Chuck

I'm sorry but I don't have the time to take all the points you raise,
one by one, and, in any case, I think , from your statements, that I, or
anyone else, wouldn't be able persuade you to change your mind.

I believe that our friends in the Alpine regions, especially in the ski
resorts, are actually short of snow, believe it or not. However, we have
1m50 of powdery on the ski slopes of the Troodos mountains (as against
1m10 in Verbier, according to last night's EuroNews!). In most of the
Alps, they are resorting to using snow machines on the slopes. What
weather!

My statements regarding health problems, of course, are related to
emissions other than CO2 or CH4. However, by economising on the use of
fossil fuels, whether for electricity generation, transport or house
heating, you would kill two birds with one stone: you would reduce CO2
emissions, which seem contributory to climate change, and you would
reduce emissions of other pollutants, which are contributory to health
problems (and other ones, besides). Can we afford not to?

If you want the facts and figures of the latter, every country holds
mortality statistics. Just consult your's. However, remember they need
skilled interpretation and weighting by epidemiologists. Like climate
problems, you cannot just take one figure and assume that applies
globally. Let me take an example of lung cancer. The figure of mortality
rates in developed countries is increasing slowly but must be
interpreted considering:
- improved diagnosis methods (+)
- patients live longer, giving longer for the disease to develop to Dx
stage (+)
- more urban dwellers (+)
- more young people smoking (+)
- fewer middle-aged and old people smoking (-)
- increase of permanent remissions following treatment (-)
- less exposure to industrial carcinogens (-)
- improved quality of fuels (-)
- etc. (+/-)
It is therefore impossible for a layman to make a rigid interpretation
from statistics without a study involving cohorts and controls.
Notwithstanding, the confidence level of the correlation between
pulmonary disease and pollution levels is very high, according to
various epidemiological studies in different countries, usually above a
fractile 0.97.

Finally, please check your statements: carbon monoxide is a lethal
toxin. Excess carbon dioxide will suffocate you through lack of oxygen,
but carbon monoxide does not. It kills you. The physiology is quite
clear: CO binds itself to haemoglobin, preventing the latter from
transporting oxygen to vital tissues, some of which are also damaged,
especially in the CNS. A level of 100 ppm will cause symptomatic effects
(headache, flushed appearance etc.). At 1% (1000 ppm) there is serious
impairment of most bodily functions and prolonged exposure at this level
may result in permanent damage or death, even if there is still 20%
oxygen in the air. On the other hand, CO2 at 10% in the air will have
little physiological effect. It will reduce the oxygen level to about
18%, so a sensation of slight breathlessness may occur and respiration
becomes deeper and more frequent, but there is no toxic effect. In fact,
CO2 is often administered medically to promote deeper breathing of
high-oxygen mixtures in cases where increased oxygenation of the blood
is needed for therapeutic purposes (e.g., ironically, in cases of CO
poisoning).

Best regards,

Brian