Hello Werner.
I never thought that you truly believed the 60% figure. I was just
using that as a device to bring you along for the ride...
Sorry for the confusion --
Marcus ;o)
--- Previous Message in This Thread ---
Subject: Re:[LF] NTC: Toxic computers (cont)
From: Werner Engelmaier <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, February 12, 2010 4:54:29 PM
> Marcus,
> You missed my point—nowhere did I say that I believe that it is
> anything like 60%, but that kind of level of human contribution is
> what Al Gore and co-'Greenies' must be thinking about.
> And I wanted to point out that if that is the case what it would take
> to affect any change.
> Werner
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus L. Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Fri, Feb 12, 2010 6:40 pm
> Subject: Re: [LF] NTC: Toxic computers (cont)
>
> For the community --
>
> "Climate Change" (aka AGW):
>
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/
> http://www.friendsofscience.org/
> http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
>
> Robust science? Consensus? I think I hear "Yakety Sax" starting to
> play somewhere out there...
>
> (Pssst, Werner: It's nowhere near 60% ;o)
>
> Recycling? Yes, as long as it's not pursued as a pseudoreligious
> compulsion. Balance and common sense must govern based upon the
> intrinsic hazard profile of the item involved, and the exigencies of
> the local population. On the cuckoo end of things, a huge swath here
> in the Pacific Northwest behave as if they've seen too many reruns of
> "Soylent Green" on late-night television when it comes to the daily
> event of "taking out the trash."
>
> As the "Greenies" say, "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" in that order. Most
> here at LEADFREE are interested in keeping what they have from that
> last "R" for as long as possible. For a whole spectrum of reasons,
> society needs to work those first two "R"s much harder than it does
> nowadays...
>
> Buses vs. Light Rail:
>
> Balance again.
>
> Light rail may indeed promise significant increases in efficiency (by
> more than one metric) for tomorrow's mass transit. It should be a
> prime and ongoing consideration when rebuilding in congested urban
> spaces, and when setting up new communities surrounding densely
> populated locations. However, it doesn't make sense everywhere right
> now.
>
> As for what we presently have on our plate with those thousands of
> filthy buses crawling about our streets (double-length buses on
> Seattle side streets!), well, the pollution which they generate is
> absolutely unnecessary. PERIOD.
>
> Indeed, the worst offenders are the SCHOOL BUSES WHICH OUR CHILDREN
> RIDE every morning and afternoon. CNG should be absolutely MANDATED
> for these public vehicles (sorry, hybrid helps, but it just doesn't
> cut it. And yes, I do know). The City of Phoenix has been running
> CNG-fueled buses for years; and the pollution profile for the units so
> fitted is comparatively nil.
>
> See http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/ for more food for thought.
>
> Prosit!
>
>
> --- Previous Message in This Thread ---
> Subject: [LF] NTC: Toxic computers (cont)
> From: Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Friday, February 12, 2010 7:46:20 AM
>
> > > [rant]
> > I've been following the debate here and have deliberately not joined
> in, > up to now, because it is not a single subject, but half-a-dozen
> > completely independent ones, all mixed up, higgledy-piggledy. It is
> > therefore impossible to follow a logical sequence of arguments. (In
> any > case, although the LF forum may have been the correct place to
> start, > this should really have gone to the EnviroNet board!)
> > > Some of the newer members may not know me so please forgive me if
> I > briefly state that I have been working with various high-level >
> government agencies and the United Nations Environment Programme for >
> nigh on 3 decades, initially on ozone depletion and later climate >
> change, both atmospheric science-based. Notwithstanding, my academic >
> background started 60-odd years ago in electronics.
> > > In my environmental specialities, I doubt whether there are any
> serious > atmospheric scientists who would deny today that ozone
> depletion, due > mainly to man-made organic halogenated compounds, is
> fact, pure and > simple. This was not always the case; when the
> Montreal Protocol was > signed in September 1987, the science was
> certainly shaky, although > there was considerable circumstantial
> evidence in its favour. Just one > year later, the scientific proof
> was empirically demonstrated, combined > with sound explanations why
> the so-called "ozone-hole" was found where > CFCs etc. were not
> emitted. Scepticism is a healthy reaction to such > explanations and
> even proof, and it took the best part of 10 years > before 99% of the
> scientific community realised that anthropogenic > ozone-depletion was
> for real.
> > > Moving to climate change, the science is already advanced and is >
> improving daily. We are now at the stage where few atmospheric >
> scientists deny the reality that humans are changing the atmosphere >
> (there is plenty of solid proof, even confirming Arrhenius' hypothesis
> > and calculations that CO2 emissions would cause climate change, well
> > over 100 years ago). There may still be some doubt in the minds of
> the > few more recalcitrant persons as to the respective proportions
> due to > man-made and natural phenomena, but that is not the crux of
> the matter. > The science is now robust, even with the uncertainties
> of some of the > details.
> > > Coming back to the thread, I'm still amazed at the difference in >
> attitude on the two sides of the Atlantic, not at the facts of life,
> but > at the cynicism -- which is NOT the same as scepticism --
> expressed on > environmental matters on the west side. Even from the
> relative > intelligentsia of some of the members of this forum, I
> shudder at some > of the statements. I'm not sure whether this is due
> to ignorance or > deliberate denial, in some cases. Don't get me
> wrong, some from the east > side of that sea are also manifestly
> mistaken, as well.
> > > I think that some of this may be due to envirofatigue: nagging the
> same > thing over and over again is a terrible waste of time and
> energy and the > popular media must take a whole lot of blame for
> this. In particular, I > decry the extreme scenarios (in both senses)
> that the tabloids so love > to propagate (even those English ones that
> pretend to be serious, like > the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail) to
> try and convince everyone that it > is baloney. These rags will change
> their tune, like the Sun, if a > Conservative government gets in later
> this year.
> > > I won't go into details because there have been so many right and
> so > many wrong things, at least in my opinion, scattered around this
> > subject. However, there is one thing I shall categorically state:
> the > future of mankind, in the long term, must rest on recycling as
> many > molecules and atoms as we can. All our physical resources are
> limited in > quantity and everything that is thrown away and becomes
> irrecoverable is > a resource lost to our children and grandchildren.
> I say this > irrespective of cost: today's valueless PE or PP
> insulation may be > tomorrow's fuel that drives us to work in our 8th
> generation hybrid car!
> > > I therefore appeal for more thought and reflection on where we are
> > really heading, rather than gut-feeling and especially total or
> partial > denial.
> > > Sorry to take this to a slightly more philosophical level than
> expressed > in some of the other post. Let battle now be enjoined!
> > [/rant]
> > > Brian
> > > > > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or >
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
> > Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> with following text in
> > the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> > To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
> > send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> > Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> > Please visit IPC web site >
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional >
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> or 847-615-7100 > ext.2815
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
> Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
> send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
