Global Warming?

[powerpace]

I'm not wrong about mercury (see chart below). And CFL's last longer, soon we will be running LEDs as the technology improves but for now CFL's are the best environmental solution and are marginally better than incandescents.

http://rehs.rutgers.edu/pdf_files/MercuryInCFLs.pdf

"Always Dispose of Your CFL Properly
While CFLs for your home are not legally considered hazardous waste
according to federal solid waste rules, it is still best for the environment to
dispose of your CFL properly upon burnout. Only large commercial users of
tubular fluorescent lamps are required to recycle. If recycling is not an
option in your area (see below on how to find out), place the CFL in a
sealed plastic bag and dispose the same way you would batteries, oil-based
paint and motor oil at your local Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Collection Site. If your local HHW Collection Site cannot accept CFLs
(check Earth911.org to find out), seal the CFL in a plastic bag and place
with your regular trash."

Other countries of the world price the disposal fees into the sale price of consumer goods. Germany adds to the purchase price of computers to pay for the eventual disposal.

[Rob-D]

Rob, would I be wrong to assume you would like to be in a position to dictate what everyone eats and does?

You have absolutely no idea of what my diet consists or the vegetable to meat ratio in it. We stock very little highly processed food, chips, dips etc. are a 2-3 times a year concession to guests. We build stuff from scratch most of the time and read labels to avoid HFCS as much as practical. Large portions of meat are infrequent and do not out number the mostly meatless meals.

You are not our mother or the PTA. Well intentioned healthful recommendations are appreciated much more than condemning condescending remarks delivered as if to cretins.

Do you lead by example or expect everyone to do what you say not what you do. If you live what you preach then good for you, I applaud your enlightenment, otherwise it is the height of ludicrous sophistry.

The starvation, protein deficit diets, and other famine related issues would be much more easily cured by population reduction than by any other means. Feeding the starving sounds good but in practice it increases the problem instead of reducing it. Food for the starving is NOT alone a reasonable answer.

To complain we are eating too much while others starve points out a fundamental problem of a population allowed to outstrip its resources. There are lame and blind people all over the world. We able bodied sighted people, in accordance with recent guidance, should cripple and blind ourselves to reduce the inequality.

Any detrimental effect man has on our environment, including climate change, is exacerbated immensely by overpopulation. When you can't feed the people a government has no funds for projects that reduce the detrimental effects of overpopulation as they relate to environment and climate.

You want to reduce the detrimental effects of cattle on the planet? I suggest that large numbers of cattle eating and polluting but not being eaten is by far a greater detriment than raising cattle that are eaten. So try pedaling your anti-cattle sentiments in India.

Pat

Not true, this is not what I said, I said that world hunger is not an agricultural issue it's a political issue.

Eat all the meat you want but that is not scientifically a healthy diet. High protein diets stress organs, meat putrefies in long intestinal tracts so it's a good idea to eat less meat.
Eat what you want, grow what you want, that's your choice. Scientifically it takes 7times more food to raise cattle than to feed people directly with vegetables. Look up the statistics. the longer a food remains in the environment, the more pollution it gets, that's a fact, not my opinion.

Do you want to be healthy for a long life? Than eat less meat. We know now after several decades of watching groups like Seventh Day Adventists who live on a low meat diet that it's healthier. Does the cattle industry want you to know this, I wouldn't think so.

If you want to walk down the road with needle sticking out of your arm that is you business. I don't give a fiddle, I'll still be a vegetarian and after 40 years of vegetarianism I will I tell you that it is the healthiest decision I have ever made. but I have the benefit of both eating meat and being a vegetarian. I don't think you have that perspective. Someone who has never been a vegetarian can never say it is not a healthier diet for them because they have never tried it. This is equivalent to someone drinking his first cup of coffee and saying it is the best coffee on the planet.


Rob

ps.

I never said reduce cattle but I'm certainly not opposed to it because I'm not opposed to less beef consumption for SCIENTIFIC reasons (both environmental and nutritional).

[patrick_g]

OK, while we are a little afield of Bird's topic, let me give us a little dose of reality, maybe a shock to those who view the world as a huge Disney theme park.

Back in the early days of the Peace Corps when many highly motivated and well intentioned folks joined up to make the world a better place, to light a single candle rather than to forever curse the darkness, to start the journey of a thousand miles by taking that first step. (Choir singing Cum-By-Yah in background) lots of attention was focused south of the border into Central America.

Infantile mortality was rampant. Mothers were having 6-12 children to have a few survive to adulthood. An almost daily occurrence in the little villages was at least one funeral procession for an infant. Why?????

People would just squat anywhere and any "public sanitation" was a slit trench or out house, if you were lucky, not too far from the town's water well where cross contamination was virtually guaranteed. So the well intentioned PC volunteers supervised better toilet considerations and separations from well sites and taught water boiling for purification.

Yahoo, it worked, infant mortality plummeted and populations grew at exponential rates outstripping the ability of their farming to feed them. So we introduce chemical fertilizers and put more land under cultivation to try to keep up with the growing population. It is a vicious cycle. They NEVER got ahead no more than a dog chasing its tail can pull ahead and win the race.

Population control? Well I don't think so. After all the volunteers are guests of the government and the residents of the villages and the population is Roman Catholic and mostly avoids birth control.

OK, what is the bottom line? They are worse off than before we intervened (in my opinion.) They have to farm in a non sustainable manner to get the yields they need to feed the growing population. This includes continually putting more land under the plow, some of the time by slash and burn.

Watching the entirely predictable train wreck play out was painful and all the glass half full, better to bail the Titanic with a thimble that to do nothing crowd didn't get it before or during the abject failure. So long as the volunteers put there shoulders to the wheel, knew in their hearts they were right, and at least TRIED they felt like they had fought the good fight. Bottom line was making things worse.

We talk sustainability. We should include it as a criteria for judging quantity of and duration of aid to the poor starving millions who with our help will become the poor starving billions. These starving masses are typically easy pickings for folks looking for canon fodder to be used in someones grandiose plans of conquest and rule. We are helping grow huge crops of future AK-47 wielding youngsters. Sustainability applied to aid is a good idea but is it Politically Correct?

P.S. Over population is the chief cause of poverty. Many ills follow poverty but reducing over population will directly benefit the populations. No one is advocating a "reasonable suggestion" like eating the babies or curing overpopulation overnight by any means BUT not to address the root cause will frustrate efforts and waste finite resources. Think sustainability, think triage. There is no acceptable simple or easy way to reduce populations immediately BUT if ther is no credible element of that in our aid program then we are fooling ourselves thinking we are helping the poor starving masses.

At some point the ability of the planet to feed the population, even with 100% vegetarianism, will fall short and there will be wide scale famine and food wars. Is the right goal to try to hasten that situations arrival or to prevent it through curbs on population. Simply going veggie vice omnivore is a short time delaying action not a solution. Instead of the big colapse today it would be tomorrow. Big deal.

What is the way toward a sustainable population? Being veggie won't do it, just delay the problem a bit. With exponential population growth outstripping increases in agricultural output we will get to the point that the population will begin to compete with agriculture, living space vs farmers fields.

Going veggie is not a long term solution, it will fail no matter how good its vocal proponents feel prattling on about their superior enlightenment. There are finite limits to Earth's food production capabilities and there are few choices in limiting populations to what can be fed. I think they are: starvation, sickness, war, and birth control or a combination thereof (suicide is likely not to help much.)

Which of these do you prefer?

//SOAPBOX MODE=OFF//

Pat

[Rob-D]

An educational issue [incredulous icon]. You attribute nonhuman rationality. Absent catastrophic pressure that will finally occur 'naturally', it will take regulatory control.
larry

Is the use of contraceptives the product of education?

"If only there were rationality prevalent anywhere."

You realize, by this statement, that you're saying that you are not rational!

Rob

[Furu]

I'm not wrong about mercury (see chart below). And CFL's last longer, soon we will be running LEDs as the technology improves but for now CFL's are the best environmental solution and are marginally better than incandescents.

http://rehs.rutgers.edu/pdf_files/MercuryInCFLs.pdf

"Always Dispose of Your CFL Properly
While CFLs for your home are not legally considered hazardous waste
according to federal solid waste rules, it is still best for the environment to
dispose of your CFL properly upon burnout. Only large commercial users of
tubular fluorescent lamps are required to recycle. If recycling is not an
option in your area (see below on how to find out), place the CFL in a
sealed plastic bag and dispose the same way you would batteries, oil-based
paint and motor oil at your local Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Collection Site. If your local HHW Collection Site cannot accept CFLs
(check Earth911.org to find out), seal the CFL in a plastic bag and place
with your regular trash."

Reviewing the article I see what they are saying vs what you said. The are referring to a full size mercury thermometer. You said "your mother's thermometer" which most people would interpret, since you said "mother's", that you were referring to the medical thermometer that your mother used which is a completely different device and different amount of mercury.

Their data states a mercury thermometer is 500 mg and a CFL 4 mg which is 125 times as much not 600 times more. Never let a preconceived idea allow you to interpret the data the way you want it to be. The data is what it is; use it to support your position but do not let your position be corrupted by misstating the facts or manipulation of said facts. Also while I have no data to support this I would postulate that there are way more CFL manufactured than there were full size thermometers thus we have a much higher potential exposure to broken CFL's than broken full size thermometers.

[newbury]

So what are you advising with your tree analogy?

That we don't give aid without some method of ensuring that population growth will be limited so we don't need to feed twice as many a few years later. Education and employing women in the workforce are two ways to start.

It's been "here, we'll give you X dollars of aid for every person in need"
Duh, you want more aid, you get more people in need. What USED to knock the numbers down was infant mortality and disease. It seems except for AIDS most of that is being effectively battled.

I'm not saying it would be easy, and it might be against some religions, but the supporters and givers of aid without restriction are effectively growing more people than we can easily support and it would be best if they stopped.

[SPYDERLK]

An educational issue [incredulous icon]. You attribute nonhuman rationality. Absent catastrophic pressure that will finally occur 'naturally', it will take regulatory control. If only there were rationality prevalent anywhere.
larry

Is the use of contraceptives the product of education?

"If only there were rationality prevalent anywhere."

You realize, by this statement, that you're saying that you are not rational!

Rob

I think you extrapolated the x-y plane onto the z axis. ... In other words - No.
larry

[rsewill]

OK, while we are a little afield of Bird's topic, let me give us a little dose of reality, maybe a shock to those who view the world as a huge Disney theme park.

Back in the early days of the Peace Corps when many highly motivated and well intentioned folks joined up to make the world a better place, to light a single candle rather than to forever curse the darkness, to start the journey of a thousand miles by taking that first step. (Choir singing Cum-By-Yah in background) lots of attention was focused south of the border into Central America.

Infantile mortality was rampant. Mothers were having 6-12 children to have a few survive to adulthood. An almost daily occurrence in the little villages was at least one funeral procession for an infant. Why?????

People would just squat anywhere and any "public sanitation" was a slit trench or out house, if you were lucky, not too far from the town's water well where cross contamination was virtually guaranteed. So the well intentioned PC volunteers supervised better toilet considerations and separations from well sites and taught water boiling for purification.

Yahoo, it worked, infant mortality plummeted and populations grew at exponential rates outstripping the ability of their farming to feed them. So we introduce chemical fertilizers and put more land under cultivation to try to keep up with the growing population. It is a vicious cycle. They NEVER got ahead no more than a dog chasing its tail can pull ahead and win the race.

Population control? Well I don't think so. After all the volunteers are guests of the government and the residents of the villages and the population is Roman Catholic and mostly avoids birth control.

OK, what is the bottom line? They are worse off than before we intervened (in my opinion.) They have to farm in a non sustainable manner to get the yields they need to feed the growing population. This includes continually putting more land under the plow, some of the time by slash and burn.

Watching the entirely predictable train wreck play out was painful and all the glass half full, better to bail the Titanic with a thimble that to do nothing crowd didn't get it before or during the abject failure. So long as the volunteers put there shoulders to the wheel, knew in their hearts they were right, and at least TRIED they felt like they had fought the good fight. Bottom line was making things worse.

We talk sustainability. We should include it as a criteria for judging quantity of and duration of aid to the poor starving millions who with our help will become the poor starving billions. These starving masses are typically easy pickings for folks looking for canon fodder to be used in someones grandiose plans of conquest and rule. We are helping grow huge crops of future AK-47 wielding youngsters. Sustainability applied to aid is a good idea but is it Politically Correct?

P.S. Over population is the chief cause of poverty. Many ills follow poverty but reducing over population will directly benefit the populations. No one is advocating a "reasonable suggestion" like eating the babies or curing overpopulation overnight by any means BUT not to address the root cause will frustrate efforts and waste finite resources. Think sustainability, think triage. There is no acceptable simple or easy way to reduce populations immediately BUT if ther is no credible element of that in our aid program then we are fooling ourselves thinking we are helping the poor starving masses.

At some point the ability of the planet to feed the population, even with 100% vegetarianism, will fall short and there will be wide scale famine and food wars. Is the right goal to try to hasten that situations arrival or to prevent it through curbs on population. Simply going veggie vice omnivore is a short time delaying action not a solution. Instead of the big colapse today it would be tomorrow. Big deal.

What is the way toward a sustainable population? Being veggie won't do it, just delay the problem a bit. With exponential population growth outstripping increases in agricultural output we will get to the point that the population will begin to compete with agriculture, living space vs farmers fields.

Going veggie is not a long term solution, it will fail no matter how good its vocal proponents feel prattling on about their superior enlightenment. There are finite limits to Earth's food production capabilities and there are few choices in limiting populations to what can be fed. I think they are: starvation, sickness, war, and birth control or a combination thereof (suicide is likely not to help much.)

Which of these do you prefer?

//SOAPBOX MODE=OFF//

Pat

One way that has proven to control population growth is to improve a society's economic circumstances. Like in the developed world. The problem is getting from subsistence existence to a wealthy society. Of course, we can't have one country use 25% of the world's energy unless that energy is renewable and non-polluting (mostly).

[patrick_g]

One way that has proven to control population growth is to improve a society's economic circumstances. Like in the developed world. The problem is getting from subsistence existence to a wealthy society. Of course, we can't have one country use 25% of the world's energy unless that energy is renewable and non-polluting (mostly).

And so how is it that we are supposed to improve a country's economic circumstances from subsistence to wealthy while their population is expanding faster than it can feed itself? How, in the face of overpopulation induced low standard of living do you "grant" equality with the top nations when the top nations have to treat them as welfare clients to even begin to curtail starvation?

I'm all for enough to eat for everyone, freedom from exploitation, political self determination and the tooth fairy but short of the fairy's wand how do you propose this without seriously curtailing population growth?

Pat

[Rob-D]

Reviewing the article I see what they are saying vs what you said. The are referring to a full size mercury thermometer. You said "your mother's thermometer" which most people would interpret, since you said "mother's", that you were referring to the medical thermometer that your mother used which is a completely different device and different amount of mercury.

Their data states a mercury thermometer is 500 mg and a CFL 4 mg which is 125 times as much not 600 times more. Never let a preconceived idea allow you to interpret the data the way you want it to be. The data is what it is; use it to support your position but do not let your position be corrupted by misstating the facts or manipulation of said facts. Also while I have no data to support this I would postulate that there are way more CFL manufactured than there were full size thermometers thus we have a much higher potential exposure to broken CFL's than broken full size thermometers.

Mercury thermometers can have up to 50 grams of mercury (see chart below)

CFL's have 4mg of mercury (see link). Worst case scenario 50/4e-3 = 12,500 times more mercury. Sorry I'm wrong it's not 600 times it's up to 12,500 times.

I just used that link to illustrate the magnitude of difference in the amount mercury in a CFL as opposed to a mercury thermometer.

But even at 125 times more mercury it's still a sound argument. As for breakage, those glass thermometer broke constantly when I was a kid. as far as CFL's, in all the years I have been using them I broke one. but let's say it's 125 times, that means we have to break 125 CFL's to equal the amount of mercury from ONE broken thermometer. So what do you think? Think it's possible that we're breaking 500 or a 1,000 CFL's for every thermometer we break?

I'm dying to hear what the talk show hosts say when we transition to LED's which I' m already starting to do, by the way.

And thanks for calling me a liar.

Rob


Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) and Mercury : ENERGY STAR

"CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury an average of 4 milligrams in each bulb.
No mercury is released when the bulbs are intact or in use."

http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mer...ng_devices.pdf