Features

Pentegarn · #**676**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg

So I don't find it surprising. Even anthropogenic global climate change can be limited or reduced to the point where nature takes over again. IF it exists, that is - in case you were unaware, there is still some debate on this point.

(We probably talked about this before , when coonholio was still actively posting crap, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

)

I think only coolie thought climate change was a myth

That said, he did touch (inadvertently I do not doubt) on something I do take issue with. Cap and trade tax (or penalties). I feel it sets a dangerous precedent. We know CO2 is considered a gas that effects global warning, so how long before a country is charged a cap and trade penalty for their population because exhaling while breathing emits CO2?

In essence, cap in trade is potentially a 'breathing tax'. I take issue with that. Time was when we worried about CO2 emissions, we planted trees. What happened to those days?

Colonel Flagg · #**677**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

That said, [coolsterino] did touch (inadvertently I do not doubt) on something I do take issue with. Cap and trade tax (or penalties).

Ah, but he was the only one bringing it up, tacitly assuming he was the ONLY ONE who was against "cap-and-trade".

Not true.

But he never listened, or stayed around long enough to find out.

That being said, there is still hefty debate going on in the scientific community on anthrpogenic climate change - man's contribution to the global carbon cycle - and that is still a matter of some disagreement. Most of the climatologists believe there is a tipping point above which the balance of carbon will drastically shift, bringing about a drastic change in the average global temperature. That still remains to be seen; the world is a complex place.

I just think we should limit the production of greenhouse gases to lessen the impact hiumans have on the global environment, and to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. I think that makes good economic and environmental sense.

kahljorn · #**678**

but you wannta take away my freedums

Quote:

Time was when we worried about CO2 emissions, we planted trees. What happened to those days?

HIPPY!

Anybody with a BREAIN knows you don't need trees just pots of boiling water

Grislygus · #**679**

why they gotta make it a thing

Pentegarn · #**680**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

HIPPY!

No need to get downright insulting

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Anybody with a BREAIN knows you don't need trees just pots of boiling water

Colonel Flagg · #**681**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Anybody with a BREAIN knows you don't need trees just pots of boiling water

Kitsa · #**682**

A woman at a party last night told me that if I ever forget my inhaler again, to breathe in over a cup of ice because the oxygen is more concentrated over ice.

Colonel Flagg · #**683**

How much did she have to drink?

The Leader · #**684**

Did she have a lot of ice water? Maybe she was being affected by all of the oxygen.

Kitsa · #**685**

I told her I'd have to remember it, and I did.

I'm the dumbass for leaving my rescue inhaler at home during an event where I knew there'd be a lot of smoke. Fortunately the wheezing was minor and stopped on its own.

Colonel Flagg · #**686**

You should have told her that actually oxygen is less dense than nitrogen so in a given "emergency" situation you should stand on your tippy toes instead.

Kitsa · #**687**

also, my pulmonologist says that in 50 years an asthmatic's lungs and a smoker's lungs look the same. He's trying to get me to take steroids and I'm fighting it because of the cancer history.

I have yet to work up the nerve to ask how, exactly, the lungs look the same, seeing as asthma doesn't leave much of a tarry residue or burn any cilia.

kahljorn · #**688**

How come nobody ever talks about what would happen if there were TOO MANY TREES and not enough greenhouse gases?

It's widely known in science that dinosaurs would proliferate again.

Colonel Flagg · #**689**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsa

also, my pulmonologist says that in 50 years an asthmatic's lungs and a smoker's lungs look the same.

Maybe he's only referring to scar tissue? Still, it seems a pretty lame comparison to me.

One of my foster children was prescribed an agressive regimen of albuterol and pulmicort (steroid) due to lung damge suffered in utero. The pediatrician was hoping that by hitting the symptoms hard, early, while he still had a developing respiratory system, the air passages and the interior of his lungs would respond by healing and even by repairing damaged alveoli. It is quite a stretch, seeing as lung tissue does not regenerate, but that's more in adults - infants can be much more resilient.

18 months later on, and there was no longer any sign of wheezing or gasping in any of his checkups. So we're cautiously optimistic that he may have turned the proverbial corner.

His steroid regimen was cumulatively very small in comparison to what a typical adult with asthma would be prescribed, I'd think.

I'm not sure if any of this is relevant to your situation at all, but sometimes it's useful to get another perspective.

Kitsa · #**690**

Suppose so. I'm glad he's better. But I've been on so many steroids for one reason or another (cancer, adrenal issues, etc) I'm surprised I don't have the shakes yet. And personally, I'm not a huge fan of the bloated steroid-y feeling.

I don't have a lot of asthma attacks. The vast majority of them are from allergic reactions, which I can easily head off with atarax or benadryl. My rescue inhaler is for when I need to take it a step further, but that doesn't happen often. I only had one stress-related attack recently, and it took quite an amount of stress to tip me into it.

I just don't want to stuff myself with steroids again; I don't think my particular situation merits it.

Colonel Flagg · #**691**

And with your medical history, and acquired knowledge, you probably know your situation better than most specialists. Hopefully the doc is wise enough to realize this and not push you too hard.

Tadao · #**692**

Colonel Flagg · #**693**

This looks like it could be a page-turner.

Colonel Flagg · #**694**

A couple of items -

There is a new upper limit to the mass of the neutrino - I find this intriguing because there are significant ramifications in the area of string theory as well as cosmology.

The gist of the article is that the neutrino is pretty damned light. But the indications are that it does have some mass.

Secondly, has anyone had a chance to check this out? It looks like GoogleEarth, but for the universe. There are also 3D "tours" of the planets and some of the major satellites in the solar system. I can't check it out from here, so I have to wait 'til I get home.

Supafly345 · #**695**

I saw a thing similar to what you are describing in a TED talk recently, though I couldn't get your link to work so I don't know if it is or not, but here's the presentation http://youtu.be/8agz9FcDcPk

And christ, don't mention string theory ever again. SERIOUSLY FUCKER.

Colonel Flagg · #**696**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supafly345

And christ, don't mention string theory ever again. SERIOUSLY FUCKER.

Sethomas · #**697**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsa

A woman at a party last night told me that if I ever forget my inhaler again, to breathe in over a cup of ice because the oxygen is more concentrated over ice.

Well, the final statement is actually true. If you consider the Ideal Gas Law (PV=nRT) and assume constant pressure and volume, a change of temperature will shift the value of "n" higher and thus raise the density of all the constituent gases. So yes, the oxygen would be more concentrated but so would the nitrogen and CO2. Doing the math though, under typical circumstances I think you'd be rather lucky to increase the gas concentration by more than 8%. So is it worth your time in case of an emergency? I dunno, couldn't hurt I guess.