TailingsPond + 1,008 GE July 26 (edited) 2 hours ago, markslawson said: I'm back! I was out with a nasty lung infection(s) for more than a month in hospital https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35984995/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30308865/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647684/ Edited July 26 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 July 26 3 hours ago, TailingsPond said: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35984995/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30308865/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647684/ So according to you, going outside is a health hazzard... And you should stay ONLY in sealed air tight permeable air filtration system buildings: You have heard it here, by the genius Tailingspoind: Hiking is hazardous to your health even in places civilization does not exist. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM July 26 5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: So according to you, going outside is a health hazzard... And you should stay ONLY in sealed air tight permeable air filtration system buildings: You have heard it here, by the genius Tailingspoind: Hiking is hazardous to your health even in places civilization does not exist. going outside is a health hazzard????? location location location............. one should not have to hide in a sealed air tight permeable air filtration system building to escape your beloved exhaust from fossil fuels or head to places civilization does not exist 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE July 26 (edited) 5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: So according to you, going outside is a health hazzard... And you should stay ONLY in sealed air tight permeable air filtration system buildings: Only because some insist on turning the atmosphere into their personal trashcan. Do you go for long walks at the city landfill? How about having a picnic near the sewage treatment plant? Edited July 26 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markslawson + 1,058 ML July 26 21 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Fossil fuel promoter nearly dies from lung issues. Perfect. Perhaps look up the primary sources of PM 2.5 and its effect on lung parenchyma. Inflammation of the tissues increases infection risk and slows healing. Reconsider your position on fossil fuels the next time you feel breathless. Actually, it was an infection - several. Difficult to see how they could be related to air quality. In any case air quality is not an issue in my part of suburban Melbourne, and increases in CO2 are not relevant. Your lungs expell CO2 in high concentrations with every breath. And I don't promote fossil fuels so much as point to the nonsense that is H2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markslawson + 1,058 ML July 26 21 hours ago, TailingsPond said: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35984995/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30308865/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647684/ Entertaining but my sister blames spores in the upstairs bathroom. She had it repainted and a fan put in while I was in hospital. In any case, particulate matter would hardly be an issue where I am. You'll have to think of some other avenue of attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE July 27 (edited) 16 hours ago, markslawson said: Actually, it was an infection - several. I didn't claim you didn't have an infection. I said PM2.5 makes things worse. This is all very logical, do you think you should smoke while having a lung infection? Of course not, it would be foolish to add further stressors to the already inflamed tissues. Hospital visits and admissions for cardiopulmonary related problems like asthma, COPD, heart failure, stroke, allergy, pneumonia, URI, LRI, etc. all are highly correlated with PM2.5 levels. The pollution is killing us, there is no doubt. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=PM2.5+hospital+admissions <-- 315 papers showing negative health effects from PM2.5 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37159523/ "Acute respiratory infections (i.e. pneumonia, bronchitis and bronchiolitis) were consistently associated with PM2.5 or PM2.5-10 exposure across different age groups." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36969639/ "PM2.5 exposure was positively associated with daily hospital admissions for CSD, which might provide informative insight on adverse effects of PM2.5." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37273056/ "A 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with an increase of 1.15% (95% CI: 0.308%, 1.99%) in MI hospitalization and 1.29% (95% CI: 0.882%, 1.70%) in IS hospitalization." Edited July 27 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markslawson + 1,058 ML July 28 16 hours ago, TailingsPond said: I didn't claim you didn't have an infection. I said PM2.5 makes things worse. This is all very logical, do you think you should smoke while having a lung infection? Of course not, it would be foolish to add further stressors to the already inflamed tissues. All good points. However, I've never smoked and that factor alone would swamp any of the other possible factors such as air borne pollutants from industry/cars. In any case, as I pointed out, I'm far from any industry that would emit PM2.5. Anyway, leave it with you... time to move on to bagging H2 as part of the energy economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP July 29 On 7/28/2024 at 7:23 AM, markslawson said: All good points. However, I've never smoked and that factor alone would swamp any of the other possible factors such as air borne pollutants from industry/cars. In any case, as I pointed out, I'm far from any industry that would emit PM2.5. Anyway, leave it with you... time to move on to bagging H2 as part of the energy economy. Glad youre back in the land of the living! Now you are, you can have a read of this and then ask a fundamental question on why so many global multi-nationals are investing billions in H2 Hydrogen-Insights-2023.pdf (hydrogencouncil.com) Maybe just maybe they know a little bit more than you do on the subject! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markslawson + 1,058 ML July 30 14 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Glad youre back in the land of the living! Now you are, you can have a read of this and then ask a fundamental question on why so many global multi-nationals are investing billions in H2 Hydrogen-Insights-2023.pdf (hydrogencouncil.com) Maybe just maybe they know a little bit more than you do on the subject! Rob - for heaven sake, haven't we done this dance a few too many times? Sure, the Hydrogen Council is going to push its agenda, but even the council has to admit to weaknesses in its case. Go look at page six of the report, produced in May of last year, and see the vast difference between projects proposed and in planning stage (ie can be abandoned) and those where finance is actually committed. The infinitely wise corporations you speak of are wise enough to pay lip service to the H2 fad but not go through with it. Then there is a question of how much of this activity is about attracting subsidies. In Australia there has been a major re-evaluation of H2. Here is an excerpt from an article by a corporate advisor in the Australian Financial Review. I can't link it as it's behind a pay wall. Note the point at the end. H2 has some uses as it always has, just not in energy. The hype around green hydrogen should be a case study for those interested in the difficulties when it comes to energy and climate. Despite green hydrogen being seen as the Swiss Army knife for difficult decarbonisation problems, buyers were hard to find, largely because the cost remained stubbornly high and the technical challenges more complex than envisaged. Attempts to deliver green hydrogen at $2 per kilogram sounded great at a political level. But like most politically generated targets, ambition is no replacement for hard analysis. Even with the best assumptions, analysts struggled to get it below $5 per kilogram anytime soon. And as with all projections, they depended on the assumptions. The rise in interest rates and equipment costs have cruelled low-cost scenarios. ....... In other words, the hydrogen story, at best, is based on wishful thinking. Less charitably, it’s based on hype driven by subsidy chasing. ....... This isn’t to say green or clean hydrogen has no future, rather its application will be more modest – green metals, some transport and fertilisers. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP August 1 On 7/30/2024 at 1:01 AM, markslawson said: Rob - for heaven sake, haven't we done this dance a few too many times? Sure, the Hydrogen Council is going to push its agenda, but even the council has to admit to weaknesses in its case. Go look at page six of the report, produced in May of last year, and see the vast difference between projects proposed and in planning stage (ie can be abandoned) and those where finance is actually committed. The infinitely wise corporations you speak of are wise enough to pay lip service to the H2 fad but not go through with it. Then there is a question of how much of this activity is about attracting subsidies. In Australia there has been a major re-evaluation of H2. Here is an excerpt from an article by a corporate advisor in the Australian Financial Review. I can't link it as it's behind a pay wall. Note the point at the end. H2 has some uses as it always has, just not in energy. The hype around green hydrogen should be a case study for those interested in the difficulties when it comes to energy and climate. Despite green hydrogen being seen as the Swiss Army knife for difficult decarbonisation problems, buyers were hard to find, largely because the cost remained stubbornly high and the technical challenges more complex than envisaged. Attempts to deliver green hydrogen at $2 per kilogram sounded great at a political level. But like most politically generated targets, ambition is no replacement for hard analysis. Even with the best assumptions, analysts struggled to get it below $5 per kilogram anytime soon. And as with all projections, they depended on the assumptions. The rise in interest rates and equipment costs have cruelled low-cost scenarios. ....... In other words, the hydrogen story, at best, is based on wishful thinking. Less charitably, it’s based on hype driven by subsidy chasing. ....... This isn’t to say green or clean hydrogen has no future, rather its application will be more modest – green metals, some transport and fertilisers. Yes we've done this dance too often! We'll never agree so its pointless You believe in your outdated beliefs and I'll look forward to a cleaner environment thanks to new technologies, enjoy! 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members