Tree Hugging Hippie Crap:

[Thrawn]

Hey miko!  For someone that's well read, your spelling is terrible.    

[mietla]

Now, that is a powerful argument.

[MrRiplEy]

Well, at least the people in the US are already starting to taste the effects of the global warming..

If you think tornadoes are bad now, wait untill the average temp goes up a degree or two. THEN you'll see tornadoes.

I guess Mr.Bush thinks they'll save more money rebuilding half of the florida over and over again.

[Dowding]

You miss my point by about three and a half miles, hblair.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by mietla:
Now, that is a powerful argument.

So is that.  So is this.    

[hblair]

My point, dowding, was if you want to slam the US, you should use something relevant. The civil rights struggle in the south is (for the most part) over. The Native Americans are no longer run off their land. The Civil war is long settled.

Now, if you brought up school shootings, etc. in the US, you'd have brought up a current problem of ours, thus making a point, but all the stuff listed above is just old news. That'd be like me making fun of brits because that guy in the house of commons still wears that wig from the 1700's. Oh! Wait, he still does!  

(just kidding)

[MrRiplEy]

HBlair: You (as in americans on this forum) brought up the history and past wars.. That's why a counter argument was in place.

I tried to point out that unless some of you are native americans, all that past european stuff also applies to you in your roots. So it's generally not very good idea to dig up things there for trying to slam the europeans.. However my point was not understood by many it seems.

I have a better idea: let's slam the aussies, they're relatively criminal (pun intended)  

[hblair]

Yeah, the aussies! Llook at what they did to the Ab- -

er Abor--

I meant the Aborigi-- -

How do you spell that?!?

 

[Dowding]

I won't hear of anything said against the Aussies. I like the Aussies alot. No, I really do. I'm trying to get on the good side of one so he/she will recommend me for emigration.

I can drink Fosters lager and everything. I always cheer when Australia beat England at cricket.

Please, for god's sake, let me in!!!! I can't stand anymore of this rainy, crappy, changeable weather!  

[Yoj]

Originally posted by Dowding:
I won't hear of anything said against the Aussies. I like the Aussies alot. No, I really do. I'm trying to get on the good side of one so he/she will recommend me for emigration.

I can drink Fosters lager and everything. I always cheer when Australia beat England at cricket.

Please, for god's sake, let me in!!!! I can't stand anymore of this rainy, crappy, changeable weather!  

No problem - you can always move to Seattle  

- Yoj

[Sparks]

Quotes from Miko2D

 That is not obvious from your post.

Which is why I made the point - you don't know me Miko....

[QB}It seems that once you see something that you are ignorant about, instead of figuring out or learning why that is, your tolerance runs out.[/QB]

You have no clue what or how much I have looked into this - perhaps I have looked into it enough to have become disillusioned enough to become intollerant - hey thats a radical thought.  

Please allow me to enlighten you on a few points any child is supposed to learn in school

Ok - lets see what you learnt in school that I didn't.......

What use seing if you brain is not involved?

Good start - another insult. Maybe I have used my brain in judging the cases put by both sides of the global warming argument and decided that there is not enough eveidence on either side and so looked at personal experiences and then look for explanations of what I see - that as I remember from school is the basis of analysis.

I see 1 in 4 kids in our schools carrying inhalers for asthmer - it was almost unheard of when I was at school
And when was that? In the few recent decades medicine made enormous progress - especially pediatric care and obstetrics. Infant mortality dropped enormously so lots of babies who would not have a chance to survive pregnancy or first few months are alive today so you can see them. Of course those people would be less healthy then avarage. Plus they would in turn make babies who would inherit their parent's weaknesses.
 On top of that you have huge progress in fertility treatments so sick people who would not have had babies in the past now often do and sometimes have babies with inheritable diseases.
  How about our generous welfare state where the whole generations of mothers are using drugs and alcohol and making sick babies by the dozen to survive and tarnish your statistics

Lets see - from the early 70's to today - no I don't think there has been a major improvement in infant mortality in the UK in that period - certainly not enough to see an increase in inherited diseases and as I understand asthma is not inherited but more probably enviromental.  I find your comments on fertility treatment and welfare disturbing and I won't elaborate on that further....

Similar thing happened in WWI when introduction of steel helmets caused more people with headwounds in the hospitals - not becasue helmets attracted bullets but because they allowed survive a bullet hit with just a wound!

 So you see how a positive thing of more babies being born and surviving despite some of them being weaker is presented as a negative by manipulating politicians or morons like you.

By your theory that 25% of kids with asthma would have died as infants and so not been here to be included in the stats ???!!! - infant mortatlity decreased by that much - I don't think so.... oh and another insult to round it off - wtg.

I see every man and his dog with unexplained allergies
Same thing as the  previous point plus lots of cheap food produced that involve artificial ingredients, lots of new materials some people are allergic to, etc.

Thankyou - my point entirely - bean counter mentality without regard for outcomes.

Nobody prevents people from buying all-natural stuff. It is more expencive then common products but not more expencive then natural stuff was 50 years ago when it was produced on inferior technology or manually.[/QB]

Wrong - it is a lot more expensive due to a premium being taken by the suppliers

If you buy a Honda Civic instead of Ford Explorer every five years, the difference would be enough to pay for all-natural food and clothes. Most people do not chose that.

Yep - that what I mean - greed based society.

I see my and my neighbours and relatives dying of cancers of every type
Lot of them would not have been diagnosed in the past or would not have survived to get cancer because average life expectancy is much longer now. Are you going to argue that it is not? All your personal observations are BS because people do live longer, not shorter lives and that is a common knowlege.

Classic assumption here that only old people get cancer - people I have known - wifes friend 18 yrs old died chest cancer, family freinds both husband and wife leukemia (probably enviromentally caused as onset together but cause unknown), family friend mid 30's leukemia, next door neighbour 20 years old died heart cancer.....
I DO know that my freinds and neighbours were not passing away at that rate 30 yrs ago.

I see millions of acres of every type of enviroment destroyed to make money - tropical forest in Africa for oil, rain forest in South America for timber and cattle
Have you noticed that human population increased considerably over the same time?

Ahhhh - so because we our population is increasing we can take whatever we want - now thats responsible.

I see the blind use of finite resources because they are there and cheap.
Once they start running out, they will get more expencive.

And that will lead to what ... looks in history books about what happens when commodoties become scarce and expensive.... oh yes conflict and wars ...

WHAT THE HOLY F**K do you all think is going to happen when all this cheap fuel runs out ??????
Then it will become commercially feasable to invest money into newer or more expencive tectnologies. The laws of society and ecnomics are as basic laws of nature as the physical law of gravity.

There speaks a bean counter - lets not do anything today because it's "not financially viable" - it may be socially responsible and maybe even prudent but if it bucks the balance sheet it's the old heave-ho. If we don't develop alternatives now then it will be too late when it runs out.

What do you think our grand kids are going to do when the last of the fossil fuel resources are controlled by one or two countries or corporations.
They will stop buying huge SUVs and industrial size air-conditioners and having showers every day and switch to solar collectors.

That's what I like to see - we can have our cake today and let our kids wash the dishes for us tomorrow - ever thought we might like to leave them something a bit nicer than conflict and crap after we're dead ???

So 1776 why don't you look past your own selfish life and think what we might be capable of in another 4000 years.
Why would we care what will happen in 4000 years?

  its called responsibilty

we can plan for no longer then 20 years anyway because everything changes too fast - rechnology, explosive population growth, politics.

No we in the west with bean counters can't plan past tomorrow. I think if you look toward China you will see they plan for 50 - 100 yrs ahead - it's in their culture. France developed a railway system with a 25 yr plan that is still being implemented now.

We strive for constant economic growth because the bean counters in grey suits say thats the only way for a country's economy to survive and so we fight for the resources to keep growing
They are only saying that because shareholders (us) want that. What is your pencion fund invested in?

You mean the pension funds which are now failing to produce the income expected or which are empty because they have been raided by corporate accountants ??  Share prices do not need constant ecomomic growth to go up, they need profitable companies and profitable companies can be run ethically.

and you know what?? - those resources have to come from somewhere, from other poorer people or from natural resource but from somewhere. Its a culture of pure greed and laziness and it's worldwide - poachers killing tigers in Russia or Shell digging for oil in Antartica its all the same "F**K you and everyone else there's money to be made here" .... and I tell you I am sick to the pit of my stomach with it.
And we are all voting for it every day when we pay money for stuff we could live without and for comforts that are not really necessary, etc... Such is a human nature.

That was the phrase I was waiting for "human nature" - the biggest excuse for antisocial behaviour on the planet. It's western nature ...

Sparks

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Sparks:

<snip>

By your theory that 25% of kids with asthma would have died as infants and so not been here to be included in the stats ???!!! - infant mortatlity decreased by that much - I don't think so.... oh and another insult to round it off - wtg.

<snip>

Sparks

Let's get a few facts straight in this thread before it spirals totally out of control.  Arguing that something is reality based on your perceptions or personal experience with it doesn't make it so; because 1/4 of all of the children you witness suffer from asthma doesn't mean that 1/4 of all children suffer from asthma.

In the UK, the number of asthma sufferers is nearly half of your perceived total -- 1 in 7 suffer from asthma.  However, you are definitely correct in your assertion that this percentage has gone up since the 1970s.  In fact, the number of asthma sufferers in the UK has gone up considerably since just 1991.  Here's a report on this.

And here is another report explaining that to date, scientific studies have been inconclusive in linking external environmental factors to asthma.  Indoor environments -- the amount of proper ventilation, air quality, smoking, etc -- and diet influence asthma rates significantly.  The study itself concludes that a relationship between external environmental factors and asthma rates may exist, but the findings lend only minor support to this hypothesis.

Hope that helps.

-- Todd/DMF

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Dead Man Flying ]

[Thrawn]

DMF, you're just going to confuse the issues with actual statistics.  

Thanks for the info.

[Sparks]

<S> DMF - thankyou for the info sources and good points fairly made.

I would come back on a few points.....

 

originally posted by DMF
Let's get a few facts straight in this thread before it spirals totally out of control. Arguing that something is reality based on your perceptions or personal experience with it doesn't make it so; because 1/4 of all of the children you witness suffer from asthma doesn't mean that 1/4 of all children suffer from asthma.

Judging by the figures in the Asthma audit report my personal experience is maybe not too far from reality in my area - although 1 in 7 is a national average I live in Anglia which has one othe highest treatment rates and in an urban area which has a higher than average rate (29% is quoted) so maybe 25% is not too far adrift. I accept that my perceptions don't make it reality but if perceptions follow the general trend of the research then is it too awful to argue my point??

 

And here is another report explaining that to date, scientific studies have been inconclusive in linking external environmental factors to asthma. Indoor environments -- the amount of proper ventilation, air quality, smoking, etc -- and diet influence asthma rates significantly. The study itself concludes that a relationship between external environmental factors and asthma rates may exist, but the findings lend only minor support to this hypothesis.

I read that report with interest and some confusion - see what you think.....
 

From asthma audit
The 1996 Health Survey for England found that the age-standardised proportion of men who had wheezing in the preceding twelve months was higher (p<0.01) in those we lived in urban areas (29 per cent) than those who lived in rural areas (18.7 per cent). Among women the figures were 22.8 per cent and 17.2 per cent (p<0.01) (4).

This seems to say to me that living in a city puts you at higher risk ... agreed ???

 

From other report
Little evidence supports the idea that exposure to outdoor air pollution can initiate asthma in those people who do not already have the disease.

For exhaust emissions to cause asthma, we might expect to find an association between asthma and living in urban areas - yet there is little, if any, such association in the UK.

A study in Scotland found no significant difference between the prevalence of asthma in the Highlands of Scotland and urban areas in the UK, and the highest prevalence of asthma within the study was found on the Isle of Skye - an area not renowned for outdoor pollution.

Is it just me or do they appear to be contradictory ???

But then look at the source of the second report - South Gloucestershire county council - a government organisation. Those tasked with controlling emmisions and air quality are hardly going to declare a link between air quality and a respiritory condition that affects 1 in 7 people.

Also read the passage at the very end....

 

This study investigated the prevalence of asthma in two schools, and its relationship with air pollution. A primary school in Walsall situated near to Junction 10 of the M6 motorway, one of the busiest sections of road, was selected; the other was a primary school in Derbyshire, located away from heavy traffic in a National Park.

One of the key atmospheric emissions from vehicles is nitrogen dioxide NO2. The health implications of exposure to this implications of exposure to this pollutant have been demonstrated by a series of chamber experiments, conducted by WHO in the 1960s, which have revealed its ability to impair respiratory function in volunteer subjects.

In this study NO2 levels were determined at the Walsall school, using a monitor on the roof of the building; and at the Derbyshire school using data from the Department of Environment monitoring station at Ladybower, a few miles from the school.

Levels were significantly higher in Walsall, with some winter months experiencing poor air quality in relation to NO2 as defined by the Department of Environment criteria at the time.

Parents of children aged 7 - 8 and 10 - 11 at the two schools were asked to complete a questionnaire to determine the respiratory health of their children. The questionnaires screened out families with smokers and families who had moved into the area less than two years before the study. It was not possible to screen out families with pets in the home - asthma may be triggered by exposure to animal dangers in house dust.

Completed questionnaires revealed some clear patterns in asthma prevalence at the two schools.

At the Walsall school, 27 percent of the children in total were diagnosed as having asthma - double the prevalence for Derbyshire. In addition, another 13 per cent of the Walsall schoolchildren suffered from shortness of breath and wheezing without being clinically diagnosed as asthmatic. The corresponding figure for the Derbyshire school was 3 per cent.

The severity of asthma attacks was greater at the Walsall school, where 20 per cent of children use inhalers. There was no inhaler use recorded at the Derbyshire school. Parents were asked to subjectively rank their child's asthma on a scale of 1 - 10, with a score of 10 representing the most severe attack. 40 per cent of parents in Walsall rated their child's attacks above 6 - no parent in Derbyshire rated any attack this high.

Mode of transport to and from school also showed a difference in respiratory health. 95 per cent of all children with respiratory problems in the Walsall group walk to school which may indicate a greater exposure to atmospheric pollution. However, this could indicate that these children live near to the school and therefore near to the motorway.

Health service data shows a seasonal trend in asthma. In this study, parents in Walsall identified a peak in asthma in the winter months which correlates well with the high pollution levels at this time of year. However, at the Derbyshire school, asthma attacks peak in the summer months. This may be a consequence of allergic response to biological allergens (ie pollen). It could, however, be a response to atmospheric pollution.

In rural areas during the summer months the levels of ozone, another respiratory antagonist, tend to be high. In the year before this study, poor air quality with regard to ozone was measured at Ladybower, in the month of June. There is no corresponding date for the school in Walsall, which does not have an ozone monitor, but the nearest ozone recording site in Birmingham measured ozone levels substantially lower than Ladybower over the year preceding the study.

There seems to be some foot shooting there  

It clearly links NO2 emmsions to asthma levels with that school reporting 27% reporting problems - thats not far off my 1 in 4.

And can we really ignore the increase that is taking place......

respectfully
Sparks

[Sparks]

For Rip - <S> and hi there

 

originally posted by Rip

Its about being responsible in pursue of happiness, about respecting Mother Nature. To listen to someone that says "If you drive a car, you're killing Mother Nature" is as rediculous as believing everything your Gov't has to say.

Maybe not you as an idividual in isolation and maybe there is global warming through CO2 emmisions and maybe not - the evidence is unclear, but my point is we can't focus on a single issue. If you take filling your car with gas as an example - what cost does it really incur??
1. The drilling and production site to remove the oil with the pollution of the local enviroment
2. Transport of the oil to refinery - (Exxon Valdez amongst others)
3. Refining process - energy and plant required and toxins produced
4. Storage of the product at retail outlets - I have experience of this myself in aviation with leaking underground tanks and spills to goundwater
5. Burning the fuel in the engine - as well as CO2 there is CO, NO2, and heavy metals such as cadmium discharged.

Now add the other costs to driving your car:-

1.Resource use of steels and plastics and energy in building the car.
2.use of oil and rubber consumables with attendant landfill / disposal issues
3. Disposal of the car at the end of it's life.

Now multiply these costs by the millions of cars on the roads in the world and suddenly it isn't a negligible problem

My point is this - the Global warming issue has been taken on by the "enviromentalists" as the standard to bear before all battles and due to the conflicting evidence it has become the best way to trash those who value our world more than the accountants. The issues are MUCH wider than CO2 emmissions and much more pressing, but the Miko2d's of this world use the detruction of the global warming arguement and the ridicule of those who support it as proof that enviromental awareness is academic garbage we can't afford.

I believe that we can't afford NOT to be aware of what we are doing whether it be CO2 emmisions or use of finite resources. Miko's attitude of use it fast while it's here and let our kids sort it out frightens me - we have already been prepared to commit 0.5 million forces personel to protect oil resources - imagine what we would do if it were about to run out and we had no alternative......


Sparks