oh, and btw, I did not mean to imply that you are not an expert in your area and that I had superior qualifications. But I will not concede to an appeal to authority, you’ll have to convince me with facts and logic. And I’m certainly not going to condone someone ELSE arguing by borrowing YOUR authority. I certainly would not argue by citing myself as an authority on anything, it is a useless argument. I only answered sailor’s question to show that I’m capable of understanding chemistry, physics, and math. And logic for that matter…
And BTW, about the “chilling remarks,” well, if you don’t like reading them, skip over it and read the apology. You can’t imagine how many times I hear this lame “stop breathing” argument from people, it is infuriating. I’ve tried to be good, once I realized I overstepped the line, you could at least be magnanimous and accept the apology, and deal with this as an ecological policy debate, as I have tried to do.
Oh, and P.P.S.
Yes, my degree in photography required quite advanced chemical knowledge. My particular specialty is emulsion and polymer chemistry, I make my own film. I aced Organic, but dropped out after a year because I found out it was a PreMed track and I wasn’t on that track. I took lots of physics and was spent several semesters getting advanced tutoring, in an office inside a particle accelerator. I took AP calculus, but I admit that it is my weak spot.
And that’s no appeal to authority, I just don’t want you to fall into the lame stereotype that artists are dummies. I’m not. And yes, the CFCs thing was a slip. Sorry. It’s late and I need some sleep. Darn it, I should have just responded to your message in detail, rather than a scattergun approach.
ChasE
Where I come from, patience is considered a virtue. You have a whole bunch of people here who are all convinced you are mistaken and yet we manage to not lose our cool.
I would appreciate it if you could concisely address the following points:
Point 1
You have not answered my point about CO2 being “toxic” as you now prefer to call it. By your definition of toxic, every single substance in the universe except molecular oxigen O2 is “toxic” as it does what CO2 does: it takes the place of oxigen and the body can’t get the oxigen it needs. I do not think anyone would consider this definition valid.
By this definition nitrogen, which forms 70% of our atmosphere, is also poisonous. If you increase the percentage of nitrogen and reduce that of oxigen, you end up not being able to breathe.
OTOH I would guess that in an atmosphere where half the nitrogen had been replaced with carbon dioxide and which still retained the 20 or 21% (or whatever it is) oxigen you could live quite comfortably.
But in an atmosphere 95% nitrogen and 5% oxigen you could not. That does not make nitrogen toxic or poisonous.
Please comment on the above. (Carbon monoxide is, very toxic, BTW.)
Point 2:
Ok, so your main contention is that burnt and unburnt gasoline are just as toxic and by burning we are just diluting the effects. Let me try to create a situation which I think defines well the gist of this and ask for your answers:
(A) Suppose in a classroom in a school there are 40 children. Some work was done and the workers left some rags in the room soaked in kerosene. This kerosene is evaporating at the rate of a quart a day and filling the room with kerosene fumes which the children are breathing.
(B) Suppose another classroom has a kerosene lamp which burns kerosene at the rate of two quarts a day and the children are breathing the CO2 and water vapor resulting from it.
Would you say the correct answer is
(1) B is much more unhealthy because of the greater amount of kerosene involved
(2) B is more unhealthy because of the greater amount of kerosene involved
(3) They are about the same
(4) A is a bit more unhealthy because it is kerosene they are breathing rather than the products of its combustion
(5) A is much more unhealthy because kerosene vapor are much more unhealthy than the products of their combustion
What is your answer to this?
Can you tell me if there any laws banning the burning of kerosene lamps or parafine candles in enclosed places? I remind you they sell non vented kerosene heaters at Kmart as well as kerosene lamps. If you were actually breathing the kerosene rather than the products of the combustion, you’d probably get cancer faster than lab mice.
OTOH I am quite certain there are regulations which would not allow people working in places with high concentrations of petroleum vapors of any kind.
I am using Kerosene as an example but any petroleum product would be just as good. Use gasoline in the example if you prefer.
Point 3: Let me present another problem:
I often collect diesel fuel from the bilges of my boat. I know for a fact that if I were to dump this on the Chesapeake Bay, the Coast Guard and the State of Maryland would be all over me and I would get a BIG fine, plus cleanup costs plus jail if I had done it on purpose. Cases have been documented of the Coast Guard abusing some poor guy who spilled a small quantity and called the CG to ask what he should do about it. The CG slapped him with a huge fine and endless litigation which goes to show you the stupidity of econazism.
Now, can you tell me what law says I cannot take that fuel and burn it in the open? I do not believe there is one. I would like to hear your take on that too.
Point 4: I am quite certain charcoal briquettes used in barbacues produce way, way more carbon monoxide and other harmful, cancerigenous, stuff than burning straight fuel. I believe this is common knowledge but I am willing to find cites in support. Do you agree or dispute this?
If you agree, how do you justify not banning charcoal briquettes?
My dad has designed and built the control systems for industial grade thermal oxidizers. TO’s essentially take organic solvents produced from the glue making process (many of which are carcinogenic) and burn them to make carbon dioxide and water. Someone should have told him that these EPA required pollution controls did nothing to reduce pollution. It sure would have saved the company a lot of money.
Anyone have any idea how these disposal places dispose of used fuel? Can they recycle it? It wouldn’t surprise me at all if they just burned it.
[Moderator watch ON]
stuyguy, I’m really sorry about this. You asked a good question, and I’d like to see you get an answer. However, this thread has been thoroughly killed by now, and there’s no real hope of it going anywhere meningful now. I hope that you’ve gotten enough of an answer already.
Meanwhile, Chas.E, rational, mature adults NEVER settle debates by threatening violence to others, here on the boards or in the rest of life. Do NOT make such threats again, if you value your continued presence on these message boards.