Historian Slams Greta. I Don't See Her in Beijing or Delhi.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

11 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Obviously you combine techniques.  Optical data for most measurements combined with some other physical tests (filtration and weighing, settlement rate in a fluid (stokes), etc.).

My lab had one of these: https://www.horiba.com/scientific/products/particle-characterization/particle-size-analysis/details/la-960-laser-particle-size-analyzer-20235/

And one of these

https://www.malvernpanalytical.com/en/products/product-range/mastersizer-range/mastersizer-3000?creative=311633610439&keyword=malvern mastersizer&matchtype=p&network=g&device=c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxfWmnZGj5wIVYh6tBh13WA9EEAAYASABEgJXC_D_BwE

And had some of this NIST standard:

https://www-s.nist.gov/srmors/view_detail.cfm?srm=2783

I was highly involved in a study where we where measured Arsenic and Lead concentrations in near pristine air (far north) by filtration and ICP-MS.

You love to insult me, but it doesn't phase me; it just makes you appear juvenile, carry on...

I don't "play" science.  I've told you before I just have a B.Sc in Chemistry and did mostly analytical chem for a living.

 

You're the one who decided to jump into a discussion with someone else who had "outrun his coverage". I know the techniques for estimating mass with diffraction. Had you simply mentioned MALS we'd be on the same page. However, the likelihood that techniques like that would be used to measure mass out in the field are, to quote Occam, absurdly low. 

The POLLUTION problem with humans and breathing is highly correlated to particle sizes. Put simply, smaller is worse above certain concentrations. Actual, factual life threatening, versus maybe, sort of, CO2 "pollution". 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

 

The POLLUTION problem with humans and breathing is highly correlated to particle sizes. Put simply, smaller is worse above certain concentrations. Actual, factual life threatening, versus maybe, sort of, CO2 "pollution". 

Correct.  See we can agree on something.

Smaller is also worse in water as it doesn't settle.  The high surface area can also magnify the effect of other pollutants by concentrating them on it's surface.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Now if we can only all agree that The 97% consensus is pure fiction

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 1/25/2020 at 5:05 AM, Boat said:

Why don’t you boys turn your attention from Gretta and countries and turn it to the worlds 2100 billionaires. I believe you will find the source of many problems.

You will also find the source of many jobs and startup industries.

Have you ever worked for a poor man or woman?

[Boat + 1,315]

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You will also find the source of many jobs and startup industries.

Have you ever worked for a poor man or woman?

Plenty of poor and women hire kids to mow the lawn, rake the leaves, trim the bushes and shovel the snow. Poor men also. After retiring from manufacturing I worked for a few guys who did construction. Not one of them was rich. What’s your point? I worked for a huge international firm that had thousands of factories all over the world so I suppose there was quite the mix of wealth among the share holders. Saint-Gobain has over 180,000 employees and started in the 1600’s. I am sure poor people played a huge role in its growth. I know I did. Lol

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

My point is obvious. It takes money to finance new factories, shops, industries, etc.... I am not talking about mowing lawns, shoveling snow or selling lemonade.

By extension, it takes money to provide jobs and hire professionals or tradesmen - alot of money during the first few years of getting a venture off the ground.

It has become fashionable to castigate the ‘elites’ (a difficult term to define), but is counter-productive in terms of the economy.

Another interesting item is that billionaires who seem to be dealing with renewable energy issues never get tarred with the billionaire/elite brush (take Elon Musk for example), yet he is a billionaire with a billionaires carbon footprint. Other examples (perhaps not billionaires)?would be Harrison Ford, Al Gore and Bernie Sanders.

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

14 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

My point is obvious. It takes money to finance new factories, shops, industries, etc.... I am not talking about mowing lawns, shoveling snow or selling lemonade.

By extension, it takes money to provide jobs and hire professionals or tradesmen - alot of money during the first few years of getting a venture off the ground.

It has become fashionable to castigate the ‘elites’ (a difficult term to define), but is counter-productive in terms of the economy.

Another interesting item is that billionaires who seem to be dealing with renewable energy issues never get tarred with the billionaire/elite brush (take Elon Musk for example), yet he is a billionaire with a billionaires carbon footprint. Other examples (perhaps not billionaires)?would be Harrison Ford, Al Gore and Bernie Sanders.

Dont forget Richard Branson, he's not only got Virgin Atlantic but also Virgin Galactic, carbon neutral he aint!

As for Elon Musk yep he is as green as they come with Tesla, oh wait...... what about SpaceX?

"The current fuel for Falcon Heavy is RP-1 (a refined kerosene) and liquid oxygen, which creates a lot of carbon dioxide when burnt.The amount of kerosene in three Falcon 9 rockets is roughly 440 tonnes and RP-1 has a 34% carbon content. This amount of carbon is a drop in the ocean compared to global industrial emissions as a whole, but if the SpaceX’s plan for a rocket launch every two weeks comes to fruition, this amount of carbon (approximately 4,000 tonnes per year) will rapidly become a bigger problem."

I agree we need billionaires as wealth creators, jobs, businesses, invention etc. I just wish they weren't hypocrites like most of Hollywood.

 

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 1/26/2020 at 8:34 PM, James Regan said:

2) What does "sth" mean? I'm still not emotional, but suspect you are. What does sth mean, IHNFC

I don't get most of them either and its obviously a language used by people who are constantly on their phones or addicted to forums etc, I understand FFS etc but beyond that the symbols before a word etc mean JS to to me. 

So hopefully this may assist us old gits to get with the millennial program and start communicating correctly.

Funny, I got all of your abbreviations right away.  Are you in your 50's?  I am.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/27/2020 at 12:05 AM, Ward Smith said:

I posted to a meter that's rated by mass. Or perhaps you could explain by Occam's razor how a laser beam measures mass?

Yes

The laser scatters the light. This is then measured and multiplied against the calibration test particles density  to establish a weight. Commonly used test particles are Arizona dust standard at 1.3g/cm3 or a Dolomite product which weighs 1.5g/cm3

Here are some commercial examples that used laser (light scattering to determine mass (subject to limitations*) 

TSI Dust Trak (1.3g/cm3)

https://tsi.com/products/aerosol-and-dust-monitors/dust-monitors/

Turnkey - OSIRIS (1.5g/cm3)

https://turnkey-instruments.com/product/osiris/

Grimm Aerosol Monitors (1.5g/cm3)

https://www.grimm-aerosol.com/products-en/environmental-dust-monitoring/handheld-pm-monitor/11-d/

The TSI is accurate to within about 10%. 

* Prior to using these meters to measure a typical weight of the particulate weight of interest you have to establish the density of the particle. If measuring for example foundry fumes then these have a weight of 3-4g/cm3 for say respirable dust (PM 4) or PM 2.5.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/27/2020 at 5:36 PM, Ward Smith said:

You're the one who decided to jump into a discussion with someone else who had "outrun his coverage". I know the techniques for estimating mass with diffraction. Had you simply mentioned MALS we'd be on the same page. However, the likelihood that techniques like that would be used to measure mass out in the field are, to quote Occam, absurdly low. 

The POLLUTION problem with humans and breathing is highly correlated to particle sizes. Put simply, smaller is worse above certain concentrations. Actual, factual life threatening, versus maybe, sort of, CO2 "pollution". 

You are conflating two  separate issues

Localised particulate pollution primarily caused respiratory issues and more problems if the substance is toxic and absorbed to cause systemic problems. Greenies know this and generally campaign as well for local cleaner air

On the issue of global warming  no one, not even your most ardent Greenie has argued that the CO2 concentrations now or in a 100 years time will have any direct  impact on respiratory health. That said if we get to 1500 ppm it will be like living in a stuffy office. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

33 minutes ago, NickW said:

Yes

The laser scatters the light. This is then measured and multiplied against the calibration test particles density  to establish a weight. Commonly used test particles are Arizona dust standard at 1.3g/cm3 or a Dolomite product which weighs 1.5g/cm3

Here are some commercial examples that used laser (light scattering to determine mass (subject to limitations*) 

TSI Dust Trak (1.3g/cm3)

https://tsi.com/products/aerosol-and-dust-monitors/dust-monitors/

Turnkey - OSIRIS (1.5g/cm3)

https://turnkey-instruments.com/product/osiris/

Grimm Aerosol Monitors (1.5g/cm3)

https://www.grimm-aerosol.com/products-en/environmental-dust-monitoring/handheld-pm-monitor/11-d/

The TSI is accurate to within about 10%. 

* Prior to using these meters to measure a typical weight of the particulate weight of interest you have to establish the density of the particle. If measuring for example foundry fumes then these have a weight of 3-4g/cm3 for say respirable dust (PM 4) or PM 2.5.

Correct. But if I handed you an unknown particle you would definitely not use MALS to determine its mass. Which was my original point, lost in the weeds. 

As to your point below about pollution, who talked about 50% CO2 levels again?

China is poised to have plague level respiratory infections because not only do they have the virus but they've also got the air pollution. Deadly combo, that. 

Meanwhile, the devastation that Greta's handlers have programmed her to screech about is somewhere around 2000 on the top ten list of problems we face as a species. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Correct. But if I handed you an unknown particle you would definitely not use MALS to determine its mass. Which was my original point, lost in the weeds. 

As to your point below about pollution, who talked about 50% CO2 levels again?

China is poised to have plague level respiratory infections because not only do they have the virus but they've also got the air pollution. Deadly combo, that. 

Meanwhile, the devastation that Greta's handlers have programmed her to screech about is somewhere around 2000 on the top ten list of problems we face as a species. 

The standard approach (in environmental and occupational testing) is to filter the air at a fixed rate onto a lab weighed filter paper and then weigh again afterwards to determine the weight of the particulate collected. That filter paper can then be subject to GC to determine the breakdown of the contents which allows for a density estimate to be made. I'm sure there a number of other methodologies. 

You keep repetitively referring to 50% CO2 levels when I was simply making the point that what's effectively harmless at one concentration is lethal at another. And no - we won't see 50% CO2 by volume in our lifetime or the next or likely ever. 

As for your point about pollution in China - much of that is down to Coal burn. Hmmm potential to kill two birds with one stone there. I agree that GT should focus some of her attention on China. Picking on India regarding CO2  would be a bit unfair as they only produce per head 10% of what your average US citizen does. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

As for your point about pollution in China - much of that is down to Coal burn. Hmmm potential to kill two birds with one stone there. I agree that GT should focus some of her attention on China.

Which I believe was brought up by, pretty much everyone. Highly hypocritical IMHO to ignore that particular elephant in the room. 

Marcin dropped off the conversation but he was the one who erroneously spoke of the equipment failing due to the mass of large particles. As I suspect you already know, that's not how they operate, although those devices with filters clearly need maintenance and filter changes on a continuous basis. Air quality monitors, at least around me, are essentially small particle counters. While you're correct that not all particles are the same, to a person with COPD it doesn't matter whether those particles are "natural" or anthropogenic. Above certain concentrations they equal death. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Dont forget Richard Branson, he's not only got Virgin Atlantic but also Virgin Galactic, carbon neutral he aint!

As for Elon Musk yep he is as green as they come with Tesla, oh wait...... what about SpaceX?

 

 

 

"What is the least fuel efficient vehicle?" is a fun trivia question to ask people.  Most people say oil tankers which is a good guess but not even close to the large rockets that burn like a ton per inch traveled during liftoff. 

Of course, once it's in space it's the most fuel efficient vehicle as it flies along crazy fast using essentially no fuel.

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

33 minutes ago, NickW said:

The standard approach (in environmental and occupational testing) is to filter the air at a fixed rate onto a lab weighed filter paper and then weigh again afterwards to determine the weight of the particulate collected. That filter paper can then be subject to GC to determine the breakdown of the contents which allows for a density estimate to be made. I'm sure there a number of other methodologies.

We dissolved them in nitric acid using a high-pressure microwave reaction vessel, diluted to 100mL, then did ICP-MS.

The air in our project was too pristine to collect enough on the filters for tradition weighing and handling.

[NickW + 2,714]

40 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Which I believe was brought up by, pretty much everyone. Highly hypocritical IMHO to ignore that particular elephant in the room. 

Marcin dropped off the conversation but he was the one who erroneously spoke of the equipment failing due to the mass of large particles. As I suspect you already know, that's not how they operate, although those devices with filters clearly need maintenance and filter changes on a continuous basis. Air quality monitors, at least around me, are essentially small particle counters. While you're correct that not all particles are the same, to a person with COPD it doesn't matter whether those particles are "natural" or anthropogenic. Above certain concentrations they equal death. 

The mortality threshold from exposure will be partly influenced by the Inflammatory and or oxidative stress potential of the components in the particles. For example for a given quantity at the same particle size your COPD subject is going to drop dead at a lower concentration of Nickel compared to say Iron

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

18 minutes ago, NickW said:

The mortality threshold from exposure will be partly influenced by the Inflammatory and or oxidative stress potential of the components in the particles. For example for a given quantity at the same particle size your COPD subject is going to drop dead at a lower concentration of Nickel compared to say Iron

Given nickel's anti microbial properties, I'd take my chances with it. Kind of hard to make it "float" in the atmosphere though… 🤓

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

This thread takes me back to undergrad.  In Environmental chem 305 we actually made our own rudimentary laser diffraction system and modeled particles forming and changing in size.

One end of a tube we put a drop of HCl and the other end a drop of ammonia solution. As the two reacted they made a ammonium chloride fog in the tube which we shot the laser through.  It worked sufficiently well for a write up... not great.

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Given nickel's anti microbial properties, I'd take my chances with it. Kind of hard to make it "float" in the atmosphere though… 🤓

 

My project was floating As and Lead; Lead is damn heavy.

Before we got our fancy ICP-MS we had to measure arsenic by hydride gas generation and ICP-AES. PITA

Edited January 28, 2020 by Enthalpic

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Given nickel's anti microbial properties, I'd take my chances with it. Kind of hard to make it "float" in the atmosphere though… 🤓

 

Nickel is a respiratory sensitiser

Collect a sample of air from any underground metro station. The airborne respirable / Pm 2.5 dust dust will be 50-70% Iron Oxide with Nickel, Chromium, Copper, Zinc, Manganese particles thrown in. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

We had this urban particulate matter standard too, if you're wondering what is in the city air we breathe.

https://www-s.nist.gov/srmors/certificates/1648A.pdf

Ni is pretty low at 81.1mg/Kg

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Nickel is a respiratory sensitiser

Collect a sample of air from any underground metro station. The airborne respirable / Pm 2.5 dust dust will be 50-70% Iron Oxide with Nickel, Chromium, Copper, Zinc, Manganese particles thrown in. 

Makes sense. Still pretty heavy, I'm confident without a lot of air pressure differential those heavy particles don't get to climb out of that basement very high. Wasn't aware of that about nickel. I might be allergic so some nuisance but I'm more concerned about staph and strep infection and the like, which would cause more havoc in my body than sneezing. 

You've heard the phrase, "born with a silver spoon" no doubt. But were you aware of the health benefits of eating off silver versus the other options? Infant life expectancy vastly higher. They even have silver embedded clothing for astronauts on the space station. I'm a fan of silver as you can tell.  🤩

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Just now, Ward Smith said:

 

You've heard the phrase, "born with a silver spoon" no doubt. But were you aware of the health benefits of eating off silver versus the other options? Infant life expectancy vastly higher. They even have silver embedded clothing for astronauts on the space station. I'm a fan of silver as you can tell.  🤩

Probably more due to socioeconomic factors than the antimicrobial properties of silver.

Colloidal silver is in everything now and is mostly a scam.

[NickW + 2,714]

18 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Makes sense. Still pretty heavy, I'm confident without a lot of air pressure differential those heavy particles don't get to climb out of that basement very high. Wasn't aware of that about nickel. I might be allergic so some nuisance but I'm more concerned about staph and strep infection and the like, which would cause more havoc in my body than sneezing. 

You've heard the phrase, "born with a silver spoon" no doubt. But were you aware of the health benefits of eating off silver versus the other options? Infant life expectancy vastly higher. They even have silver embedded clothing for astronauts on the space station. I'm a fan of silver as you can tell.  🤩

Only airborne with train movements. Once they stop they settle out within half an hour

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

18 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Probably more due to socioeconomic factors than the antimicrobial properties of silver.

Colloidal silver is in everything now and is mostly a scam.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-scientists-deeper-silver-bacteria.html