EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Want to talk politics, religion, opinion, or Current events? go here.

Moderator: Officers

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Ulrith » Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:55 am

FEnina, I have that bender pic on my facebook :) , im wondering when the police r gonna come take me away.

I hear u can cut down on CO2 emissions by having sex.....repeatedly......
We are Borg. Your Technological and Biological thingies will be added to the Collective.

Thank you and have a nice day.
User avatar
Ulrith
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:35 pm
Location: Twilight Zone

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Bilnick » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:25 am

Ulrith wrote:FEnina, I have that bender pic on my facebook :) , im wondering when the police r gonna come take me away.

I hear u can cut down on CO2 emissions by having sex.....repeatedly......


Actually that would be false. More than likely the participants would be breathing harder and therefore producing more CO2......


Don't worry, if Obama can figure out a way to tax sex, he will.
User avatar
Bilnick
Officer
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Ulrith » Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:41 pm

haha is that the mileage tax>?
We are Borg. Your Technological and Biological thingies will be added to the Collective.

Thank you and have a nice day.
User avatar
Ulrith
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:35 pm
Location: Twilight Zone

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Antok » Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:29 am

I was putzing around, and thought of a more direct way to point out why statements in the vein of Bilnick's in the original post are flat out bad no matter where you stand on the science behind anthropogenic climate change. CO2 degassing events in lakes in Africa have directly killed around 1,800 people in modern times by releasing abnormally high amounts of carbon dioxide. The biggest one was Lake Nyos, which took out around 1,700 people. Magmatic activity under the lake saturates the lower waters of the lake with CO2 to a level that would never happen in normal conditions. Thanks to the P/T gradient in the lake and the year round near-constant temperature enjoyed by the tropics, Lake Nyos is very strongly stratified, meaning that gas exchange does not occur very readily between the deep waters of the lake and the surface waters. The magmatic flux of CO2 in to the lake is so much higher than the flux of CO2 from the deep waters to the shallow waters (which is still higher than the atmospheric flux out of the lake,) the level of dissolved CO2 in the deeper waters of the lake just keeps building and building and building until it reaches a level high enough to overcome the P/T gradient, whereupon the dissolved CO2 pretty much starts a chain reaction and explosively leaves the lake. When it reaches that breaking point, the volume of CO2 expelled from the lake is so great that the surrounding lowlands suffer a temporary (but VERY dramatic) rise in CO2. The last time this happened, 1,700 people died.

Lets pretend the discussion around this bill is around a slightly different issue - lets pretend we are talking about ways to try to lower the chance of another limnic eruption in Lake Nyos by somehow lowering the amount of CO2 it produces. In this context, it becomes obvious that Bil's statement "So if CO2 is a threat to human health, should we stop breathing? (or at least exhaling)" makes no sense whatsoever. It should be obvious beforehand that just because something is naturally produced does not mean it cannot be a health risk, and just because there are many sources of something does not mean that one of them is still more dangerous than the others, but this situation exemplifies it really well. If Bilnick (and the others who do the same thing, I'm not trying to pick on you) applied the exact same approach to the exact same chemical in a very similar situation and were the policymakers of the world, then instead of trying to figure out a way to make sure people don't die from CO2 by doing things like experimenting with degassing techniques, we'd just ignore it, and then soon enough the lake would do it again, and more people would die.

Now, I realize what the FDA just classified CO2 as a risk to human health for is drastically different than what happened at Lake Nyos - but for the purpose of this post, that's irrelevant. Although it should have been obvious beforehand, Lake Nyos firmly, factually, and utterly undeniably establishes the fact that just because CO2 is naturally occurring does not mean it cannot be dangerous, and literally thousands of other examples prove the same point with different chemicals. If you want to take issue with this regulation or with the idea of anthropogenic climate change in general, you need to take issue with the proposed mechanism of harm or with the ideas behind atmospheric science and not just say "It's natural, therefore it can't be bad." Arguments with varying degrees of validity can be had both for and against these regulations, but the one you chose to invoke is just flat out objectively wrong. If you want to argue that human CO2 contribution is not a substantial enough volume to represent any sort of health risk, then you can do so, but it is a completely different argument than the one that is expressed here, and is one that would rely on evidence.

My post here is not intended to deal *at all* with the validity of these regulations or the validity of global warming, just with the validity of the specific argument that's been invoked against them multiple times in this thread and is commonly invoked elsewhere as well. Plenty of people say "CO2 is natural therefore it can't be that dangerous" and plenty of people on a different side of the political spectrum say stuff like "My food is all natural so it HAS to be better for me," and plenty of people use the same general "It's natural, so it can't be dangerous" or "It's natural, so it must be perfectly okay" line on other issues, and all of those people are wrong.

"It's natural, so it can't be dangerous" is at best horribly misinformed, and at worst dishonest demagogic bullshit.
Antok
Member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Horcrux » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:49 am

Leave it to Antok to point out ignorance in comments intended purely for humor!
Lord Horcrux Soulshard - 80th Deathcaller - Retired

Nathan: "Brother versus brother. It's almost biblical."
Peter: "My brother can't walk through walls! Who are you?"

HEROES comes back September 15th with a 3 hour premier!
Horcrux
Member
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:47 pm
Highscores: 12

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Bilnick » Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:58 am

The government wants to regulate CO2 so they can tax it, plain and simple.

Obama appears to want to push through massive legislation in the first few months of his presidency....maybe he doesn't realize he (likely) has 8 years to accomplish his goals.

Personally I think he should stick to fixing the economy before he bothers with CO2, health care, or fuel economy regulations.

Maybe he is trying to pass all of this legislation while he is still popular and people don't realize how much these wonderful programs are going to cost.

Fix the economy (if in fact the US government can fix the economy, I am not confident a 2 trillion dollar deficit is the answer)

Fix immigration/illegal aliens. Decide whether we want a closed border or not, if we don't want Mexicans sneaking in, do something about it. For the illegals that are here, either ship them home or figure out a way for them to become citizens, and more importantly, taxpayers.

Then worry about healthcare. Healthcare sounds great, but when there are millions of illegals here, that problem needs to be rectified first.

Fuel economy/CO2 regulation. Higher fuel economy sounds all greeny wonderful, but if all cars suddenly averaged 35 mpg, the amount of revenue collected from gasoline tax would plummet. Sooooo, the government is likely going to raise taxes on gasoline to make up for the difference. So not only will you have to pay more for your high milage car, but also more per gallon of gasoline. The same with CO2 regulation. If factories have to add even more emmission equipment for the products they produce, they will have a couple of options. Move the factory to a country that doesn't have as strict regulations, or pass along the cost of these regulations to the consumer. Pick your poison.
User avatar
Bilnick
Officer
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Antok » Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:23 pm

Leave it to Antok to point out ignorance in comments intended purely for humor!

First, I should admit, I've been on a ton of hydrocodone for the last few days and am feeling like shit through it anyway, so me missing sarcasm and humor is likely in anything I do. It has led to some confusing moments IRL this week. I went down to Fresno for three days, and came back with Valley pneumonia.

But, even if the comments in-that-vein of bil and the other folks in the thread were meant 95% in jest, because of how widely propagated such comments are, they are still harmful and thus worth responding to. Things that masquerade as truths that are widespread and not conducive to addressing issues on their merits are bad, even when said by someone who does not honestly believe them. As an example from the recent election, look at the stupid Obama = muslim shit. Plenty of people made jokes about it, but a not insignificant portion of the extreme right wing actually believed it and used it to dismiss him as a candidate without examining his actual qualities. Some equally dumb people argued McCain couldn't have been born in Panama based off of completely stupid shit and tried to use that to dismiss him instead of any actual issues as well. Both things were not taken seriously by a good part of the people talking about them, but because they promoted dismissing one-or-the-other-of-them off of completely false stuff, both sets of statements were still bad and worth correcting, even when made in jest.
A CAT IS FINE TOO!!!
Antok
Member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Ulrith » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:18 pm

What about the nookums ?!!?!?
We are Borg. Your Technological and Biological thingies will be added to the Collective.

Thank you and have a nice day.
User avatar
Ulrith
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:35 pm
Location: Twilight Zone

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Ceruis » Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm

I would just like to say that Obama is an idiot. Mostly because is he a politician and as such can't be trusted to manage a monopoly game let alone setting the agenda for the United States for the next 4 years. I got an idea...how about we pay down our debt first, then worry about building our paradise.
Alan - Fenny's little helper

App Officer: Tarvas (that me, Ceruis, idiot)

Image
Ceruis, Tarvas
Wife: Mechell
User avatar
Ceruis
Officer
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Dead in a Ditch!
Highscores: 1

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Goofydoofy » Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:20 am

We haven't destroyed the planet yet? Pick up the pace people!
Level 105 Druid, Level 105 Enchanter, Level 105 Paladin
Drinal - Maelin Starpyre Server
Goofydoofy
Member
 
Posts: 4788
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 5:15 am
Location: Bullhead City, AZ, USA

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Serano » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:43 pm

Of course Bilnick and i know that CO2 is dangerous. So is O2. So is water. So is earth. All depends on how you are exposed and what quantity. But to pass laws regulating what is inherently dangerous but are natural is just inane.
User avatar
Serano
Officer
 
Posts: 12840
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 7:40 am
Location: Victorville, Sunny So Cal.
Highscores: 144

Re: EPA to declare CO2 a threat to human health

Postby Serano » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:45 pm

Antok wrote: As an example from the recent election, look at the stupid Obama = muslim shit. Plenty of people made jokes about it, but a not insignificant portion of the extreme right wing actually believed it and used it to dismiss him as a candidate without examining his actual qualities.


The best thing for a candidate to do if accused of being from a certain religion is to then claim membership in that religion. tell them - you got me I am a muslim. now catch me praying muslim style or attending mosque.
User avatar
Serano
Officer
 
Posts: 12840
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 7:40 am
Location: Victorville, Sunny So Cal.
Highscores: 144

Previous

Return to Real Life and Opinion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron