Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TruthSeeker0

US climate report

Recommended Posts

 

On 11/24/2018 at 6:12 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

WHAT!!?? Why wasn't I told of this? This is out outrageous. Well since I'm going to die I might as well go set meself on fire... always wanted to be the human torch.

 

Think about the environment whilst you light yourself up, ok? Use an oxygenated gasoline or natural gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OwheMahGERD Cliimut Chaengzz!!!

 

Gee, no fucking shit?  Woulda never known if OwlGored hadn't told us we were all gonna DIE by 2010......

 

Those so inclined might take care of their own "carbon footprints" by any means necessary.

 

k,HappilyAMassPolluterAccordingToGreenbots,FL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/?fbclid=IwAR3FSqAGm6s6rsu__9kkxQ6E8cW5FFaxwIWOl-nzdBxR6SVFa0ua3Q0lf0c#70f7a7783de0

 

<snipped from article>

 

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its

 Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC.  You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered.  If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The games changing up a bit with the formation of the NIPCC and the climate "realists." Hopefully that does something to temper the sensationalism of the IPCC. There needs to be some type of balance when it comes to data interpretation and who's "adjusting" numbers and for what reasons. And the cooling trends are interesting because if they actually become dominant in all of this then we may see the whole climate change panic go the way of the O-Zone layer theatrics of the late 80's. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post made me want to google "what happened to the ozone layer concern:

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you are climate alarmists still using the inTarweBbs?

 

All the raw materials ripped from ground. Raw separation into usable materials. Roughout into portable mass containers. Transport to refiners either solid mass or liquids. >.................................................................>  Final assembly using  underpaid overworked Chinese labor building your Inarwebb Tubes Machine for pennies on uS dollars.

"Zillions of species" going, going, possibly and known g o n e for your cheap press wood desk and furniture items.
The apartment to McMansion on the half acre built on former farmland you now reside in sucking valuable resources 24/7

 

This all taking millions of joules electricity, sheer millions of gallons clean water, billions of tonnes of clear silica sand, thousands of pounds precious metals, POL products, .............>human misery... 

<self fucking edited for very necessary roughness to whinging sorts>

.....all just for you to bleed all over about the "Climate" on the cheap.

 

Do the World a hella favor?  Quit while yer ahead and shut everything off, realllllly reduce that "carbon footprint".

 

kFL

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are very few people that can actually do anything about the climate problem, so why are people being congratulated or lambasted about their views on climate change?  People that aren’t convinced climate change is real, or believe it’s real but its a natural occurrence that mankind can do very little about, or folks that believe the end of the world, as we know it, is at hand are simply voicing their opinion.

 

In all likelihood none of us on this board can do one damn thing about climate change, except voice an opinion. It matters not if we believe it’s real or not because we can’t do anything about it one way or the other. 

 

I think it was Rush Limbaugh that said, “The left is more concerned about symbolism than substance.”  What he meant by that is expressing concern about a problem is more important to the left than doing something about it. And I think that applies to climate change. 

 

As as long as we all express grave concern about climate change the leftist are happy. The fact we aren’t in a position to do anything about it is apparently irrelevant. So, I say climate change is real and we have less that a hundred years before our civilization becomes extinct. Here’s another fact, I’m 73 years old so this isn’t a problem I’m losing any sleep over.

 

So, rave on lefties, wring your hands in dismay, denounce the skeptics and warn them they are condemning their children to an early death, and when you’re finished with all of that, and as a last resort,  why not try to find a solution that might actually work?

 

Thank you, rant over.  :argue::68:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Geezer said:

In all likelihood none of us on this board can do one damn thing about climate change, except voice an opinion. It matters not if we believe it’s real or not because we can’t do anything about it one way or the other. 

 

Just think about that for a moment, climate + change.

 

There's zero, absolutely zero chance that the climate will not change. Even if we could stop all carbon emissions, the climate will change. No matter what we do, aside from developing technology to manipulate climate according to our fancy, the climate will never cease to change. The sea levels will never remain static. The earths precession will never stop wobbling, never stop driving the glaciation cycles - as long as the earth keeps spinning and wobbling on it's axis. Florida has been a chain of Islands, underwater reefs, and dry land all the way to the edge of the continental shelf in the gulf of Mexico. These changes in climate and sea levels can't possibly stop. Unless we specifically develop technology that allows us to have full and complete control of the climate, like a thermostat in our homes. To turn up or down according to our liking. Short of that, climate change is always on the table. 

 

The IPCC recently had propaganda circulating on the weather channel. Concerning sea level rise and the soon end to entire civilizations. It's their job and purpose to try and push people through fear, for the benefit of whatever monetary angles they are pushing for. Carefully dancing around the fact of how long it would take for all existing polar caps to melt. How long these respective civilizations would have to move slowly, inch by inch, as necessary. Or how little of the worlds total land mass would be underwater even in the most extreme case scenario, total loss of all existing polar ice. 

 

 

But the worst case scenario probably and most likely isn't even the cards. Not even close. Especially not when we're currently documenting both cooling and warming trends as described in the article I posted with citation to the scientific speeches. With Pacific and Atlantic variations as the sources causes for both the warming and cooling as described therein. And if the cooling trends becomes the dominant climate trend feature (as they seem to be alleging), then it's the gaining of land mass that we'd be facing not the loss of low lying coastal areas. The whole scenario would be turning around 180 degrees the opposite direction. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fuckin sorry for posting the topic, ok? Happy now people? Sheesh. All this talk about FREE SPEECH or freedom of opinion yada yada but must harp on when something is posted ("raved about") by a "leftie". Rant over. This is really the reason why I'm so done with this forum. Y'all want it to be some stupid echo chamber, when it comes to any other area outside of religion. Well, I think you're going to get your wish.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Geezer said:

I think it was Rush Limbaugh that said, “The left is more concerned about symbolism than substance.”  What he meant by that is expressing concern about a problem is more important to the left than doing something about it. And I think that applies to climate change. 

 

 

Rush preferred substances over symbolism. (haha)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 3:21 AM, disillusioned said:

To the "these things have happened before" response I can only reply.... so? Just because something has happened before doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it from happening again.

 

Denialism is just silly at this point. Pick your favorite:

 

It isn't a problem. 

We didn't cause it. 

It has happened before. 

It's snowing outside.

We need to rake the leaves.

We don't want to pay to stop this. 

 

And some day soon, I expect they will start saying "the damage is already done,  so why should we bother trying to fix it?"

 

"The Gulf Coast of Kansas is absolutely gorgeous this time of year...."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

"The Gulf Coast of Kansas is absolutely gorgeous this time of year...."

 

I think Limbaugh’s point is valid and your post is confirming it. The pro climate change folks seem fixated on arguing whether climate change is real, rather than offering solutions. I accept that it’s real, but simply acknowledging that it’s real doesn’t solve the problem. I think the time has come to focus on potential solutions rather than continuing to beat a dead horse. 

 

If Florida is going to disappear under water maybe ought to be seeking ways to prevent that from happening. I think it would also be helpful to at least try to get politics out of it too. As I understand it reducing carbon in the atmosphere isn’t going to solve the problem. And we may not be able to solve the problem, so that may mandate we will have to figure out ways to survive.

 

And, of course, the estimated time it will take for all of this to happen indicates few, if any, of us will be alive at that time. That would mean we are planning to save future generations rather than ourselves. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, midniterider said:

Your post made me want to google "what happened to the ozone layer concern:

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/

     Clearly, humans made no impact here.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mwc said:

     Clearly, humans made no impact here.

 

          mwc

 

 

The thing is, there's not a damn thing I want to do about it anyone can do about helping our environment.

 

Sure as hell wouldn't want one of those solar panels on MY house or a battery powered car. Once you go down that road, you'll be recycling and saving energy and hugging trees... it's just disgusting.

 

Look at this link here. Terrible advice, I'd say:

 

http://www.50waystohelp.com/

 

What's really bad is some of these ideas actually save you money. I'll waste as much money as I damn well please! I got rights. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

image.jpeg
 

This gives a view of the elevation of the central ridge. Sea level rise would happen in small, slow stages leading to the lowest areas being covered first, as below: 

 

 

image.jpeg

 

So, again, the deal is, who knows how to stop the natural glaciation cycles which happen because of the earth wobbling on it's axis and all of the other factors so that natural climate change can never happen anymore?

 

Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 

Let's create a hypothetical where everyone gets on board, all climate change deniers or opponents of any type are completely silenced. They no longer exist. Climate Change activists are granted their complete, and total way and control with no limit on government money and / or spending for their cause. 

 

So now what? Where does that put the Florida Peninsula after having accomplished this political feat? 

 

A ) Is it now impossible for the sea levels to ever rise again to where we already know (through graphic fossil records) that they naturally rose to in the past between glaciation cycles?

 

B ) Has anyone accomplished, through these political efforts and financial abilities, keeping future generations of Floridians from having to move, slowly, further back from the existing contemporary coastlines of today due to natural and ongoing climate change? 

 

Two questions for now. Any takers? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I don't know about any of the above but you can try looking in section 2 here.  Maybe they'll answer your questions?

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mwc said:

     I don't know about any of the above but you can try looking in section 2 here.  Maybe they'll answer your questions?

 

          mwc

 

 

Thanks. I scrolled through. There is mention of the natural factors involved in climate change, as I've cited above. In edition volcanic and other contributing factors as well. And comparisons between natural warming periods, and man made warming. The differences being time scales. Man made happening faster than not man made climate change. 

 

But, none of this has to do with my question what does any of that mean to the Florida Peninsula? How does fixing man made global warming stop the sea levels from rising or falling for natural, non-made reasons like they've always done before in the past. 

 

The IPCC says if we don't do X (lessen emissions, lets say) then Y (sea level rise) will be the result. But what I'm saying is that even if we do X then Y will still necessarily happen anyways for natural reasons despite X. Because the coastlines have never been static according to science. Likewise, there's no hint from science that coastlines will remain static going forward. 

 

The truth seems to be that the best we can possibly do is make X happen, which, serves no other benefit than prolonging Y. Because stopping Y from ever happening again isn't even possible. 

 

This is where Florida is concerned. It's sketchy and dishonest to point to sea level rise as a reason for carbon taxing or any similar monetary governmental attempt at conservation using scare tactics of, 'if we don't do X then Y will happen,' if Y is not even stoppable to begin with. So far I don't hear anyone talking about this, not NOAA, not the IPCC. In other words, the big picture based on the facts and the truth are not being discussed at all. In favor of obscuring the big picture while asking for money. 

 

At the end of the day, coastal living will have to change and adapt regardless of anything we do. "Whole Civilizations Will Be Lost," says the IPCC. Well if that's scary, that's also unchangeable. The government can not fix that. It's not possible for them to fix that. We have shark teeth fossils in the middle of the state on the bottom of fresh water spring runs. We pull them out all the time. They date to when the state was covered with water during natural warm periods. And dry land now was previously shallow underwater reefs during natural warm periods in history. Even up on the central ridge are found sharks teeth in it's freshwater rivers. The state was covered with water. Given another set of similar natural circumstances which are cycle in nature (so expected to repeat eventually) how can we not expect the same to happen again someday? What about the future generations? Will they be looking at having to adapt and move around to new locations regardless of anything at all that we do or don't do now?

 

And does that even constitute the claim, "whole civilizations lost." Or just whole civilizations relocated, slowly, over time, and necessarily so, regardless of anything at all that we do. 

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Thanks. I scrolled through. There is mention of the natural factors involved in climate change, as I've cited above. In edition volcanic and other contributing factors as well. And comparisons between natural warming periods, and man made warming. The differences being time scales. Man made happening faster than not man made climate change. 

 

But, none of this has to do with my question what does any of that mean to the Florida Peninsula? How does fixing man made global warming stop the sea levels from rising or falling for natural, non-made reasons like they've always done before in the past. 

 

The IPCC says if we don't do X (lessen emissions, lets say) then Y (sea level rise) will be the result. But what I'm saying is that even if we do X then Y will still necessarily happen anyways for natural reasons despite X. Because the coastlines have never been static according to science. Likewise, there's no hint from science that coastlines will remain static going forward. 

 

The truth seems to be that the best we can possibly do is make X happen, which, serves no other benefit than prolonging Y. Because stopping Y from ever happening again isn't even possible. 

 

This is where Florida is concerned. It's sketchy and dishonest to point to sea level rise as a reason for carbon taxing or any similar monetary governmental attempt at conservation using scare tactics of, 'if we don't do X then Y will happen,' if Y is not even stoppable to begin with. So far I don't hear anyone talking about this, not NOAA, not the IPCC. In other words, the big picture based on the facts and the truth are not being discussed at all. In favor of obscuring the big picture while asking for money. 

 

At the end of the day, coastal living will have to change and adapt regardless of anything we do. "Whole Civilizations Will Be Lost," says the IPCC. Well if that's scary, that's also unchangeable. The government can not fix that. It's not possible for them to fix that. We have shark teeth fossils in the middle of the state on the bottom of fresh water spring runs. We pull them out all the time. They date to when the state was covered with water during natural warm periods. And dry land now was previously shallow underwater reefs during natural warm periods in history. Even up on the central ridge are found sharks teeth in it's freshwater rivers. The state was covered with water. Given another set of similar natural circumstances which are cycle in nature (so expected to repeat eventually) how can we not expect the same to happen again someday? What about the future generations? Will they be looking at having to adapt and move around to new locations regardless of anything at all that we do or don't do now?

 

And does that even constitute claims like, "whole civilizations lost." Or whole civilizations just relocated, slowly, over time, and necessarily so, regardless of anything at all that we do. 

 

 

     I don't know.  The guy who wrote the faq has a contact page here.  You should try asking him.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some more for y'all to laugh at. Enjoy.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Here's some more for y'all to laugh at. Enjoy.

 

I think we're making progress with solar and wind power.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Here's some more for y'all to laugh at. Enjoy.

 

I'm trying to have a serious discussion about this. Care to join me? 

 

What is it that Trump doesn't believe? He doesn't believe that the earths climate changes? I didn't hear him say that he doesn't believe that the earths climate changes.

 

I heard him say that he didn't believe a dire report (a report that is over the top, over dramatic). They've conflated those two issues from the outset in the CNN interview. I don't believe the dire report either, because it's making prophetic style predictions fixed to the end of the current century. There's tons wrong with blindly believing something like that. The dire attitude is the biggest red flag. That's always a red flag. We're talking about weather and climate models which operate based on human input and then making projections about future conditions that are not possible to know just by plugging numbers into a model now. They've already been caught skewing climate projections towards extreme ends where the models went off sky high and physical reality unfolded well below the radical and dire human based input model predictions: https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/21/climate-models-run-too-hot-settled-scie2

 

<snippage below> 

Quote

The researchers next pointed out that the IPCC's

 Fifth Assessment Report, from 2013, estimated that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions since 1870 would have to remain less than 2,260 gigatons of carbon dioxide to stay below the 1.5 C threshold. But as of 2014, cumulative emissions stood at just over 2,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Since humanity is currently emitting about 36 gigatons of carbon dioxide annually, that implies that humanity would blow through the remaining IPCC carbon budget around 2021.

 

Here's where it gets interesting. The average global temperature now stands at about 0.9 C above the pre-industrial baseline, which implies that global temperature would have to increase by 0.6 C between now and 2021 if the IPCC carbon budget calculations were right. This is highly implausible since such an increase would be about 10 times faster than what has actually heretofore been observed.

 

When you have people trying to do something helpful and decide that the means of lying, manipulating numbers, and exaggerating for their cause justifies the end, what you get are people who are both screaming that the sky is falling and crying wolf out of the same breath. That's off putting enough to a lot of people to create the situation we currently face - where a lot of people aren't very concerned about all the screaming and crying. Maybe some people listened early on, but then lost interest due to all of the transparent theatrics. 

 

So then the response is what? Yell at everyone that they're as stupid as flat earther's? Call everyone who doesn't buy the hype anti-science? Start throwing out logical fallacies like appeal to popularity? What is that going to do, aside from further discredit the cause? 

 

I'll leave it there for now, along with an open invitation to address the issue of sea level rise before I move on to focusing just as closely on all of the other climate issues in the report. As it stands, the IPCC can't claim that sea level rise will be what they project by the end of the century. And beyond that initial issue, there isn't anything they can do to make the sea levels and coastlines remain static anyways so that contemporary coastal property and civilization remains forever where it currently stands. The reality is that coastal properties now will both become inland properties some day on the one extreme, and will become underwater properties someday on the other extreme. Even if the budgets go 100% their way.  

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people take up a cause they often become so fixated and dogmatic about it they attempt to turn it into a religion. Dissenters are vilified and mocked because that has proven to be an effective way of silencing them. Follow the money and the truth will often be revealed. And this issue involves a lot of money. Al Gore, as an example, has become very wealthy championing this issue and he isn’t the only one. 

 

JP has eloquently and effectively diagnosed the problem. The planet is warming, humans are contributing to that warming, but they didn’t cause it. The planet will continue to warm and humans cannot stop that from happening. Humans can, however, make plans to deal with the effects of a warmer planet. 

 

I’ve read where some scientists believe the Sun is causing the planet to warm. The sun is a star and the heat it generates varies. I’m not a scientists so I don’t know if that is true or not. We have a lot of years to work on this problem before Florida disappears under the waves, so there is no pressing need to sell your beach property anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sorry, @Joshpantera not joining the discussion on this topic, I'm sure there's others that can discuss it.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might it serve us better if we do our best to not hasten the warming cycle? Or would you rather just heat it up as quickly as possible and get it over with? Those seem to be our two choices here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleaning up wood smoke  air pollution will greatly  reduce human suffering and save  lives. And will have the added benefit of slowing down whatever global warming exists.

 

From Over 30 years of research by medical research hospitals and universities,  numerous independent scientists around the world, world health organization, BLM, Fire Interagency, the EPA, Dept Of Ecology, the equivalent Agencies from several countries. And others.

 

Smoke kills 69,000 U.S. Citizens a year; 3 million world wide.

58,209 americans died in the vietnam war in 11 years, 36,516 in Korean war, 63,114 in WWI.

There are 69,000 preventable american deaths EVERY year from wood smoke. And hundreds of thousands diagnosed yearly with diseases directly caused by wood smoke or that have smoke as an contributing factor.

 

Current CANCER RATE IS NOW 1 in 3 PEOPLE. Woodsmoke contains over 200 carcinogens, including benzene, benzo[a]pyrene, formaldehyde and Dioxin, the most toxic substance on earth. Woodsmoke contributes to ALL KINDS of Cancer. Not just Lung Cancer!

Tobacco use is illegal in public places, yet Lung Cancer is the most prevalent, hardest to detect early and treat.
It is the number one killer in the USA of all types of cancer.
It is the number 2 cause of death from all diseases in the US.
It kills more women then breast and cervical cancer combined. It costs billions of dollars yearly!

 

1 woodstove fire puts the same amount of deadly smoke into your lung and sinus tissue, where it enters your bloodstream, as smoking 800 cigarettes a mintue would.

Benzene causes Myleofibrosis (terminal bone marrow disease). Myleofibrosis turns into Leukemia. Burning 1 kg of wood in a modern heater produces more benzo[a]pyrene than the smoke from 27,000 cigarettes; more benzene and formaldehyde than the smoke of 6,000 cigarettes.  Wood stove smoke is 27 times more harmful then cigarette smoke.

All forms of outdoor wood burning including cooking/smoking with wood ...is exponentially worse.

 

Free radicals produced from wood smoke are chemically active for twenty minutes; tobacco smoke free radicals are chemically active for thirty seconds. Wood smoke free radicals attack our body’s cells and stress our immune systems up to forty times longer then tobacco smoke increasing our risk of ALL diseases and infections. Especially autoimmune diseases.

 

The inhalable particle pollution from one woodstove is equivalent to the particle pollution emitted from 3,000 gas furnaces producing the same amount of heat per unit. Woodburning is the least efficient and most polluting form of heat. It costs more per heat unit then all other forms of heat.

 

Fine particulate matter (microscopic wood chips from wood burning) (PM 2.5), is the leading cause of global pollution-related mortality.

 

Respiratory illness is largest killer of infants.

 

1 in 10 children have Asthma. Wood smoke is  one of the  triggers.

 

Infants who are exposed to wood smoke pollution early in life are 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with Asthma by age 5.

Infants 17% increase in SIDS risk with wood smoke exposure.

 

80% of air pollution is residential indoor/outdoor wood burning; not traffic/industry.

 

Dioxin from smoke most toxic substance on earth.

 

Wood smoke triggers heart attacks.

 
82% of wildfires are human caused not lightening. 53% of lives, acres, strucures lost and cost to fight are from human caused fires. All wood burning aggravated/caused disease costs all of us billions in medical costs, billions in taxes to fight human caused wildfires and increased home/medical insurance premiums. We all pay for this problem.

 

Burning two cords of wood produces the same amount of mutagenic particles as: Driving 13 gasoline powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/gallon or driving 2 diesel powered cars 10,000 miles each @ 30 miles/gallon. These figures indicate that the worst contribution that an individual is likely to make to the mutagenicity of the air is using a wood stove for heating. Outdoor fires are exponentially worse!

 

Signs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an inflammatory disease state associated with breathing difficulty and sputum, have been found in Egyptian mummies and in a 1,600-year-old Alaskan mummy. Notes one researcher, “COPD secondary to exposure to open wood fires is still an important cause of COPD in many countries, and has been a cause of COPD ever since fire was introduced for cooking, heating and recreating.” In the Western world, we tend to romanticize ancient practices, including burning wood. However, there is nothing romantic about hacking up mucus, coughing up blood, wheezing, being out of breath and  premature death. People in developing countries in Asia, South America, and Africa who rely on burning continue to develop COPD at alarming rates. We are now

 

 1 in 2 deaths in the USA had COPD as a cause/contributor but 1 in 2 are NOT cigarette smokers. 120,000 people die each year from COPD. 4 people die every minute. 550,000 hospitalizations per year, 16 million office visits per year, and $13 billion per year in medical costs, including home care. A 20-year study found that COPD patients are five times more likely to develop lung cancer. A recent study shows “At least 93 per cent of those who had COPD were not tobacco smokers,”. 23% of COPD occurrs in age groups less than 40 years. It is not just an old persons disease. At least 12 million have undiagnosed COPD.
 
More people die from air pollution then car wrecks, fires and poisoning combined.

 

 Wood smoke pollution particles are so small that they enter homes/schools/public buildings even with all the doors, windows, heat/ventilation closed.
The level of indoor air pollution is typically equal to 70% of the outdoor pollution level.

Bathroom/Kitchen exhaust fans  pull smoke into the home no matter how airtight the building practices.

Heat/AC/ventilation exhaust systems PULL smoke in!

 

Microscopic wood particles enter lung tissue and enter the blood stream causing several diseases including cancer.

 

 Wood heating is the least efficient heat source; 53% efficient in perfect laboratory controlled conditions. Less efficient in the real world. Most of the heat goes up the chimney with the smoke. The more dampened down (suffocated) the fire the more smoke and the more heat goes outside.

 

 Not just short term intense exposure but also Long term exposure to low-levels of wood smoke increases the risk of all diseases.

 The US Surgeon General: research shows there is no safe level of ambient wood smoke. Wood smoke is harmful to human health at all levels!

 

The US EPA warns that exposure to a fraction of a nanogram of PAH increases our risk of developing cancer. 
 
Wood smoke can travel 700 miles and can stay near the ground up to 3 weeks. You dont need to smell smoke for it to harm health

 

Latest census shows most who heat with wood can easily afford to pay for non-wood heat. Americans spend 2-5 thousand yearly just on pay-per-view, movie rental, cable/satellite TV, unlimited calling/texting cell phone plans etc. Cost Doesn't include equipment purchase. Does anyone Really need hundreds of TV channels? Unlimited calling/texting? Thousands spent yearly on fireworks, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, infomercial gimmicks, perfume, toxic chemical scented laundry/house cleaning/personal care products, hundred dollar fancy fingernails; closets,  garages, homes, storage units stuffed full of stuff they buy and rarely or never look at or use.

 

Outdoor burning does not save heating costs.

 

Burning wood is always unnecessary. Wearing long pants, shoes, polar fleece shirts. Using electric meat smokers/slow cookers/your oven and the smoke cooking oils Chefs use to create awesome smoked food, propane BBQ's, adding home insulation, caulking, plastic window film, numerous other inexpensive home weatherization techniques that pay for themselves first year heating cost savings. They also reduce summer cooling costs. Recycle, compost, chip, leave in less obvious location on property to decompose naturally (just a few weeks in our climate the pile size decreases dramatically. Enzymes can be added to hasten decomposition) Use the compost and wood chips instead of spending hundreds/thousands on bark, mulch, peat-moss, topsoil, weed poison every year. Propane Campfires, fire pits, fire bowls, chimineas, outdoor and indoor fireplaces can all make smores without killing people with wood smoke.


http://burningissues.org/car-www/medical_effects/fact-sheet.htm
http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml
http://www.takebacktheair.com/
http://woodburnersmoke.net/
http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/myths/
 www.momscleanairforce.com
 http://woodsmokehealth.org/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.