Death by Ships?

[JonathanCole]

Death by ships
Solar's looking better every day

Published: 07 November 2007 06:10 PM
Source: The Engineer Online
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/302936/Death+by+ships.htm



Pollution from marine shipping causes approximately 60,000 premature cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths around the world each year, according to a new report.
The report benchmarks for the first time the number of annual deaths caused globally by pollution from marine vessels, with coastal regions in Asia and Europe the most affected.
Conducted by James Corbett of the University of Delaware (http://www.udel.edu/) and James Winebrake from the Rochester Institute of Technology (http://www.rit.edu/), the study correlates the global distribution of particulate matter -black carbon, sulphur, nitrogen and organic particles - released from ships’ smoke stacks with heart disease and lung cancer mortalities in adults.
The results indicate that approximately 60,000 people die prematurely around the world each year from shipping-related emissions. Under current regulation, and with the expected growth in shipping activity, Corbett and Winebrake estimate the annual mortalities from ship emissions could increase by 40 percent by 2012.
Corbett and Winebrake’s results come in the midst of current discussions by the International Maritime Organization (http://www.imo.org/) to regulate emissions from ships.
Annual deaths related to shipping emissions in Europe are estimated at 26,710, while the mortality rate is 19,870 in East Asia and 9,950 in South Asia. North America has approximately 5,000 premature deaths, concentrated mostly in the Gulf Coast region, the West Coast and the Northeast, while the eastern coast of South America has 790 mortalities.
Ships run on residual oil, which has sulphur content thousands of times greater than on-road diesel fuel. ‘Residual oil is a by-product of the refinery process and tends to be much dirtier than other petroleum products,’ said Winebrake, chair of RIT’s Department of Science, Technology and Society/Public Policy.
‘Our work will help people decide at what scale action should be taken,’ added Corbett, associate professor of marine policy at University of Delaware. ‘We want our analysis to enable dialogue about how to improve the environment and economic performance of our freight systems.’
The focus on long-term exposure to particulate matter in the study does not extend to impacts on children or other related health issues such as respiratory disease, asthma, hospital admissions and the economic impact of missed workdays and lost productivity.

[longliner45]

are we refurring to the people who work on these ships ,,? if so is it a ventalation issue?,,or is it that,,harbours are congested and have much pollution assosiated with trade?

[nero]

In Marseille, I live between the industrial port and the vieux port (small craft). Little airborn pollution comes from the boats that are there. The industrial port is another story. My balcony is at the same level as the top deck of many of the ships. We have an excellent view of the thick black smoke pouring out of the cold diesel engines. This smoke does not seem to make it to high up into the atmoshere. Instead, it is carried by the sea wind onto the buildings and people who live and work in this part of Marseille.

So much damage is done by this because it attacks the stone in the old buildings. The façades become almost completely black after 10 to 15 years of exposure.

Thank goodness the french are heavy cigarette smokers. Two negatives make positive results.

[charmc]

I mean no disrespect, but I am somewhat suspicious of academic studies that "prove" that a certain number of deaths are "caused" by specific industries or sources, especially when the sources are spread out around the world. For example, port cities are similar to all other cities in that they have vast numbers of cars and trucks, factories, power plants, etc. in their vicinity. Normal volcanic activity in the world each year, not counting the rare major eruptions that make headlines, is reported to put far greater tonnage of pollutants into the atmosphere than all manmade sources combined. I've seen numbers of 300 million tons of CO2 alone, with similar amounts of sulfur dioxide and methane, plus millions of tons of mercury and other heavy metals.. Again, that is not counting the major eruptions, several of which occur each year. One sudy reported, "The amount of sulfur dioxide put out by Laki (a major Icelandic eruption) in nine months was ten times more than the amount that now comes from all of western European industrial sources in a year." With so many sources, I find it difficult to believe these folks can pinpoint shipping as the specific cause of specific deaths from its specific pollution.

None of that means that industrial pollution is not a big problem. It is, and reducing all sources needs to be a higher priority for industry and government all over the world. I just hate the scare tactics and bad science used by too many people who benefit from them. Science and engineering tend to get buried by politics and media hype. The result makes it harder to cooperate in efforts to find effective solutions.

[riggertroy]

So a person lives (and dies) at a large port city, they experience in the same city - diesel / petrol / gas and industrial exhausts that total a far greater percentage of pollutants than those of ships exhausts, not to mention second hand cigarete smoke and other byproducts of modern living.
How can these researchers define what kills people, how many seafarers have died as a result of ship exhaust emissions? How can it be proved?

[rwatson]

um - dont want to appear picky , but did you actually read the details ?
"The results indicate that approximately 60,000 people die prematurely around the world each year from shipping-related emissions."
"Ships run on residual oil, which has sulphur content thousands of times greater than on-road diesel fuel."
You dont think they would have thought of the bleeding obvious ?

[lazeyjack]

did you know that the modern BIG ships diesels are the most mechanically efficient of internal combustion engines?
nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxides, co2, are so very low compared with your average jap diesel car of truck they burn less fuel per kw/hr than any other diesel eng
Now consider the work done?
Now if you talk 1000 hp outboards behind a pleasure boat, I say ban them
How do I know this, well i used to tune locos for mine use, under suprvision of CSRO or whatever was called, was long ago
nOW YOU TAKE A BULKER shifting 100000 tonne, say from Odeca in Ua to oh Rotterdam, , can you compare the scenario, 5000 articulated trucks to do the same job? Ships have been and always will be the most eviron friendly method of shifting anything

[riggertroy]

Yes I did read the details,
I am not saying they are wrong, but how can they determine that it was pollution from marine shipping that was the cause of death - it may have been a contributing factor - but not the sole factor in those supposed 60,000 deaths.
Maybe poor nutrition tied into high levels of all type of pollutants leads to higher mortality - therefore if the people had good nutrition they may not have died - there are so many variables that need to be taken into account.

How many studies have we heard of that say that coffee is good, then bad then good in moderation, then bad no matter what. Results change with refinement of the methods used in the research.

Also the results may vary depending upon who commissioned the report.

There are many questions you could ask about this report - Take the report with a pince of salt - opps that's supposed to be bad for the heart:)

[Landlubber]

Yes but salt is yummy on boiled eggs, oops they are bad for you too!

[Frosty]

60 premature deaths ?? Thats about how many people have died of starvation while ive been reading this.

[FAST FRED]

"Pollution from marine shipping causes approximately 60,000 premature cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths around the world each year,"

NAME ONE!

FF

[Frosty]

Sorry 60,000.

A mans life consists of many variables. where and how he lives ,what he eats and more importantly his genes from his parents.

After 3 score years and ten how can it be possible to attribute a premature death to working aboard a ship.

I heard the same about Airline pilots ,--adrenalin hardening the arteries.

Car painters die early too. Foundry workers. Nurses can get diseases.---- Hell working is just too dangerous.

Maybe we should do some investigation into starvation though. It does seem to shorten life as well. Maybe theres a simple cure for that.

Theres some people in Burma too getting premature deaths that did'nt even have a job. Who gives a **** any way.

Oprah earned 250 million in 2006!!! Not had ----earned.

I think I will get a premature death if I get any more angry.

What is a premature death any way. You mean you died before you wanted to?

Its a few years ago now but I read the the US government gave some students a grant of 20,000 dollars to find an answer to the question . Why don't prisoners like being in prison?

Stupid bloody world.

[longliner45]

gotta agree with frosty,,,,,most people think electrice cars are the answer,what they dont think is that ,,when they plug thier car into a socket to be recharged ,,,some guy is shoveling another lump of coal into the furnace at a power plant,,,and yes it is so dismaying that the government even cares why prisoners have a bad day,what the #%&ck,,,,,,,,longliner

[Fanie]

Yeah ! Oprah earned 250 mil... and doesn't even own a decent boat ! How stupid can that be.

[safewalrus]

As Frosty said "what is a premature death?"

the story goes that theres a bloke up in heaven owns a big book with everybodies names in it, this book is kind of like a diary, when he opens to todays page in the morning everybody who's name is on that page will die on that day -no getting away from it, hit by a bus, die of cancer whatever, even staying in bed is not safe - the roof will collapse - IF YOUR NAMES ON THE PAGE YOU ARE DEAD! NOTHING PREMATURE ABOUT IT!! age don't mean a thing, it's your name that counts (and not your earthly name either)!

[Frosty]

Thats an amazing explanation Warus. For a man that is employed in the health and safety of building site workers??

What is also amazing is that Ive never met anyone over the age of 10 that still beleives that.

No wait .---I think he was 8

Whats Santa Claus bringing you this year Walrus.

[marshmat]

May I suggest there be no further criticism of the statistical methods of the study until the commentator has actually read the study and understands the methods used. Serious researchers do not make claims like this lightly or without evidence, and their work is checked and cross-checked by other, independent expert scientists in the specific field before publication.
When some of us have had a chance to read the study in question and are sure we understand how the conclusions therein were reached, a genuine debate on the validity of the estimate can take place. Hypothesizing based on a general-media synopsis of the paper gets us no closer to understanding or solving the problem.

One of the main points of the research is that trucks and trains run on #2 diesel oil, which in the modern age is a fairly clean, refined fuel oil. In the case of modern trucks, you then add filters and converters to remove most of the nastier byproducts before they even leave the exhaust pipe. Many ships run on Bunker C and similar sludgy oils, which are really quite filthy fuels. The ship's exhaust then goes straight from combustion chamber to atmosphere with no scrubbing, filtering or other processing. So the pollutants per kilojoule of energy transmitted out the shaft, is many times greater for a modern ship diesel than for a modern truck diesel. Yes, their thermodynamic efficiency is far better, but while twice the efficiency is good for the fuel bill and the carbon dioxide production, it doesn't compensate for a few thousand times the sulphur dioxide emissions.

What we should be doing is looking for ways to clean up ships' fuel and exhaust. It's nearly impossible for anyone with scientific training to deny that pollution is a major, major problem, and that ships are a significant contributor to that problem.

[lazeyjack]

May I suggest there be no further criticism of the statistical methods of the study until the commentator has actually read the study and understands the methods used. Serious researchers do not make claims like this lightly or without evidence, and their work is checked and cross-checked by other, independent expert scientists in the specific field before publication.
When some of us have had a chance to read the study in question and are sure we understand how the conclusions therein were reached, a genuine debate on the validity of the estimate can take place. Hypothesizing based on a general-media synopsis of the paper gets us no closer to understanding or solving the problem.

One of the main points of the research is that trucks and trains run on #2 diesel oil, which in the modern age is a fairly clean, refined fuel oil. In the case of modern trucks, you then add filters and converters to remove most of the nastier byproducts before they even leave the exhaust pipe. Many ships run on Bunker C and similar sludgy oils, which are really quite filthy fuels. The ship's exhaust then goes straight from combustion chamber to atmosphere with no scrubbing, filtering or other processing. So the pollutants per kilojoule of energy transmitted out the shaft, is many times greater for a modern ship diesel than for a modern truck diesel. Yes, their thermodynamic efficiency is far better, but while twice the efficiency is good for the fuel bill and the carbon dioxide production, it doesn't compensate for a few thousand times the sulphur dioxide emissions.

What we should be doing is looking for ways to clean up ships' fuel and exhaust. It's nearly impossible for anyone with scientific training to deny that pollution is a major, major problem, and that ships are a significant contributor to that problem.

consider the resources

5000 trucks at 400 bhp, 2000000 bhp
one ship 60000shp, trucks are stuck in traffic a good bit of the time, clog roads cause massive costs, just by virtue of the fact that we need keep building highways to run em on, factorys to build em in, and so on and so forth? in Europe most heavy and bulk stuff in barged
Besides if ships burnt light oil(diesel) who then would use the cad rich and sulphur heavy oil, I dont think you need be a scientist to understand that ships do less damage to the environment, overall Matt

[DanishBagger]

90 percent of the world's cargo is transported by ship. Of course it will pollute, but that pollution would by multiplied many times, if transported by trains and trucks.

A little while ago, some other "research" was done, that showed that it was much better to transport goods by planes, as they pollute less (!). Yes, I'm sure it's less polluting to fly to the US in a jumbojet with 300 other people (pollution/divided by 300) than it pollutes to go 12 people by supertanker over there (pollution/12). However, look at tons of cargo, and a completely other picture will emerge.

About peer reviews: I doubt their numbers are right – it could be lower, it could be higher, but surely their numbers will be cross examined, and found to be less than ideal. How do they come up with that? I doubt that the doctor makes a test "Uhm, cause of death? I know, it's sulphur from shipping!" That is surely a lacking study, even if I do believe they're right along the way, that of course some people die from it.

This is not to say, that shipping shouldn't try to be even more enviromentally friendly, but as it is, they're already rather friendly, environmentally speaking (by ton of cargo).

[Frosty]

I agree that ships push out gobs of black soot --weve all seen it. Ships generally being out in the open are well ventilated. Any one standing in that trying to breath would inhale it. Besides being a stupid thing to do,- you wouldnt do that again would you? Even if by accident you got a lung full you would'nt do it every day.

No worse that riding behind a bus on a motorbike.

Its quite likely that for the rest of the voyage they would enjoy lovely clean air --much cleaner that the rest of us in the city would be breathing.

I have not read any criticism of the statistical methods!!! My point was that ALL work kills you and every one suffers a premature death. Walking in the street will shorten your life,---everything shortens your life. Standing in a smokey room, one drink too many , Chocolate gateux oops too much wine.

Most medicines take thier toll but its worth it. EVERY one dies a premature death.

Its not the method its the result,( 60,000 people died before they should because they worked on a ship)??

Strange when they advertise a cruise on a ship to be a healthy experience with lovely fresh ocean air?? So cruising is unhealthy and shortens your life?

[DanishBagger]

Frosty, essentially, they're extrapolating. They have a small base number, then they take that number, add some guess work, and multiply that by an x-factor.

He applies quantitative models[…]

http://www.rit.edu/news/index.php?p=experts&action=viewexpert&id=148

Edit: They're not talking about the people working on ships - then 60.000 people yearly would be extremely high. No, they're talking about premature deaths on a global basis, jobfunction irrelevant.

[Frosty]

Oh great Danish--I just posted how no one had criticised the statistical method, then you go and do it?

[DanishBagger]

Oh great Danish--I just posted how no one had criticised the statistical method, then you go and do it?

Well, ye asked and ye shall receive :p

[lazeyjack]

I agree that ships push out gobs of black soot --weve all seen it. Ships generally being out in the open are well ventilated. Any one standing in that trying to breath would inhale it. Besides being a stupid thing to do,- you wouldnt do that again would you? Even if by accident you got a lung full you would'nt do it every day.

No worse that riding behind a bus on a motorbike.

Its quite likely that for the rest of the voyage they would enjoy lovely clean air --much cleaner that the rest of us in the city would be breathing.

I have not read any criticism of the statistical methods!!! My point was that ALL work kills you and every one suffers a premature death. Walking in the street will shorten your life,---everything shortens your life. Standing in a smokey room, one drink too many , Chocolate gateux oops too much wine.

ACTUALLY THEY ONLY SMOKE AS THEY GET UP ON THE Governers. then once rpm are up they dont smoke, idf they ddi the decks would be knee deep in soot\
and great measures have been taken to keep sulphur levals downSulphur contained in the fuel forms metallic sulphides that coat the internal surfaces of the fuel injection equipment including the fuel pumps and the fuel injectors. These sulphides have low shear resistance and act as EP additives similar to that found in lubrication oils. Extremely low sulphur fuels in use on the automotive transport industry have led to the use of lubricity additives. In the marine environment the reduction in sulphur content has been less dramatic.

Marpol Annex VI(regulation 14) and the creation of Sulphur Emission Control Area means it wil be a requirement to use only fuels with a certain maximum sulphur content. In the addition to the increased cost of these low sulphur fuels it is necessary to factor in the possibility of increased wear and tear on the engine components.

Low sulphur fuels are normally low viscosity oils such as gas oil. Carefull planning has to be done both at the design level ( to ensure sufficient storage capacity) and at the operational and maintenance levels due to the known difficulties in changing over from a heated fuel to a non heated or one with reduced heating capacity.


Most medicines take thier toll but its worth it. EVERY one dies a premature death.

Its not the method its the result,( 60,000 people died before they should because they worked on a ship)??

Strange when they advertise a cruise on a ship to be a healthy experience with lovely fresh ocean air?? So cruising is unhealthy and shortens your life?

ACTUALLY THEY ONLY SMOKE AS THEY GET UP ON THE Governers. then once rpm are up they dont smoke, idf they ddi the decks would be knee deep in soot\
and great measures have been taken to keep sulphur levals downSulphur contained in the fuel forms metallic sulphides that coat the internal surfaces of the fuel injection equipment including the fuel pumps and the fuel injectors. These sulphides have low shear resistance and act as EP additives similar to that found in lubrication oils. Extremely low sulphur fuels in use on the automotive transport industry have led to the use of lubricity additives. In the marine environment the reduction in sulphur content has been less dramatic.

[rwatson]

Lots of words - most missing the point. The points are -
1) is the report to be believed
Cargo boats - whether they are the most efficient, beautiful amzing things on earth, use a unique fuel - with readily identifiable 'bad stuff' like sulphur, remember "sulphur content thousands of times greater than on-road diesel fuel"
also
"University of Delaware and James Winebrake from the Rochester Institute of Technology, the study correlates the global distribution of particulate matter -black carbon, sulphur, nitrogen and organic particles - released from ships’ smoke stacks with heart disease and lung cancer mortalities in adults."
I cant see why they would be that far off the mark, and silly statements like "How can these researchers define what kills people" beggar belief.
2) Can we do anything about it ?
Well, maybe getting the fuel to a higher quality would save some poor sods from a painfull, early death. They havn't had "some guy is shoveling another lump of coal into the furnace " for 25 years, why - because it makes people sick! And as for "NAME ONE!" - you have the authors details - get 'em to read you the first 500!!

Is this some conspiracy to wind me up with bloody stupid remarks?

[marshmat]

Fuel efficiency and fuel usage is not the point being discussed here. On both these counts a ship is far superior to a truck, without question.

The discussion here is about a study that looks at smog-forming and toxic/carcinogenic pollutants that directly affect human health. These include soot/particulates, sulphur compounds, etc. On these counts, ships are several orders of magnitude worse than any recently-built land vehicle, largely because they burn the contaminated refinery dregs that nobody else wants, and there are no rules telling ship owners they have to clean up the fuel. It's not impossible to clean up #4 fuel oil and Bunker C grades, but it would cost more than they spend for the raw, unprocessed fuel at present. So without anybody ordering them to do so, they take the cheapest option- burn it as is. Simplistic calculations of "x number of trucks total y times as much horsepower as a boat" ignore the carefully researched facts presented in the study, which state that the ship releases vastly more dangerous pollutants for each litre of fuel it burns.

As I understand it, the methods used in the study (it'll be published in the Dec. 15 issue of Environmental Science and Technology, the journal of the American Chemical Society) correlate the global geographic distribution of shipping-related emissions with the distribution of cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths linked to the same types of emissions. Not exactly a simple model to produce, and one that has been thoroughly vetted by independent mathematicians and researchers by the time it is published.

[FAST FRED]

"Serious researchers do not make claims like this lightly or without evidence, and their work is checked and cross-checked by other, independent expert scientists in the specific field before publication."

Researchers work for the GRANTOR , the fellow giving out MONEY.

Look at all the "research" claiming man is responsible for global warming , which ignores 4 million years of planetary history.

Hell, even MARS is in the same warming cycle and getting warmer.
Granny's Vespa there too?

Researchers are hired to "prove" someones point , as taxi drivers are hired to take passengers to their desired destination.

Case in point is the recent UN study. Read the blither sheet written by the political class and you could actually believe in G warming.

Read the ENTIRE report and the you will get opposite conclusion , man has almost nothing to do with it.

Where are the Researchers , when the politicos intentionally LIE about the reports conclusions? Strangely absent , waiting the next cash flow.

FF

[marshmat]

The day that UN report came out, Fred, Exxon offered an instant reward of around $10,000 and the promise of no-hassle full research funding for any qualified climatologist who could offer evidence to contradict the universal consensus on humanity's influence on climate change. (Exxon is currently pumping millions of dollars a year into research to deny global warming, but have yet to get an actual climatologist on board- so far they have only been able to find political lobbyists to run their think tanks.) They have so far been unable to get a single qualified researcher to bite on it, even though it's a vastly more tempting offer than the pittance of hard-to-get government funding most climatologists survive on.

The people doing the peer review before publication never work from the same money as the people who did the research. If there is a bias in the study, it is their job to send it back for re-writing. It takes over a year, sometimes more, to get a paper through this review process, because the journals simply don't want to publish anything they are not fully confident in.

If anyone is willing to assess such matters objectively, I'd be happy to put in the time to dig up whatever studies and research papers we need to have a serious discussion on what to do about these issues. If everyone is going to dig in their heels and insist that any research contradicting what we'd like to believe is just ********, we may as well just drop the matter here and I'll see you back on the boat threads.

[lazeyjack]

Lots of words - most missing the point. The points are -
1) is the report to be believed
Cargo boats - whether they are the most efficient, beautiful amzing things on earth, use a unique fuel - with readily identifiable 'bad stuff' like sulphur, remember "sulphur content thousands of times greater than on-road diesel fuel"
also
"University of Delaware and James Winebrake from the Rochester Institute of Technology, the study correlates the global distribution of particulate matter -black carbon, sulphur, nitrogen and organic particles - released from ships’ smoke stacks with heart disease and lung cancer mortalities in adults."
I cant see why they would be that far off the mark, and silly statements like "How can these researchers define what kills people" beggar belief.
2) Can we do anything about it ?
Well, maybe getting the fuel to a higher quality would save some poor sods from a painfull, early death. They havn't had "some guy is shoveling another lump of coal into the furnace " for 25 years, why - because it makes people sick! And as for "NAME ONE!" - you have the authors details - get 'em to read you the first 500!!

Is this some conspiracy to wind me up with bloody stupid remarks?

you always get that here, I apologise for of all those who resort to posting the sort od thing you mentioned above, who post on personalitys, and post for the sake of posting I used to react, now I simply do not care
There are many people who will not listen to any sci study or reason, Aust USA full of em, lets just keep burnin coal til the end
i care not how many jobs are at risk in the short term, whats the use of jobs if the planet is ruined?

[Frosty]

"Serious researchers do not make claims like this lightly or without evidence, and their work is checked and cross-checked by other, independent expert scientists in the specific field before publication."


Researchers are hired to "prove" someones point , as taxi drivers are hired to take passengers to their desired destination.FF

Which one is it Fred?

[charmc]

Frosty,

FYI, the first quote you listed wasn't a statement of Fred's; it was him quoting a previous post by Marshmatt. Fred was consistent in opposing that statement.

[Frosty]

Oh --maybe a small note saying -Quotation- would have helped me.

Sorry for mis understanding I saw the inverted coma's but there is different uses of them,--as do I,---

[FAST FRED]

""the universal consensus on humanity's influence on climate change." unquote

For hundreds and hundreds of years Christianity preachers claimed "THE END IS NEAR!"

Today the Iran clown is attempting to start a nuke war , so the 12th Madi will climb out of a well , and begin the end of the world.

When I was in Skool the return of the ICE AGE was the "the universal consensus" as was Overpopulation and the complete exhaustion of the worlds resources by 1980! And don't forget Nuclear Winter!

The End is Near !! is BS all done by the same folks that hate the modern world , but want to Rule so they can create their UTOPIA --for YOU!

The preachers just wanted cash and an easy good life, these folks want unelected absolute CONTROL.

You get a bicycle and mud hut , they keep the G 5 to get to the beach.

Science was supposed to deal in FACTS that are universally repeatable ,
not in consensus of a flawed computer model , paid for by the Watermellons.

GREEN outside, RED inside.

FF

[Frosty]

The "Iran" clown is doing very well. Nearly 100 dollar a barrel about twice what it was 18 months ago. One mention of nuclear power and we all pay more at the pumps. You think HE is the clown?

[DanishBagger]

Wow, this thread took an unforeseen turn!

[FAST FRED]

"Exxon is currently pumping millions of dollars a year into research to deny global warming,'

This is a comment by someone who does not understand big business.

The oil co are in competition , with each other and with governments that run business. Oil China and Royal Dutch come to mind.

The CEO does the best job of making a profit , with the existing capitalization.

To get a BIG profit he must sell products at very high markup that folks basically won't willingly purchase, Unless, the Force and Fraud of government are applied.

Witness the current gasaholl sillyness in the US.
Farmers get record prices for subsadized ethinol production, cars loose 10% or more in mileage , and the State collects 10% more in gas sales tax as a result. The LOOSER , every citizen.

Solar wind wave and all the "alternate" power is useless as it can not compete with oil , or coal in the real world market.

So introduce a " The End is Near!" crisis , and big corps can get the profits they purchased from Gov mindless meddeling in the market..

FF