|
Post by phinehas on May 4, 2007 17:49:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hobophobe on May 4, 2007 22:16:15 GMT -5
Just because there are other factors at work in the production of proteins does not mean the HGP and other genetic studies are worthless. The truth is that the majority of scientific advancement arises from mistaken hypotheses. But all scientific research is valuable whether it confirms or rejects the consensus view.
Indeed, the study of the climate may prove that humans are ineffective toward the climate. That remains to be seen, and if it does we will still be better off for having a much clearer understanding of the mechanisms of our ecosystem.
It is unclear why taking preemptive steps to protect human society from the climate is not desirable regardless of our role in climate change. There are more reasons than man-caused global warming to move to alternative energies, to recycle and reuse, and to invent technologies that reduce emissions. The suggestion that doing so will be harmful to the economy is nothing but FUD. The exact opposite is true: innovation and change drives the economy forward.
Manufacturing electric cars will be highly profitable, as will the creation and maintenance of a nation-wide light rail system. Solar power, wind farms, underground housing, these are all endeavors requiring manufacturing and labor. These are infrastructure-building industries that create wealth.
Even President Bush has agreed there is climate change. He disagrees with most scientists about man causing it, but that is not an issue that needs to be tackled to recognize the need for man to adapt to the world.
We have not had a president in the last 30 years that had the drive to make America first class in anything, and that's the real tragedy. At stake is the future of our nation and yet all our leaders do (on both sides of the monolithic aisle) are bicker.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 5, 2007 7:22:24 GMT -5
Many many excellent points hobophobe (love that name)...
The sad part is that "we" in the world of engineering have been "developing" ALL sources of energy (I refuse to think in terms of "alternate" sources of energy...a source is a source) for many decades...
This nation could by now be producing almost 100% of it's electricity with nulear-fueled plants...but there is this little problem called "spent fuel" and two major negative attitudes that prevail against it...the decision (from government) to ban re-processing, and the NIMBY mentality to long term storage...either in concrete vaults or the newer dry storage casks...
The massive use of any source of energy has its drawbacks ("costs"), and the constant hammering on the negatives, and being "defensive" in our policies has been very detrimental to energy policy and development in this country...
With Chernobyl, the Soviets proved the idiocy of ignoring basic safety features -- like containment -- and our own experience with Three Mile Island showed some of our shortcomings in the sophisticated world of instrumentation SNAFUs, but the political arena has turned those "incidences" into huge barriers...
Now...after saying all that, I'll get on my REAL soap box...
The biggest single factor driving the energy/global warming "debate" in my opinion is abject anti-capitalism...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 5, 2007 14:50:14 GMT -5
The attitude of the global warming cultists is the biggest single impediment to them being taken seriously.
Exhibit for the prosecution #1: Albert "Pope Algore I" Gore, Jr.
No single person has done more harm to his movement since Josef Stalin.
If you want to convince a capitalist that environmentalism is in his best self-interest, appeal to his wallet. Tell me how cutting energy useage >voluntarily< and perhaps offering me additional incentives (tax cuts perhaps?) to do so will put money in my pocket and I'll sign up in a heartbeat.
But tell me that you're planning to use governmental (or extra-governmental) force or threat of force to compel me to roll back my lifestyle to the 1950s and you're not going to get me to be a very enthusiastic participant in the process.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 5, 2007 14:59:33 GMT -5
i bought cfl's when they first were introduced, paid almost $10 each for them and have already SAVED well more than they cost on the electric bill....because it made sense, the light is the same or better, and conserving resources has always made sense.
claiming humans have overruled nature and taken control of the climate on the other hand makes NO SENSE on any level!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 5, 2007 15:38:13 GMT -5
I sorta like the CFLs myself.
The light takes a bit of getting used to, but they do last forever plus thirteen minutes.
Did you hear the nightmare story about the hazardous waste cleanup that is necessary if you happen to break one?
A mother up in Maine was changing a regular lightbulb for a CFL and dropped the CFL which broke.
Knowing that the CFL bulb contained mercury, she contacted the local poison control center to find out what the hazard might be.
They told her to contact the local state EPA office, who came out, tested the air and noted a mercury level some fifty times higher than the danger threshold. they suggested she get a private HAZMAT team to do a cleanup and that she seal off the room- her daughter's bedroom- until she could get it professionally cleaned.
A private company did the job and charged her a bit over TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS for the time and effort. They also gave her a twenty-point checklist of steps to take to clean it herself but advised her that it was highly dangerous for her to do so.
She tried to get her insurance company to pay the bill, but they refused because it was loss caused by environmental pollution and suggested that she contact the state or national EPA to see if they might cover at least part of the cost.
I'm not saying don't use CFLs...but be careful. VERY careful.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 5, 2007 15:54:13 GMT -5
I sorta like the CFLs myself. The light takes a bit of getting used to, but they do last forever plus thirteen minutes. Did you hear the nightmare story about the hazardous waste cleanup that is necessary if you happen to break one? A mother up in Maine was changing a regular lightbulb for a CFL and dropped the CFL which broke. Knowing that the CFL bulb contained mercury, she contacted the local poison control center to find out what the hazard might be. They told her to contact the local state EPA office, who came out, tested the air and noted a mercury level some fifty times higher than the danger threshold. they suggested she get a private HAZMAT team to do a cleanup and that she seal off the room- her daughter's bedroom- until she could get it professionally cleaned. A private company did the job and charged her a bit over TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS for the time and effort. They also gave her a twenty-point checklist of steps to take to clean it herself but advised her that it was highly dangerous for her to do so. She tried to get her insurance company to pay the bill, but they refused because it was loss caused by environmental pollution and suggested that she contact the state or national EPA to see if they might cover at least part of the cost. I'm not saying don't use CFLs...but be careful. VERY careful. What a HORROR Story!!I enjoyed your post. You're a great spokesman for the traditional 'light bulb' industry! LOL
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 5, 2007 16:07:51 GMT -5
i would be afraid of them also if i didnt KNOW a few things....when i was young the long tubes started being used(they contain about 10 TIMES as much mercury ya know?) when one broke you swept up the white powder and threw them in the garbage....this happened a few times in the presence of people i KNOW lived to be 97 and 83, going on for many YEARS after their exposure, and the person that handled the cleanup a couple of times is still alive now at age 81 and very healthy.
no hazmat teams were called in, NOBODY got sick, NOBODY was harmed by the contact with mercury.
i used to also buy mercury at the drugstore and put it on silver coins, they shown brilliantly for maybe a day then turned a dusty grey color....rubbed it on them with bare hands, NEVER got sick in any way and was never harmed by handing the stuff with BARE hands.
as some fella said long ago, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself"....too bad my fellow citizens dont know history!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 5, 2007 18:51:14 GMT -5
I just think people ought to make informed choices.
You should know that the CFL bulbs contain mercury that can pollute the enviornment.
You should know that ethanol creates more pollutants than does gasoline when burned.
You should know that giant windmills that generate electricity also kill thousands of migratory birds.
In one's haste to 'save the planet', one should not take steps that might destroy the planet.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 5, 2007 19:00:27 GMT -5
you should also know that the many more tubes people are around daily have 10 TIMES as much mercury and yet there is no environmental "scare" or damage from their use from 50 years or so throughout the business/workplace.
|
|
|
Post by hobophobe on May 5, 2007 21:28:51 GMT -5
Snopes.com has a debunking of the HAZMAT issue with CFLs. Of course they contain mercury, but like anything in life it's about trade-offs. Also, I was under the impression that changing the ratios on wind mills resulted in a slower rotational speed with bigger blades. Birds supposedly had an easier time getting around them. There's a recent story (May 3rd or so) that indicates the safety is still being studied. Google News results for 'wind farms' has a number of versions of that report/article. Wikipedia has a good roundup of the dangers of turbines to wildlife. That article section suggests the biggest danger now is posed to bats. Most of the bird-risks can be alleviated.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 5, 2007 22:51:26 GMT -5
you should also know that the many more tubes people are around daily have 10 TIMES as much mercury and yet there is no environmental "scare" or damage from their use from 50 years or so throughout the business/workplace. There's a difference. The eco-chondriacs are pushing a government mandate to force us to change out ALL incandescent bulbs in favor of these CFLs. I'm pretty sure that most homes have no regular fluorescent bulbs in them and that, of those that do have some, they don't have many. If the typical home has, say, 20 light fixtures and has to put CFLs in all of them by government mandate, simple math should tell you that the mercury amounts will skyrocket. No one is arguing that a 48" fluorescent bulb has the same amount of mercury in it as a single CFL. But what if 5 do? Or six?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 5, 2007 22:52:54 GMT -5
hobo-
You're probably- emphasis on 'probably'- right.
Still...wouldn't it be a good idea to do sufficient research to prove or disprove the risk before taking a step that might cause more problems than it solves?
|
|