Prices of the electricity we use to charge

[Ghost1951]

Precisely right, just as what you were trying to propose in your countryside life as opposed to my London one made no sense in determining anything at all.

I'm glad you got the point.
.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. You made a jibe about how much further ahead your location was to that of the 'critcs'. I was simply pointing out that you are not further ahead in clean air than this critic.

That point stands - although I admit it was crass, annoying and smug, but deliberately so. I knew that when I did it, but I felt you deserved it. The tube is objectively a filthy sub-terrainian sewer. If you doubt that, just watch the absolute horror of the filth being scraped off the inside of it in Mikel's videos. My posts before you r jibe were simply pointing out this fact.

The video concentrates on particulate pollution down there. I think this is concerning, but looking at what those poor workers were scraping up and putting into what looked like old shopping bags, while they were crawling about in the filth, I think that so called 'fluff' is probably a microbial nightmare too.

 

[lenny]

Ikea launches eBay-style platform for customers to resell their used furniture

Ikea Preowned is currently being tested in Madrid and Oslo, reports the Financial Times. The platform works in a similar fashion as eBay or Craigslist: users enter...

www.techspot.com

 

[lenny]

 

[flecc]

You read the Guardian and watch the BBC too much instead of doing the MENSA puzzle book.

I don't read the Guardian and haven't taken any newspaper for 52 years.

I don't watch the BBC too much but have many sources for truly essential news, rather than the dross that too often passes for news these days.

I became a MENSA member some 50 years ago to prove a point, but immediately left, since paying annually to be a member of an organisation that has no aims isn't a very intelligent thing to do.
.

 

[Woosh]

I'm afraid you are mistaken. You made a jibe about how much further ahead your location was to that of the 'critcs'. I was simply pointing out that you are not further ahead in clean air than this critic.

That point stands - although I admit it was crass, annoying and smug, but deliberately so. I knew that when I did it, but I felt you deserved it. The tube is objectively a filthy sub-terrainian sewer. If you doubt that, just watch the absolute horror of the filth being scraped off the inside of it in Mikel's videos. My posts before you r jibe were simply pointing out this fact.

The video concentrates on particulate pollution down there. I think this is concerning, but looking at what those poor workers were scraping up and putting into what looked like old shopping bags, while they were crawling about in the filth, I think that so called 'fluff' is probably a microbial nightmare too.

Spare a thought for city dwellers. Imagine your life without them.
You may have clean air but not necessarily much else, not even supermarkets.

 

[lenny]

 

[flecc]

The tube is objectively a filthy sub-terrainian sewer.

Of course I don't doubt that, I knew it decades before you since it's been the subject of numerous attempts to deal with the problem over many years. It doesn't help that London is now a 24 hour city with many tube lines running all night. But the tube's historic design defeats all modern methods, so we are left with a medieval approach.

But the problem isn't only the filth, in many ways that's best left undisturbed. Summer temperatures over 40 degrees in densely packed trains have increasingly become a life threatening nightmare, but in train air conditioning is impossible due to the restricted tunnel sizes.

We really need to replace it with a completely new modern network, but that duplication isn't possible with the existing subterranian infrastructure, tunnels and tall building foundations already in very close proximity and depths of stations already becoming impractical.

Not mention the cost.
.

 

[Ghost1951]

Did you actually read that? They didn't show anybody, who died of pollution. They figured out that more people died in polluted cities than in the country, and pollution must therefore be the cause, but they forgot to take into account blocks of flats burning down, murders, traffic accidents, electric cars burning, alcoholism, drugs, depression, suicide and all the other causes that would be higher in a city than in the country. To simplify it, they're saying that if more people die of drug overdoses in polluted areas than in clean areas, pollution must be the cause, and they'd probably argue that it must be the pollution is causing the people to take the drugs in the first place, because not so many people take them in unpolluted areas.

If we use their arguments, life expectancy in Norway is 83.16 years and their average AQI is 25. In Japan, life expectancy is 84.45 years and the AQI is 43 - sort of destroys the premise of their theory, as the RPN would be negative.

Completely right, but I would just add that the habits of the badly educated underclass people are a massive cause of their shortened life span. The worst of these is cigarette smoking, or any kind of smoking. Also, alcohol abuse and drug taking. Obesity - an absolute epidemic, is very life shortening and is higher in lower socio-economic groups. The doo-gooders try to tell you it is because people are poor, but it isn't. It is far cheaper to make your own food from simple and cheap ingredients than it is to eat takeaways and ready meals.

 

[Woosh]

Did you actually read that? They didn't show anybody, who died of pollution. They figured out that more people died in polluted cities than in the country, and pollution must therefore be the cause, but they forgot to take into account blocks of flats burning down, murders, traffic accidents, electric cars burning, alcoholism, drugs, depression, suicide and all the other causes that would be higher in a city than in the country. To simplify it, they're saying that if more people die of drug overdoses in polluted areas than in clean areas, pollution must be the cause, and they'd probably argue that it must be the pollution is causing the people to take the drugs in the first place, because not so many people take them in unpolluted areas.

If we use their arguments, life expectancy in Norway is 83.16 years and their average AQI is 25. In Japan, life expectancy is 84.45 years and the AQI is 43 - sort of destroys the premise of their theory, as the RPN would be negative.

There are similar societal causes such as obesity, passive smoking, risky sports etc that are never or only rarely mentioned on death statistics.

 

[saneagle]

There are similar societal causes such as obesity, passive smoking, risky sports etc that are never or only rarely mentioned on death statistics.

Good point, well presented.

The Winton Centre Cambridge would probably say that obesity, smoking and low concern about risk are due to the pollution stopping those people from thinking clearly. Therefore, pollution is the underlying cause. QED.

 

[Peter.Bridge]

Did you actually read that? They didn't show anybody, who died of pollution. They figured out that more people died in polluted cities than in the country, and pollution must therefore be the cause, but they forgot to take into account blocks of flats burning down, murders, traffic accidents, electric cars burning, alcoholism, drugs, depression, suicide and all the other causes that would be higher in a city than in the country. To simplify it, they're saying that if more people die of drug overdoses in polluted areas than in clean areas, pollution must be the cause, and they'd probably argue that it must be the pollution is causing the people to take the drugs in the first place, because not so many people take them in unpolluted areas.

If we use their arguments, life expectancy in Norway is 83.16 years and their average AQI is 25. In Japan, life expectancy is 84.45 years and the AQI is 43 - sort of destroys the premise of their theory, as the RPN would be negative.

Well even the dissenting minority group of authors had none of those concerns - most of their reservations were around separating out NO2 effects from other pollutants eg

We recognise that statistically significant associations between long-term average concentrations of NO2 and risk of death have been reported. In our view these associations are best regarded as representing the associations between a mixture of pollutants of which NO2 is a member and risk of death

 

[saneagle]

Well even the dissenting minority group of authors had none of those concerns - most of their reservations were around separating out NO2 effects from other pollutants eg

We recognise that statistically significant associations between long-term average concentrations of NO2 and risk of death have been reported. In our view these associations are best regarded as representing the associations between a mixture of pollutants of which NO2 is a member and risk of death

Where did they find the dissenting minority group? Was it down the town centre handing out free copies of The Socialist Worker?

There is absolutely no evidence or scientific basis to anything they said. It's just a trumped up story that they've tried to justify with pseudo science and irrelevant statistics. If thousands of people were actually dying of pollution every year, not from smoking, we'd all know someone, and we'd be going out of the house wearing proper filter masks:

 

[Peter.Bridge]

If thousands of people were actually dying of pollution every year, not from smoking, we'd all know someone, and we'd be going out of the house wearing proper filter masks:

So if people with respiratory problems were dying earlier because of pollution, 1) how would you know ?, 2) would you consider that they had "died of pollution"

 

[Woosh]

WHO estimates that 7 million people die every year because of pollution from burning wood and coal. 5 millions die from burning fossil fuels.
Particulates kill the lining of your lungs, damage your immune system and gives you cancer. You don't die immediately but you can if you carry on breathing in exhaust fumes long enough.

 

[Ghost1951]

WHO estimates that 7 million people die every year because of pollution from burning wood and coal. 5 millions die from burning fossil fuels.
Particulates kill the lining of your lungs, damage your immune system and gives you cancer. You don't die immediately but you can if you carry on breathing in exhaust fumes long enough.

But as I pointed out using UK Government data earlier the UK emissions of NOX and particulate matter and nox have been reduced massively since 1970.

The actual amount of the reduction is:

NOX 3 million tonnes to 700,000 tonnes - now about 25% of what it was in 1970

PM10 700,000 to 120,000 tonnes

PM2.5 550,000 tonnes to 80,000 tonnes.


DATA -

particulates: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25

NOX: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-nitrogen-oxides-nox

 

[Ghost1951]

If you are concerned about PM10 and PM2.5 pollution, DO NOT use a tea light or candle in your house.

And don't burn the toast or fry food either. These things are killing people!

I'm thinking of suing my neighbour over the particulate matter he caused to come into my garden when he had that smoking barbecue last week.

Emissions of soot, PAHs, ultrafine particles, NOx, and other health relevant compounds from stressed burning of candles in indoor air - PubMed

Burning candles release a variety of pollutants to indoor air, some of which are of concern for human health. We studied emissions of particles and gases from the stressed burning of five types of pillar candles with different wax and wick compositions. The stressed burning was introduced by...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[jamesporritt]

Why is Starmer so slow?

 

[Ghost1951]

WHO estimates that 7 million people die every year because of pollution from burning wood and coal. 5 millions die from burning fossil fuels.
Particulates kill the lining of your lungs, damage your immune system and gives you cancer. You don't die immediately but you can if you carry on breathing in exhaust fumes long enough.

Would that be the same WHO that allowed China to pretend that covid might have been imported into Wuhan in 2019 on frozen fish from New Zealand rather than having escaped from one of the two virology labs that as a matter of record were manipulating bat viruses there since 2016?

Did the coronavirus really come from frozen food, as the WHO suggests?

Is it credible that coronavirus can stay infectious and jump to humans via frozen food, as findings from a Chinese and World Health Organization investigation suggest?

www.newscientist.com

#totally-discredited

 

[saneagle]

So if people with respiratory problems were dying earlier because of pollution, 1) how would you know ?, 2) would you consider that they had "died of pollution"

I wouldn't consider they had and I wouldn't consider that they hadn't because there's no evidence either way. . If you want to believe that theory, you might as well believe in aliens. It's logical and feasible that they exist, but there is no evidence that they do.

 

[Woosh]

Would that be the same WHO that allowed China to pretend that covid might have been imported into Wuhan in 2019 on frozen fish from New Zealand rather than having escaped from one of the two virology labs that as a matter of record were manipulating bat viruses there since 2016?

Did the coronavirus really come from frozen food, as the WHO suggests?

Is it credible that coronavirus can stay infectious and jump to humans via frozen food, as findings from a Chinese and World Health Organization investigation suggest?

www.newscientist.com

#totally-discredited

WHO is a large organisation. Sometimes they make mistakes. You should not extrapolate one event to conclude on another. Saneagle is quite careful with what he writes. He is a good example how to be different.