Jump to content

Do you Diwali?

coffee_rules

By coffee_rules
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

beetle Rising Star

beetle

Posted
Posted

When I was a child...a rocket landed on my head and got stuck in my hair.I looked a mess .

I stay away from crackers since then.

But Diwali means lots and lots of Mithai....diyas and rangoli.

Malcolm Merlyn Proficient

Malcolm Merlyn

Posted
Posted
When I was a child...a rocket landed on my head and got stuck in my hair.I looked a mess .

I stay away from crackers since then.

But Diwali means lots and lots of Mithai....diyas and rangoli.

Rocket on the head.Nice.

Eat less mithai please.

beetle Rising Star

beetle

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

So what 16 years mein wonly 32kgs naa.

Waise bhi Soldiers are trained to lift heavy load. :dontknow:

Nahi...I put on 2 kgs.

Lose about 1 1/2 kgs over the year with half kgs as fixed deposit .......:p:

zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

If they are so concerned about pollution then they should change their diets

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv8k-ZVVUAQIQUZ.jpgCv8k-ZVVUAQIQUZ.jpg

Good info! .... However, the comparision of food production with car's journey does not appear to be apples to apples when seen from consumption per family. Say 1 kg of food could feed a family of 4-5 daily. A family of 4-5 is likely to have 2 cars (at least in the developed countries). Each car would probably avg 50 kms per day. So 100 kms worth of emissions vs. that emitted by 1 kg production of the food basket .... Additionally, there is no info on emissions from the production of 1 kg of car and its fuel 

Edited by zen
Tibarn Community Regular

Tibarn

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Crookbond said:

Please look up the difference between pollution and emissions. 

 

I have a degree in Ecology. There isn't a significant difference. One(emissions) is a subset of the other(pollutants). This is the second time you have made a fool of yourself. Instead of trying to troll incessantly, try to read yourself or buzz off. Whichever you prefer.

Edited by Tibarn
Tibarn Community Regular

Tibarn

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, zen said:

Good info! .... However, the comparision of food production with car's journey does not appear to be apples to apples when seen from consumption per family. Say 1 kg of food could feed a family of 4-5 daily. A family of 4-5 is likely to have 2 cars (at least in the developed countries). Each car would probably avg 50 kms per day. So 100 kms worth of emissions vs. that emitted by 1 kg production of the food basket .... Additionally, there is no info on emissions from the production of 1 kg of car and its fuel 

Indeed it is not apples to apples. However, people seem to ignore one of the major sources of pollution, diet. The red meat trade, particularly beef and lamb are major sources of both carbon gain and water loss. There is also deforestation associated with the practice in order to form grazing land. It's a horrible industry ecologically. 

Crookbond Newbie

Crookbond

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Tibarn said:

I have a degree in Ecology. There isn't a significant difference. One(emissions) is a subset of the other(pollutants). This is the second time you have made a fool of yourself. Instead of trying to troll incessantly, try to read yourself or buzz off. Whichever you prefer.

Umm, pointing out that you were wrong is not making a fool of myself.

Tibarn Community Regular

Tibarn

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Crookbond said:

Umm, pointing out that you were wrong is not making a fool of myself.

Except you were wrong. This is the 3rd time. The options remain the same: learn to look up information yourself before displaying your own ignorance, or quietly abort the conversation. 

Edited by Tibarn
Crookbond Newbie

Crookbond

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Except you were wrong. This is the 3rd time. The options remain the same: learn to look up information yourself before displaying your own ignorance, or quietly abort the conversation. 

You were the one who was wrong - 3rd time.

Tibarn Community Regular

Tibarn

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Crookbond said:

You were the one who was wrong - 3rd time.

 

Wang T et al. Sci Total Environment. 2016 Oct 24. pii: S0048-9697(16)32247-1. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.081.

Quote

High concentrations of ozone in urban and industrial regions worldwide have long been a major air quality issue. With the rapid increase in fossil fuel consumption in China over the past three decades, the emission of chemical precursors to ozone—nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds—has increased sharply, surpassing that of North America and Europe and raising concerns about worsening ozone pollution in China. Historically, research and control have prioritized acid rain, particulate matter, and more recently fine particulate matter (PM2.5). In contrast, less is known about ozone pollution, partly due to a lack of monitoring of atmospheric ozone and its precursors until recently. This review summarizes the main findings from published papers on the characteristics and sources and processes of ozone and ozone precursors in the boundary layer of urban and rural areas of China, including concentration levels, seasonal variation, meteorology conducive to photochemistry and pollution transport, key production and loss processes, ozone dependence on nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, and the effects of ozone on crops and human health. Ozone concentrations exceeding the ambient air quality standard by 100–200% have been observed in China's major urban centers such as Jing-Jin-Ji, the Yangtze River delta, and the Pearl River delta, and limited studies suggest harmful effect of ozone on human health and agricultural corps; key chemical precursors and meteorological conditions conductive to ozone pollution have been investigated, and inter-city/region transport of ozone is significant. Several recommendations are given for future research and policy development on ground-level ozone.

Tainio M, et al  Risk Analysis. 2014 Nov;34(11):2021-34. doi: 10.1111/risa.12221. Epub 2014 Jun 9.

Quote

The cost-effective mitigation of adverse health effects caused by air pollution requires information on the contribution of different emission sources to exposure. In urban areas the exposure potential of different sources may vary significantly depending on emission height, population density, and other factors. In this study, we quantified this intraurban variability by predicting intake fraction (iF) for 3,066 emission sources in Warsaw, Poland. iF describes the fraction of the pollutant that is inhaled by people in the study area. We considered the following seven pollutants: particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), benzo[a] pyrene (BaP), nickel (Ni), cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb). Emissions for these pollutants were grouped into four emission source categories (Mobile, Area, High Point, and Other Point sources). The dispersion of the pollutants was predicted with the CALPUFF dispersion model using the year 2005 emission rate data and meteorological records. The resulting annual average concentrations were combined with population data to predict the contribution of each individual source to population exposure. The iFs for different pollutant-source category combinations varied between 51 per million (PM from Mobile sources) and 0.013 per million (sulfate PM from High Point sources). The intraurban iF variability for Mobile sources primary PM emission was from 4 per million to 100 per million with the emission-weighted iF of 44 per million. These results propose that exposure due to intraurban air pollution emissions could be decreased more effectively by specifically targeting sources with high exposure potency rather than all sources.

Barret, SE et al Environ Pollut. 2015 Nov;206:122-32. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.06.021. Epub 2015 Jul 7

Quote

The objective of this research was to assess factors controlling peat and plant chemistry, and vegetation composition in 18 peatlands surrounding Sudbury after more than 30 years of large (>95%) pollution emission reductions. Sites closer to the main Copper Cliff smelter had more humified peat and the surface horizons were greatly enriched in copper (Cu) and nickel (Ni). Copper and Ni concentrations in peat were significantly correlated with that in the plant tissue of Chamaedaphne calyculata. The pH of peat was the strongest determining factor for species richness, diversity, and community composition, although percent vascular plant cover was strongly negatively correlated with surface Cu and Ni concentrations in peat. Sphagnum frequency was also negatively related to peat Cu and Ni concentrations indicating sites close to Copper Cliff smelter remain adversely impacted by industrial activities

http://www.bcairquality.ca/101/pollutants-emissions.html

Quote

What are Pollutants and Emissions?

When we talk about air pollution, two main terms are used: pollutants and emissions:

  • Pollutants are unwanted chemicals or other materials found in the air, at high enough concentrations to endanger the environment and people’s health.
  • Emissions are discharges of a pollutant from a particular source (e.g., a factory) or group of sources (e.g., vehicles) into the air.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pollution/default.asp?lang=En&n=E96450C4-1

Quote

The Air Pollutant Emission Inventory (APEI) is an annual report of air pollutant emissions across Canada published by Environment and Climate Change Canada. The report details the release of air pollutants from all known of sources since 1990. The APEI serves many purposes, including:

  • supporting the development of and tracking progress on air quality management strategies, policies and regulations;
  • fulfilling Canada’s domestic and international reporting obligations;
  • informing Canadians about air pollutant emissions; and
  • providing data to support Canada’s air quality health indices.

Here you go, 5 sources for you. The fourth one is the simplest for someone, such as yourself, with poor English.  

 

If you bother responding, do prove that carbon emissions aren't a type of pollution, you will likely get a Nobel for that as well, as well as disprove the entire Ecology field.  

 

Now, do learn to grow up, enjoy existence on my ignore list.

Edited by Tibarn
Realized not everyone could have access to the abstracts.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...