Gone But Not Forgotten
- Jun 27, 2015
- Reaction score
It is true. The New Age medical practice of purifying people with flames, as was done in the "Wicker Man" ritual of the Druids, and the Auto-da-fe of the Spanish Catholics, has been shown to be less than efficacious. Not only does it remove skin, organs, hair and even bone, beyond all recommended medical limits, it has been known to cause hauntings. Deepak Chopra, the singular authority on the matter in his book "Runic Celto-Daoist Tarot in the Ritual of Suttee" has gone so far as to suggest that while it is acceptable to burn women alive if their husbands die, it should probably be avoided as a more general spiritual medicament. You're safe for the moment Coal, or do you need a second opinion?I was rather suggesting that setting me on fire was not so good for me...
No, there was criticism because that's what science does. In practice, Mann's early construction of 1999 was vindicated but shown to be a little less extreme than his early work implied.Wasn't there a controversy about that?
(Emphasis Added)Fertilizer plants emit 100 times more methane than reported
Emissions of methane from the industrial sector have been vastly underestimated, researchers from Cornell University and Environmental Defense Fund have found.
Using a Google Street View car equipped with a high-precision methane sensor, the researchers discovered that methane emissions from ammonia fertilizer plants were 100 times higher than the fertilizer industry's self-reported estimate. They also were substantially higher than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate for all industrial processes in the United States.
"We took one small industry that most people have never heard of and found that its methane emissions were three times higher than the EPA assumed was emitted by all industrial production in the United States," said John Albertson, co-author and professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It shows us that there's a huge gap between a priori estimates and real-world measurements."
The researchers' findings are reported in "Estimation of Methane Emissions From the U.S. Ammonia Fertilizer Industry Using a Mobile Sensing Approach," published in Elementa. ...
FULL STORY: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190613104533.htmBitcoin causing carbon dioxide emissions comparable to Las Vegas or Hamburg
The use of Bitcoin causes around 22 megatons in CO2 emissions annually -- comparable to the total emissions of cities such as Hamburg or Las Vegas. That is the conclusion of the most detailed analysis to date of the cryptocurrency's carbon footprint. For their study, an interdisciplinary team of researchers at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) analyzed such data as the IPO filings of hardware manufacturers and the IP addresses of Bitcoin "miners."
Although Bitcoin is a virtual currency, the energy consumption associated with its use is very real. For a Bitcoin transfer to be executed and validated, a mathematical puzzle must be solved by an arbitrary computer in the global Bitcoin network. The network, which anyone can join, rewards the puzzle solvers in Bitcoin. The computing capacity used in this process -- known as Bitcoin mining -- has increased rapidly in recent years. Statistics show that it quadrupled in 2018 alone.
Consequently, the Bitcoin boom raises the question of whether the cryptocurrency is imposing an additional burden on the climate. Several studies have attempted to quantify the CO2 emissions caused by Bitcoin mining. "These studies are based on a number of approximations, however," says Christian Stoll, who conducts research at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). ...
Therefore, a team of management sciences and informatics researchers at TUM has carried out the most detailed calculation of the carbon footprint of the Bitcoin system to date. Working like detectives, they proceeded step by step to gather conclusive data. ...
The conclusion of the study: The Bitcoin system has a carbon footprint of between 22 and 22.9 megatons per year. That is comparable to the footprint of such cities as Hamburg, Vienna or Las Vegas. ...
I heard it was 25 years. Which is more realistic.My friend was told the other day double glazing is only meant to last five years! All that plastic making and dumping. I tried to look up how bad the making of double glazing was for the environment. But I just kept getting how wonderfully environmentally friendly double glazing was, really?
I think a lot of people get convinced to change it when it’s not necessary or they just fancy new ones. I would be in the leased surprised if they are built to break though. That’s like most things these days.My double glazing is fine after about 15 years, and I live on a hill in Scotland.
Around my way they keep sticking weird polystyrene to houses. But any time I’ve seen a thermal image of a house losing heat it’s been through the windows or roof not the walls.Our house was built in 1997 with double glazing, and the majority of the windows are original. We have had some trouble recently with inside fogging - one window was starting to develop its own ecosystem - but there's a local firm who drop round, take the glass away, sort out the problem and put it back. Much cheaper than replacing the entire window, and saves being hassled by Anglian on a fortnightly basis until they get the message that we don't want a conservatory!
The in-house Medic's current bugbear is people offering to fill up our cavity wall with insulation. Our neighbour had it done, and it was made from paper. The I-hM conjectures that the whole thing has probably settled, and any water getting in will have reduced it to a pile of soggy mush, arguably hastening a damp problem. Air is a relatively reliable insulator compared to brick, according to my Physics O-level...
Is that the cladding that's currently so fashionable (despite being butt ugly IMO)? It's not actually polystyrene, it's cement fibre. We looked at a house that was perfectly lovely built in brick, but when we arrived at the actual plot for sale, they had added on flat-roofed bits and covered it in the same green cladding.Around my way they keep sticking weird polystyrene to houses. But any time I’ve seen a thermal image of a house losing heat it’s been through the windows or roof not the walls.
I wonder if it’s some scheme to make someone money. I have noticed that the stuff they are putting up has changed from grey to an ugly green. I do wonder if they found something out about the grey stuff. I would think after Grenfell it would be unwise to stick unnecessary stuff to the outside of homes.
I’ve only seen the bits they’ve left behind. I’m not sure there’s much point in it. They do paint over it.Is that the cladding that's currently so fashionable (despite being butt ugly IMO)? It's not actually polystyrene, it's cement fibre. We looked at a house that was perfectly lovely built in brick, but when we arrived at the actual plot for sale, they had added on flat-roofed bits and covered it in the same green cladding.
How are these lanes going to be marked out when it snows? Are we just supposed to know where all the new cycle lanes are throughout the country?I wonder how long it will be until a report is released to show that the miles and miles of expanded size cycle lanes in major UK towns (which are not being used, and reduced the amount of available road space for the vehicles that contribute towards the upkeep of same) have contributed to an increase in CO2 levels and particulates as the existing traffic has been slowed considerably.
There hasn't been road tax since 1937. The cyclists who are doing far less damage to the roads pay the same amount as you do in taxes that go to support the transport infrastructure.I wonder how long it will be until a report is released to show that the miles and miles of expanded size cycle lanes in major UK towns (which are not being used, and reduced the amount of available road space for the vehicles that contribute towards the upkeep of same) have contributed to an increase in CO2 levels and particulates as the existing traffic has been slowed considerably.
Well in the cities and towns they appear to be demarking the cycle lane areas with these 5' tall plastic bollards every few feet.How are these lanes going to be marked out when it snows? Are we just supposed to know where all the new cycle lanes are throughout the country?
Everything bar the fuel duty. The roads aren't suddenly going to resemble those ones you see in remote parts of the world, with weeds poking through. Electric vehicles still need servicing, MOT, still have brake pads, tyres, etc etc, so that income stream isn't going to change much. This argument has much in common with the "Pedestrianise!?! But the whole area will go out of business if people can't park right outside!!" line which also doesn't actually play out in most cases either. What's needed is a societal shift away from motoring dependence as it stands: most local authorities post-war took the opportunity to build roads at the expense of all other transport forms (see Beeching, dual-carriageway flyovers 25 feet from people's bedroom windows, etc) never expecting the shelf life of the petrol engine to be so short.My sub-question in reaction to your comment though is this.......once all the private motorists have been forced off the roads, and other forms of transport are electrified, where is the revenue going to be generated from to maintain the roads and cycle paths?
It will no longer come from Vehicle Excise Duty, or Fuel Duty, or MOT payments, or vehicle sale tax, or the VAT on all the other purchases (insurance, servicing, repairs, tyres, cleaning, etc etc) that a private motorist has to make.