The Gaming Den

So you're saying that the sulfur dioxide directly contributed to acid rain, but because it wasn't a problem until then, we can't call it (air) pollution?

RobbyPants wrote:So you're saying that the sulfur dioxide directly contributed to acid rain, but because it wasn't a problem until then, we can't call it (air) pollution?

No I am saying that the regulations imposed on emissions was not a result of the material in the air, but of a substance emitted into the atmosphere which converts into another substance which in turn gets deposited into rivers and streams where it is a pollutant. In other words it is not because sulfur dioxide is a pollutant in the atmosphere that we regulated it, but because it turned into sulfuric acid then winds up in streams and rivers and lakes.

In the gas phase sulfur dioxide is oxidized by reaction with the hydroxyl radical via an intermolecular reaction:

SO2 + OH· → HOSO2·
which is followed by:

HOSO2· + O2 → HO2· + SO3
In the presence of water, sulfur trioxide (SO3) is converted rapidly to sulfuric acid:

SO3 (g) + H2O (l) → H2SO4 (l)

So is sulfur dioxide an air pollutant? Yes, in enough quantities. "Inhaling sulfur dioxide is associated with increased respiratory symptoms and disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death. In 2008, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists reduced the Short-term exposure limit from 5ppm to 0.25ppm. The OSHA PEL is currently set at 5ppm (13 mg/m3) time weighted average. NIOSH has set the IDLH at 100ppm." But that had nothing to do with the sulfur dioxide regulations imposed by the federal government to prevent acid rain. In fact, this would be a problem for sulfur based deisel fuels in urban environments, not coal burning plants in the middle of God knows where.

tzor wrote:In other words it is not because sulfur dioxide is a pollutant in the atmosphere that we regulated it, but because it turned into sulfuric acid then winds up in streams and rivers and lakes.

In addition to being a powerful and stable greenhouse gas, CO2 also converts into carbonic acid as part of ocean absorption, resulting in decreased seawater alkalinity and threatening marine ecosystems. I guess you're all for regulating it, then?

I've gotten SO2 poisoning before. Cl2 was worse, but I'd prefer to never experience either again.

Daiba wrote:In addition to being a powerful and stable greenhouse gas, CO2 also converts into carbonic acid as part of ocean absorption, resulting in decreased seawater alkalinity and threatening marine ecosystems. I guess you're all for regulating it, then?

Because it's a hell of a lot easier to monitor a few coal plants in your own country than every major CO2 emitter on the planet. And remember that the biggest emitter of both gasses is ... CHINA. Their SO2 emissions are at the level of the United States back in the 1980's that led to those regulations, but hey, they are a "developing" country (ha ha, in oh so many ways) and they are exempt from all liberal wrath.

I think it's more that China is rich enough to ignore it. Pay the right person the right amount of money, and you don't need to be regulated.

Also, DEQ inspectors tend to be borderline retarded.

It could also be it's hard to regulate a country that tells you to fuck off and has nuclear weapons

sabs wrote:It could also be it's hard to regulate a country that tells you to fuck off and has nuclear weapons

Indeed. America gets away with an awful lot because of that fact itself...

[quote="tzor]Because it's a hell of a lot easier to monitor a few coal plants in your own country than every major CO2 emitter on the planet. [/quote]

So you admit that CO2 is a pollutant?

tzor wrote:but hey, they are a "developing" country (ha ha, in oh so many ways) and they are exempt from all liberal wrath.

No way, man. Environmentalist organizations have never stopped trying to get China to reduce pollution. And one nation polluting heavily is no excuse for us to do the same thing - we can be better than that.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I think it's more that China is rich enough to ignore it. Pay the right person the right amount of money, and you don't need to be regulated.

Yeah, this is definitely true. The central government could enact stringent pollution controls tomorrow and nothing would happen.

tzor wrote:Wait a second,

Wait a second again.

I notice you DID NOT answer the question. ARE you a young earth creationist? Do you share any of their wacky beliefs?

What is it about young earth creationism that you took the time out of your day to write three paragraphs of rambling avoidance rather than just saying flat out "no I do not believe that because young earth creationists are wrong, that shit is fucking stupid!"

cthulhu wrote:Most of the time someone comes in with big new ideas, gets told the implementation price tag and goes "What the fuck? Really? 900 million dollars? You've got to be joking? You're not?" and then does one of the following two things

A) Scraps the idea (Most of the time)

B) Says "Pfft, what do you know, that should only cost.. ooh.. 150 million dollars" and then is surprised when the final budget comes out at 900 million dollars, then blames the public sector for being inefficient. (Quoting an actual example here)

To put this in perspective Queensland is going through the largest machinery of government change in over a decade. It started after last election and will not be complete before the next one. Since the government is highly likely to change hands for the first time in over a decade next election its a given that there will be another mog change then too.

Neither of those changes makes a lot of difference to the customers. Services are still delivered. The more impressive thing is how little the organisational culture of the dominant departments changed. Sure the small ones were swallowed whole and lost. The big fish are acting just like they always did in spite of a total shuffle.

We even joke that theres no point merging systems because we'll have to unmerge them in 18 months. The problem is the government has a lot of power to swap the deck chairs about, but little power to change the chairs in any way. The only power they have is ineffective but they still feel compelled to exercise it just to prove that they are doing something.

Daiba wrote:So you admit that CO2 is a pollutant?

No, I admit that general overall CO2 levels (the whole global warming nonsense not withstanding) can, because they are absorbed by the oceans really do potentially massive damage to the coral reef system. This does not justify by any stretch of the imagination cap and trade, but I do have a concern over it. Note that coral is generally a very fragile system in the first place.

The argument of CO2 because of Global Warming, on the other hand, is crap. That's the argument that the EPA is using, not any potential threat to the coral reefs.

PhoneLobster wrote:I notice you DID NOT answer the question. ARE you a young earth creationist? Do you share any of their wacky beliefs?

Sorry, I think young earth creationists are scientifically lacking and theologically in error (they basically have to argue that God put in false clues in the universe, and God can neither deceive nor be deceived - the former because he cannot sin and deceiving is false witness - the latter because he is all knowing).

Note this is completely different from those who argue "intelligent design." Unlike pure Darwin theory I think there is some intelligence to the design because I think there is a lot more intelligence (that is to say an ordered process for operation as opposed to just random shit) in DNA/RNA than we give it credit for.

tzor wrote:Note this is completely different from those who argue "intelligent design."

That's an odd position to take since the Intelligent Design movement was founded BY Creationists, is funded by Creationists and exists specifically to promote a Creationist agenda.

I guess you are talking about a magical mystical Tzor specific branch of the Intelligent Design movement that is somehow utterly divorced from it's actual stated principles, its roots, founders and other self declared followers. Like with every other movement and idea you support.

What you seem to be talking about looks a lot more like the whole "Amazing Shrinking God Of The Gaps is Compatible With Science!" argument. Which itself is stupid on the bare face of it, but at least not aggressively evil.

Intelligent design really doesn't explain the Platypus.
I'm not sure what does, but Intelligent design definitely doesn't.
Besides, Maybe Galactus create the universe, and there is no God.

sabs wrote:Intelligent design really doesn't explain the Platypus.
I'm not sure what does, but Intelligent design definitely doesn't.
Besides, Maybe Galactus create the universe, and there is no God.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."

Omnomnom?

Phone Lobster wrote:I guess you are talking about a magical mystical Tzor specific branch of the Intelligent Design movement that is somehow utterly divorced from it's actual stated principles, its roots, founders and other self declared followers. Like with every other movement and idea you support.

I think you would find a surprising number of people out there who believe in some sort of hand behind the creation, but aren't Creationists. I pretty sure, at the very minimum, both the Catholic and Mormon churches accept the theory of evolution and the scientific evidence for the existence of the world, but both believe it was God's fault.

The problem is that the ID peeps have taken a belief that's relatively common and applied it to an extreme that's absurd, so moderates aren't allowed to come out and tell extremists to shove it up their ass because there is no moderate position. There is only whack-job or scientist.

Maj your quote tags are rooted.

Maj wrote:The problem is that the ID peeps have taken a belief that's relatively common and applied it to an extreme that's absurd, so moderates aren't allowed to come out and tell extremists to shove it up their ass because there is no moderate position.

I think its important to note that the ID peeps are very very specific peeps.

When you say "Intelligent Design" you aren't talking about some vague wishy washy coexistance of God and Evolutionary theory you are speaking about a VERY specific movement. It is founded by creationists, it teaches creationist principles and it has a creationist agenda, and a specifically fundamentalist primarily north American Christian one at that.

Intelligent Design is LITERALLY a rebranding attempt by Creationists in the USA so they could camouflage as if they had some sort of scientific integrity or at least socially and religiously moderate position. But it is STILL an extremist position and it, among other things, is NOT compatible with Evolution and IS a direct attack on evolution which ID proponents denounce as absolutely false.

And while Tzor may think he can denounce young earth creationism and embrace ID, well, a lot of major ID players certainly refuse to denounce young earth creationism and many of IDs backers and supporters ARE young earth creationists.

If you want to hold a moderate position I strongly suggest NOT labeling it ID.

PL wrote:If you want to hold a moderate position I strongly suggest NOT labeling it ID.

I understand that, but what's another good name for it?

Maj wrote:I understand that, but what's another good name for it?

Moderate positions with very vaguely defined principles and no specific agenda don't get really names.

There is no "movement of people who don't mind science but do believe in god but really try not to think about the contradictions too hard and don't really want to do anything in particular about it".

Well... I suppose you could call them Anglicans (it's an in joke, you USA types probably won't get it).

PL wrote:There is no "movement of people who don't mind science but do believe in god but really try not to think about the contradictions too hard and don't really want to do anything in particular about it".

And that is exactly why Tzor says he believes in ID, but is not Creationist. He believes the world was intelligently designed - with evolution and fossil records and carbon 14 dating involved.

That's also the reason why ID was a term dominated by Creationists - it sounds like it's semi-reasonable.

Maj wrote:That's also the reason why ID was a term dominated by Creationists - it sounds like it's semi-reasonable.

Except that it isn't. ID is a movement specifically intended to remove science from class rooms and replace it with religious teaching.

They have the stated intention of having mystical explanations regarded as the equal of scientific theory, in science education.

They specifically refute and deny that Evolution is a valid theory. Their refutations are the exact same series of discredited lies that were invented during the life time of Darwin and that have been repeated endless ever since as if they were not handily dismissed and disproved during the life time of Darwin. They are the SAME attack lines on Evolution theory that have been used by straight up honest Creationists all that time. They are the same attack lines STILL used by Creationists right now, indeed Creationists and ID proponents intermingle freely as do their (very limited) ideas.

ID is not a science, they have NO disproof of evolution, worse still they have utterly no proof of Intelligent Design OR even the existence of an Intelligent Designer. They are a propaganda wing of the Creationist movement given a different name despite identical methods, agenda and language.

Unless you believe that Evolution DID NOT HAPPEN and that instead A WIZARD DID IT and you believe that not only entirely but without proof and indeed despite proof to the contrary... then you are NOT an ID believer. Also you have to believe that A WIZARD DID IT is something that should become a key tenant and fall back theory for all science and science education. These are key beliefs held and promoted by the ID movement. Denounce them and the ID movement will denounce YOU.

Way to completely miss the point. Again.

Maj wrote:Way to completely miss the point. Again.

And again, Intelligent Design is capitalized, its a thing, it has a definition, you don't get to redefine it to include evolution.