Count me with those who wish this wasn't true.
Bert Bates wrote:Count me with those who wish this wasn't true.
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Interesting little article. However, I find it odd that he uses it as an analogy for faith (presumably the Christian faith). ...
Paul Clapham wrote:As for intransigence, that's just a general feature of human beings. Example: for a long time Swiss women were unable to vote in their local elections. Because they were women. There was a certain amount of pressure put on the men to change this situation, but of course they didn't for a long time. They just produced all the tired old excuses which men elsewhere had produced. And if people pointed out that allowing women to vote elsewhere hadn't led to the apocalypse, they produced reasons why it was different in Switzerland. Which of course it wasn't different in Switzerland.
Paul Clapham wrote:Example: for a long time Swiss women were unable to vote in their local elections. Because they were women.
Winston Gutkowski wrote:And just FYI, Switzerland passed women's universal suffrage in 1971...
Paul Clapham wrote:At the national level, no? At the canton level it took a lot longer, if I'm not mistaken.
Jelle Klap wrote:It would likely not be "good for me", but then again what the heck is these days? People worry too much.
Martin Vajsar wrote:I'm not convinced that recreational wood burning is comparable to traffic pollution, though. Perhaps I'll try to do some reading on the subject before we'll make the fire next time.
Pat Farrell wrote:Primarily because since 1974 or so, the cars and trucks have gotten so much cleaner. A modern car puts out less than 1% of the crud that a pre-74 car did.
Also, a fair number of folks in the mountains did not burn wood purely for recreational reasons.
Martin Vajsar wrote:Modern car that is properly serviced - sure. However, in my country I still see a fair number of relatively modern cars (even Mercedeses or Audis) which spit out plumes of black smoke whenever the driver touches the gas pedal.
Winston Gutkowski wrote:I fear, however, that we're drifting far from the point of the original article, which, unless I'm way off the mark, was an allegory about intransigence, and particularly as it relates to faith. My point in my first post (probably badly stated) was that faith is itself intransigent, and therefore needs to be challenged - and who better to do that than scientists? Or indeed, "Meaningless Drivel" enthusiasts?
Paul Clapham wrote:...If you point out to such a person that there might be other options, you're likely to be given reasons why those other options don't apply to them...
Winston Gutkowski wrote:The fact is that fire is necessary for life. Just go to British Columbia and you'll see why: it's basically a pine forest the size of France.
Paul Clapham wrote:Yeah, I live there...
Martin Vajsar wrote:You'd have to press on me really hard to make me believe that black smoke from diesel engines doesn't mean pollution (greenhouse gasses are always there, so I'll leave them out for now).
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Martin Vajsar wrote:You'd have to press on me really hard to make me believe that black smoke from diesel engines doesn't mean pollution (greenhouse gasses are always there, so I'll leave them out for now).
But you can't.
Particulates, in general, are harmful to health, but not (or far less so) to the environment, since they've been around for an awfully long time and would be the natural by-product of any sort of combustion.
The famous 'London Fogs' (and I've been in a few where if you stuck out your arm you couldn't see your hand) were almost entirely due to sulphur; and since the introduction of smokeless zones and fuels they've largely disappeared (the last one I remember was around 1980), but it took a lot longer (about 30 years) to get fish back into the Thames. Personally, I'm hoping the oysters make a comeback too.
I applaud your concern, but it seems to me we need to rationalise this: I smoke a pack of cigs a day. Can you honestly tell me that I'm producing more pollution than you would save if you gave up driving your car on Sundays (let alone one weekday out of five), and used public transport instead?
Martin Vajsar wrote:If humans and animals in general were significantly exposed to these particles in the past (from natural sources), wouldn't the evolutionary pressure already equipped us with a mechanism to get rid of them?
paul wheaton wrote:My response: