THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Rich Piehl on 11 Jul 2010 10:27 On 7/11/2010 4:32 AM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 10, 10:22 pm, Rich Piehl > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >> On 7/10/2010 9:49 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 9:49 am, Rich Piehl >>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2010 5:13 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >>>>> On Jul 9, 4:39 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/9/2010 1:49 PM, Larry G wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/9/2010 11:43 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 9, 12:34 pm, Rich Piehl >>>>>>>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2010 6:55 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> cost. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... >> >>>>>>>>>>> not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does >>>>>>>>>>> putting pollution into the environment. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour >>>>>>>>>>>>>> electric if they tried it. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get >>>>>>>>>>>> replaced with something REALLY expensive. >> >>>>>>>>>>> according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a >>>>>>>>>>> wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected >>>>>>>>>>> in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized >>>>>>>>>>> cost of power production." >> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf >> >>>>>>>>>>> the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care >>>>>>>>>>> anyhow, right? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just don't eat so much fish. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may >>>>>>>>>>>>> be accumulating it in their tissues. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Still, I eat this food. >> >>>>>>>>>>> it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? >> >>>>>>>>>> How many children die automobile accidents each year, or have permanent >>>>>>>>>> injuries as a result of them. By your logic cars should be banned. >>>>>>>>>> Same with children riding bicycles. Children are injured by house >>>>>>>>>> household cleaners and other chemicals. Better ban those. Children >>>>>>>>>> drown in bathtubs and swimming pools. Better ban those. Children get >>>>>>>>>> asphyxiated in houses with furnaces that leak carbon monoxide. Better >>>>>>>>>> ban furnaces. For that matter kids die and are injured in house fires. >>>>>>>>>> Better ban houses and fire. >> >>>>>>>>>> It's kids Larry. How much is it worth to save the life of a child, or >>>>>>>>>> prevent them from being injured? >> >>>>>>>>>> Your argument makes just as much sense as mine. >> >>>>>>>>> Hey Rich - you may have noticed just how much stuff that injures kids >>>>>>>>> has been banned.... already.. eh? >> >>>>>>>>> It's not only kids - with Mercury. It bio-accumulates and spreads and >>>>>>>>> becomes more concentrated in the environment... affecting pregnant >>>>>>>>> women and most of the critters in the river as well as pasture animals >>>>>>>>> that we use for food - It's gets into feed also that is fed to >>>>>>>>> poultry.... >> >>>>>>>>> It's not like a chronic pollution like too much nutrients in the river >>>>>>>>> or even acid rain. It's like a pesticide that does not degrade.... >>>>>>>>> most of which that have been used on crops and lawns , etc have been >>>>>>>>> either banned or very severely restricted. >> >>>>>>>>> If something hurts KIDS guy.. it means it hurts all humans but we see >>>>>>>>> it first in the kids... you need to get more environmental >>>>>>>>> "smarts"... >> >>>>>>>>> It's one thing to be opposed - for cause - another to not know the >>>>>>>>> issue... >> >>>>>>>> What difference does it whether it is instantaneous or cumulative? Dead >>>>>>>> is dead. Maimed is maimed. Everything on my list hurts and kills >>>>>>>> humans, adults and children, alike too. >> >>>>>>>> You need to be more intellectually honest. >> >>>>>>> cumulative means it accumulates to higher and higher levels.. the >>>>>>> longer it goes on the more damage that occurs... >> >>>>>>> you need to become literate in the subject matter if you don't >>>>>>> understand the difference between bio-persistent and not. >> >>>>>>> that's more than intellectually honest.. it means you have some >>>>>>> intellect to be honest with. >> >>>>>> I know what cumulative means. Do they still continue to accumulate >>>>>> after a person is dead? Do you know what DEAD means? >> >>>>>> What is the culmination of that cumulative effect? Death. Death is >>>>>> death, whether it was a slow cumulative death or an instantaneous one. >>>>>> So how does the cumulative death merit more legislation and more control >>>>>> that a an instantaneous one? Even during the accumulation process the >>>>>> person is still alive, which is better than when they are dead, isn't >>>>>> it? Yet you believe that the potential for the cumulative effect which >>>>>> may never even reach death deserves more controls than the potential for >>>>>> the finality of death. Completely inconsistent, Larry. >> >>>>>> As always, Larry, you believe only your perspective deserves merit, and >>>>>> anyone else who differs immediately deserves to be talked down to. >> >>>>> it's not just death guy. It's living but living a degraded life.. a >>>>> lower IQ (from mercury) or forever needing medical assistance from >>>>> damage from dirty air...or having to move because of it... >> >>>>> and it has to do with EQUITY - why are you allowed to do something >>>>> that causes harm to others as opposed to the practice being outlawed >>>>> and/or regulated to protect others. >> >>>>> your thinking that it is only about death.. demonstrates that you've >>>>> not thought much about the real issues. >> >>>> As I said every item on my list has the potential to maim, as well. >>>> And some of them do thousands of times a year. You mention quality of >>>> life, but completely neglect that aspect. Proving you only see things >>>> from one perspective. You completely ignore anybody else's perspective. >>>> Again. >> >>> well I see things from the facts that are found on Wiki and the EPA >>> site and other sites ... instead of relying on right-wing blogs >> >>> unlike some.. I do believe what the EPA has to say about a lot of this >>> especially if other credible organizations agree... and I prefer not >>> to believe the right-wing conspiracy idiots. >> >> I wasn't aware that automobile fatality and injury statistics are from >> right wing blogs. Nor was I aware that deaths and injuries in home >> fires, or from household chemicals. >> >> Boy, I'm sure glad you aren't a left wing loon, or you might see right >> wing conspiracies where there are none. >> >> BUZZZZZ!!! Larry loses again. On several counts. > > there's a pretty significant difference between design and safety of > voluntarily-bought consumer products that can and are withdrawn from > the market, redesigned, etc, and pollution in the environment that > cannot be "undone" and is not voluntary and will continue harm > forever... But there is no difference between the outcome. Dead and maimed is dead and maimed. You were the one that was clamoring "it's about the kids" and now you are saying it's about the cause not about the effect. Proving what has been said, and what I was trying to prove. It's not about the kids for you. The kids are not the issue. The kids are a smokescreen. You can't say it's about the kids and then start parsing the argument based on the cause. > > If you do screw up the climate - there may well be no going back. > How do you know that? The climate seems to have recovered from the ice age, periods of great climate warming (not man made) as well as climate changes caused by volcanoes. Your claim is unsubstantiated fear mongering. > but the right wing idiots don't seem to get that part... and instead > equate it to automobile defects..and "accidents". > > what you chose to believe or not - won't change the realities nor the > consequences if we can't go back. > Unprovable unless you can time travel. > The chances that we'd have an oil spill of the magnitude that we now > have - even if infinitesimally small was very real as was the > consequences and the damage cannot be easily undone and may remain for > decades. > > and that is as bad as it is ...just a small part of the Earth's total > environment. And the chances of auto accidents causing injuries and death are far greater, but you choose to parse the argument and ignore that aspect. Now it's about the earth. Now it's not about the kids or the cause. It's about the earth. > > Equate this to GW which may also have an infestesimally small chance > (in some folks eyes) of being "real" but if it is - it could be a > climate version of the oil spill and planet-wide in terms of damage > that cannot be undone. And now the argument is moving to global warming? C'mon Larry, focus. I thought this was about trace metals and kids with learning problems. Changing the argument again. > > this is the difference between confusing auto statistics and the > environment. Apparently in the right wing world - if GW turns out to > be "real" after all.. then it's just an unfortunate "accident" that we > guessed wrong on - and oh well.. we're not perfect. > > The oil spill is an example of that kind of thinking. ...the oil spill > is just an unfortunate accident that could not have been foreseen..or > predicted even though the left-wing loon scientists did warn about the > potentials if it did happen.. no matter ...we threw the dice ... and > now that we lost - it was...an "accident". > > the difference with accidents of this type - is that they cannot be > undone - unlike fixing "defects" in Autos or the inevitability of a > certain percentage of people dying from real accidents - the Gulf > is... not one or two people - it is everyone and the damage is massive > and long lasting. > > The right wing folks are apparently willing to take the same approach > we did with deep water drilling and it's consequences - with the > climate. > Would it be possible for you to maintain a train of thought? In the last 4 paragraphs we got global warming, oil spill, and a rant against right wingers. And for the record I don't know of a single person who thinks the oil spill is a good thing.
From: Larry G on 11 Jul 2010 12:18 On Jul 11, 10:27 am, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> > > And now the argument is moving to global warming? C'mon Larry, focus. > I thought this was about trace metals and kids with learning problems. > Changing the argument again. > did you read the title of the thread? the argument is pollution that derives from our human activities and what the impacts are and what we think they might or might not be - and what i'm pointing out to you is that mercury is not an "accident" that causes deaths... compared to auto accidents unless you believe that we can "engineer" our way out of "mistakes" like mercury pollution or global warming or ozone holes. you might be able to - if you act in time - maybe but if you deny it from the get go and essentially question the science then how do you reconcile the "science" behind Ozone, Mercury, etc and the thread here is that some folks essentially doubt it all - no matter what the facts say and they treat things like Mercury in the environment as unavoidable and/or an unfortunate "accident". and that's simply not true unless you're going to totally discount the science and believe what you want to believe - your favorite right wing blogs...
From: Rich Piehl on 11 Jul 2010 16:47 On 7/11/2010 11:18 AM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 11, 10:27 am, Rich Piehl > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> >> >> And now the argument is moving to global warming? C'mon Larry, focus. >> I thought this was about trace metals and kids with learning problems. >> Changing the argument again. >> > > did you read the title of the thread? > Did you or did you not bring up traces of mercury (I believe you used the chemical designation Hg) in the soil, talk about things being eaten off the ground building up in tissue and say "it's about the kids?" How is that about global warming? THAT was the point at which I jumped in and pointed out your inconsistency. You are like the governor of Texas in "Best Little Whorehouse"
From: Larry G on 11 Jul 2010 19:55 On Jul 11, 4:47 pm, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/11/2010 11:18 AM, Larry G wrote:> On Jul 11, 10:27 am, Rich Piehl > > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> > > >> And now the argument is moving to global warming? C'mon Larry, focus. > >> I thought this was about trace metals and kids with learning problems. > >> Changing the argument again. > > > did you read the title of the thread? > > Did you or did you not bring up traces of mercury (I believe you used > the chemical designation Hg) in the soil, talk about things being eaten > off the ground building up in tissue and say "it's about the kids?" > > How is that about global warming? > > THAT was the point at which I jumped in and pointed out your inconsistency. > > You are like the governor of Texas in "Best Little Whorehouse" the discussion was poo poo GW ...as well as many of the other concerns about pollution in the environment... and basically equating them all to a trumped-up enviro-weenie agenda... totally consistent... and totally the pure right wing BS these days... as you are aware. comparing mercury in the environment to automobile accidents - is consistent but wrong.
From: Day Brown on 12 Jul 2010 05:11
On 07/11/2010 06:55 PM, Larry G wrote: > the discussion was poo poo GW ...as well as many of the other concerns > about pollution in the environment... and basically equating them all > to a trumped-up enviro-weenie agenda... > > totally consistent... and totally the pure right wing BS these > days... as you are aware. > > comparing mercury in the environment to automobile accidents - is > consistent but wrong. There is a synergy between environmental and food contamination, inappropriate diet affecting childhood mental development, and that in turn leading to neurosis expressed as right wing denial of GW. But we are where we are. The Right wing votes enuf that no effective policy can get a mandate to do anything. And as you see, you cannot convince a neurotic of the truth with just the facts. So the question is, not how to stop global warming because that is politically impossible, but what to do about it. And here, you get to vote with your feet to whatever area or community you think will be able to adapt to whatever both economic and weather changes are. So- what do you think your readers should _do_? |