Save the Earth ? (dezbateri pe teme ecologice)

[jet li]

The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson

[iooo]

am primit ceva pe mail acum, nu m-am documentat insa in legatura cu asta :

Radiatiile produse de telefoanele mobile pot fi cauza principala a disparitiei albinelor, un fenomen care a fost sesizat incepand de saptamana trecuta in SUA si apoi in Europa, potrivit Daily Mirror. Fenomenul este cu atat mai ingrijorator cu cat se extinde cu rapiditate la nivel global si afecteaza in mod direct viata omului pe Pamant. De altfel, celebrul fizician Albert Einstein a afirmat ca daca albinele dispar, omul nu mai are de trait mai mult de patru ani.

Moartea unor colonii intregi de albine apare atunci cand locuitorii unui stup dispar brusc, iar in stup mai raman doar reginele, ouale si cateva albine lucratoare imature. Albinele care si-au pierdut simtul orientarii din cauza radiatiilor mobilelor nu mai pot fi gasite, ele murind departe de stup. Astfel, acesta devine lipsit de orice aparare in fata parazitilor si animalelor salbatice.
Prima alarma de acest fel a aparut in toamna trecuta, dar acum a lovit jumatate din SUA. Astfel, Coasta de Vest a pierdut 60% din populatia de albine, iar Coasta de Est, 70%. De asemenea, disparitii similare ale coloniilor de albine au fost raportate si in Germania, Elvetia, Spania, Portugalia, Italia si Grecia.

Conform unui studiu realizat la Universitatea Landau, din Germania, s-a aratat ca albinele refuza sa se intoarca in stupi atunci cand telefoane mobile sunt plasate in apropierea lor. Dr. Jochen Kuhn, care a condus studiul, a avertizat totodata ca omenirea nu poate supravietui disparitiei albinelor




ü SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT

[bogdan george]

Originally Posted by iooo

am primit ceva pe mail acum, nu m-am documentat insa in legatura cu asta :

spam

[Nighty]

Tinand cont ca telefoanele mobile si antenele exista de ceva timp, e oarecum ciudat faptul ca exact acum s-au hotarat sa dispara. Stirea e adevarata, dar cauza cea mai probabila este un virus. Si in plus, care e legatura cu albinele si supravietuirea omului ?

[iooo]

nu-s' banuiesc ca nu se mai polenizeaza plantele eficient . si nici miere sau laptisor de matca nu o sa mai avem

[Zarzavat]

Pilotii militari rusi au descris cum au creat nori de ploaie pentru a proteja Moscova de norii radioactivi imediat dupa dezastrul nuclear de la Cernobil din anul 1986.

http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?data=...4-23&id=219450

[bogdan george]

Se pare ca alternativele "verzi" nu sunt chiar asa de verzi.

Junk Science: Green Gas-Lighting?

Thursday , May 03, 2007
By Steven Milloy
ADVERTISEMENT

We will continue this column’s look at the unintended consequences and knee-slapping irony of our society’s mindless lurch toward becoming “green” by considering two new studies on alternative fuels.

From hybrid cars costing far more than they save in the way of fuel economy to Northern latitude forests causing global warming, to mercury-containing compact fluorescent light bulbs potentially turning homes into toxic waste sites, it’s becoming more apparent every day that green-ness is not necessarily what it’s cracked up to be.

Perhaps you have fallen (as did President Bush and the Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005) for the ethanol lobby’s line that ethanol is a “cleaner-burning fuel.”

You may then be quite chagrinned to learn about a new study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology (April 18) from Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Z. Jacobson concluding that ethanol poses substantial health risks.

“If every vehicle in the United States ran on fuel made primarily from ethanol instead of pure gasoline, the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations would likely increase,” states the media release for Jacobson’s study.

"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution,” said Jacobson, “but our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.”

Jacobson’s results are based on computer modeling of future air quality based on two scenarios -- a vehicle fleet fueled by gasoline and a vehicle fleet powered by E85, a popular blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

Jacobson’s modeling found that while E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens -- benzene and butadiene -- they increase the levels of two other carcinogens -- formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

“As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline,” Jacobson said.

The study also projected a 4 percent increase in ozone-related deaths nationwide (9 percent for Los Angeles) and increases in asthma-related emergency room visits and respiratory-related hospitalizations.

Jacobson concluded by asking, “If we’re not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote ethanol and other biofuels?”

The ethanol lobby’s effort to parry to this study amounts to changing the subject. On its Web site, the American Coalition for Ethanol directs the media to another analysis that “shows that ethanol use reduced carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions by at least one-third.” Carbon monoxide and particulate matter, however, are entirely different substances than formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

Less than a week later, a study published in Chemistry and Industry, a journal of the Society of the Chemical Industry, reported that biodiesel, another alternative motor vehicle fuel, “could increase rather than reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional diesel.”

According to the media release, researchers compared the emission of greenhouse gases by the two fuels across their overall life cycles from production to combustion in cars.

Though the results showed that biodiesel (derived from rapeseed grown on dedicated farmland) emits nearly the same amount of carbon dioxide as conventional diesel when burned in an engine, growing rapeseed emits significant levels of nitrous oxide (laughing gas), which is 200 to 300 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately for the greenhouse gas-crazed European Union, rapeseed-derived biodiesel is the major biofuel used across Europe and was expected to play an important role in helping the EU to meet its greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Under a 2003 EU directive, biofuel use is supposed to increase from 2 percent of all transport fuels to 10 percent by 2010.

Oops.

But we ought not be too surprised. It’s part-and-parcel of the folly of eco-panic -- like the ongoing problem with the fuel additive known as MTBE.

In the 1980s, environmentalists pressured Congress to require that so-called oxygenates be added to gasoline to reduce tailpipe emissions. Of the two oxygenates available at the time, MTBE and ethanol, the Environmental Protection Agency blessed MTBE because it was cheaper and easier for refiners to use than ethanol.

What no one counted on was the 1980s-era problem of leaking underground storage tanks (known as LUSTs) at gasoline stations and other storage facilities.

The combination of MTBE's high water solubility -- meaning it moves faster than other fuel components in soil -- and the widespread problems of LUSTs turned MTBE into a national groundwater nightmare, which, according to a 2005 American Water Works Association study, could cost $25 billion to $33 billion to clean up.

Moreover, while oxygenated gasoline (also known as “reformulated gasoline” or “RFG”) added $0.10 to $0.20 to the price of a gallon of gas, it’s unclear whether any public health or environmental benefits were derived from its use. As the National Academy of Sciences reported in 1999, “although long-term trends in peak ozone in the United States appear to be downward, it is not certain that any part of these trends can be significantly attributed to the use of RFG.”

While further study of ethanol and biodiesel are needed, the current round of alarming results raises lots of pressing questions that ought to be considered before we take another environmentalist-prodded MTBE-like plunge into The Great Green Unknown.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269886,00.html

Da, sursa e FOXNews, totusi situatia prezentata e destul de clara.

[bogdan george]

Si tot despre etanol, de data asta dintr-o sursa mai serioasa:

Surprise: Ethanol as Deadly as Gasoline For Now

By Charles Q. Choi
Special to LiveScience
posted: 18 April 2007
01:00 am ET


Fuels high in ethanol may pose an equal or greater risk to public health than regular gasoline, new findings suggest.

''Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution,'' said Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson. But he found the number of deaths and hospitalizations linked with respiratory ailments might increase if every vehicle in the United States used the latest automotive technology and ran on fuel containing high levels of ethanol.

The findings counter the environmentally friendly image of ethanol fuels. Ethanol is made from corn and other plants, which naturally soak up carbon dioxide. Research suggests that ethanol production and consumption might therefore release less of this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than gasoline use does.

Increase in ozone

Jacobson used 3-D atmospheric computer models to simulate air quality in the year 2020, when ethanol-fueled vehicles could become widely available in the United States.

''The chemicals that come out of a tailpipe are affected by a variety of factors, including chemical reactions, temperatures, sunlight, clouds, wind and precipitation,'' he explained. ''In addition, overall health effects depend on exposure to these airborne chemicals, which varies from region to region.

Jacobson focused especially on Los Angeles, which is home to about 6 percent of the nation's population and has historically had some of the most polluted airs in the United States and has been the testbed for nearly all U.S. air pollution regulations, making it ideal for a more detailed study, he explained.

He programmed the model to compare two future scenarios—one in which all the cars, trucks, motorcycles and other autos in the country are fueled by gasoline, and another in which vehicles are driven by E85, a popular blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

''We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,'' Jacobson said. ''As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline. However, in some parts of the country, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog.''

200 more deaths per year

Specifically, E85 would cause ozone levels to increase in Los Angeles and the northeastern United States but to decline in the southeast United States. This is because of levels of airborne pollutants such as nitrogen oxides or volatile organic compounds such as formaldehyde vary in the air of each locale. Emissions from E85 would therefore react chemically in different ways, creating ozone at some areas and destroying it in others.

Gasoline currently leads to roughly 10,000 premature deaths in the United States annually from ozone and particulate matter, Jacobson explained.

''In our study, E85 increased ozone-related mortalities in the United States by about 200 deaths per year compared to gasoline, with about 120 of those deaths occurring in Los Angeles,'' he said. ''These mortality rates represent an increase of about 4 percent in the U.S. and 9 percent in Los Angeles above the projected ozone-related death rates for gasoline-fueled vehicles in 2020.''

"We found that nationwide, E85 is likely to increase the annual number of asthma-related emergency room visits by 770 and the number of respiratory-related hospitalizations by 990,'' Jacobson said of his findings, detailed in the April 18 online edition of the journal Environmental Science & Technology. ''Los Angeles can expect 650 more hospitalizations in 2020, along with 1,200 additional asthma-related emergency visits.''

Combustion engine problem

These numbers might change if better ways to treat ethanol fuel emissions develop in the next 10 years, Jacobson said. "But based on what we currently know, ethanol is at least as bad to public health as gasoline, and possibly worse," he told LiveScience.

"People might say that these aren't huge increases in deaths we're seeing here," he added. "My response would be that I don't think 10,000 deaths a year from gasoline is a good thing to begin with. There are technologies we can use instead of any type of combustion engine that would result in no tailpipe deaths, such as battery-electric vehicles whose energy can come from wind or solar power."

Atmospheric chemist Roger Atkinson at the University of California, Riverside noted, "It's been known for a long time that E85 is not the cleanest fuel in the world." He added that regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board "will have to keep on top of this issue to make sure things don't go awry."

http://www.livescience.com/environme...anol_harm.html

[jet li]

Vanatoare cu sulite in Africa :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htimBdLg6es

Face parte dintr-un documentar italian din 1966 "Adio Africa" :

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...q=Africa+Addio

[jet li]

http://img175.imagevenue.com/loc353/..._122_353lo.jpg
2.5 milioane de sticle de plastic - cate sunt folosite in USA intr-o ora
http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_arc...7/2929516.html

[jet li]

De ce nu apare in masa masina asta :
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm
- 1 litru / 100 km , nu s-a mai auzit nimic de ea din 2002, cineva are interes sa nu apara, sunt sigur ca acum s-ar vinde foarte bine
sau asta :
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive...rs/4217016.html
- cu aer comprimat , merge 125 de mile, si prinde 68 mile/ ora, costa 2$ un plin. Un compresor ii umple rezervorul cu aer comprimat. Se consuma electricitatea cu care merge compresorul, care poate fi produsa nepoluant si fara sa ocupi campul cu culturi pentru etanol, sa creasca pretul alimentelor si sa distrugi pana la urma solul prin agricultura intensiva

Ambele stiri le-am gasit aici : http://www.cryptogon.com/

[bogdan george]

Originally Posted by jet li

De ce nu apare in masa masina asta :
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm
- 1 litru / 100 km , nu s-a mai auzit nimic de ea din 2002, cineva are interes sa nu apara, sunt sigur ca acum s-ar vinde foarte bine

M-am uitat doar pe primul link si mi-a fost de ajuns. Pai aia-i motocicleta, nu masina! Si nici nu spune cat ar costa. In ceea ce ma priveste, ar trebui sa fie ieftina rau ca s-o cumpar. Un Polo Happy se invarte pe la 11 000 de euro, si tot ai loc pentru cinci oameni si portbagaj. O piticanie din asta ar trebui sa se vanda cu cel mult 5000 ca sa aiba succes pe piata.

Cel mai probabil este doar o masina-concept, pe baza careia sa se bazeze eventual dezvoltarea unei noi clase de masini. Te asigur ca nelansarea ei pe piata a avut strict motive economice.

P.S. 8,5 cai putere!

[jet li]

In Columbia, oamenii sunt alungati de pe pamantul lor de forte paramilitare care vor sa produca etanol, e profitabil si mai sigur decat sa produca droguri :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...095338,00.html

Surging demand for "green" fuel has prompted rightwing paramilitaries to seize swaths of territory, according to activists and farmers. Thousands of families are believed to have fled a campaign of killing and intimidation, swelling Colombia's population of 3 million displaced people and adding to one of the world's worst refugee crises after Darfur and Congo.

[PigBrother]

In caz ca ati ratat.
Zapada si grindina ieri la Londra... AxA, ai legatura.

http://www.trilulilu.ro/Piticu21/64c46e60076f9c
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...273498,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6267038.stm

[Jigodie]

world is going down!

[Stukov]

Nu Soarele este vinovat de incalzirea globala.

[PigBrother]

De ce nu ma mira.

[HellSpawn]

alternativa la incalzirea globala

[jet li]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...06233509990001

"Plastics in the oceans act as a toxic sponge, soaking up a lot of the persistent pollutants out here," Smith said. "We've seen photos of albatrosses who eat this plastic ... Even though their stomachs are filled, they end up starving because there's no nutrients in there."

Plastic breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces over time in the ocean. Eventually it becomes powder-like small and just about all tiny lifeforms in the ocean like zoo-plankton could swallow them mistaking them for food. In an aquarium experiment by Richard Thompson using bottom feeding lug-worms and sand fleas. He provided them with bite-sized plastic and they promptly swallowed them. The lodged particles in the intestines of the subjects resulted in terminal constipation. (See Chapter 9, Polymers are Forever, of The World Without Us by Alan Weisman)

[jet li]

Despre cei care spun ca protejeaza mediul cumparand produse "ecologice" :

YouTube - Greensumption