British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Aardvark · 17-12-2006, 11:26 AM

Matt,

You could ask the same question about tobacco smoke when it comes to quantities. It is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's population that tobacco smoke can cause heart disease, lung cancer and a range of other illnesses, yet most smokers breathe air unpolluted by tobacco carcinogens for their entire lives. Even when they inhale from a cigarette they are inhaling more air than tobacco fumes. A twenty a day man might only actually be smoking for less than an hour each day in total (probably much less since a drag only takes a few seconds) and will not have smoked for the first 10-15 years of his life, will not have smoked in his sleep etc. Are you willing to argue that because he has breathed air all his life it is the air and not the tobacco that causes the problems?

Miners died of pneumoconiosis (sp?) despite not spending all day, every day exposed to coal dust. One thread of blue or brown asbestos can cause mesothelioma. You can breathe pure air all your life, but inhale a couple of grains of polonium and see what happens.

I don't say the doom mongers are right, but I can readily accept that a small amount of something dangerous can have a deleterious effect beyond what you might reasonably expect when looking at the quantities.

Why do you expect someone else to provide the research you require on this forum which is remarkably devoid of scientists on a normal day (especially given the number of techies who are lurking hereabouts)? I think the question might be better asked over on the New Scientist website where someone might be able to explain, if the figures are not kept in the format you require why that is so.

I think the amount of O on the earth is relatively constant since to increase it must have come from somewhere and to decrease it must go to somewhere. There will be chemical processes taking place all the time, whether in your intestine or in fires or when rain water mixes with carbon particles. The existence of all of the visible earth is related to recent chemical processes, whether it be granite from volcanoes or chalk from calcified sea creatures or coal from plant carbons or soil from decayed leaves etc. Photosynthesis is happening a billion times a second in a forest near you.

You might try reading Bill Bryson's excellent book 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'. It puts a lot of things in context and in a language that the non-scientists amongst us can readily understand.

I don't think, on this occasion, that the point you are trying to make is as important as you think it is. :wink:

17-12-2006, 11:26 AM	#18 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,720	Matt, You could ask the same question about tobacco smoke when it comes to quantities. It is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's population that tobacco smoke can cause heart disease, lung cancer and a range of other illnesses, yet most smokers breathe air unpolluted by tobacco carcinogens for their entire lives. Even when they inhale from a cigarette they are inhaling more air than tobacco fumes. A twenty a day man might only actually be smoking for less than an hour each day in total (probably much less since a drag only takes a few seconds) and will not have smoked for the first 10-15 years of his life, will not have smoked in his sleep etc. Are you willing to argue that because he has breathed air all his life it is the air and not the tobacco that causes the problems? Miners died of pneumoconiosis (sp?) despite not spending all day, every day exposed to coal dust. One thread of blue or brown asbestos can cause mesothelioma. You can breathe pure air all your life, but inhale a couple of grains of polonium and see what happens. I don't say the doom mongers are right, but I can readily accept that a small amount of something dangerous can have a deleterious effect beyond what you might reasonably expect when looking at the quantities. Why do you expect someone else to provide the research you require on this forum which is remarkably devoid of scientists on a normal day (especially given the number of techies who are lurking hereabouts)? I think the question might be better asked over on the New Scientist website where someone might be able to explain, if the figures are not kept in the format you require why that is so. I think the amount of O on the earth is relatively constant since to increase it must have come from somewhere and to decrease it must go to somewhere. There will be chemical processes taking place all the time, whether in your intestine or in fires or when rain water mixes with carbon particles. The existence of all of the visible earth is related to recent chemical processes, whether it be granite from volcanoes or chalk from calcified sea creatures or coal from plant carbons or soil from decayed leaves etc. Photosynthesis is happening a billion times a second in a forest near you. You might try reading Bill Bryson's excellent book 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'. It puts a lot of things in context and in a language that the non-scientists amongst us can readily understand. I don't think, on this occasion, that the point you are trying to make is as important as you think it is. :wink: