It's truly sad that the regulators, representatives, and even the courts cannot get into the true chemical / physical nature of these different silicate minerals.  Even the World Health Organization (WHO) finds some asbestos minerals that do NOT cause asbestosis (but the laywers will never admit to this):

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/asbestos.pdf

http://www.oit.org/ilolex/english/convdisp1.htm

http://www.oit.org/ilolex/english/recdisp1.htm

http://www.asbestos-institute.ca/media/who/who_090996.html

http://www.chrysotile.com/en/sc_publi/ipcs_report.aspx

http://www.who.int/en/

Nature's own Global Warming -- Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures.  While we may blame humans for "global warming," Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of "Burning Ice" (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere.  I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical scientific issue to resolve.

The issue of "global warming" brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects ("inputs" and "outputs") and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct.   As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects.  Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real.  Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, "Statistics for Experimenters," by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.

When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered.  For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs.  There are not many web pages that show these in good ways, but here are two articles for present the correlations rather easily.

http://www.qualitydigest.com/mar98/html/spctool.html
http://www.qualitydigest.com/april98/html/spctool.html

Although these graphs are from the late 1990s, the use of this type of statistical tool, SPC charting, has hardly ever been used by scientific researchers and investigators.  Most of them have used other mathematical methods that assume a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and Global warming, as directed and determined by the process modeler.  This traditional "assumption" may not be correct, and in some cases may potentially mislead scientists and modelers.  These other tools can allow a scientist to purposely minimize the effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.

Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models, and stated that there are no real effects from the solar flux.  But then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, volcanics and their outgassings, etc.  You do not hear much in the news about these other scientists and their results.

People should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming "effect" is due solely to "greenhouse" gases.  Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that upper atmosphere is actually cooling:

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/121699text.html
http://ees5-www.lanl.gov/IGPP/Debate2.html
(some of these links may not be working due to computer changes since 9-11)

Some researchers say that their theory and modeling shows that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects.  We see that there is still not complete agreements on the causes and especially the effects of global warming.  Then there are some researchers who have purposely manipulated their models, formulas, and analyses to purposely disregard all other inputs and only tie the temperatures to greenhouse gases.

There is the other issue of how some scientists and researchers can purposely change the
structure of the formulas used in their models, the mathematical terms used in the formulas, the parameters and scaling factors in the formulas, and the values of any exponentials so as to obtain predetermined results that the scientists wanted to get anyway.  This allows the scientist to minimize effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.  This is "tampering" with the formulas so as to get the predetermined results that someone might want to get, no matter what the real processes are.

In my experiences in the scientific / R&D cultures, I have seen this happen several times, even with Peer Reviews.  Peer Reviews are "supposed" to catch incorrect things, inconsistencies, and errors.  But this does not always occur.  In some cases, the scientific peers involved in those Peer Reviews also wanted "certain" results to come out of the modeling and designs that they were reviewing.  In other cases, the peers were not paying attention to critical items and issues.

Also the issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved.  Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect.  I have seen several different approached to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results.  Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration.  I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and some times not calibrated at all.  How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?

When it comes to Nature's greenhouse generators through the Burning Ice (Methane Hydrates), we soon realize that our gases are very small when compared to the megatons of methane hydrates that are held within our oceans in a manner similar to a bathtub ring.  Also the Earth has had major accumulations and releases in its geological past over the eons, some of which scientists now believe may have lead to some great temperature increases in the Earth's past, long before humans were ever around.

Let me give you some web sites that describe the characteristics and issues with the Earth's Burning Ice and the natural abundance of methane greenhouse gases:

General information on chemistry and biology of Methane Hydrates:
--> http://www.at-sea.org/missions/extremes/preview.html

--> http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD5.3/sassen.html

--> http://ench1.ench.ucalgary.ca/~hydrates/

--> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/

--> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/

--> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/geochem/gas_hydrates.htm

--> http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Margin/Marg-Hydrates.htm

--> http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/NaturalGas/hydrates/index.html

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) fact sheets:
--> http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/hydrates/

--> http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

--> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs021-01/

--> http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/

Germany's research:
--> http://www.mpi-bremen.de/deutsch/biogeo/mumm2.html

--> http://www.gashydrate.de/

In the geological records and how dramatically and even violently the climate has changed, long before modern man came around.  There is very strong geological and scientific evidence that the massive Extinction in the Permian Era many millions of years ago in the Earth's geological past was caused both by massive volcanism and by Methane Hydrates.
http://www.terradaily.com/news/deepimpact-05r.html

Study breaks ice on ancient Arctic thaw:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Study_Breaks_Ice_On_Ancient_Arctic_Thaw_999.html
(previous periods of global warming)

And then there is the aspect of climate change from meteors:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzo.html

Outgassing of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from volcanoes:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/

Inaccuracies in measurements of climates:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Snow_Inaccurate_Temperature_Archive.html

Ancient Climate Studies Suggest Earth On Fast Track To Global Warming
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancient_Climate_Studies_Suggest_Earth_On_Fast_Track_To_Global_Warming.html

Green plants also cause Global Warming:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22944/
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/week/2006/060113/e-list.html#Wi1
http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Forgotten_Methane_Source.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/Could_Forests_Worsen_Global_Warming.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/Extinctions_Linked_To_Climate_Change.html

Farming Provides Wildlife Habitat And Reduces Global Warming
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Farming_Provides_Wildlife_Habitat_And_Reduces_Global_Warming.html

Prehistoric warming helped preserve fossils:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzi.html

Ancient tropical warming and nature's greenhouse gases
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzj.html

Volcanic impacts on ocean levels:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/oceans-05y.html

Climate change and massive flooding:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Role_Of_Massive_Floods_In_Climate_Change.html

Late Pleistocene Americans Faced Chaotic Climate Change Environments:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Late_Pleistocene_Americans_Faced_Chaotic_Climate_Change_Environments.html

Global Warming evidence from 55 million years ago:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzzb.html

Tropical ice cores shows two abrupt Global Climate shifts:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tropical_Ice_Cores_Shows_Two_Abrupt_Global_Climate_Shifts_999.html

How continental splits resulted in global cooling:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/antarctic-05q.html

Earth's burping from wobbling also affects climate:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzt.html

Geomagnetism as one factor in rain / weather:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Magnets_Help_Explain_Rain_Patterns.html

None of the environmentalists or businesses involved in reducing carbon emissions can go and blame massive climate changes in the past on power plants and vehicles!

It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects.  Other scientists have published their works dealing with other causes, but have not been given the publicity such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has received.

But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor, then our Governments are imposing on us a major compliance issue that will NOT solve the problem.  Control of carbon emissions does NOT equal Control of the Solar Sun and its flux intensities on us.  Several environmental groups have told us and openly admitted at other times that they want to use the idea of human sources in order to shut down industrial activities -- their words, not ours.

Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA.

(Major scientific problems with Arsenic research, which also leads to problems with lead "scientific" research)

In the past I have worked with and talked to many researchers about their methods of designing their research and experiments on arsenic, mercury and lead toxicity.  There are some major problems with the basic methods and scientific "assumptions" that these people have made.

This is a response to the research done by Dartmouth College on arsenic (and on the lack of cancers in the residents of Armagosa Valley, CA, that has very high arsenic content in its drinking waters):
http://www.wateronline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=90e36731-f6ec-45bd-8168-c56e58fb6e92&VNETCOOKIE=NO

There are major experimental design  questions here:

Just what is the concentration of the arsenic used in the experiment?  Was this equivalent to the concentration found in normal human blood after drinking water with groundwater arsenic?  Too often experimenters in the past have made the As ionic concentrations way too high for what is found in humans (blood and urine and other types of samples), after they drank groundwater with high arsenic content.

Was the CHEMISTRY of the experiment truly equivalent to the chemistry found in human blood after groundwater ingestion AND the resulting biochemical interactions that take place in the digestive tract, blood, arteries, etc.?

We have seen many other experimenters use arsenic tests that did NOT have the same blood chemistry and did NOT have concentrations found in human blood after ingesting.

They used "tissue samples".  But are these conditions truly equivalent to what humans have in terms of the tissues that receive their ions from blood and plasma through the arteries and other biochemical processes within the human bodies?

Problems with biological models applied to humans
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/53306/

Recently there has been controversy over the change in arsenic (As) standards and in Mercury (Hg) standards.  If those who want tighter arsenic standards in drinking water had true geologic knowledge, they would know that both arsenic and mercury are some of the many elements that Nature put in the earth and that the groundwater has picked up over the thousands of years.  Often, arsenic (As) is associated with gold deposits, even low grade, and other sulfide ore deposits.  In many places in the USA, there are geological deposits of the mineral cinnabar (mercury sulfide) and pure mercury, such as the Big Bend area of Texas near the Rio Grande river.  Over geological time, the groundwater has picked up mercury in many places over thousands of years.  There are also geological formations that contain trace amounts of mercury in their sediments that for eons have been washing into the rivers, groundwater, and soils.

There are several hundred naturally-occurring lead deposits (lead sulfide and lead carbonate) in the USA that were in existence long before any Europeans explorers came around in the 1500s and 1600s.  In many drinking water sources, there are a number of other elements in natural drinking water, such as uranium, lead, molybdenum, nickel, sulfur, etc. that originated from natural mineral deposits.

Some researchers have been giving statements that are not based upon complete analysis, but come across as fear.  One researched stated "all the time people were dying of cancers now associated with drinking that arsenic-contaminated water".  But we would have to assume that all autopsies of ancient and modern humans has shown a 100% statistical correlation to arsenic and not to other factors, such as other chemicals, other metals, diet, sun exposure, prescription drug effects, genetics, other elements, etc.  In addition, a number of other studies did not show good statistical analysis / correlation on the level of arsenic (percent or parts per million) and health effects.  The residents of Amargosa Valley and Beatty in Nevada and the Death Valley areas in California have elevated levels of arsenic in their drinking waters, but cancers are not prevalent there.  A number of residents several of us know have lived to the age of 80s and 90s.  How do we explain that?

In talking to the environmental and biological scientists on the West Coast about this issue, a peculiar point was brought up.  Most of them have mathematically matched arsenic levels to human health affects through regression methods.  These are the SAME types of methods used on Lead and Mercury research, as seen in the scientific publications.  These methods "assume" a straight statistical correlation (both linear and non-linear) between the input of arsenic and the output (health affects).  But how could they have known what other elements in the drinking water were doing in conjunction with arsenic?  None of these scientists have filtered out those inputs that are either not affecting the output, or are affecting in minor ways, or are affecting in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct.  The methods are the analyses of variances and other advanced techniques, which do not appear to be well known by these scientists.

Few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects.  Too many times researchers use statistical regression methods that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real.  Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, "Statistics for Experimenters," by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.

Native peoples have been drinking water here in America and many other places for centuries with arsenic and other "contaminants," (like lead) long before there was ever a Federal government to protect us from the Earth.  Why don't the environmentalists understand basic Earth Sciences?

See this link also:
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/earthmatters/EMV2N2.pdf

Natural arsenic and heavy metals in Alaskan waters from geological deposits:
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs-083-01/
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/v-printer/story/6960082p-6860040c.html

and then sulfur also:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/leads.asp?ID=713#990

Shame on Nature for doing that......