problems as we can be held to ransom that easily.
Holding the West to ransom over the issue of the gas is exactly what Russia is doing and this will not be the last time that that is going to happen, of that we can be sure.
This is no way to run a railroad and certainly no way to run a country. We must have self-sufficiency, as far as possible at least, in matters of energy, whether this be gas, oil or what-have-you. We cannot be allowed to be held to ransom by then like of the oligarchs and the FSB of Russia nor by others.
The Ukraine, in my opinion, also has a part in this ransom business, though on a different level.
While Russia appears to be using the gas as a lever so that Europe and the West reconsider their ideas of letting the Ukraine into NATO and the EU, the Ukraine is playing the game the other ways around basically saying “you can get your gas if you make us member of NATO and the EU”. This is, at least, how I read both sides and, as far as we all should be concerned we should tell the Ukraine to go to h**l if that is their attitude and at that same time, unfortunately as it may be, give in to the more-or-less unspoken request by the Russian Federation and General Putin to not let the Ukraine join any of those western clubs.
I have to say as well, and I wonder how many other people may just wonder the same, why we, in fact, are even thinking of incorporating the likes of the Ukraine into NATO and eventually also the EU.
The orange revolution, as it is often called, certainly was not democracy the way we see it here, and the leadership of the Ukraine is not as benign as they are made out. However, as in the case of the likes of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, both regimes with difficult human rights records and such, the USA and other NATO allies call them their friends because it is possible to have bases in their countries that are very close to Iran. Oil is a catalyst here, yet again. Black gold. But I digressed.
The West, those that do not have any of that kind of Black Gold, or gas, will nevertheless have to find a way to become independent from the oil fields of the Iran and other such countries in the same way as they have to become independent from the gas fields of Russia and other such locations.
There are ways and means of doing that and there are countries that can show the way in this as well., However, oil (and gas0 still are king when it comes to heating and cooking in the western world and especially the use of the motorcar is a contributing factor.
As it, however, shows again and again, countries that depend on such raw materials from abroad can be held to ransom at the whim of a leader of a country or by other means. Russia is not the only country that has or can have the West of a barrel like this.
Therefore, in order to protect our nations' infrastructure we must look for way of becoming, if not entirely than largely, independent from such sources and imports.
Can Russia be trusted?
The answer is a no and a yes and it depends on the angle from which one views it. Russia, and that is the problem, trusts no one and never ever will. Long story and maybe one for a separate article, methinks.
Our infrastructure needs independence from sources such as Russian gas or oil from the Persian Gulf and such locations.
How to get that done? Let's get our thinking caps on.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
What Russia is doing with regards to the issue over the gas transiting via the Ukraine is too let Western Europe and the West as a whole know that unless we in the West play ball they way Russia wants as regards the former Soviet Republics and such like issues then they may turn off the gas.
This is the second time that this has happened with regards to Russian gas on its way to Western Europe via the gas pipeline that goes through the now independent former Soviet Republic of Ukraine.
I do sincerely doubt, however, that it would be any different would the gas be going a different route, direct to the West through, say, Poland or the still Moscow line following Belarus.
This issue over the gas for heating and industry coming from Russia shows that we are all, all our countries, people and infrastructure, in problems as we can be held to ransom that easily.
Holding the West to ransom over the issue of the gas is exactly what Russia is doing and this will not be the last time that that is going to happen, of that we can be sure.
This is no way to run a railroad and certainly no way to run a country. We must have self-sufficiency, as far as possible at least, in matters of energy, whether this be gas, oil or what-have-you. We cannot be allowed to be held to ransom by then like of the oligarchs and the FSB of Russia nor by others.
The Ukraine, in my opinion, also has a part in this ransom business, though on a different level.
While Russia appears to be using the gas as a lever so that Europe and the West reconsider their ideas of letting the Ukraine into NATO and the EU, the Ukraine is playing the game the other ways around basically saying “you can get your gas if you make us member of NATO and the EU”. This is, at least, how I read both sides and, as far as we all should be concerned we should tell the Ukraine to go to h**l if that is their attitude and at that same time, unfortunately as it may be, give in to the more-or-less unspoken request by the Russian Federation and General Putin to not let the Ukraine join any of those western clubs.
I have to say as well, and I wonder how many other people may just wonder the same, why we, in fact, are even thinking of incorporating the likes of the Ukraine into NATO and eventually also the EU.
The orange revolution, as it is often called, certainly was not democracy the way we see it here, and the leadership of the Ukraine is not as benign as they are made out. However, as in the case of the likes of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, both regimes with difficult human rights records and such, the USA and other NATO allies call them their friends because it is possible to have bases in their countries that are very close to Iran. Oil is a catalyst here, yet again. Black gold. But I digressed.
The West, those that do not have any of that kind of Black Gold, or gas, will nevertheless have to find a way to become independent from the oil fields of the Iran and other such countries in the same way as they have to become independent from the gas fields of Russia and other such locations.
There are ways and means of doing that and there are countries that can show the way in this as well., However, oil (and gas0 still are king when it comes to heating and cooking in the western world and especially the use of the motorcar is a contributing factor.
As it, however, shows again and again, countries that depend on such raw materials from abroad can be held to ransom at the whim of a leader of a country or by other means. Russia is not the only country that has or can have the West of a barrel like this.
Therefore, in order to protect our nations' infrastructure we must look for way of becoming, if not entirely than largely, independent from such sources and imports.
Can Russia be trusted?
The answer is a no and a yes and it depends on the angle from which one views it. Russia, and that is the problem, trusts no one and never ever will. Long story and maybe one for a separate article, methinks.
Our infrastructure needs independence from sources such as Russian gas or oil from the Persian Gulf and such locations.
How to get that done? Let's get our thinking caps on.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Cold weather nothing to do with getting the cold
by Micheal Smith
We are constantly being told that colds and flus are not caused by the cold weather and/or by getting exposed to cold weather the wrong way but, strangely enough, every winter we get an severe increase in respiratory illnesses, the common cold being one of them.
If the weather then has nothing to do with it how come that those infections seem to increase during the cold periods? I could say now already that I rest my case, but...
Yes, I do know that the common cold, as well as flu and influenza, are all cause by viruses but somewhere along the lines, otherwise I doubt we would have the increases of those diseases and illness always in the cold time of the year, the cold weather must have something to do with it, regardless of what the experts try to make out.
Personally, I do still believe, to a degree, in the old people's advice that the weather can give you a cold. Not as much as that the weather is the actual cause of it but that the fact that it is cold affects the body and allows the viruses to enter easier and also, though science has not said so, it may be the weather that aids the spread of the viruses. Maybe also the fact that we go into the cold, then back into the warm and back into the cold, for instance all could be contributing factors here.
This 2008 winter in Britain we are being told, yet again, in the UK that due to the weather which has been colder than for the last 30 years – well, I am doubting that claim, but – the ambulance emergency services and the hospital are overworked as with all the people that have gotten severe colds and flus. But, obviously, according to the eggheads this could not possibly have anything with the weather. This must be a coincidence even though the health authorities seem to be blaming it on the cold weather.
While viruses are the true cause of those diseases the weather, in my opinion, is a major contributing factor here and hence we must take precautions against the cold and the wet in the winter season.
In addition to that we must make sure that we do not help spreading the infections ourselves if we happen to have the sniffles by being careless and sneezing all over the place and such like. Coughs and sneezes spread diseases was the public service message that would go out every year on the wireless in Britain and was to be seen on posters all over the place and it is certainly true.
So, let's wrap up well and stay dry and keep our germs to ourselves.
© M Smith (Veshengro), December 2008
<>
We are constantly being told that colds and flus are not caused by the cold weather and/or by getting exposed to cold weather the wrong way but, strangely enough, every winter we get an severe increase in respiratory illnesses, the common cold being one of them.
If the weather then has nothing to do with it how come that those infections seem to increase during the cold periods? I could say now already that I rest my case, but...
Yes, I do know that the common cold, as well as flu and influenza, are all cause by viruses but somewhere along the lines, otherwise I doubt we would have the increases of those diseases and illness always in the cold time of the year, the cold weather must have something to do with it, regardless of what the experts try to make out.
Personally, I do still believe, to a degree, in the old people's advice that the weather can give you a cold. Not as much as that the weather is the actual cause of it but that the fact that it is cold affects the body and allows the viruses to enter easier and also, though science has not said so, it may be the weather that aids the spread of the viruses. Maybe also the fact that we go into the cold, then back into the warm and back into the cold, for instance all could be contributing factors here.
This 2008 winter in Britain we are being told, yet again, in the UK that due to the weather which has been colder than for the last 30 years – well, I am doubting that claim, but – the ambulance emergency services and the hospital are overworked as with all the people that have gotten severe colds and flus. But, obviously, according to the eggheads this could not possibly have anything with the weather. This must be a coincidence even though the health authorities seem to be blaming it on the cold weather.
While viruses are the true cause of those diseases the weather, in my opinion, is a major contributing factor here and hence we must take precautions against the cold and the wet in the winter season.
In addition to that we must make sure that we do not help spreading the infections ourselves if we happen to have the sniffles by being careless and sneezing all over the place and such like. Coughs and sneezes spread diseases was the public service message that would go out every year on the wireless in Britain and was to be seen on posters all over the place and it is certainly true.
So, let's wrap up well and stay dry and keep our germs to ourselves.
© M Smith (Veshengro), December 2008
<>
Bahco Bypass Loppers PG-20-E - Product Review
I must admit that I have had this pair of loppers in question for review now for the best part of a year but it does take a while, I believe, with tools to test them properly. That I have now done.
Bypass loppers of compact design to prune in difficult-to-reach places, available in two sizes. Oval steel tube handles with comfortable plastic grip and shock absorbing plastic buffers for added comfort in use. The smaller cutting head is ideal for pruning ornamental shrubs and rose bushes. Unlike for the professional range of loppers there are no spare parts available for this one.
The PG-20-E bypass loppers which I have had for review is the smaller of the two sizes and has a cutting capacity of a maximum of 30mm. This is, in my view, all academic though and depends on the hardness of the wood. I would not like to try it or any for that matter on dead prunus branches of that diameter, for instance. I have done dead branches of up to about 20mm with those loppers and I found it hard going. Not that the loppers would have broken, maybe. I just found it physically hard and would, in such cases, rather resort to a saw.
Those bypass loppers could be, and I do that at times, for they are very light and handy to carry, referred to as “secateurs on steroids”.
The specifications, so to speak are for the PG-20-E that of a cutting diameter 30 max, with a length of 440mm and a weight 665 grams. As I have said, they are very light.
Now if someone could design a carrying holster for it, of some sort, this would be an ideal too for any Countryside Ranger and such like to take out on a patrol, especially a foot patrol, in order to remove branches and such that may encroach on a footpath, a bridleway, or such.
This is, as all of Bahco's tools, a professional tool at a reasonable price and anyone in their right mind, especially a professional, I should think, would rather invest in quality tools than to buy cheap and find them broken in a few hours or days of use.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
