Disc Jockey Bob Dumas Allegedly Advocates killing Bicycle Riders For Fun!

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Paul Tattaglia, Nov 2, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. >First off: NO CHORAL MUSIC.

    I like choral music.

    --

    _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
    the Texas Elvis"------------------
    __________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
     


  2. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:09:59 -0500, "Eric Vey" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >--Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo--
    >
    >A Rush fan. Can I ask a stupid question?

    Actually, while I understand that Rush has said that, I do not listen to Rush.

    >Does it matter how much naturally occurring events cause things to happen as much as it does what
    >we cause? We can't affect what Mt Pinatubo does, but we can affect what we do . . .

    The point was that we are insignificant. We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by
    carelessly abusing.

    The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves, and let the earth go on without us, probably
    better for everybody anyway. I'm not convinced that we could even do that, except by massive war.

    >I am a grey hair and I remember when the same argument of Mt Pinatubo was used about the poor
    >condition of the sewage treatment plants all across the country -- when it was pointed out that
    >they would regularly dump raw sewage out into a lake, the powers that be said, "What little that we
    >contribute to the lake's demise is small . . . our few hundred thousand gallons would be diluted by
    >the millions of gallons in that

    That lake doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken.

    >lake." Same argument was used for the ocean. And litterbugs use the same rational "This one little
    >can means beans in the big picture. All those acres of land, so my can doesn't matter."

    That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken. Besides,

    The point wasn't only that our contribution is insignificant compared to the amount of air in which
    it is diluted, but more importantly, that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is that a
    word?) larger contributions from nature.

    >While we can't control nature, we can control ourselves. It is poor form to admit that we can't or
    >that it doesn't matter.

    Why does it matter if we do a small amount of something that nature does on such a huge scale?

    --
    Rick Onanian

    >"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:15:53 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >bumper sticker on your nazi shitwagon telling you that it's ruining
    >our air and
    >>
    >> Kevan, you are quite proud of the human race, aren't you? You believe that we can have such a
    >> profound effect in such a short time -- ruining out air in about 100 years. Here's a piece of a
    >> post I've previously made on this subject:
    >>
    >> -=- Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (more widely known for it's
    >> temporary cooling effect caused by ash and dust in the air), have spewed forth more greenhouse
    >> gases than mankind has ever caused. Additionally, Mt. Pinatubo's eruption resulted in
    >> "Unprecedented size of 1993 Antarctic ozone hole by lofting ozone destroying species into the
    >> stratosphere", according to http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~bruce/m1239702.html as well as rapid
    >> climate fluctuations caused by the temporary cooling effect. All of these things, both warming
    >> and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This planet will survive and prosper no
    >> matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we do without becoming unbearable. The
    >> biggest problem we pose is our overpopulation, and that will likely reach critical mass and
    >> result in major dying off sooner or later...whether by disease or war/violence. -=-
    >>
    >> >guzzling a scarce resource is an expression of that interest.
    >>
    >> Err...what difference does it make to you if we use up our dinosaur juice? Then we'll all be
    >> forced to do what YOU think is right -- give up automobiles for bikes.
    >> --
    >> Rick Onanian
     
  3. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:07:27 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    >On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:36:54 -0500, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz
    >Society wrote:
    >>Kevan, you are quite proud of the human race, aren't you? You
    >
    >I ride on city streets with those SUVs, their tailpipes a few feet from my face. The SUV in front
    >of me might not be ruining _your_ air, but it sure is making

    Ah, I see we have here one of your more intelligent posts. I'd suggest not drafting the "nazi
    shitwagons", or even riding on roads with less automotive traffic. Oh, wait, you live deep in the
    city. Well, good luck with all that...looks like you'll have to take a dinosaur-juice-powered
    vehicle out to the country so you can have some nice roads to ride.

    It sure is nice out here where we depend on our polluting "nazi shitwagons" but somehow manage to
    breathe clean air.
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  4. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:09:59 -0500, "Eric Vey" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >--Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo--
    > >
    > >A Rush fan. Can I ask a stupid question?
    >
    > Actually, while I understand that Rush has said that, I do not listen to Rush.

    Oh, you mean Rush Limbaugh? I thought you were talking Geddy Lee and the boys <GGG>.

    > >Does it matter how much naturally occurring events cause things to happen as much as it does what
    > >we cause? We can't affect what Mt Pinatubo does, but we can affect what we do . . .
    >
    > The point was that we are insignificant. We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by
    > carelessly abusing.

    Individually, no. Collectively, we certainly are!

    > The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves, and let the earth go on without us,
    > probably better for everybody anyway. I'm not convinced that we could even do that, except by
    > massive war.

    Massive nuclear war could disrupt the earth's ecology for at least several thousand years, if not
    destroy it completely.

    > >I am a grey hair and I remember when the same argument of Mt Pinatubo was used about the poor
    > >condition of the sewage treatment plants all across the country -- when it was pointed out that
    > >they would regularly dump raw sewage out into a lake, the powers that be said, "What little that
    > >we contribute to the lake's demise is small . . . our few hundred thousand gallons would be
    > >diluted by the millions of gallons in that
    >
    > That lake doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken.
    >
    > >lake." Same argument was used for the ocean. And litterbugs use the same rational "This one
    > >little can means beans in the big picture. All those acres of land, so my can doesn't matter."
    >
    > That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken. Besides,
    >
    > The point wasn't only that our contribution is insignificant compared to the amount of air in
    > which it is diluted, but more importantly, that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is
    > that a word?) larger contributions from nature.

    Nature has had millions of years to adapt to its own sources of pullution and disruption. The 200
    years or so that humans have been doing this are not enough time for things to adapt.

    > >While we can't control nature, we can control ourselves. It is poor form to admit that we can't
    > >or that it doesn't matter.
    >
    > Why does it matter if we do a small amount of something that nature does on such a huge scale?

    Volcano's are episodic; there are long periods of time between that kind of eruption, and there is a
    lot of time for natural processes to clean things up.

    >
    > --
    > Rick Onanian

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  5. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:15:42 -0500, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz
    Society wrote:

    >It sure is nice out here where we depend on our polluting "nazi shitwagons" but somehow manage to
    >breathe clean air.

    Are you sure your air is "clean?" How do you know? How many carcinogens spewed by cars and factories
    and other man-made sources are you willing to inhale and still call your air clean?

    --
    real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com How do you explain Wayne Newton's POWER over
    millions? It's th' MOUSTACHE ... Have you ever noticed th' way it radiates SINCERITY, HONESTY &
    WARMTH? It's a MOUSTACHE you want to take HOME and introduce to NANCY SINATRA!
     
  6. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    gOn Tue, 04 Nov 2003 03:46:20 -0500, "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> from Realtime Limited wrote:

    >>First off: NO CHORAL MUSIC.
    >
    >I like choral music.

    Then listen on Sunday mornings when we schedule the stuff. It doesn't do well in weekday ratings,
    and I'm on weekdays.

    --
    real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com Yow! I just went below the poverty line!
     
  7. Eric Vey

    Eric Vey Guest

    --We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by carelessly abusing.--

    I am sorry, but you deny reality. We routinely cause whole species to become extinct. They taught
    this to you in Primary School, did you forget? Did you forget how the Dodo bird and the passenger
    pigeon became extinct? Perhaps you think it doesn't matter. "Insignificant" -- we will revisit
    that word.

    --The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves--

    Possibly do? See above. "Extinct" means "never coming back -- ever." A permanent change.

    --and let the earth go on without us, probably better for everybody anyway--

    Oh, a fatalist. Listen, do me a favor, will ya? If you are going to kill yourself, don't do anything
    that kills me, too. Thanks!

    --That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken.--

    I will explain this in basic terms since you seem to think that humans don't have the power to
    affect nature.

    Does a bear shit in the woods?

    If your complaint is that nature usually does not concentrate things the way we do, then you are
    adding to the idea that we affect nature in deleterious (defined as: harmful often in a subtle or
    unexpected) ways.

    Nature, in general, does not concentrate populations the way we do unless they are nomadic. Nature,
    in general, does not take something that is generally beneficial as a fertilizer and concentrate it
    to the point of toxicity. When nature does things like that, it is in the news (disasters) or
    pointed out as unusual on TV nature shows, such as the walrus rooks.

    But your complaint that nature has no natural source like the sewage treatment plant fails as well.

    Floods, do indeed concentrate toxic wastes and cause them to flow into lakes and rivers. Generally,
    an unusual occurrence, floods naturally pollute the water. An unusual, unavoidable event, unlike
    the daily doses from the sewage treatment plants. The argument was w-a-y back then in the olden
    days I remember, "We won't hurt the lake (or river) because we aren't adding enough to hurt it. How
    could we pollute the whole (lake/river/ocean)?" Some people believed it, generally the people that
    believe that milk comes from the store, water comes from the tap and garbage disappears when taken
    to the curb.

    --that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is that a word?) larger contributions
    from nature.--

    An old argument as I have tried to demonstrate. What exactly would you call "significant" anyway?

    I suppose that when they break out the masks in Mexico City and Japan due to auto smog, you would
    say that is insignificant because it is really a thermal inversion causing the trouble. I suppose
    that when only the lakes downwind of coal plants suddenly turn acidic, while others that are not
    downwind, (but in the same area) don't, it is by co-incidence. But the number of acidic lakes is
    insignificant. What's a few lakes anyway? We have so many.

    Oops. I forgot. We couldn't have done those things. What was it you said? "We are NOT powerful
    enough to change anything, even by carelessly abusing."

    When fish are killed over and over in a lake due to pollution, we should ignore it? Many people when
    I was growing up did just that. If they ack'd there was a problem (hard to ignore the smell of the
    rotting fish), they said it was too expensive to do anything about it.

    Those events have absolutely nothing to do with Mt Pinatubo, and are not naturally occurring events.
    At the turn of the last century, London was choking on smog and people couldn't hang clothes out to
    dry without them coming in sooty, yet there are no volcanoes near there. What caused the smog? Now
    the air is clear. How did that happen? By inaction?

    __Ooops__ I forgot that you slept in school. Here:
    http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/eae/Air_Quality/Older/Great_London_Smog.html

    I have no doubt that when the internal combustion engine was invented, no thought was given to air
    pollution. It caused very little pollution, neither did 50,000 engines, or even 500,000, but when
    the number gets into the hundreds of millions, well . . .

    I have no doubt that people thought that dumping raw sewage into a lake would not cause it to become
    a large cesspool, and it didn't while the town's population was in the hundreds. Thousands of people
    and hundreds of thousands people are another matter.

    It didn't take many years at all to see the fish being killed, nor the air clouding up in Los
    Angeles. At that point, the question is no longer "What is happening", but "What do we do about it."

    Your argument is to do nothing since bad things are naturally occurring events anyway. I have
    pointed out many things we have done. To point out that nature does things that are not good for us,
    denies the reality that we can exacerbate those bad things. In particular, our population super
    concentrates things and anything that is super concentrated, becomes toxic.

    We can control this. . . . We should control this.

    "Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:09:59 -0500, "Eric Vey" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >--Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo--
    > >
    > >A Rush fan. Can I ask a stupid question?
    >
    > Actually, while I understand that Rush has said that, I do not listen to Rush.
    >
    > >Does it matter how much naturally occurring events cause things to happen as much as it does what
    > >we cause? We can't affect what Mt Pinatubo does, but we can affect what we do . . .
    >
    > The point was that we are insignificant. We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by
    > carelessly abusing.
    >
    > The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves, and let the earth go on without us,
    > probably better for everybody anyway. I'm not convinced that we could even do that, except by
    > massive war.
    >
    > >I am a grey hair and I remember when the same argument of Mt Pinatubo was used about the poor
    > >condition of the sewage treatment plants all across the country -- when it was pointed out that
    > >they would
    regularly
    > >dump raw sewage out into a lake, the powers that be said, "What
    little
    > >that we contribute to the lake's demise is small . . . our few
    hundred
    > >thousand gallons would be diluted by the millions of gallons in that
    >
    > That lake doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken.
    >
    > >lake." Same argument was used for the ocean. And litterbugs use the
    same
    > >rational "This one little can means beans in the big picture. All
    those
    > >acres of land, so my can doesn't matter."
    >
    > That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken. Besides,
    >
    > The point wasn't only that our contribution is insignificant compared to the amount of air in
    > which it is diluted, but more importantly, that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is
    > that a word?) larger contributions from nature.
    >
    > >While we can't control nature, we can control ourselves. It is poor
    form
    > >to admit that we can't or that it doesn't matter.
    >
    > Why does it matter if we do a small amount of something that nature does on such a huge scale?
    >
    > --
    > Rick Onanian
    >
    > >"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:15:53 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >bumper sticker on your nazi shitwagon telling you that it's
    ruining
    > >our air and
    > >>
    > >> Kevan, you are quite proud of the human race, aren't you? You believe that we can have such a
    > >> profound effect in such a short
    time
    > >> -- ruining out air in about 100 years. Here's a piece of a post I've previously made on this
    > >> subject:
    > >>
    > >> -=- Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (more widely known for it's
    > >> temporary cooling effect caused by ash and dust in the air), have spewed forth more greenhouse
    > >> gases than mankind has ever caused. Additionally, Mt. Pinatubo's eruption resulted in
    > >> "Unprecedented size of 1993 Antarctic ozone hole by lofting ozone destroying species into the
    > >> stratosphere", according to http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~bruce/m1239702.html as well as rapid
    > >> climate fluctuations caused by the temporary cooling effect. All of these things, both warming
    > >> and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This planet will survive and prosper no
    > >> matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we do without becoming unbearable. The
    > >> biggest problem we pose is our overpopulation, and that will likely reach critical mass and
    > >> result in major dying off sooner or later...whether by disease or war/violence. -=-
    > >>
    > >> >guzzling a scarce resource is an expression of that interest.
    > >>
    > >> Err...what difference does it make to you if we use up our dinosaur juice? Then we'll all be
    > >> forced to do what YOU think is right -- give up automobiles for bikes.
    > >> --
    > >> Rick Onanian
     
  8. Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    : Third: Don't ask for money like that until pledge drive.

    four: set up a paypal account.

    five: ask for money in more affordable chunks. $40 and i won't post for a day. $2/hr. payable
    by paypal.

    i'll write ya a web front-end for scheduling if you're interested. special rbm rates (pro bono).
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  9. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:

    > All of these things, both warming and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This
    > planet will survive and prosper no matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we do
    > without becoming unbearable.

    Kewl! A Global Warming thread. We haven't had one of those in years. That trumps even Critical
    Mass threads.

    AIUI, Global Warming is a fact. So is a correlation between increasing human-produced &
    reintroduced greenhouse gases, and rising global temperatures. The dispute is whether the
    correlation is causal or coincidental, and if causal, what to do (or not do) about it. I guess it's
    all academic now anyways, since the Kyoto Accord is just an ineffectual gesture without both the
    USA and Russia on-board.

    Meanwhile, global warming is already exacting its toll, as Mountain Pine Beetles, whose populations
    are (were) normally attenuated by winter freezes, destroy vast areas of harvestable trees -- which
    incidentally also perform as atmospheric carbon sinks. Then we have recent forest & brush fires on
    unprecedented scales also taking carbon sinks out of the picture. And shrinking polar ice caps
    result in less refectivity and greater absorption of solar radiation. It seems the Global Warming
    phenomenon tends to be self-sustaining. Scary, eh?

    cheers, Tom

    --
    -- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
    [point] bc [point] ca
     
  10. Top Sirloin

    Top Sirloin Guest

    On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

    >AIUI, Global Warming is a fact.

    Except that balloon and satellite data show no evidence of it, only unreliable surface readings
    affected by the Urban Heat Island effect.

    Not to mention that Global Warming advocates feel free to make up, omit, substitute or purposely
    misanalyze surface temperature and tree ring data to fit their agenda:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo/EandEPaperProblem.pdf

    --
    Scott Johnson "Here's an idea of how you can change global events: quit smoking pot long enough to
    register to vote!" -ddt
     
  11. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > All of these things, both warming and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This
    > > planet will survive and prosper no matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we
    > > do without becoming unbearable.
    >
    >
    > Kewl! A Global Warming thread. We haven't had one of those in years. That trumps even Critical
    > Mass threads.
    >
    > AIUI, Global Warming is a fact. So is a correlation between increasing human-produced &
    > reintroduced greenhouse gases, and rising global temperatures. The dispute is whether the
    > correlation is causal or coincidental, and if causal, what to do (or not do) about it. I guess
    > it's all academic now anyways, since the Kyoto Accord is just an ineffectual gesture without both
    > the USA and Russia on-board.
    >
    > Meanwhile, global warming is already exacting its toll, as Mountain Pine Beetles, whose
    > populations are (were) normally attenuated by winter freezes, destroy vast areas of harvestable
    > trees -- which incidentally also perform as atmospheric carbon sinks. Then we have recent forest &
    > brush fires on unprecedented scales also taking carbon sinks out of the picture. And shrinking

    Not necessarily; once the new growth starts up on the burned-out areas, it will pull carbon out of
    the air in a hurry, because the rate of change of plant mass (much of which is carbon) in a forest
    during the regrowth phase after a fire is quite high compared to the equilibrium conditions in a
    mature forest.

    > polar ice caps result in less refectivity and greater absorption of solar radiation. It seems the
    > Global Warming phenomenon tends to be self-sustaining.

    Again, not necessarily, because warmer air in cold areas tends to increase cloudiness because of the
    increased moisture in the air. Additional clouds tend to reflect sunlight back into space. The full
    consequences of this feedback loop are still not well-understood, though, because clouds also cause
    a "blanket" effect, which tends to hold heat in near the ground.

    > Scary, eh?

    Overall, yes, because we don't understand it well enough to predict what is going to happen, or what
    is causing it.

    > cheers, Tom

    Or is it "fears"? <Grin>

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  12. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:56:46 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    >On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:15:42 -0500, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz
    >Society wrote:
    >>It sure is nice out here where we depend on our polluting "nazi shitwagons" but somehow manage to
    >>breathe clean air.
    >
    >Are you sure your air is "clean?" How do you know? How many carcinogens spewed by cars and
    >factories and other man-made sources are you willing to inhale and still call your air clean?

    I know by this standard:
    > The SUV in front of me might not be ruining _your_ air, but it sure

    By your standard, I'm breathing clean air.
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  13. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:07:24 -0500, "Eric Vey" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >--We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by carelessly abusing.--
    >
    >I am sorry, but you deny reality. We routinely cause whole species to become extinct. They taught
    >this to you in Primary School, did you forget? Did you forget how the Dodo bird and the passenger
    >pigeon became extinct? Perhaps you think it doesn't matter. "Insignificant" -- we will revisit
    >that word.

    I don't think it matters. Species come and species go. What difference does it make if a particular
    species lost 10% of it's time on earth due to an early termination by us? The rest adapt to their
    environment.

    >--The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves--
    >
    >Possibly do? See above. "Extinct" means "never coming back -- ever." A permanent change.

    So? If we were gone, then by your standards, Earth would be far better off.

    >--and let the earth go on without us, probably better for everybody anyway--
    >
    >Oh, a fatalist. Listen, do me a favor, will ya? If you are going to kill yourself, don't do
    >anything that kills me, too. Thanks!

    But I thought that we pollute and destroy our environment? In that case, wouldn't Earth benefit from
    our extinction?

    >--That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the analogy is broken.--
    >
    >I will explain this in basic terms since you seem to think that humans don't have the power to
    >affect nature.
    >
    >Does a bear shit in the woods?

    Yes, and somehow, the forest survives. Go figure.

    >If your complaint is that nature usually does not concentrate things the way we do, then you are
    >adding to the idea that we affect nature in deleterious (defined as: harmful often in a subtle or
    >unexpected) ways.

    No complaint at all. After I compared greenhouse gases released by human devices to volcanic
    eruptions, somebody else made the analogy to dumping raw sewage into a lake. I then said that
    the analogy is invalid because while nature has a way of releasing concentrated wholesale
    amounts of greenhouse gases, it doesn't have a way to release concentrated wholesale amounts of
    sewage into a lake.

    >But your complaint that nature has no natural source like the sewage treatment plant fails as well.

    It wasn't a complaint, just the invalidation of said analogy. Here, you haven't discredited my
    invalidation of the analogy. In fact, now that I think about it, there's a whole other thing wrong
    with the analogy: The greenhouse gases we release AREN'T concentrated. The greenhouse gases
    released by the eruptions are concentrated. The sewage released into a lake IS concentrated. The
    bear shitting in the woods is NOT concentrated. Sounds like our greenhouse gases are no worse than
    the bear shitting in the woods, and the volcanic eruption is very much like the raw sewage dumped
    into the lake.

    >Floods, do indeed concentrate toxic wastes and cause them to flow into

    No, they release concentrated waste. Said waste certainly isn't produced by nature; if it is, then
    it's quite natural for it to end up in lakes and rivers after floods. Either way, it certainly
    doesn't end up in the concentration of the analogy of piping raw sewage into a lake and thereby
    destroying it.

    >lakes and rivers. Generally, an unusual occurrence, floods naturally pollute the water. An unusual,
    >unavoidable event, unlike the daily doses from the sewage treatment plants. The argument was w-a-y
    >back then in

    Actually, said daily doses would have bypassed the treatment plant; else we wouldn't call them
    _raw_ sewage.

    >--that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is that a word?) larger contributions from
    >nature.--
    >
    >An old argument as I have tried to demonstrate. What exactly would you call "significant" anyway?

    Oh, I don't know...say, enough to make a difference. Certainly more than a minute fraction of what
    nature produces without us.

    >I suppose that when they break out the masks in Mexico City and Japan due to auto smog, you would
    >say that is insignificant because it is really a thermal inversion causing the trouble. I suppose
    >that when only

    No, I would say it's because they live in high-density cities. That's where the air is bad. That's
    only one of many reasons why I don't live in such a place.

    >the lakes downwind of coal plants suddenly turn acidic, while others that are not downwind, (but in
    >the same area) don't, it is by co-incidence. But the number of acidic lakes is insignificant.
    >What's a few lakes anyway? We have so many.
    >
    >Oops. I forgot. We couldn't have done those things. What was it you said? "We are NOT powerful
    >enough to change anything, even by carelessly abusing."

    Okay, by over-focusing my statement, you have been able to invalidate it. Amend it to: We are NOT
    powerful enough to change the whole world, even by carelessly abusing. Now, add to it: ...until our
    overpopulation gets even worse.

    >When fish are killed over and over in a lake due to pollution, we should ignore it? Many people
    >when I was growing up did just that. If they ack'd there was a problem (hard to ignore the smell of
    >the rotting fish), they said it was too expensive to do anything about it.

    When we are having an obvious specific effect, we should certainly do something about it. However,
    we don't have such an effect on the world's air, especially relative to natural occurrences that do.

    >Those events have absolutely nothing to do with Mt Pinatubo, and are not naturally occurring
    >events. At the turn of the last century, London was choking on smog and people couldn't hang
    >clothes out to dry without them coming in sooty, yet there are no volcanoes near there. What caused
    >the smog? Now the air is clear. How did that happen? By inaction?

    Volcanic eruptions affect the air globally. Try doing that with fossil fuel emissions.

    >__Ooops__ I forgot that you slept in school. Here:
    >http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/eae/Air_Quality/Older/Great_London_Smog.html

    This portion of this thread is about fossil-fuel-combustion vehicles causing air pollution. My
    comments expanded that to global total pollution. All you can do is point out specific locations,
    all in dense cities. It sounds to me like we must eliminate cities; it is obvious from that link
    that even WITHOUT cars, cities dirty their air so badly that if it's not dispersed to the rest of
    us, then the people in the city die from poison air.

    >I have no doubt that when the internal combustion engine was invented, no thought was given to air
    >pollution. It caused very little pollution, neither did 50,000 engines, or even 500,000, but when
    >the number gets into the hundreds of millions, well . . .

    Indeed, when it was invented, the phrase "air pollution" probably didn't even exist. Since then, it
    has been considered so incredibly much that modern internal combustion engines run very
    cleanly...unless you're Kevan on a bike drafting an SUV.

    >I have no doubt that people thought that dumping raw sewage into a lake would not cause it to
    >become a large cesspool, and it didn't while the town's population was in the hundreds. Thousands
    >of people and hundreds of thousands people are another matter.

    That's why sewage treatment plants are built. What do you suggest we do with millions of people
    living in a few square miles? Let them shit on the carpet? Insist that each one put it in a paper
    baggie and bicycle it out at least two hundred miles in a government-assigned direction?
    Unfortunately, where people concentrate, human waste concentrates. When the concentration is low (a
    few hundred people shitting in Lake Erie), they only dirty their section of the lake. If all of
    Detroit dumps it's untreated sewage into Lake Erie, then Lake Erie would be screwed.

    >It didn't take many years at all to see the fish being killed, nor the air clouding up in Los
    >Angeles. At that point, the question is no longer "What is happening", but "What do we do
    >about it."

    Personally, I'd move out of LA.

    >Your argument is to do nothing since bad things are naturally occurring

    No, my argument is that if what we're doing is minuscule compared to what nature is doing to itself,
    then we can't make a difference anyway.

    >events anyway. I have pointed out many things we have done. To point out

    Yes, but when somebody says that fossil-fuel-combustion vehicles are destroying the global air, then
    by their standards, we should be devoting even more resources to stopping volcanic eruptions, which
    destroy the global air more strongly by orders of magnitude.

    >that nature does things that are not good for us, denies the reality that we can exacerbate those
    >bad things. In particular, our population

    We aren't exacerbating global air quality with our motor vehicles. We are completely destroying city
    air quality, with the combination of many sources of air pollution in cities.

    >super concentrates things and anything that is super concentrated, becomes toxic.

    Actually, it's concentration of our population that's the problem. Nature cleanses the air and water
    quite well when we're less concentrated.

    >We can control this. . . . We should control this.

    We can certainly control raw sewage dumping. That's why there are currently no less than two brand
    new sewage treatment plants up for bid in Eastern Mass, as well as many upgrades and contracts that
    have already been won (and so aren't listed in any bid news). BTW, how would specialized
    construction workers get to the new sewage treatment plant under construction before sunrise every
    day without personal motor vehicles?
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  14. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
    >
    >
    > >AIUI, Global Warming is a fact.
    >
    > Except that balloon and satellite data show no evidence of it, only unreliable surface readings
    > affected by the Urban Heat Island effect.

    Not true. There are many other sources of temperature data as well. Many of the early European
    explorers took ocean water temperatures, and they have been rising just like atmospheric temps. Ice
    core temperatures from the antarctic and Greenland ice caps and trapped air chemistry from the same
    ice caps also support the same conclusion.

    Besides, surface temperatures are what matter for the purposes of human life. No legitimate climate
    scientist I've read about disputes the conclusion that global temperatures have risen significantly
    over the last 200 to 400 years, nor do they generally disagree that the rate of warming has
    accelerated over the last 100 years or so. The fight is about what is causing it, and whether we can
    or should try to do anything about it.

    ....

    I looked at the reference you linked to here, but don't have time to review it enough detail
    to comment.

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  15. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:26:47 -0500, Top Sirloin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
    >>AIUI, Global Warming is a fact.
    >
    >Except that balloon and satellite data show no evidence of it, only unreliable

    As well, global warming (and cooling) can be detected much further back than the existence of homo
    sapiens. It's part of the natural cycle...unless somebody thinks that human fossil fuel emissions
    are what caused the last ice age to end.
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  16. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:44:08 -0500, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz
    Society wrote:

    >On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:56:46 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:15:42 -0500, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz
    >>Society wrote:
    >>>It sure is nice out here where we depend on our polluting "nazi shitwagons" but somehow manage to
    >>>breathe clean air.
    >>
    >>Are you sure your air is "clean?" How do you know? How many carcinogens spewed by cars and
    >>factories and other man-made sources are you willing to inhale and still call your air clean?
    >
    >I know by this standard:
    >> The SUV in front of me might not be ruining _your_ air, but it sure

    >
    >By your standard, I'm breathing clean air.

    That's not my standard.

    My standard for "clean air" isn't scientific, so I won't attempt to define it. However, if you live
    in a rural area where crops are grown, I bet that they spray the crops with pesticides and
    herbicides. That's in the air you breathe, and my non-scientific standard says that means your air
    is not as clean as you think.

    What do federal standards say clean air is? That might be a good starting point for discussion. How
    does you air compare to that standard?

    --
    real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com I'm meditating on the FORMALDEHYDE and the ASBESTOS
    leaking into my PERSONAL SPACE!!
     
  17. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On 04 Nov 2003 17:58:27 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]> from VISI.com wrote:

    >Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    >: Third: Don't ask for money like that until pledge drive.
    >
    >four: set up a paypal account.
    >
    >five: ask for money in more affordable chunks. $40 and i won't post for a day. $2/hr. payable
    >by paypal.
    >
    >i'll write ya a web front-end for scheduling if you're interested. special rbm rates (pro bono).

    I could use the extra money. Go for it.

    --
    real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com Catsup and Mustard all over the place! It's the
    Human Hamburger!
     
  18. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] potato.com says...
    > On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:44:08 -0500, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz
    > Society wrote:
    >
    > >On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:56:46 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:15:42 -0500, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz
    > >>Society wrote:
    > >>>It sure is nice out here where we depend on our polluting "nazi shitwagons" but somehow manage
    > >>>to breathe clean air.
    > >>
    > >>Are you sure your air is "clean?" How do you know? How many carcinogens spewed by cars and
    > >>factories and other man-made sources are you willing to inhale and still call your air clean?
    > >
    > >I know by this standard:
    > >> The SUV in front of me might not be ruining _your_ air, but it sure

    > >
    > >By your standard, I'm breathing clean air.
    >
    > That's not my standard.
    >
    > My standard for "clean air" isn't scientific, so I won't attempt to define it. However, if you
    > live in a rural area where crops are grown, I bet that they spray the crops with pesticides and
    > herbicides. That's in the air you breathe, and my non-scientific standard says that means your air
    > is not as clean as you think.

    *cides do not stay airborne for long; they would be wasted if they did. Besides, there is very
    little in the way of crop farming where lives (which is only a few miles from where I live). Most of
    the undeveloped countryside is covered with trees.

    > What do federal standards say clean air is? That might be a good starting point for discussion.
    > How does you air compare to that standard?

    Plenty of ozone on a hot, humid summer day, and NOx on any day when the winds are blowing from NYC.
    Other than that, it's pretty good.

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...