TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 Just now, Ecocharger said: You seem to be having trouble with basic epidemiology. Show us a time series with changes in toxic particulate levels correlated with illness...that is how it works. Why do I have to show more? Can you do anything? How is that math going? What pollutants would you accept regulating? It seems you promote all pollutants. Answer the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL June 29 (edited) 4 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Very first page of the papers I showed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30771627/ Towards a fuller assessment of benefits to children's health of reducing air pollution and mitigating climate change due to fossil fuel combustion "We distinguish between C-R functions for endpoints having a causal or likely relationship (PTB, LBW, autism, asthma development) with the pollutants for incorporation into primary analyses and endpoints having a suggestive causal relationship with the pollutants (IQ reduction, ADHD) for secondary analyses. Conclusion: We have identified C-R functions for a number of adverse health outcomes in children associated with air pollutants largely from fossil fuel combustion. Their incorporation into expanded assessments of health benefits of clean air and climate mitigation policies will provide an important incentive for preventive action." Where are the correlations and charts? Time series? Edited June 29 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 Just now, Ecocharger said: Where are the correlations and charts? You can't show the effects of reduction in pollution levels if the reduction has not happened. You show something, anything, that supports your position and I will carry on this nonsense. As it is you have completely lost. Get back to me on your math. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Where are the correlations and charts? Did you try reading the paper? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL June 29 3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Why do I have to show more? Can you do anything? How is that math going? What pollutants would you accept regulating? It seems you promote all pollutants. Answer the question. It is not hard to get numbers on the reduction of air borne pollutants and particulates. There has been a major decline since 1980. This is despite the fact that use of fossil fuels has greatly increased over that time period. Now if your suggestion is correct that illnesses are related to particulate levels, we should expect to see a marked decline in those illnesses since 1980 in the U.S. https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary#:~:text=Air Quality Trends,-EPA creates air&text=The table below show that,has improved nationally since 1980. "EPA creates air quality trends using measurements from monitors located across the country. The table below show that air quality based on concentrations of the common pollutants has improved nationally since 1980. Percent Change in Air Quality 1980 vs 2022 1990 vs 2022 2000 vs 2022 2010 vs 2022 Carbon Monoxide -88 -81 -67 -27 Lead --- --- --- -88 Nitrogen Dioxide (annual) -66 -60 -52 -27 Nitrogen Dioxide (1-hour) -65 -54 -38 -21 Ozone (8-hour) -29 -22 -17 -7 PM10 (24-hour) --- -34 -30 +21 PM2.5 (annual) --- --- -42 -21 PM2.5 (24-hour) --- --- -42 -16 Sulfur Dioxide (1-hour) -94 -90 -85 -75 Emissions Trends EPA estimates nationwide emissions of ambient air pollutants and the pollutants they are formed from (their precursors). These estimates are based on actual monitored readings or engineering calculations of the amounts and types of pollutants emitted by vehicles, factories, and other sources. Emission estimates are based on many factors, including levels of industrial activity, technological developments, fuel consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and other activities that cause air pollution. Emissions information is developed with input from state and local air agencies, tribes, and industry. EPA tracks a range of emissions data, including how much of each pollutant is emitted from various pollution sources. To view national, state, and local emissions summary data, see EPA’s Air Emissions Sources site. The table below shows that emissions of the common air pollutants and their precursors have been reduced substantially since 1980. Percent Change in Emissions 1980 vs 2022 1990 vs 2022 2000 vs 2022 2010 vs 2022 Carbon Monoxide -75 -70 -58 -27 Lead* -99 -88 -78 -36 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) -72 -71 -67 -52 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) -61 -48 -29 -10 Direct PM10 -65 -27 -24 -13 Direct PM2.5 --- -27 -35 -11 Sulfur Dioxide -93 -92 -89 -74 *As a result of the permanent phase-out of leaded gasoline, controls on emissions of lead compounds through EPA’s air toxics program, and other national and state regulations, airborne lead concentrations in the U.S. decreased 98 percent between 1980 and 2005. After 2005, the EPA methodology for lead changed and is not comparable to the 2005 and earlier numbers. Since 2008, emissions have continued to decrease by 30 percent from 2008 to 2017. In the 2017 NEI, the highest amounts of Pb emissions are from Piston Engine Aircrafts, and Ferrous and Non-ferrous Metals industrial sources. The 2008 and 2017 estimates were used to approximate the 2010 to 2022 percent change. Emissions of air pollutants continue to play an important role in a number of air quality issues. In 2022, about 66 million tons of pollution were emitted into the atmosphere in the United States. These emissions mostly contribute to the formation of ozone and particles, the deposition of acids, and visibility impairment. To get detailed information about emissions estimates displayed below, please visit EPA's Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data. Annual emissions estimates are used as one indicator of the effectiveness of our programs. The graph below shows that between 1980 and 2022, gross domestic product increased 196 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 108 percent, energy consumption increased 29 percent, and U.S. population grew by 47 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 73 percent. The graph also shows that CO2 emissions, after having risen gradually for decades, have shown an overall decrease since 2007, and in 2021 were 7 percent higher than 1980 levels. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL June 29 (edited) 9 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Did you try reading the paper? Where do you see the time series correlations and charts? You have nothing to show me here. Edited June 29 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL June 29 (edited) 4 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: You can't show the effects of reduction in pollution levels if the reduction has not happened. You show something, anything, that supports your position and I will carry on this nonsense. As it is you have completely lost. Get back to me on your math. Man, you are a bear for punishment. See above...read and learn. Edited June 29 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 This guy really can't understand that emissions are not the same as environmental levels. Someone should take gross craps in E-chargers toilet without flushing for a week and then stop. By Eco logic the toilet will be clean after a few days because the emissions stopped. Clearly if you stop crapping in the toilet for a few days that means it's clean, right? Try doing the math bud. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 Can I pour used motor oil all over your lawn? It will only happen once. A single emission that never happens again is clearly not a problem. Don't worry, your children can still play on the lawn - the emissions stopped! 100% emission reduction means the lawn is safe for your kids. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM June 29 (edited) 8 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Shutting down 80% of the world energy supply by 2050 is recipe for killing billions of people. I guess Biden is not able to take that in, but I expect more from a younger brain. thanks once again for posting your BS Shutting down 80% of the world energy supply by 2050 is recipe for killing billions of people.??????????? no one is advocating shutting down 80 percent of the total energy supply...what is being advocated is a change in source of energy supply away from fossil fuels to renewables/nuclear. You seem to lack the ability to understand the reasons why there is a need to change....... We do understand you lack this ability due to your limited mental capacity that you possess to understand the negative effects of using fossil fuels on a massive scale. Do not worry as we will continue to educate you as needed. And please continue to stand by, during the transition, in your safe place, so the effects of using fossil fuels on your health can be minimized Enjoy the transition......... Edited June 29 by notsonice Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM June 29 Bloomberg.com China's Offshore Wind Power Prices to Undercut Coal This Year China will see the price of offshore wind power dip below that of coal-generated electricity for the first time this year, as the government... . 2 days ago 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL June 29 (edited) 5 hours ago, TailingsPond said: This guy really can't understand that emissions are not the same as environmental levels. Someone should take gross craps in E-chargers toilet without flushing for a week and then stop. By Eco logic the toilet will be clean after a few days because the emissions stopped. Clearly if you stop crapping in the toilet for a few days that means it's clean, right? Try doing the math bud. No, I gave you the data, here it is again, read and learn. Particulate levels are closely related to emissions, as seen here. I have emphasized the key phrase which you apparently skipped over. It is not hard to get numbers on the reduction of air borne pollutants and particulates. There has been a major decline since 1980. This is despite the fact that use of fossil fuels has greatly increased over that time period. Now if your suggestion is correct that illnesses are related to particulate levels, we should expect to see a marked decline in those illnesses since 1980 in the U.S. https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary#:~:text=Air Quality Trends,-EPA creates air&text=The table below show that,has improved nationally since 1980. "EPA creates air quality trends using measurements from monitors located across the country. The table below shows that air quality based on concentrations of the common pollutants has improved nationally since 1980. Percent Change in Air Quality 1980 vs 2022 1990 vs 2022 2000 vs 2022 2010 vs 2022 Carbon Monoxide -88 -81 -67 -27 Lead --- --- --- -88 Nitrogen Dioxide (annual) -66 -60 -52 -27 Nitrogen Dioxide (1-hour) -65 -54 -38 -21 Ozone (8-hour) -29 -22 -17 -7 PM10 (24-hour) --- -34 -30 +21 PM2.5 (annual) --- --- -42 -21 PM2.5 (24-hour) --- --- -42 -16 Sulfur Dioxide (1-hour) -94 -90 -85 -75 Emissions Trends EPA estimates nationwide emissions of ambient air pollutants and the pollutants they are formed from (their precursors). These estimates are based on actual monitored readings or engineering calculations of the amounts and types of pollutants emitted by vehicles, factories, and other sources. Emission estimates are based on many factors, including levels of industrial activity, technological developments, fuel consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and other activities that cause air pollution. Emissions information is developed with input from state and local air agencies, tribes, and industry. EPA tracks a range of emissions data, including how much of each pollutant is emitted from various pollution sources. To view national, state, and local emissions summary data, see EPA’s Air Emissions Sources site. The table below shows that emissions of the common air pollutants and their precursors have been reduced substantially since 1980. Percent Change in Emissions 1980 vs 2022 1990 vs 2022 2000 vs 2022 2010 vs 2022 Carbon Monoxide -75 -70 -58 -27 Lead* -99 -88 -78 -36 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) -72 -71 -67 -52 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) -61 -48 -29 -10 Direct PM10 -65 -27 -24 -13 Direct PM2.5 --- -27 -35 -11 Sulfur Dioxide -93 -92 -89 -74 *As a result of the permanent phase-out of leaded gasoline, controls on emissions of lead compounds through EPA’s air toxics program, and other national and state regulations, airborne lead concentrations in the U.S. decreased 98 percent between 1980 and 2005. After 2005, the EPA methodology for lead changed and is not comparable to the 2005 and earlier numbers. Since 2008, emissions have continued to decrease by 30 percent from 2008 to 2017. In the 2017 NEI, the highest amounts of Pb emissions are from Piston Engine Aircrafts, and Ferrous and Non-ferrous Metals industrial sources. The 2008 and 2017 estimates were used to approximate the 2010 to 2022 percent change. Emissions of air pollutants continue to play an important role in a number of air quality issues. In 2022, about 66 million tons of pollution were emitted into the atmosphere in the United States. These emissions mostly contribute to the formation of ozone and particles, the deposition of acids, and visibility impairment. To get detailed information about emissions estimates displayed below, please visit EPA's Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data. Annual emissions estimates are used as one indicator of the effectiveness of our programs. The graph below shows that between 1980 and 2022, gross domestic product increased 196 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 108 percent, energy consumption increased 29 percent, and U.S. population grew by 47 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 73 percent. The graph also shows that CO2 emissions, after having risen gradually for decades, have shown an overall decrease since 2007, and in 2021 were 7 percent higher than 1980 levels. " Edited June 29 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL June 29 5 hours ago, notsonice said: thanks once again for posting your BS Shutting down 80% of the world energy supply by 2050 is recipe for killing billions of people.??????????? no one is advocating shutting down 80 percent of the total energy supply...what is being advocated is a change in source of energy supply away from fossil fuels to renewables/nuclear. You seem to lack the ability to understand the reasons why there is a need to change....... We do understand you lack this ability due to your limited mental capacity that you possess to understand the negative effects of using fossil fuels on a massive scale. Do not worry as we will continue to educate you as needed. And please continue to stand by, during the transition, in your safe place, so the effects of using fossil fuels on your health can be minimized Enjoy the transition......... Transitioning 80% of the energy supply in just 20 years? Not gonna happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL June 29 3 hours ago, notsonice said: Bloomberg.com China's Offshore Wind Power Prices to Undercut Coal This Year China will see the price of offshore wind power dip below that of coal-generated electricity for the first time this year, as the government... . 2 days ago Another joke. Your facts are nonsense. Here is the reality, https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy#:~:text=Renewables now account for half,is lagging behind installed capacity. "Renewables now account for half of China’s installed capacity, but there has also been a surge in permits for new coal-fired power plants, and China still generates about 70 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels. This means actual renewable energy use is lagging behind installed capacity." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 Percentage change bud. Practice your math. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM June 29 35 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Another joke. Your facts are nonsense. Here is the reality, https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy#:~:text=Renewables now account for half,is lagging behind installed capacity. "Renewables now account for half of China’s installed capacity, but there has also been a surge in permits for new coal-fired power plants, and China still generates about 70 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels. This means actual renewable energy use is lagging behind installed capacity." Here is the latest new....looks like coal is ebbing fast in china and renewable are surging ...not lagging... Coal plant utilization is plunging now......... try to keep up Luddite China’s hydropower generation surges and coal ebbs https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-hydropower-generation-surges-coal-ebbs-kemp-2024-06-18/ By John Kemp June 18, 20247:00 PM MDTUpdated 11 days ago Increases from hydro (+33 billion kWh), solar (+12 billion kWh) and wind (+3 billion kWh) last month were more than enough to meet consumption growth while diminishing the need for thermal power (-17 billion kWh). As a result, thermal generation, mostly from coal-fired units, declined to 454 billion kWh in May 2024 looks like your new coal fired power plants are not needed except as backup Coal fired power plants decline in share in May 2024 on a grand scale and from your article not sure why you did not highlight the facts with your posts , so I will share them with everyone Fossil fuels now make up less than half of China’s total installed generation capacity, a dramatic reduction from a decade ago when fossil fuels accounted for two-thirds of its power capacity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM June 29 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: Transitioning 80% of the energy supply in just 20 years? Not gonna happen. Transitioning 80% of the energy supply in just 20 years? Not gonna happen.????? so what are worried about?????? sounds like your clunker will be good to go forever, if you can find it..... you were babbling about When 80% of the energy supply is shut down, the world will descend into chaos and you can join the struggle for existence or fall by the wayside and now you claim in the next 20 years Transitioning 80% of the energy supply in just 20 years? Not gonna happen. dude get a grip on yourself It seems you are suffering from dementia....can you remember where you parked you clunker yesterday????? get back on your meds, dump your clunker (if you can find it) and have your caretaker call an Uber to take you to your next mental health exam 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL June 29 (edited) 2 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Percentage change bud. Practice your math. Those are the changes. The supporting data is listed in the references. https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2022/documentation/AirTrends_Flyer.pdf "While some pollutants continue to pose serious air quality problems in areas of the U.S., nationally, criteria air pollutant concentrations have dropped significantly since 1990 improving quality of life for many Americans. Air quality improves as America grows." https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2022/#welcome "Since 1970, implementation of the Clean Air Act and technological advances from American innovators have dramatically improved air quality in the U.S. Since that time, the combined emissions of criteria and precursor pollutants have dropped by 78%." "Air Toxics Levels Trending Down Ambient monitoring data show that some of the toxic air pollutants, such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene and several metals, are declining at most sites. Points on the map indicate the long-term statistical trend direction: decreasing, increasing and no trend. There is insufficient data to determine a trend at sites depicted in gray." The raw data for particulates is found here, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-02/table_annual-pm25-county-design-values-2020-2022-for-web.pdf Now, what you need to do is to show that these massive reductions in atmospheric pollutant particulates is correlated with a corresponding massive reduction in illness in a time series. Edited June 29 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL June 29 1 hour ago, notsonice said: Here is the latest new....looks like coal is ebbing fast in china and renewable are surging ...not lagging... Coal plant utilization is plunging now......... try to keep up Luddite China’s hydropower generation surges and coal ebbs https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-hydropower-generation-surges-coal-ebbs-kemp-2024-06-18/ By John Kemp June 18, 20247:00 PM MDTUpdated 11 days ago Increases from hydro (+33 billion kWh), solar (+12 billion kWh) and wind (+3 billion kWh) last month were more than enough to meet consumption growth while diminishing the need for thermal power (-17 billion kWh). As a result, thermal generation, mostly from coal-fired units, declined to 454 billion kWh in May 2024 looks like your new coal fired power plants are not needed except as backup Coal fired power plants decline in share in May 2024 on a grand scale and from your article not sure why you did not highlight the facts with your posts , so I will share them with everyone Fossil fuels now make up less than half of China’s total installed generation capacity, a dramatic reduction from a decade ago when fossil fuels accounted for two-thirds of its power capacity. Your chart is very revealing, it shows an increase in coal generated power through to the present day, the decline is merely a future projection, sorry that does not count. Here is more from the above analysis, "For the grid companies, China’s coal-fired power plants are steady and predictable, and they are allowed many more hours of grid access than renewables. In addition, anxieties about energy security are now high on the policy agenda, reinforced by geopolitical tensions and recent droughts that affected hydropower output and resulted in power cuts. In China, energy security still means coal." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,477 DL June 29 1 hour ago, notsonice said: Transitioning 80% of the energy supply in just 20 years? Not gonna happen.????? so what are worried about?????? sounds like your clunker will be good to go forever, if you can find it..... you were babbling about When 80% of the energy supply is shut down, the world will descend into chaos and you can join the struggle for existence or fall by the wayside and now you claim in the next 20 years Transitioning 80% of the energy supply in just 20 years? Not gonna happen. dude get a grip on yourself It seems you are suffering from dementia....can you remember where you parked you clunker yesterday????? get back on your meds, dump your clunker (if you can find it) and have your caretaker call an Uber to take you to your next mental health exam Nah, the unreliability of renewable sources means that fossil fuels will continue to rule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 30 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Ambient monitoring data show that some of the toxic air pollutants, such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene and several metals, are declining at most sites. Now, what you need to do is to show that these massive reductions in atmospheric pollutant particulates is correlated with a corresponding massive reduction in illness in a time series. Still emissions data for the most part. At least you found a couple parameters that might be improving "at most sites." "some of the toxic air pollutants, such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene and several metals, are declining at most sites." I do not need to show anything. You are the one going against mainstream science and common sense that pollution causes illness. You should have also noted that particulates was not listed as going down. Also note the comment in your own post "some pollutants continue to pose serious air quality problems in areas of the U.S." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: Now, what you need to do You need to answer questions. What pollutants would you accept regulations? You seem to promote all pollution. You can only deflect so long bud. If you think CFCs should get a free pass you need to tell us how deep your pro-pollution agenda goes. I should be allowed to pour used oil on your lawn, correct? Just once. I will only be "[a polluter] on day one." After that 100% emission reduction. Clearly, no lasting damage. Can't do that math eh? Simple undergrad stuff. Edited June 29 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 PM 2.5 has been increasing recently from your own post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 (edited) Look, higher than 2016 levels. You can't show the effects of lower levels if they are increasing bud. PM10 is also up. Edited June 29 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,009 GE June 29 (edited) Try harder, fail harder. PM 2.5 is the same as a decade ago. Edited June 29 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
