donperry Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 I found this link that i'd like to share. It deals with charcoal stoves but i thought since many of us make charcoal ourselves and might be in danger if proper precautions not taken http://www.burningissues.org/car-www/science/pah-comp-wood-coal.htm One wood stove in one hour, produces approximately 4,300 times more PAH than thirty cigarettes (Larson, 1993)
NightHawkInLight Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) PAH (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) are created when anything organic burns. A wood stove burns at least 4,300 times more material in an hour than the tobacco in 30 puny cigarettes by my estimation, so of course it's going to create many times more hydrocarbons. If you were to inhale all the smoke from a campfire directly you wouldn't be in too good a shape. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have campfires. On a similar note, many of the chemicals that are commonly said to be in cigarettes (such as tar) are byproducts when any organic material burns, not additives to the tobacco by the evil corporations. That's not to say cigarettes are good for you, but that people will focus on details with no context. Burning a pile of leaves in the yard creates just as much tar and PAH's as burning roughly the same amount of tobacco. Neither is good for your lungs, but neither is anything to be concerned about if not directly inhaled. Edited March 24, 2011 by NightHawkInLight
Richtee Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 I found this link that i'd like to share. It deals with charcoal stoves but i thought since many of us make charcoal ourselves and might be in danger if proper precautions not taken http://www.burningissues.org/car-www/science/pah-comp-wood-coal.htm One wood stove in one hour, produces approximately 4,300 times more PAH than thirty cigarettes (Larson, 1993) And gassy cows are causing global warming too!
NightHawkInLight Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 And gassy cows are causing global warming too!The proper term has been updated to 'climate change'. The phrase 'global warming' hasn't been used ever since it became obviously false to anyone with a thermometer Faulty theories need to be updated from time to time so the gap between them and reality doesn't become too obvious.
donperry Posted March 24, 2011 Author Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) HAHAHAHGlobal warming #Fail It's actually getting colder in someplaces and warmer in others, goddammit. #hidden agenda I did not know about the TAR and PAH facts. Thanks Edited March 24, 2011 by donperry
Arthur Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 I actually vent the off gasses into the fire so that the smells of distilling organics don't irritate the neighbours, or me! that way all the PAH etc get burned as fuel!
Mumbles Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 I actually have to teach a class called global warming. This should be interesting.
Mumbles Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I'm a chemistry student, but there were so many first year graduate students they're passing us off to other less rigorous sciences. In this case, geophysical science. The first assignment is all unit conversion.
hst45 Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 So you'll be teaching religion. "Global Warming" has all the trapping of a belief system, not a scientific analysis. Accept data that supports your theories as gospel; deny opposing data as faulty. Accept those that agree with you as righetous, denounce those who disagree as incompetent. Work with your peers to explain away any questionable technique as inconsequential if it supports your theory, but cry to the heavens that any questionable technique that differs from your opinion is a blatant conspiracy, probably involving George Bush, Carl Rove, Haliburton, and Fox News. Hell, there's your first lesson plan!
dagabu Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 So you'll be teaching religion. "Global Warming" has all the trapping of a belief system, not a scientific analysis. Accept data that supports your theories as gospel; deny opposing data as faulty. Accept those that agree with you as righetous, denounce those who disagree as incompetent. Work with your peers to explain away any questionable technique as inconsequential if it supports your theory, but cry to the heavens that any questionable technique that differs from your opinion is a blatant conspiracy, probably involving George Bush, Carl Rove, Haliburton, and Fox News. Hell, there's your first lesson plan! Sheesh, a little harsh huh?
Algenco Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Sheesh, a little harsh huh? No, that's how bad it is, don't disagree with the Lib agenda!!
NightHawkInLight Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 No, that's how bad it is, don't disagree with the Lib agenda!!I tend to agree, but lets try to not get a political debate going. I'm sure there are people here that believe otherwise, and probably even some that have carefully studied the issues for themselves and came out with a different conclusion for whatever reason. I can't pretend that what I believe concerning political matters is the obvious choice for anyone with a brain, even if I am extremely confident in my view of things.
Peret Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 If Mumbles doesn't teach the orthodoxy, he'll have trouble finding work after he graduates. If he graduates. I don't believe this is a liberal/conservative issue. I think it's a pity opinion has broken along left/right lines because it confuses and divides opinion about a matter of vital concern to all of us, while people with a hostile agenda work to influence policy behind our backs. I would like to share an interesting quote. This was said by a man called Maurice Strong, in a 1990 interview with Canada West magazine. What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is "no." The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? So who the hell is Maurice Strong? Ah, that's the problem. One man really can make a difference..
Arthur Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Global weather change is highly likely after all we have had some ice ages before and the planet has "recovered" without our assistance -were we even here then! The trouble is trying to accurately assess man's influence on weather patterns.Tree ring measurement should give us some clues about temp changes in the "recent" past, which should make the tree huggers happy.
Mumbles Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Luckily, this is outside my division. Even if I get bad reviews, when I come up for PhD candidacy, they may ask about it but they'll probably laugh off the reason. I'm going to do my best to remain neutral at least. It is very obvious where the professor lies on the spectrum, but I hope he has the decency to allow the students to make their own informed opinions. Anyway, this is far enough off topic as it is.
dagabu Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 "Global warming causes cancer" Sounds like we are on topic to me
Ralph Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 all I know is Mumbles is lucky he dosnt have me in his class I drove my Ecological issues tutor mad by proving her wrong with her own words by getting her to agree to statements that she (and all the other dodgy scientists (who wish they were engineers )) say to try try and deceive the public and the Authorities into giving them money keeping them in a job because anyone will give a grant to some that wants to do _____ ______ in relation to global warming its all lies and slander the evidence is there its just miss reprisented by people like Al Gore who was like hey "I want to be president because of global warming " (well not really but he was taking a stab at getting popular)
donperry Posted March 27, 2011 Author Posted March 27, 2011 Ralph, are you a programmer of some sort?I couldn't help but notice your brackets within brackets
Ralph Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 Ralph, are you a programmer of some sort?I couldn't help but notice your brackets within brackets As an engineer I am required to do some programming but my excessive use of brackets started when I was taught algebra and realised I could apply it to writing, its similar to how I speak I like to include any detail that I feel may be important to fully understanding what Im talking about.
Richtee Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 Whats wrong with brackets?Well, I guess being bracketed?
dagabu Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 I filled mine out fine this year, regretfully I have been the big looser... What? I thought we were talking Basketball!!
Recommended Posts