Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (13715)	2/16/2011 5:17:20 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

If a pollutant is defined as a substance, made or freed by man's actions , that has adverse effects on the local or overall environment, carbon dioxide can be called a pollutant. It's a matter of quantity. Asbestos is a pollutant. It is natural, and for a long time though to be safe as sea salt. Now even very small amounts have an epidemiologically traceable effect. Bisphenol A is the latest in a series of chemical byproducts that were deemed to be nontoxic. Now it is suspected of being a reproductive toxin and carcinogen (pseudoestrogen) at very low levels. Carbon dioxide in high doses is definitely toxic; consider the Kursk and Lake Nyos. Above 1200 ppm, plants sustain damage. At more currently low atmospheric concentrations, we will find out soon enough if the extra hundred ppm that have been pumped in over the last century will have an adverse effect that can be unequivocally assigned thereto. It isn't over 'til the fat lady exhales.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (13715)	2/16/2011 5:17:20 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 69300

If a pollutant is defined as a substance, made or freed by man's actions , that has adverse effects on the local or overall environment, carbon dioxide can be called a pollutant. It's a matter of quantity. Asbestos is a pollutant. It is natural, and for a long time though to be safe as sea salt. Now even very small amounts have an epidemiologically traceable effect. Bisphenol A is the latest in a series of chemical byproducts that were deemed to be nontoxic. Now it is suspected of being a reproductive toxin and carcinogen (pseudoestrogen) at very low levels. Carbon dioxide in high doses is definitely toxic; consider the Kursk and Lake Nyos. Above 1200 ppm, plants sustain damage. At more currently low atmospheric concentrations, we will find out soon enough if the extra hundred ppm that have been pumped in over the last century will have an adverse effect that can be unequivocally assigned thereto. It isn't over 'til the fat lady exhales.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (13715)	2/16/2011 8:54:45 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

No. That wasn’t my post. What I said was: “Think for yourself. I'm tired of your infantile "yes, but", "yes but" games.” I gave you several dozen pages of regulations, as you asked for. I have read them! I’m not going to read them for you! Ha! You are an insincere fellow. If you had truly wanted to learn you would have read them and made an intelligent comment on them! But apparently you are quite speechless except for asinine and empty nothings. Fine!