Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2020, 08:16 PM
 
Location: DC
6,848 posts, read 7,998,265 times
Reputation: 3572

Advertisements

Wrap your lips around the tail pipe on your running car for 1/2 hour. Tell us how that works out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2020, 07:31 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,265 posts, read 5,147,374 times
Reputation: 17769
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Wrap your lips around the tail pipe on your running car for 1/2 hour. Tell us how that works out.

Thanks for the opportunity to illustrate how measurable "improvements" in air contaminants don't translate into any improvements in health/medical outcomes:


The concentration of CO in rural air is 0.2ppm, and in urban air 1-3ppm, down from 9ppm in 1970 when the EPA started regulating things. https://www.carbonmonoxidekills.com/...ide-emissions/ Great!-- except---


LC10 for CO is 4000ppm (30 min exposure) https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/630080.html (LC10 is the level that will kill the 10% most susceptible subjects, leaving 90% still alive.)


EPA says no adverse health effects are expected at levels less than 30ppm.


So the EPA took perfectly healthy air and imposed regulations to make it even more perfectly healthy. Does that make any sense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2020, 08:30 AM
 
Location: DC
6,848 posts, read 7,998,265 times
Reputation: 3572
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Thanks for the opportunity to illustrate how measurable "improvements" in air contaminants don't translate into any improvements in health/medical outcomes:


The concentration of CO in rural air is 0.2ppm, and in urban air 1-3ppm, down from 9ppm in 1970 when the EPA started regulating things. https://www.carbonmonoxidekills.com/...ide-emissions/ Great!-- except---


LC10 for CO is 4000ppm (30 min exposure) https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/630080.html (LC10 is the level that will kill the 10% most susceptible subjects, leaving 90% still alive.)


EPA says no adverse health effects are expected at levels less than 30ppm.


So the EPA took perfectly healthy air and imposed regulations to make it even more perfectly healthy. Does that make any sense?
You've failed to complete your assignment. Try harder. You don't need to always underachieve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2023, 04:29 PM
 
1,706 posts, read 1,156,460 times
Reputation: 3889
Be childfree.

Seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2023, 05:29 PM
 
Location: California
37,138 posts, read 42,234,436 times
Reputation: 35020
It took awhile but I've reaslized that nothing I can do myself that will make a difference, so I won't be do anything. Don't get me wrong, eventually you, I, and everyone else won't have a choice in certain matters, legislation always sees to that. I'm not convinced most of that will do much either but I won't be around long enough to see the difference a several decades of doing x and not doing y will make so what do I know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2023, 07:58 AM
 
Location: NH
4,214 posts, read 3,763,837 times
Reputation: 6762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
It took awhile but I've reaslized that nothing I can do myself that will make a difference, so I won't be do anything. Don't get me wrong, eventually you, I, and everyone else won't have a choice in certain matters, legislation always sees to that. I'm not convinced most of that will do much either but I won't be around long enough to see the difference a several decades of doing x and not doing y will make so what do I know.
I agree with this. For one, there aren't enough people that care and unless everyone does, any actions you take are pretty much useless. Second, if the Govt was actually concerned about the environment, there is plenty they can do but they don't because its a political game. Not to mention that a lot of these environmental "fixes" often create new environmental issues that did not previously exist and are simply just smoke in mirrors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2023, 10:05 AM
 
3,933 posts, read 2,198,142 times
Reputation: 9996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
It took awhile but I've reaslized that nothing I can do myself that will make a difference, so I won't be do anything. Don't get me wrong, eventually you, I, and everyone else won't have a choice in certain matters, legislation always sees to that. I'm not convinced most of that will do much either but I won't be around long enough to see the difference a several decades of doing x and not doing y will make so what do I know.
Be like a hummingbird

https://thesustainabilityproject.lif...gbird-parable/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2023, 03:37 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,265 posts, read 5,147,374 times
Reputation: 17769
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangman66 View Post
I agree with this. For one, there aren't enough people that care and unless everyone does, any actions you take are pretty much useless. Second, if the Govt was actually concerned about the environment, there is plenty they can do but they don't because its a political game. Not to mention that a lot of these environmental "fixes" often create new environmental issues that did not previously exist and are simply just smoke in mirrors.
I've mentioned this around here before-- In Game Theory (math) there's the classic example of The Prisoners' Dilemma-- two guys are arrested in some authoritarian country and accused of a crime. Separated for interogation, each is told that if convicerted, it will go hard on them, but if you rat on your buddy, it will go easy on you. Of course, there's always the slim chance that you'll be exonerated if you go on trial...

...Each prsioner has to then decide if it's smarter to stay silent and hope his buddy stays silent, or to just rat on the buddy..If the buddy also rats, then both will be convicted...

This can be run thru a computer multiple times as a Markov process, and it turns out that the optimum results are when a guy rats about 2/3rds of the time... Moral to the story-- it more often pays to act selfishly most of the time.

Americans may vote to stop burning fossil fuels, but unless China does it too, we're screwed and they succeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2023, 09:35 PM
 
3,215 posts, read 1,679,883 times
Reputation: 6115
Plants NEED carbon. What we don't need too much is methane emissions that's toxic. So carbon emissions is critical for plants to thrive but the problem is we keep cutting down on trees and forests. In order for a greener planet we need to increase planting of trees which will thrive on carbon and convert to oxygen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2023, 04:24 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,265 posts, read 5,147,374 times
Reputation: 17769
Even oxygen is toxic in hiigh concentrations.

The methane thing is a false argment meant only to scare the naive--

On a molar basis, methane absorbs much more heat than co2, BUT--

a) there's 10000x more co2 in the air than methane,...

b) methane is rapidly oxydized to co2 in the atm, so it doesn't last, and most importantly--

3)methane only absorbs extra heat at the same wavelengths as co2 and h20, and they are already abosrbing all the extra heat, so there's none left over for the methane to absorb....

Methane just isn't a problem for the environment.

But you are right about co2-- Plants, and therefore animals, do better with higher co2 levels. That's why commerical green houses pump it in at levels of 2000ppm instead of relying on nantural levels of 420ppm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top