Don't people ever learn? This is from Big Government:
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
From The Wall Street Journal:
The Bolter again:
David Marr detects a sinister pattern:
Wow. Four out of five politicians picked by Marr are sceptics of two Leftist theories they suspect may, on the evidence, leave us worse off.
But then Marr immediately ruins his own conspiracy:
Er, so Marr, the virulent republican, now suggests Prince Charles, the frequent-flyer hypocrite, as the source of wisdom? I mean, if Charles wants us to cut emissions, why was he in Brazil?
But let me offer Marr a rival conspiracy:
Sir David King's hypocrisy here can only be described as breathtaking. But like a number in the alarmist camp, including some in the media, they have sniffed the breeze and noted a change in the wind direction, (I think that's a mixed metaphor, but never mind), and are starting to reposition themselves.
This is from Andrew Bolt's blog:
David King was once one of the most notorious of global warming alarmists:
That was just five years ago, when alarmism was all the rage. (Certainly King didn’t feel any need to dispute then the accuracy of that report. Indeed, he even preached the falsehood that global warming was melting the snows of Kilimanjaro.)
But since then, the planet has cooled and so has the public to such scaremongering. Now King worries that this kind of frantic exaggeration - by others, of course - is staining his credibility:
King seems to have tried to distance himself from the greens even more than he did last year, when he said:
I think King is finally cooling, too.
Benny Peiser notes it was only a year ago that King was still up for some alarmism himself. Claiming:
Thursday, October 29, 2009
From the ABC:
As he goes on to say, you can be denounced as a denier even if you accept that man-made claimate change is a reality, but don't agree with the supposed solutions.
Another crack, at the ABC of all places, in the virtually total media blackout of voices expressing doubt about climate change.
And doubt can be in the form, yes the climate is changing, and we probably have played some part in it (though maybe a minor part), but that doesn't mean the world is coming to an end as those seeking to profit from engendering a sense of panic and hysteria, (money making rackets like Greenpeace or the WWF, or the various rent-seeking businesses flogging over-priced solar panels or those in government and academia whose funding and career prospects are now tied to it), say it is.
Read it all.
From Harry's Place:
Many young gay and lesbian Palestinians flee forced marriage and even murder by trying to enter Israel.
This isn't an apologia for the settlement movement.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
...yes, you guessed it. Cancer.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
From Food & Health Skeptic:
Organic food tough? Try new organic metalThe breathtaking and insouciant ignorance we all have to live withWhen I began to learn about chemistry as a boy at school, I was introduced to the world of the organic and the inorganic. The term "organic", I was told, referred to the presence of carbon and identified livings things such as plants and animals, while "inorganic" described non-living things such as minerals, metals and rocks.Over the last decade I rode out the non-sequitur of "organic" vegetables with the begrudged understanding that the advertisers were claiming that pesticides had not been used in the production process. But I still winced when people earnestly tried to tell me the advantages of organic eggs and organic milk. It was, and is, impossible to argue against such frustrating nomenclature.But now a line has to be drawn in the sand, before we enter the linguistic nightmare of the "post-organic". The ultimate misuse of the term came on Saturday morning when I needed to buy some magnesium tablets to keep the leg cramps away - these are one of the joys of cycling later in life. In my local health food shop I discovered a small bottle of Organic Magnesium. "How can magnesium be described as organic?" I asked the woman who so gushingly wanted to assist me. "It's healthy, it's organic!" she gushed. "But magnesium is a mineral and a mineral can't be described as organic … it's like talking about organic steel."She stared and blinked, like a knowing owl. "The organic label," she explained, trying not to sound condescending, "tells us that no pesticides were used in producing it. This magnesium is completely organic." My mouth opened slowly, quietly and stupidly. "Ah, magnesium doesn't grow on plants, so you don't need pesticides. It's a mineral."The woman shrugged. She seemed to size me up: pot belly, white beard, I could almost hear her say: "What would you know about health food?"At this stage I knew I had lost, and began to wonder if there were such a thing as "orgasmic magnesium". Now, that would lead to some interesting discussions. Anyway, I bought that particular bottle of Organic Magnesium, probably out of a sense of personal perversity. Later I recounted the incident to my grey-haired girlfriend and showed her the bottle. She laughed, "You have made a good choice," she said, "look at the fine print: 'organic magnesium is good for preventing PMS'."Just what I needed: an affront to science and a question over my sense of masculinity. I grimaced and we took off up the highway in our organic car. Organic? Well, no pesticides or chemical fertilisers were used in its production. Therefore, ipso facto, my car is the latest commodity to become truly organic.SOURCE
From Andrew Bolt's blog:
It seems incredible that no one in 91 years has asked this question, so who can object to the Rudd Government now spending $524,000 to find out the answer? From the latest list of approved Australian Research Council Grants:
The last time this area was investigated, it cost Australian taxpayers zero and resulted in a much-admired besteller. How the allies won in Iraq might actually be a better guide to undertaking future operations, but that’s been written, too, and again at zero cost to taxpayers.
Reader MudCrab answers the question for free in comments below. Half a mill saved, right there.
[Hmmm, I wonder how much of this grant money will be spent putting the "researcher" up in Paris for an extended period?]
In East Africa lives a species of spider that drinks mammalian blood. But fear not - Evarcha culicivora is an indirect vampire - it sates its thirst by preying on female mosquitoes that have previously fed on blood themselves.
Even though its habitat is full of non-biting midges called "lake flies", it can tell the difference between these insects and the blood-carrying mozzies it carries. Robert Jackson from the University of Canterbury discovered this behaviour a few years ago and one of his colleagues, Fiona Cross, has now found that the blood isn't just a meal for the spiders, it's an aphrodisiac too.
Photo of E.culicivora eating a mosquito, by R. Jackson.
Cross made spiders choose between two adults of the opposite sex, by wafting their smells down a tube on different days and seeing which drew the choosy spider's attention for the longest time. The contenders had been fed on one of four diets: blood-fed female mosquitoes, sugar-fed female mosquitoes, male mosquitoes, or lake flies.
The Nude Socialist has an article for all of your extinct marine reptile needs here.
From Below the Beltway:
From the 1796 Treaty between the United States of America and The Bey and Subjects Of Tripoli Of Barbary:
Monday, October 26, 2009
Okay, let's be fair and give praise where it is due.
From Andrew Bolt. In the same post he points to an interesting phenomenon where the comments sections to stories like this are increasingly sceptical and dismissive about them.
And really, given this type of nonsense, is this at all surprising?
From Tim Blair:
I don't know how Flummery continues to get away with it or why anybody still takes him seriously.
From Andrew Bolt:
Rudd’s new tax on everything will hurt us all
Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi levels with voters: the ETS is a fraud. Cutting our emissions will do nothing for the climate, but sure will kill jobs.
I think that’s one vote Malcolm Turnbull can’t count on in the Senate to help pass Kevin Rudd’s colossal “$50 billion tax on everything”. I wonder how well he’d be travelling if he’d taken this tack himself a year ago - minus the populist flourishes that diminish the deadly serious message, that is.
Clive James on those who should know better:
From Tim Blair
Now, as Mr Rajakulendran goes on to say, there's no reason necessarily why any Tigers who might slip in this way would pose a threat to the general community, but this yet again highlights just how bogus and pretended the prime minister's "outrage" at the recent comments by Wilson Tuckey were.
And it's not that Mr Tuckey's comments were particularly over the top:
Which is not much more than has been said previously by Kim Beazley and Labor refugee advocate Michael Danby.
Yet Mr Rudd goes into hyperbole overdrive in describing Mr Tuckey's remarks as "deeply divisive, disgusting."
It's also interesting to see how most members of the media are quite happy to reflexively frame anything Mr Tuckey says within the "mad uncle" meme, without ever bothering to consider what he actually says.
Now I realise that Mr Tuckey has given ample examples in the past of some pretty 'out there' comments, but one of the things I believe we have a right to expect from journalists is a constantly sceptical mind set that always seeks to look behind and beyond commonplace assumptions, and not just repeat them.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
From Paul Eggert (2001-03-06):
Daylight Saving Time was first suggested as a joke by Benjamin Franklin in his whimsical essay “An Economical Project for Diminishing the Cost of Light” published in the Journal de Paris (1784-04-26). Not everyone is happy with the results.
"Was 9-11 bad for women?"
What? Oh dear, you know what's coming don't you?
But, as Jennifer Rubin from Commentary Magazine notes: You can hunt in vain for the connective tissue between “women are getting the short end of the stick — again” and 9-11. You won’t find it.
But that's the thing with so much of today's identity politics. Everything has to be about you and your besetting concerns. Stuff just can't happen without reference to you. And so it goes round and around. In an ideal world of course these people and their concerns would end up disappearing up their own arses, but it never seems to happen sadly.
via the Instapundit
Saturday, October 24, 2009
24 10 2009
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Certainly the lazy use of "neocon" as a cover-all term of abuse and self-sufficient "argument" by members of the Left really pisses me off.
Over at The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan has been debating the United Nations's Goldstone report on war crimes committed in Gaza (whose critics, including the State Department, say it was unfairly hostile to Israel) and the fallout from this New York Times opinion piece, in which a founder of Human Rights Watch denounces the group for having "written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region."
In the Times editorial, Robert L. Bernstein points out that "Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza 'did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.'" Noah Pollak also pointed to Kemp's testimony, which was made on behalf of the group UN Watch (though it wasn't first time he has defended the tactics of the IDF). In response to these two invocations of Kemp, Sullivan responds with an attack on the group that hosted him:
The rest at Reason Online
From Andrew Bolt:
Business writer James Kirby on the usually hidden campaign to silence even a sceptic as qualified as Professor Ian Plimer, author of the best-seller Heaven and Earth:
In this case, the whisperers and character assassins failed to move even these timid business souls, and Kirby confesses:
The makers of the eco-alarmist The Age of Stupid are even more determined to silence dissent:
From Watts Up With That?:
Or as my friend down under, Andrew Bolt, calls it: “Day of apathy”
Sydney yesterday demonstrated the depth of international passion about global warming through several highly pictorial stunts:
Counting the people in the picture, though, I’d say that this is not a global day of action, but global day of apathy. Or, let’s hope, a global day of mounting scepticism.
Left: People outside the Opera House take a stand on climate change yesterday. Top: Protesters at Manly and bottom, Marton Hidas at the Opera House. Photo: Adam Hollingworth, Janie Barrett
And that’s even without discounting for the tourists and the unfortunate children who were simply dragged there by parents warning them they may not have a future:
Apologies. From Greenpeace, this proof that the crowds in Sydney may have been even bigger than I sneeringly suggest:
The global day of apathy rolls on in Rome:
And in Kiev:
And Dunedin, just the one:
In Copenhagen, where the world’s leaders will meet in December to discuss slashing emissions – or not:
And Shanghai, city of 17 million, in a country that is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases:
But you know it’s a snoozer, media-wise, when “balloon boy”, his mom, and the death of Soupy Sales gets above the fold on Google News and “350″ doesn’t:
From Greenie Watch too:
They are in a bind over their own fantasies. Excuse me while I laugh!The European Union is wondering what to do with billions of unused pollution credits accumulated by Russia, Ukraine and other former communist states of Eastern Europe under the Kyoto Protocol as lawmakers worry about the continuity of the carbon market beyond 2012.Environment ministers from the 27-member bloc met in Luxembourg on Wednesday (21 October) to thrash out the position that the European Union will take to UN climate talks in December.But as an international agreement slowly takes shape, the question of what to do with the billions of unused pollution credits accumulated during the 2008-2012 period has become the "elephant in the room" for negotiators. "There is a lot of money involved," said the European Commission's environment spokesperson Barbara Helfferich. "We haven't clarified our position on this in detail," she told EurActiv after the ministers' meeting on Wednesday.Under the Kyoto Protocol, countries were granted a certain number of permits to release greenhouse gases in the atmosphere called Assigned Amount Units (AAUs), which are equivalent to one tonne of CO2.Kyoto targets were decided based on 1990 emission levels. But in the wake of massive deindustrialisation that followed the fall of communism, Eastern European countries are now finding themselves sitting on a huge stockpile of unused pollution credits. "The Russians have accumulated something like five billion units" during 2008-2012, said an EU diplomat from one of the large EU member states. "This is enormous," he added, saying the amount is equivalent to the effort expected from the entire EU during the upcoming 2013-2020 period. "We have a big problem of hot air in the system," the diplomat said.Stefan Singer, director of global energy policy at WWF, warned that the possibility for Russia and Ukraine to carry over their surplus credits after 2012 would probably "sink" international climate talks.More HERE
In response to a Greenie attack on dogs, a reader writes:Regarding the carbon footprint of a dog, a rough back of envelope calculation (assuming a linear relation between the size of an animal and its carbon footprint) yields......one bison weighing in at a ton is roughly the equivalent of 20 dogs. There were at one time an estimated 60 million bison in the USA, which comes out to 1.2 billion dog/(SUV) equivalents, which is roughly 4 times the present human population of the USA. ...for whatever that might be worth.One would think the Greenie obsession with death would alert us to their real agenda, killing things. They pretend that having only one child is benign, but such a practice will cause any group practicing it to die out. If I remember correctly, the destruction of a people is called "genocide," regardless of the means employed.Let's hope the Greenies practice what they preach! --JR
From Greenie Watch
From Climate Resistance:
But even some climate scientists who are definitely not in the sceptical camp are concerned about such language:
It's of course Mike Hulme who coined the term 'climate porn' to describe the kind of exaggeration that Mr Brown is engaging in.
From RWDB - JF Beck:
Asian Correspondent's Edwin Espejo argues that whereas environmentally friendly energy is fantastic it's not a viable option for Mindanao. I think he's right and that wind, geo-thermal, solar and hydro-power can't come anywhere close to meeting the developing world's rising energy demand. The only realistic energy options are fossil fuels and nuclear power. But since nuclear power plants are very expensive and take years to plan and build it looks like fossil fuels will provide power for less well-off nations for the foreseeable future. Developing nations are not going to sacrifice economic development in order to cut emissions. That's just the way it is.
Today's worldwide climate change protests, kicking off in Australia, ignore that reality. Those marching will be well off, high per capita carbon emitting hypocrites. Few rural Indians will participate, neither knowing nor caring that Bianca Jagger – a "champion for social and environmental justice" – will attend the London rally. After doing their bit for the environment the protesters will drive home (the more stylish in fuel-guzzling SUVs), turn on the air-conditioner, grab a beer from the fridge and kick back in front of their big-screen TVs to watch the day's protest action. Bianca and the other high profile do-gooders will, of course, jet back to wherever they jetted in from. The developing world will be enveloped by a warm glow of smug self-satisfaction. Meanwhile, the less well off will be hoping for reliable and cheap electricity to make their lives easier. Oh yeah, and a car. Travel by jet comes later.
Nathan Myhrvold is a polymath’s polymath, the former chief technology officer at Microsoft who, by the time he was 23, had earned, primarily at UCLA and Princeton, a bachelor’s degree (mathematics), two master’s degrees (geophysics/space physics and mathematical economics), and a Ph.D. (mathematical physics). He is co-founder of Intellectual Ventures, a firm comprising many other scientists, including climate scientists, whose counterintuitive views on global warming and its possible solutions are explored in the final chapter of SuperFreakonomics. A climate-activist blogger didn’t like the chapter, accusing Levitt and Dubner of chicanery (a charge that Dubner rebuffed here) and accusing Myhrvold of not understanding the physics behind solar power. Oops. Below you can read Myhrvold’s views on the tenor of the global-warming debate in general and solar power in particular. Watch this space for further rebuttals of shouted claims of error and evil.
One of the saddest things for me about climate science is how political it has become. Science works by having an open dialog that ultimately converges on the truth, for the common benefit of everyone. Most scientific fields enjoy this free flow of ideas.
There are serious scientific and technological issues in studying our climate, how it responds to human-caused emission of greenhouse gases, and what the most effective solutions will be for global warming. But unfortunately, the policy implications are vast and there is a lot at stake in economic terms.
It seems inevitable that discussions of climate science would degenerate to being deeply politicized and polarized. Depending on which views are adopted, individuals, industries, and countries will gain or lose, which provides ample motive. Once people with a strong political or ideological bent latch onto an issue, it becomes hard to have a reasonable discussion...
The rest here at The New York Times
I'd have to agree with this commenter on this post of Tim Blair's I pointed to earlier:
And yes, plants will love you for the extra carbon dioxide. Greenhouse keepers don't artificially raise its concentration in their greenhouses to 1,000ppm or more for nothing you know.
The ABC's Chris Uhlmann writing in this morning's The Weekend Australian:
Now his post-church sermons have become a regular feature of Sunday political fare.
Pause for a moment and imagine what the reaction would have been if John Howard had done that.
We have some idea what Rudd would make of it because in two essays for The Monthly in 2006 he railed at "how right-wing Christian extremism has become John Howard's religious handmaiden in his political project to reshape Australia". It is hard to imagine that Rudd would have stayed mute if Howard had appropriated a church as a backdrop for political statements.
Much was made of the rise of the religious Right in the Howard years and some ministers, such as Tony Abbott, did wear their beliefs on their sleeves. Howard did not. He was old enough to remember the great divide in Australian history was sectarianism and, save for funerals, he scrupulously avoided pictures at church.
But Rudd has made a parade of his beliefs and is given to cloaking political arguments in moral garments.
Some $350 worth of mud crabs are presently in my kitchen. Occasionally I can hear them scraping at the sides of their polystyrene prison. Only a few hours to go, little ones. Then you will be at peace – rich, delicious, Singapore chilli peace.
Also on tonight’s menu: rock oysters, scampi, and whatever other sea-beasts guests can trap (Joe, who misunderstood the concept, is bringing KFC). It’s just our way of celebrating the global day of action.
You can read more of him here.
Mmmmm, chilli crab.
By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs (for the full post)
That god among men and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, told us in “An Inconvenient Truth”, his Oscar-winning documentary, that we had to brace for increasing numbers of hurricanes as the result of global warming.
So, where are the hurricanes of 2009, Mr. Gore?
The hurricane season that runs from June through October is about to end with nothing more than one weak to borderline moderate tropical storm that hit Florida’s panhandle, but there have been NO hurricanes.
So, where are the hurricanes of 2009, Mr. Gore?
Trying to predict how many hurricanes there will be each year is probably fun, but is a highly risky undertaking. I have a lot of friends among the meteorological and climatological community, men of science, but I always cross my fingers for them when they take a run at it.
From Watts Up With That?
Friday, October 23, 2009
But as I keep saying, this is green economics in a nutshell - getting less for more!
An aggressive policy of generously subsidizing and effectively mandating "renewable" electricity generation in Germany has led to a doubling of the renewable contribution to electricity generation in recent years.This preference came primarily in the form of a subsidy policy based on feed-in tariffs, established in 1991 by the Electricity Feed-in Law, requiring utilities to accept and remunerate the feed-in of "green" electricity at 90 percent of the retail rate of electricity, considerably exceeding the cost of conventional electricity generation.A subsequent law passed in 2000 guaranteed continued support for 20 years. This requires utilities to accept the delivery of power from independent producers of renewable electricity into their own grid, paying technology-specific feed-in tariffs far above their production cost of ¢2.9-10.2 per kilowatt hour (kWh).With a feed-in tariff of ¢59 per kWh in 2009, solar electricity generated from photovoltaics (PV) is guaranteed by far the largest financial support among all renewable energy technologies.Currently, the feed-in tariff for PV is more than eight times higher than the wholesale electricity price at the power exchange and more than four times the feed-in tariff paid for electricity produced by on-shore wind turbines.Even on-shore wind, widely regarded as a mature technology, requires feed-in tariffs that exceed the per-kWh cost of conventional electricity by up to 300% to remain competitive.By 2008 this had led to Germany having the second-largest installed wind capacity in the world, behind the United States, and largest installed PV capacity in the world, ahead of Spain. This explains the claims that Germany's feed-in tariff is a great success.Installed capacity is not the same as production or contribution, however, and by 2008 the estimated share of wind power in Germany's electricity production was 6.3%, followed by biomass-based electricity generation (3.6%) and water power (3.1%). The amount of electricity produced through solar photovoltaics was a negligible 0.6% despite being the most subsidized renewable energy, with a net cost of about $12.4 billion for 2008.The total net cost of subsidizing electricity production by PV modules is estimated to reach US $73.2 billion for those modules installed between 2000 and 2010. While the promotion rules for wind power are more subtle than those for PV, we estimate that the wind power subsidies may total US $28.1 billion for wind converters installed between 2000 and 2010.More HERE
From Greenie Watch
Tiny bat pits green against greenThere's no such thing as a happy GreenieWorkers atop mountain ridges are putting together 389-foot windmills with massive blades that will turn Appalachian breezes into energy. Retiree David Cowan is fighting to stop them. Because of the bats.Cowan, 72, a longtime caving fanatic who grew to love bats as he slithered through tunnels from Maine to Maui, is asking a federal judge in Maryland to halt construction of the Beech Ridge wind farm. The lawsuit pits Chicago-based Invenergy, a company that produces "green" energy, against environmentalists who say the cost to nature is too great.
Our cultural debasement continues apace. From Andrew Bolt:
ALAN Kohler is only the first to finally apologise for making a hero of Mick Gatto, but even then it’s one of those modern sorrys that just makes it worse.
You see, there he was last month, standing up in front of a room full of crooks and spivs, and the gagglers and cheaper celebrities who feed off them.
What he was doing there, God knows. With an underworld figure like Gatto sitting right next to him, grinning! Gatto, feted as our newest celebrity!
Even Kohler’s wife and friends, he now admits, were upset he could be so dumb, as am I.
After all, he’s a wealthy publisher of financial newsletters, an ABC presenter, a former Age editor and now the chairman of Melbourne University Publishing. He’s establishment, suit and tie. Respectable.
If anyone would resist this reckless push by so many of our culture makers to scrub Gatto clean and hold him up for the admiration of the knuckle-cracking restless, I’d have bet it would be Kohler.
Yet the first thing he said to those assembled crooks, lairs, carpetbaggers and oglers who’d packed the Grossi Florentino in Bourke St was - get this - how ”proud and delighted” he and his MUP were to now publish Gatto’s self-penned whitewash of his career as crook, killer (only in self-defence!) and reputed strongarm man.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
This is of course the result anyone with a brain would have expected when bad science drives bad policy!
A new generation of biofuels, meant to be a low-carbon alternative, will on average emit more carbon dioxide over the next few decades than burning petrol, according to a study published in the journal Science.
Governments and companies are pouring billions of research dollars into advanced fuels made from wood and grass, meant to cut carbon emissions compared with petrol.
But such advanced 'cellulosic' biofuels will actually lead to higher carbon emissions than petrol per unit of energy, averaged over the 2000-2030 time period, the study said.
That is because the land required to plant fast-growing poplar trees and tropical grasses will displace food crops, and so drive deforestation to create more farmland, a powerful source of carbon emissions.
Full article here.
From the Food & Health Skeptic:
At last the word is getting outPeople taking high-dose vitamin and mineral supplements may be doing more harm than good, an expert has warned. Professor Martin Wiseman, medical and scientific adviser for the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), said it was difficult to predict the impact vitamin supplements had on the chances of cutting cancer.While low dose supplements can be a "valuable safety net", high doses could be harmful. Research over the last few years has suggested some vitamins can actually increase the risk of some cancers. Beta carotene for example can increase the risk of lung cancer in those who already smoke."Many people think they can reduce their cancer risk by taking supplements, but the evidence does not support this," Prof Wiseman said. "Just because a dietary pattern that provides a relatively high level of a particular nutrient might protect against cancer, it does not mean that taking it in tablet form will have the same effect. "In fact, at high doses the effect of these micronutrients is unpredictable and can be harmful to health."Although there are some studies that have shown a reduction in cancer risk from high-dose supplements, others have not, and these supplements have normally only been tested on a select group of people."This means we simply do not know enough about what the effect will be for the general population to confidently predict the balance of risks and benefits. Some people may be doing themselves more harm than good."There are also studies that show high doses of some supplements can increase risk of some cancers.''Prof Wiseman said multivitamins would not contain all the good nutrients found in food, such as fibre adding that the best advice was to have a "health, plant-based diet with lots of fruits and vegetables".Prof Wiseman's comments echo similar sentiment from Professor Brian Ratcliffe, a leading nutritionist, who last month said Britain's "worried well" were wasting their money and possibly risking their health by taking supplements.Prof Ratcliffe said multivitamin and mineral supplements were "completely pointless" for the majority of people with a healthy diet and that topping up on vitamins could potentially be dangerous.SOURCE