GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[turbguy + 1,535]

The coal industry has been getting hit with a run of bad headlines of late.

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/06/07/we-need-to-fight-back-wyoming-takes-first-step-to-sue-epa-over-coal-rule/?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=campaign&_kx=Fm2KWNHm-QtZS1ku5PUAwaeGOoypnHgRivWLxD6Mgwg.UXPtrV

[bloodman33 + 22]

I am creating an Oilprice.com Biden pack for everyone to donate to Presidential Biden's reelection campaign agains the 'Grab her in the cat' Trump!  

 

Biden administration unveils new EV-oriented fuel economy standards

[TailingsPond + 671]

https://civileats.com/2024/06/05/on-farms-plasticulture-persists/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

13 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Did you read the question?  Do you need a paper to know that the exhaust is dirty?  The point was I don't need to show a paper for you to know the exhaust is dirty.

You can see the pollution, just like at the coal mine.

You mean that if we remove all the catalytic converters, we have a pollution problem.

That is your idea of a profound statement?

[TailingsPond + 671]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You mean that if we remove all the catalytic converters, we have a pollution problem.

That is your idea of a profound statement?

That's not what I wrote.  Try harder.

My point was it you should not deny the existence of pollution when you can see it with your own eyes.  You should also have enough common sense to know that pollution is bad for your health without links to studies.

You can't put a catalytic converter on a coal mine.  No magic technology is making that pollution go away.

Remember:

Coal mine 41,737 tonnes of particulate matter released per year.

Li mine 19.7 tonnes of particulate matter released per year."

 

Edited June 8 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 671]

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

48 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Lithium, cobalt? Bad stuff.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

https://civileats.com/2024/06/05/on-farms-plasticulture-persists/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

Your source is nothing but a propaganda sheet for climate agitation.

For instance, they get sidetracked into anti-CO2 nonsense,

"... the production of plastics—a derivative of fossil fuels, typically obtained through fracking—is a major contributor to climate change, responsible for over 5 percent of global emissions."

Complete rubbish.

If you think that fossil fuel pollutants are dangerous, show some numbers, not just the usual discredited propaganda.

You should know that intellectual pollution is more dangerous than industrial pollution. 

Edited June 8 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 671]

41 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Lithium, cobalt? Bad stuff.

Try harder. 0.05% of the pollution of a coal mine.

 

Coal mine 41,737 tonnes of particulate matter released per year.

Li mine 19.7 tonnes of particulate matter released per year."

 

Edited June 8 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 671]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

If you think that fossil fuel pollutants are dangerous, show some numbers, not just the usual discredited propaganda.

 

 

I have, numerous times.  Self-reported numbers from the industry.

Clear negative health effects.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=PM+2.5

The only thing discredited is you. You can only knowingly deny facts so many times before people will realize you are dishonest.

Pipe your car exhaust into your house if you think it is so safe.  It has a catalytic converter so must be harmless!

You won't do that because you know it is poison.

Edited June 9 by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,535]

Interesting that some here complain about rare earths in renewable power generation, when:

As of today, June 8, 2024, here's an estimate of the market values of the catalyst metals in an average cat converter:

Platinum (Pt): 7 grams x $31.08 per gram (price per gram can vary) = approximately $217.56

Palladium (Pd): 7 grams x $29.68 per gram (price per gram can vary) = approximately $207.76

Rhodium (Rh): 2 grams x $145.48 per gram (price per gram can vary) = approximately $290.96

Hmmmm, the REAL Players in common solar panels are:

Silicon, indium, gallium, selenium, cadmium, and tellurium. These are sometimes referred to as rare metals, but they're not classified as true rare earth elements.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9 by turbguy

[notsonice + 1,243]

23 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Interesting that some here complain about rare earths in renewable power generation, when:

As of today, June 8, 2024, here's an estimate of the market values of the catalyst metals in an average cat converter:

Platinum (Pt): 7 grams x $31.08 per gram (price per gram can vary) = approximately $217.56

Palladium (Pd): 7 grams x $29.68 per gram (price per gram can vary) = approximately $207.76

Rhodium (Rh): 2 grams x $145.48 per gram (price per gram can vary) = approximately $290.96

Hmmmm, the REAL Players in common solar panels are:

Silicon, indium, gallium, selenium, cadmium, and tellurium. These are sometimes referred to as rare metals, but they're not classified as true rare earth elements.

 

 

 

 

indium, gallium, selenium, cadmium, and tellurium.....nothing rare or expensive about these metals...for the most part lead, zinc , copper refineries all have these metals in their process streams and for the most part these metals are not recovered unless their concentrations are high enough in a refining step to spend the time to recover them. The refineries usually do not pay anything for these metals on settlement for contained metals....

 

Cadmium definitely not rare  $2  a pound  about an ounce in a solar panel....so about 15 cents in Cadmium in a panel

Selenium definitely not rare  50 cents an ounce or $8 a pound  2 ounces in panel so a Buck of Selenium in a panel

Indium ....$15 bucks an ounce not very rare at all  1.5 grams in a panel so 75 cents of Indium in a panel

Gallium.....$10 bucks an ounce not very rare silver is  worth more  $2 in Gallium in a panel

tellurium  $2.5 per ounce....1/4 ounce goes into a panel so about 60 cents of tellurium in a panel

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

3 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

I have, numerous times.  Self-reported numbers from the industry.

Clear negative health effects.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=PM+2.5

The only thing discredited is you. You can only knowingly deny facts so many times before people will realize you are dishonest.

Pipe your car exhaust into your house if you think it is so safe.  It has a catalytic converter so must be harmless!

You won't do that because you know it is poison.

Your source concentrated on CO2 as the bogeyman, as I clearly proved above. That is full nonsense and nothing to do with coal pollutants.

I stay away from lithium and cobalt as well.

Lithium is poison when it leaks into water supplies. You want that to increase? That is what will happen if the climate agitators have their way.

Now even accepting that pollution is a health hazard to some unknown extent, we know for sure that billions of people would die without fossil fuels, which is why Africa and India and China are increasing coal output. They know why, because many more lives are saved than are lost with coal sources.

Just compare your own nonsensical numbers to the realities.

Edited June 9 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

Read carefully,

https://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Center-EH/engineering/UCMR/Lithium_in_drinking_water.pdf

"Lithium and health

Some people take lithium to treat mental health conditions, such as bipolar illness or major depression. These patients typically have their blood levels checked routinely, and doctors assess potential risks and benefits on an individual basis.

We know there are health risks from side effects for people who take lithium at levels found in medication.

We don’t have enough research to evaluate how lower levels of lithium typically found in drinking water might impact health. Symptoms of too much lithium include nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, muscle weakness, fatigue, and neurological effects.

Over longer time periods it can cause thyroid or kidney problems. If you have symptoms of too much lithium, talk to a health care provider. If you take lithium as medication, do not stop taking it without talking to your provider."

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

Read carefully,

https://www.petro-online.com/news/fuel-for-thought/13/international-environmental-technology/which-environmental-pollutants-are-produced-by-lithium-batteries/59865#:~:text=As the name suggests%2C lithium,contaminate the soil and water.

"Lithium batteries are a key component of many electric vehicles and are widely used in other applications, such as grid-scale energy storage. However, the extraction of lithium can be very water-intensive, requiring up to 500,000 gallons of water per metric ton of lithium. In addition, toxic chemicals can leak into water supplies, causing harm to both wildlife and human communities. In South America's Lithium Triangle, which covers parts of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, mining activities consume up to 65% of the region's water, impacting local farmers and communities. 

Air Pollution 

The production of lithium batteries also causes air contamination and harms the soil. In Australia's Salar de Hombre Muerto, residents believe that lithium operations have contaminated streams used for crop irrigation and human and livestock consumption. In Chile, mining operations have resulted in mountains of discarded salt and canals filled with contaminated water. Recycling lithium-ion batteries can also be problematic, with only a small percentage being recycled and unwanted batteries often ending up in landfills, where metals and other toxic materials can leak into the environment. Indeed , there’s the pollutants produced by improper disposal of lithium-ion batteries. 

Heavy Metals 

Lithium-ion batteries contain heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium, which can leach into the soil and water. Heavy metals are known to be toxic to humans and wildlife, and exposure to these pollutants can cause serious health problems such as kidney damage, respiratory issues, and even cancer. When these batteries end up in landfills, the heavy metals can seep into the ground and contaminate nearby water sources, making them unsafe for human and animal consumption. 

Lithium 

As the name suggests, lithium-ion batteries contain a significant amount of lithium. When these batteries are not disposed of properly, lithium can enter the environment and contaminate the soil and water. While lithium is not considered a toxic substance, it can still have harmful effects on the environment. High levels of lithium in water sources can impact aquatic life, leading to the death of fish and other aquatic creatures. In addition, excessive amounts of lithium in soil can disrupt the balance of nutrients, making it difficult for plants to grow. 

Carbon Dioxide 

The production of lithium-ion batteries, as well as the energy required to charge them, produces carbon dioxide emissions. However, when these batteries are not disposed of properly, they can continue to release carbon dioxide into the environment. When lithium-ion batteries end up in landfills, they can release carbon dioxide as they decompose. This can contribute to climate change and have long-term effects on the environment. 

Hydrofluoric Acid 

Another harmful pollutant that can be produced by poorly disposed lithium-ion batteries is hydrofluoric acid. This acid is used in the manufacturing process of lithium-ion batteries, and if not disposed of properly, it can leach into the environment and cause serious harm. Hydrofluoric acid is corrosive and can cause severe burns and lung damage if inhaled. In addition, this acid can also be harmful to plants and wildlife, leading to long-term damage to the ecosystem." 

Edited June 9 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

Read carefully, Cobalt Mining, deadly materials here.

https://earth.org/cobalt-mining/#:~:text=The mining and refining processes,chemicals and gases%2C and violence.

"The small mines in which artisanal miners operate are often dangerous and polluting. The mining and refining processes are often labour intensive and associated with a variety of health problems as a result of accidents, overexertion, exposure to toxic chemicals and gases, and violence. And these miners, known locally as creseurs, are so economically reliant on this informal economy that these dangerous conditions cannot afford full consideration. 

The environmental costs of cobalt mining activities are also substantial. Southern regions of the DRC are not only home to cobalt and copper, but also large amounts of uranium. In mining regions, scientists have made note of high radioactivity levels. In addition, mineral mining, similar to other industrial mining efforts, often produces pollution that leaches into neighbouring rivers and water sources. Dust from pulverised rock is known to cause breathing problems for local communities as well."

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

4 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

I have, numerous times.  Self-reported numbers from the industry.

Clear negative health effects.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=PM+2.5

The only thing discredited is you. You can only knowingly deny facts so many times before people will realize you are dishonest.

Pipe your car exhaust into your house if you think it is so safe.  It has a catalytic converter so must be harmless!

You won't do that because you know it is poison.

These studies deal with atmospheric particulates which have been declining drastically over the past decades. Using historical data sets would, therefore, give a false picture of the current situation.

Studies which fail to consider declining particulate levels are therefore of no value as a policy guide.

Edited June 9 by Ecocharger

[specinho + 457]

7 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Not trying to deny air pollution is real. But these two photos have one commonality i.e.

Both showed this place is highly developed. Not a single tree left in the city. 

Cult info suggests leaders of the world, together with developers, might have one misconception i.e. in order to reach status of "developed country", high urbanization is a must. This might be understood as " all land and empty space are fully developed, to a point of no tree is visible, except private effort that would like to have some plants around"...

Saw on LinkedIn, some parts of Switzerland is facing the same problem. Two decades is sufficient to ruin what has been wonderful for centuries...... So are many parts of  Europe, developing countries, less developed countries etc.

Outstanding governments, is it not?

Edited June 9 by specinho

[specinho + 457]

On 6/8/2024 at 1:41 PM, notsonice said:

microplastic is found in the 1 micron to  less than 5 millimeters long...the 1 to 20 micron stuff can easily passed into your bloodstream

Note you cannot  see stuff that is less than 25 microns with the naked eye...your eyes are not scanning electron microscope

 

the posted photo shows how fine plastics do get ground up everywhere.....time to address food handling and processing to get rid of the generationof micro plastics....IE plastic cutting boards??? better to use wood

could there be scientific distortion of facts to make it more urgent???? you tell me ?? on my end the less crap one eats and the less food that touches plastic the better......Less plastic is better than more plastic

all I know is they are detecting micro plastics in humans bloodstreams  IE plastics are not digested in your stomach or intestines....usually passed out in your poop...usually except for the smallest particles

it is the solids that are 1 micron to up to 10 microns that can get passed into the bloodstream anything bigger ?? I doubt it

 

 

What is the size of particles from melted capsules used in supplement?

It used to be made of carrageenan. Owing to food shortage, now, it is probably made of plastic, silicone etc??

[TailingsPond + 671]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

These studies deal with atmospheric particulates which have been declining drastically over the past decades. Using historical data sets would, therefore, give a false picture of the current situation.

 

Use current levels, essentially real-time measurements. The PM problem has not been solved, stop pretending it has been.  The evidence that PM causes disease is clear and still very much relevant, even more so if coal use is increasing as you claim.

https://www.iqair.com/ca/india

Note, cigarette smoking has decreased over the last decades.  That doesn't make the remaining smoke any less toxic.  However, we have passed regulations to protect those who choose not to smoke from second-hand smoke (e.g. no smoking in workplaces).  Soon we will get rid of the mines producing huge amounts of pollution as an externaility, or at least make them pay under the "polluter pays" principle. 

[TailingsPond + 671]

8 hours ago, specinho said:

What is the size of particles from melted capsules used in supplement?

It used to be made of carrageenan. Owing to food shortage, now, it is probably made of plastic, silicone etc??

They are digestible. Like gelatin or "vegetarian gelatin" substitute.  The have to break down quickly in the stomach.

[notsonice + 1,243]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Read carefully,

https://www.petro-online.com/news/fuel-for-thought/13/international-environmental-technology/which-environmental-pollutants-are-produced-by-lithium-batteries/59865#:~:text=As the name suggests%2C lithium,contaminate the soil and water.

"Lithium batteries are a key component of many electric vehicles and are widely used in other applications, such as grid-scale energy storage. However, the extraction of lithium can be very water-intensive, requiring up to 500,000 gallons of water per metric ton of lithium. In addition, toxic chemicals can leak into water supplies, causing harm to both wildlife and human communities. In South America's Lithium Triangle, which covers parts of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, mining activities consume up to 65% of the region's water, impacting local farmers and communities. 

Air Pollution 

The production of lithium batteries also causes air contamination and harms the soil. In Australia's Salar de Hombre Muerto, residents believe that lithium operations have contaminated streams used for crop irrigation and human and livestock consumption. In Chile, mining operations have resulted in mountains of discarded salt and canals filled with contaminated water. Recycling lithium-ion batteries can also be problematic, with only a small percentage being recycled and unwanted batteries often ending up in landfills, where metals and other toxic materials can leak into the environment. Indeed , there’s the pollutants produced by improper disposal of lithium-ion batteries. 

Heavy Metals 

Lithium-ion batteries contain heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium, which can leach into the soil and water. Heavy metals are known to be toxic to humans and wildlife, and exposure to these pollutants can cause serious health problems such as kidney damage, respiratory issues, and even cancer. When these batteries end up in landfills, the heavy metals can seep into the ground and contaminate nearby water sources, making them unsafe for human and animal consumption. 

Lithium 

As the name suggests, lithium-ion batteries contain a significant amount of lithium. When these batteries are not disposed of properly, lithium can enter the environment and contaminate the soil and water. While lithium is not considered a toxic substance, it can still have harmful effects on the environment. High levels of lithium in water sources can impact aquatic life, leading to the death of fish and other aquatic creatures. In addition, excessive amounts of lithium in soil can disrupt the balance of nutrients, making it difficult for plants to grow. 

Carbon Dioxide 

The production of lithium-ion batteries, as well as the energy required to charge them, produces carbon dioxide emissions. However, when these batteries are not disposed of properly, they can continue to release carbon dioxide into the environment. When lithium-ion batteries end up in landfills, they can release carbon dioxide as they decompose. This can contribute to climate change and have long-term effects on the environment. 

Hydrofluoric Acid 

Another harmful pollutant that can be produced by poorly disposed lithium-ion batteries is hydrofluoric acid. This acid is used in the manufacturing process of lithium-ion batteries, and if not disposed of properly, it can leach into the environment and cause serious harm. Hydrofluoric acid is corrosive and can cause severe burns and lung damage if inhaled. In addition, this acid can also be harmful to plants and wildlife, leading to long-term damage to the ecosystem." 

 

so glad to see that you posting info on how carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change

You posted

Carbon Dioxide 

The production of lithium-ion batteries, as well as the energy required to charge them, produces carbon dioxide emissions. However, when these batteries are not disposed of properly, they can continue to release carbon dioxide into the environment. When lithium-ion batteries end up in landfills, they can release carbon dioxide as they decompose. This can contribute to climate change and have long-term effects on the environment. 

 

So you now agree that carbon dioxide releases dioxide into the environment. can contribute to climate change and have long-term effects on the environment. 

 

Bravo

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

Use current levels, essentially real-time measurements. The PM problem has not been solved, stop pretending it has been.  The evidence that PM causes disease is clear and still very much relevant, even more so if coal use is increasing as you claim.

https://www.iqair.com/ca/india

Note, cigarette smoking has decreased over the last decades.  That doesn't make the remaining smoke any less toxic.  However, we have passed regulations to protect those who choose not to smoke from second-hand smoke (e.g. no smoking in workplaces).  Soon we will get rid of the mines producing huge amounts of pollution as an externaility, or at least make them pay under the "polluter pays" principle. 

No, you really miss the point.

In spite of the drastic increase in fossil fuel use, atmospheric particulate levels have drastically decreased, a truth which you are trying desperately to deny.

It is necessary for any worthwhile epidemiological study to examine time series data and correlate the supposed dependent and independent variables.

You have to show how trends in one variable correlate with trends in another over time.

I guess you skipped stats courses?

Edited June 9 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

43 minutes ago, notsonice said:

 

so glad to see that you posting info on how carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change

You posted

Carbon Dioxide 

The production of lithium-ion batteries, as well as the energy required to charge them, produces carbon dioxide emissions. However, when these batteries are not disposed of properly, they can continue to release carbon dioxide into the environment. When lithium-ion batteries end up in landfills, they can release carbon dioxide as they decompose. This can contribute to climate change and have long-term effects on the environment. 

 

So you now agree that carbon dioxide releases dioxide into the environment. can contribute to climate change and have long-term effects on the environment. 

 

Bravo

You seem to have trouble understanding the context...it is from your own fellow agitators, and even they admit that lithium and cobalt are dangerous substances.

Thank you for pointing that out.

[TailingsPond + 671]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, you really miss the point.

In spite of the drastic increase in fossil fuel use, atmospheric particulate levels have drastically decreased, a truth which are trying desperately to deny.

Look at the current levels, they are still not acceptable.

You pretend that technology has solved the problem when, in fact, the problem remains. In particular, pun intended, areas where coal is still extensively used are heavily polluted.

If your house was on fire would you be okay with the fire department only half putting out the fire?  The levels of fire were "drastically decreased" after all.