BloggersBase - Comments for article Where has common sense gone in America?

By myqute

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:53:27 GMT

YOU hit the sore spot FINELY!! Kudos to this effort Robehren!

By InvestaMania

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:51:58 GMT

dude, you are waaaay off. I still can't believe that people such as you will come up and say some retarded stuff like Bush did a few years ago.

I would recommend you do some real research, instead of just looking at some volcano numbers and the AVERAGE coal plant pollution

You're distorting the numbers buddy. First, yes there are natural sources that emit greenhouse gases, but we're going above the capacity that the earth can absorb with all our additions. You add other factors such AS DEFORESTATION and you'll see that the rate in which the gases are eliminated are much slower.

Plus buddy, you're using the average number for coal plant pollution. First, that leaves out outliers. Additionally, when you say 5.2M tons for coal plants per year vs. volcano numbers, you forget that volcanos, especially the big ones, do not erupt that often.

And, you have to add all the coal plants in the whole world. Gar emmisions, waste, etc, etc. That's the correct number you should use in calculating greenhouse emissions and whether that is a problem, not your biased number and cherry picking examples.

I'm sorry, but you need to get some common sense

By Anomaly

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:29:43 GMT

Hmmmmm: An interesting and controversial subject. Two things that I dearly love. Let's look at some interesting facts that your basic High School biology student should be able to verify.

Fact- CO2 makes up less than one tenth of one percent of our atmospheric gases. (0.03% to be more precise)

Fact- plants breathe in CO2 and exhale oxygen.

Fact- Humans breathe in Oxygen and exhale CO2.

Fact- Carbon MONOXIDE (Or CO) is a deadly poison.

Question - How is something that is essential to the complete cycle of carbon based life forms hazardous to the continuation of that same life form as a species?

Question - How will we make this a greener planet by killing off everything that provides food for the plants?

Question - How will the plants survive with no food and how can we survive with no plants?

Question - Should we consider going after the real pollutants that are actually creating problems without destroying our own economy and ecology in the process?

Trick Question - How many people in Africa and other third world nations have died due to the banning of DDT and the resulting outbreak of Malaria and other diseases that had previously been defeated made their triumphant return with the onset of the mosquito problems that came about from the use of less effective methods which are every bit as hazardous ... even to the limited degree that any of them were.

Just the facts please? Maybe you could include some more information about how fish are polluting the environment with their emissions? I am curiously concerned about those Gar Emissions that you mention having caught many of them in my youth. (Okay, I know it was a typo ... at least I think it was ... but I could not resist)

By myqute in response to Anomaly

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:29:25 GMT

@Anomaly - Carbon dioxide is CO2, not carbon monoxide (which is CO). CO (gas emmission from vehicles, etc) is more deadly than CO2.

Your trick question has a lot to do with quality of healthcare. Pesticides, insecticides and herbicides can all be made from leaves of peppermint plant, tomatoes and garlic. And unlike DDT, it will repell insects without killing them.

Like you I am very concerned about toxic (in air, food, etc) so if you have any statistics of people dying from malaria versus poisoning from DDT , would you please direct me to the info? Thanks!

By myqute

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:35:52 GMT

I know I commented in this before but just want to add more of my thoughts.

I was told that global warming is a farce (a response to one of my older blog entries) - because since the time of dinosaurs, our planet had been changing. Regardless of whether it's the truth or something to change environmentalists' mind about global warming, you can't refute that coal tar and methane pollute the air!

In fact all the methane pollution generated is more than the carbon monoxide generated from all vehicles and planes combined in the world.

Coal tar is found in barbeque charcoal and the toxic from it ends up on some of our own BBQ food.

And the methane levels alone in corporate-run farms are able to kill a third to half of these poor farm animals.

Waste, blood, animal excrements from corporate-run animal farms pollute rivers, kills fishes, etc.

What's in the numbers?, some people ask.

If it's just one person in the whole wide world, a nobody dying from air pollution, may be you won't be concerned. But if that one person is someone you love, ask that question again. Is it a matter of numbers? Do more need to die before people see the problem? What has stats shown you?

The EPA is doing a great job but is the US government listening?

P.S. To avoid any possible confusion: carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide is CO.

By Anomaly in response to myqute

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:54:42 GMT

Yes, I am aware of the differences between CO2 and CO or Carbon MONOXIDE which is why I stated that in my comment ... whereas CO2 is actually an important part of the cycle of life for all carbon based life forms.

Sources:
http://blumberg-serv.bio.uci.edu/past teaching/bio2B-sp2005/DDT-Amy.ppt
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=68
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no8/03-0082.htm
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/DDT
http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm

Unfortunately, many of the reports are overtly partisan (or politically slanted) so it can be difficult to discern what is actually meant versus what is written sometimes.

Funny, I managed an "organic" farm but three or four times a year the govt would spray all my crops with the latest chemicals to kill mosquitoes. I share your concern but until politics are removed from the equation it will remain an impossible solution. If science is "pure" there can only be one set of facts and one correct conclusion but when it is used to advance political doctrine as it has been for the last three or four decades ... then you can see true man-made disasters in play ... and not due to the environment or natural climates we live in.

The problem with using your solution to "drive them off" without killing them (the mosquitoes) would probably still be an issue for anyone who lives wherever you drive them off to. As for changes to the ecosystem due to killing the primary source of food for many small reptiles and birds, I am not up to date on any of the information so I would have a difficult time debating that one factually without some research first. It does seem as though it would also have adverse reactions so what is "best" would always be subjective according to the people conducting the research.

PS It is not a "trick question" as I will only return kindness for kindness whether we agree or not ;)

Thanks,

By Anomaly in response to myqute

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:08:47 GMT

"I was told that global warming is a farce (a response to one of my older blog entries) - because since the time of dinosaurs, our planet had been changing. Regardless of whether it's the truth or something to change environmentalists' mind about global warming, you can't refute that coal tar and methane pollute the air!"

Actually, I would say it has been going on since the creation (no matter whether you believe in a creation by a Supreme God or through naturally occurring events) of the earth.

Mind you it is called Global Climate Change according to the New AP Style Handbook as it is now shown that the Earth has been cooling for the last ten years. Leave it to the free and independent press to make it partisan. LOL As far as stopping it? I think we would have just as good fortune stopping earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons and other natural disasters. The largest periods of actual recorded global warming were well before the industrial age.

If the EPA is doing a good job, why are they going after CO2 emissions and not Carbon Monoxide emissions? Mind you, I have very real and personal reasons for my mistrust of the government and its agencies. In the US, my home was powered strictly by wind and solar but according to the government, I needed to be hooked into their grid. I can tell you the story but this is not the place for that.

One thing I do see hope in is the "recycling" of methane from farms and even landfills. These gases are trapped and used as natural gas resources, being sold at a profit and minimizing pollution. Unfortunately, the global economy is largely reliant on the oil industry as well and I really do believe that the reasons for relying primarily on oil are as much politically motivated as any other "logical" reasoning. But that remains largely an "opinion" according to the US government.

Ward

By InvestaMania in response to myqute

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:41:19 GMT

myqute,

i feel like you may be missing the point. Sure, waste and animal excrements pollute. However, those things happen at a rate at which the environment can absorb and replenish itself. In general, those natural things you are talking about are offset by the rate at which things normalize.

Additionally, you have to take into account that things such as deforestation is REDUCING the replenish rate of things.

And, yes things are changing. EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS CHANGING. Most things in this world are not static and things are always changing. What you need to look is the RATE at which things are changing. Are we impacting the natural rate of things? and in the wrong direction?

So, nothing is absolute. It is not as if there is no natural pollution. There is, however, the environment offsets those things.

Additionally, it's not as if you can't emit greenhouse gases. It's about the amount in which you pollute and whether that is sustainable.

Finally, most things change. You have to look at the underlying facts and see whether the CURRENT change is different and why.

Cheers.

Plus, I just put out a post on the matter. And I got one more coming.

By myqute in response to InvestaMania

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:11:14 GMT

Thank you InvestaMania! I understand what you say about the rate (numbers) at which environment self-replenishes. InvestaMania, the numbers I was referring to wasn't the one you were talking about. (This topic reminded of of the time when people debated whether a questionable rpoduct should have been removed from supermarkets just due to ONE complaint. That was what "number" I was referring to.)

I agree with you that deforestation is one more thing that has more negative effects than positive ones. Deforestation is worser when it's done with fire! :(

"You have to look at the underlying facts and see whether the CURRENT change is different and why."

Yes, I agree with you. Please notify when your entry is up - I am interested in pollution and toxic, and especially interested to see how political leaders can do some positive change!

Lots of good wishes from me to you! :)

By myqute in response to Anomaly

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:20:02 GMT

@Anomaly - sorry my bad! I was tired when I was reading comments on BB! I thought I saw somewhere that someone said Carbon Monoxide is CO2. Talk about being cross-eyed (I'm using multiple tabs in Firefox) y >,<

"Unfortunately, many of the reports are overtly partisan (or politically slanted) so it can be difficult to discern what is actually meant versus what is written sometimes."

I see your point and agree with this! I do not know mortality rate of a lot of birds and reptiles either. Just looking at the pollution and animal cruelty happening in corporate-run animal farms make me feel so helpless. That is why I have decided to turn to blogging hoping more people will be aware of how treatment of animals has an indirect relationship with the food we eat, and also with our health.

Your "trick question" is still good - makes me think! That is why I responded.

By the way, thank you so much for the links you gave! I will be sure to check them out! :)

Just me,
kelly (myqute)

By myqute in response to Anomaly

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:59:27 GMT

"If the EPA is doing a good job, why are they going after CO2 emissions and not Carbon Monoxide emissions?"

I was until now, not aware of this! The EPA did a good job when they fired the FDA for allowing Toxic in food (and other things I can't recall offhand now)!

"Mind you, I have very real and personal reasons for my mistrust of the government and its agencies. "

Me too! If you read my blog entries here, may be you will feel that too. I don't trust my govt any more than you trust yours (I am from Singapore). And with good reasons! I see no need to 'rebel' without a good cause!

"In the US, my home was powered strictly by wind and solar but according to the government, I needed to be hooked into their grid. I can tell you the story but this is not the place for that."

Please, feel free to tweet me at Twitter.com/qutequte if you think we can can have an exchange of information that benefits one another. If there's anything about Singapore you want to know, feel free to ask too!

Best regards
kelly (myqute)