<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Mesothelioma Support &#187; atmosphere</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mesotheliomasupport.info/tag/atmosphere/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mesotheliomasupport.info</link>
	<description>Asbestos &#38; Mesothelioma Treatment and Lawsuit Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:46:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Is it a coincidence that global warming &quot;skeptics&quot; make a lot of scientifically questionable claims?</title>
		<link>http://www.mesotheliomasupport.info/is-it-a-coincidence-that-global-warming-skeptics-make-a-lot-of-scientifically-questionable-claims.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.mesotheliomasupport.info/is-it-a-coincidence-that-global-warming-skeptics-make-a-lot-of-scientifically-questionable-claims.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:58:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asbestos Cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Asbestos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atmosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cfcs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christopher booker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[columnist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fred singer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hole in the ozone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hole in the ozone layer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligent design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lindzen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lung cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proponent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roy spencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secondhand smoke causes lung cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skepticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skeptics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mesotheliomasupport.info/is-it-a-coincidence-that-global-warming-skeptics-make-a-lot-of-scientifically-questionable-claims.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Roy Spencer is a huge proponent of Intelligent Design (he also claimed the lower atmosphere was cooling until his analysis was proven wrong). Roy Lindzen doesn't think secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. Neither does Fred Singer, or that CFCs caused the hole in the ozone layer. An article written by columnist Christopher Booker has recently [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roy Spencer is a huge proponent of Intelligent Design (he also claimed the lower atmosphere was cooling until his analysis was proven wrong). Roy Lindzen doesn't think secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. Neither does Fred Singer, or that CFCs caused the hole in the ozone layer.</p>
<p>An article written by columnist Christopher Booker has recently been cited by &quot;skeptics&quot;. Booker has previously argued that asbestos is &quot;chemically identical to talcum powder&quot; and &quot;poses no measurable risk to health&quot;.</p>
<p>Why is it that these sources of global warming &quot;skepticism&quot; so frequently make such scientifically questionable (or more often, just flat-out wrong) claims?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mesotheliomasupport.info/is-it-a-coincidence-that-global-warming-skeptics-make-a-lot-of-scientifically-questionable-claims.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the Incidence of Mesothelioma Similar Between Asbestosis and Silicosis?</title>
		<link>http://www.mesotheliomasupport.info/is-the-incidence-of-mesothelioma-similar-between-asbestosis-and-silicosis.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.mesotheliomasupport.info/is-the-incidence-of-mesothelioma-similar-between-asbestosis-and-silicosis.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atmosphere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oxidized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rice fields]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[silicon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mesotheliomasupport.info/is-the-incidence-of-mesothelioma-similar-between-asbestosis-and-silicosis.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks K, I wasn't Sure Where to Go. Anreuro, I Heard this Long Ago, With the Burning of Rice Fields in Central Ca., I Heard that Problem was Ultimately Found to Be From the Release of Silicon, Oxidized Forms, Into the Atmosphere, Not Bagasosis (Sp?).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
Thanks K, I wasn't Sure Where to Go.<br />
Anreuro, I Heard this Long Ago, With the Burning of Rice Fields in Central Ca., I Heard that Problem was Ultimately Found to Be From the Release of Silicon, Oxidized Forms, Into the Atmosphere, Not Bagasosis (Sp?).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mesotheliomasupport.info/is-the-incidence-of-mesothelioma-similar-between-asbestosis-and-silicosis.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

