Episode-714- Listener Feedback Monday for 8-1-11

So it is Monday another week begins and it is the 1st of August of another month has ended.  As we begin the final month of real summer the blazing heat may lull us into a belief that fall and winter are far away.  There are closer than you might believe right now.

Join me today as I answer your emails sent to jack at thesurvivalpodcast.com. Today we have stuff on prepping the Dilbert way, choosing a compact pistol caliber carbine, the debt ceiling, stories of prepping paying off and more.

Join me today as we discuss…

  • The skinny on “mushroom soil”
  • Dealing with the disaster of terminal cancer
  • Rural America is dying in many areas
  • Golman Sachs now controls 25% of global aluminum supplies
  • NH gets squared away on emergency shelter locations
  • Could a new flu super vaccine be on the way, the good, bad and ugly
  • NASA blows a huge hole in the CO2 global warming theory
  • Time article from 1972 on the National Debt reads like it is from yesterday
  • Murder in the Park – Relax it is murder of a turtle and a duck
  • Free Zombie Posters from the CDC
  • Common hand gun parts considerations
  • A Gerber EAB saves the day
  • Dilbert Gets into Prepping
  • Living near a military base
  • Threats to military retirements
  • The double dip recession has begun
  • KelTec Sub2K vs. HiPoint 995
  • Why you need IBDs and QuickClot in your med kits
  • A debt ceiling deal seems to be here, why it won’t matter

Additional Resources for Today’s Show

Remember to comment, chime in and tell us your thoughts, this podcast is one man’s opinion, not a lecture or sermon. Also please enter our listener appreciation contest and help spread the word about our show. Also remember you can call in your questions and comments to 866-65-THINK and you might hear yourself on the air.

 

27 Responses to Episode-714- Listener Feedback Monday for 8-1-11

  1. Hurry! Large flat zombie poster already out of stock. Other sizes – formats still available.

  2. dont know why but when i tryed to download the podcast,s my window meada player started playing them as aposed to savint them to my hard drive so i could ihere them at a later point in time perhaps you can me out thanks

  3. Is there a link to the Dilbert comic? I don’t see it, but maybe I’m being blind. Thanks!

  4. Happy b-day, Jack! 🙂

    RE Brian: If we didn’t have a cat and a kid, shacking out in an RV for a while would be very tempting.

  5. Just read the NASA article. Could the author use the word “alarmist” one more time? The bias is very obvious. That said, I read the actual study (or at least what I could understand of it). My take away is that the evidence is inconclusive because of the variables involved.
    “It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.”
    If you want to read the study for yourself here is the link:
    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
    It is my opinion that the study neither supports or refutes global warming, it merely states that more evidence and study is needed before any conclusions can be drawn.

    • Modern Survival

      @Britni,

      This is so typical, you say could he say “alarmist” any more. Hell I say could the true believers be any greater of an alarmist all the damn time. The “if we don’t act now” deadlines have come and gone to the point of ridiculous.

      There is nothing inconclusive about this study, it will drive believers nuts for a long time. Heat goes in, heat comes out, you measure the difference. Done!

      The fact is and this have been known for a long time, CO2 has a saturation limit. The only way the believers have explained this is that CO2 theoretically worked different in the troposphere than in the lower atmosphere. To me this has always been a nonstarter argument, as it is the same molecule.

      No I am sorry this is proof and if nothing else it is proof that all the climate models of the believers are WAY WAY over blown.

      The real truth, had this story confirmed AGW, the believers wouldn’t question it for a second. This thing is a scam and nothing but faith is keeping people holding on. To me that is the real danger the longer we believe in this myth, the more damage to the real ecological movement when the truth comes out.

      AGW is the worst case of “crying wolf” in the planets history. It has the potential to do far more damage than CO2 ever could even if it did what believers say it does.

    • @ Modern Survival
      I just wish the bias wasn’t so obvious, it annoyed me. I cannot say that I am a true believer anymore. I was but the evidence just isn’t there. I do believe the climate is changing but I think the science is still out there on the actual cause. I will say I agree with you that taxing carbon and carbon credits are a bunch of BS! I appreciated your stance on the environment in today’s show and respect what you do in your personal life to take care of our land and water.
      Listening to your show has caused me to question a lot of things I thought I knew, including global warming. I will be the first to admit that I don’t know enough about it to make a judgement at this point (5 years ago I thought I did). But I still think using the word “alarmist” 13 times in a short article was distracting.

      • @Britni,

        Well, perhaps that article was a bit too eager, but it doesn’t change the findings.

        You stated that more evidence is needed…well, that’s fine, but unfortunately, criminally sloppy (or fraudulent) “science” has been touted for years, and used to demand things like “cap and trade.”

        This isn’t a knock on you, but rather pointing out that IF ONLY people on the “alarmist” side (sorry), were half as reasonable, there wouldn’t be a political fight like this going on.

        Most AGW advocates reflexively deny any evidence that doesn’t agree with their preconceived conclusions. Many of them have direct or indirect financial interest in maintaining their position, regardless of the facts, and that’s not science. It is a massive bastardization of science.

        As Jack refers to, we’ve been drilled with this Carbon-panic stuff for years, while ignoring much more pressing environmental issues. In my view, this false focus on Carbon Dioxide has, if anything harmed the cause of true environmentalism (I say true to distinguish it from political environmentalism).

        I applaud you for realizing that what you had been told about AWG wasn’t as “factual” as claimed, and that you’re re-evaluating things.

    • I think the climate is changing, but not from greenhouse gasses. I think that is why storms are more severe and common. Storms carry excess heat to the upper atmosphere to radiate it out into space. I think it will settle down when the trend reverses.

  6. An Army buddy of mine started Combat Medical Systems that serves up Quick Clot Combat Gauze to the military and others. I personally have seen the stuff stop major wounds. I’ve got a pack of it in my bug out. Check’em out.
    https://store.combatmedicalsystems.com/categories/Hemorrhage-Control.aspx

  7. Hey Jack saw the recommendation for Quick Clot. As a military medical officer the general consensus is that the quick clot powder is no longer a viable solution as in the heat of battle you tend to tear open the packet and the powder can get into the eyes and on your sweaty skin. The consequences of this are pretty horrific as the powder is activated when in contact with water/body fluids/blood and it quickly cauterizes the area. Imagine getting this stuff in your eyes and possibly causing permanent blindness. I believe that only the US Marines are still using the powder. The other services have switched to the chitin impregnated bandage. Also, it should be noted that the quick clot needs to be surgically (under anesthesia) debrided from the area in which it was applied. Keep up the good work.

    • Modern Survival

      @John C.

      Consensus huh? Well you forgo it if you wish, I will keep it. I also just really don’t get crap like “the heat of battle”. You do realize that 99% of the time that a human is bleeding to death there is no “battle” going on around them.

      I stopped one time when a guy had a huge gash in his thy from a car wreck. I spent a lot of time with my hand inside his leg pinching a blood vessel until help came.

      I had no idea at all what QuickClot was at the time, I do know now it would have been very good to have.

      Not picking on you but this is the big problem when people focus on one aspect of prepping. Gunshots. I have bled many times, I have never been shot, I have been shot at once. I have provided a lot of first aid and have never been in the “heat of battle” when doing so. So my view is the old saying,

      “I would rather have something and not need it than need something and not have it”.

      Keep in mind the incidents in today’s show were…

      1. Children were captured in a malfunction of a bounce house

      2. Another child caused a severe laceration to their head by running into dumpster.

      Now I will grant you that quickclot should not be used near the eyes but the point is still valid. Both cases did not involve the “heat of battle” and both could have been much more severe from an injury standpoint.

    • @Modern Survival

      Here is a link to a good overview of the hemostatic dressings available today for you and other SPC subscribers from the peer reviewed journal “Transfusion.” It’s a good read. Maybe it will change your mind, but maybe not. There are other good options for hemostatic dressings/agents out there though either in “the heat of battle,” or in the “bouncy castle.” Note that these things are typically only used in life or death situations.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01988.x/full

  8. I’m one of those 21 year-olds looking to move to Rural America!

    I think tthe number of us is definitely small, but will be growing.

    • Also, in reply to the Global Warming article:

      Although I agree the situation is definitely blown out of proportion, with carbon-trading being a scam, and more important environmental hazards I think you should look into the author and The Heartland Institute a bit more.

      The “environmental” author James Taylor is actually a lawyer in Florida.

      And the Heartland Institute’s ties including funding from the Tobacco Industry, Exxon Mobil, Walmart, and various openly politically-fueled groups.

      I am one to judge another by the company they keep, and something about this author’s connections just doesn’t sit right with me.

      Not to mention that the device that recorded this was attached to a NASA satellite, not built by NASA.

      “Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite”.

      Just trying to come at this from a different angle and I appreciate your beliefs either way.

      • Modern Survival

        @Cactusdan,

        Attacking the messenger is pointless. Nothing he reported is not reinforced by the study, the source is NASA not the article’s author.

      • @Cactusdan,

        What do you think about the “Company kept” by the people pushing AGW? I’m not accusing you of this, but this massive propaganda campaign has been falsely projected as “Science” vs “Deniers” (who are pawns of oil companies).

        Well, while oil companies definitely have an interest in not having their product villified, taxed and/or outlawed, it doesn’t mean that their “side” is necessarily wrong.

        I think it IS important to look at what’s behind these various groups, but apply that to both sides? Look at the political groups behind those “scientists” who push AGW. Look at who stood to gain from these massive carbon-trading schemes–for example.

        Global Warming is intrinsically tied to politics, and they’ve all got their own motives, with “Saving the Planet” as their vehicle. This is not a story of Environmental Hero Scientists fighting the big-bad Oil companies who want to destroy the world, yet often it is portrayed almost as ridiculously as that.

        • Modern Survival

          @KAM,

          And remember who is going to make the most money on Cap and Trade?

          1. The banks
          2. The oil companies

          It is true the oil companies are actually all for cap and trade. Why? The cap of course, we have a “cap” on the debt too, please do tell us what happens to that cap almost annually?

          So the oil companies get huge allowances and trade the surplus and the banks make billions taking the house share of every trade.

          The whole thing is a scam, a global tax coupled with a money game.

    • I’m one too!

  9. Jack, Liked the show!

  10. @Jack,

    Good point about oil companies also benefiting/supporting cap and trade. As usual, the consumer and taxpayer is going to be the loser.
    What I was trying to say was that this propaganda effort pitting the “little guy” and science vs the evil oil companies is playing to a certain anti-capitalist, anti-business attitude that exists. I’m neither, although I am against the crony-capitalism that exists (including with oil companies).

    So, I totally agree on this. The whole ‘cap and trade’ scheme is a massive scam, based on politicized “science” which isn’t all that scientific when it comes down to it.

    I’ve never been anti-business, or even anti-BIG business, but when they are joined at the hip with government…that’s hell on wheels. Of course, I’m not sure in today’s world if you can even be a big corporation without being wrapped up with government…so, perhaps I am anti-corporate by practical need, rather than desire.

    • Modern Survival

      @KAM just to be clear I knew what you were saying and I agree. I was just adding to it.

  11. The CDC is out of stock for all their kits & targets. You guys must have wiped them out before I got a chance to get some.

  12. I just wanted to comment on the gentleman that stopped the child from possibly bleeding to death. The only thing I would recommend doing differently would be to have someone call 911 immediately. Obviously it was not necessary in this case but you can never know that ahead of time. If someone had called 911 right away, the ambulance would have nearly been there by the time they got the kid in a car so it wouldn’t have added much, if any, time to the emergency room. And if the bleeding didn’t stop, or the person had already lost a significant amount of blood they would have been much better off in the hands of paramedics. Otherwise I say great job to someone who kept his cool in a though situation.

    This kind of thing is exactly why 911 services exist. A lot of people abuse the service but at the same time people often don’t think to call them in a real emergency which is why there are there in the first place.

  13. Pingback: | Surviving the Modern World

  14. Ross Radford

    Thanks for the tip about the CDC posters. I ordered five so that I could keep one and give the others to my mom who is a principle of a local elementary school. I just received them and we think they’re really cool. I’m sure they will be seen by many people at the school and will hopefully get them to begin thinking about preparedness.