Okay, so it's environmentally bad, but it sure was glorious! Amazing what they can do with fireworks these days; the variety was as neat as the volume:..."/>
Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Sydney did it up royally this year!
Saturday, January 1, 2011 11:40 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Saturday, January 1, 2011 12:51 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Saturday, January 1, 2011 1:32 PM
CANTTAKESKY
Saturday, January 1, 2011 5:43 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Saturday, January 1, 2011 7:19 PM
DREAMTROVE
Saturday, January 1, 2011 9:24 PM
RIGHTEOUS9
Saturday, January 1, 2011 10:46 PM
Sunday, January 2, 2011 1:19 AM
KANEMAN
Sunday, January 2, 2011 1:21 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: Good points. Additionally, I think that the most money to be made would be from those industries that support climate change skeptics, such as the mining industries.
Sunday, January 2, 2011 1:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: How are fireworks environmentally bad ? " I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:40 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Righteous9: 1.choose to accept man-made global warming as a real possibility, essentially deferring to the experts in the respective sciences. They have been doing the testing and the research after all. 2. choose to disent with the majority of experts in the field, and to trust instead with the small community of experts and obscenely large community of internet genies who concoct whole "pages" of circumstancial evidence as proof that global warming isn't happening. 3. Get my own degree(or equivalent schooling) and do my own research.
Quote:Open Letter to the Climate Research Community ...For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished. It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort. Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name a few. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community. Climate research made significant advancements during the last few decades, thanks to your diligent work. This includes the construction of the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets documenting the rise of globally averaged temperature during the last century. I do not believe that this work can be affected in any way by the recent email revelations. Thus, the first of the three pillars supporting the hypothesis of manmade global warming seems to be solid. However, the two other pillars are much more controversial. To blame the current warming on humans, there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history (the last few thousand years). This task is one of the main topics of the released CRU emails. Some people were so eager to prove this point that it became more important than scientific integrity. The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. The fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds, and ocean circulation?), even though we can all agree that part of the observed post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation. The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists. So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work....
Sunday, January 2, 2011 6:54 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: How are fireworks environmentally bad ?
Sunday, January 2, 2011 8:10 AM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Quote:Originally posted by Righteous9: From my perspective, there are three choices... 1.choose to accept man-made global warming as a real possibility, essentially deferring to the experts in the respective sciences. They have been doing the testing and the research after all. 2. choose to disent with the majority of experts in the field, and to trust instead with the small community of experts and obscenely large community of internet genies who concoct whole "pages" of circumstancial evidence as proof that global warming isn't happening. 3. Get my own degree(or equivalent schooling) and do my own research.
Sunday, January 2, 2011 8:35 AM
Sunday, January 2, 2011 8:52 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: I only put this up because it was a gorgeous show and I thought others might enjoy it, not to start yet ANOTHER debate on global warming/climate change.
Sunday, January 2, 2011 11:03 AM
Quote:Fireworks can unleash a shower of toxins into soil and water, and scientists are only beginning to figure out what that means for human health. The rockets' red glare during a fireworks show can fill onlookers with patriotism and awe. Unfortunately, it can also fill them with particulates and aluminum. Fireworks get their flamboyance from a variety of chemicals, many of which are toxic to humans. From the gunpowder that fuels their flight to the metallic compounds that color their explosions, fireworks often contain carcinogenic or hormone-disrupting substances that can seep into soil and water, not to mention the lung-clogging smoke they release and plastic debris they scatter. But fireworks shows are woven into the fabric of the United States — they were popular here even before the country won its independence — and it's not like they happen every day. Is an occasional peppering of perchlorates really a big deal compared with all the industrial pollution U.S. waterways have been dealt over the years? Maybe not, but it's still not entirely clear how fireworks affect environmental or human health. While they haven't been linked to any widespread outbreaks of disease, it's not always easy to pin down why someone developed hypothyroidism, anemia or cancer. What we do know is that, although they're fleeting and infrequent, fireworks shows spray out a toxic concoction that rains down quietly into lakes, rivers and bays throughout the country. Many of the chemicals in fireworks are also persistent in the environment, meaning they stubbornly sit there instead of breaking down. That's how mercury from coal emissions winds up in fish, and it's how DDT thinned bald eagles' eggshells in the '70s. There's scant evidence that fireworks are having similar effects, but the possibility has been enough to raise concern in many communities. Here's a look at what's in fireworks, how they might affect people, and what kinds of alternatives exist: Perchlorates and particulates For fireworks and other pyrotechnics to blow up, they need to blow up something — usually a blend of charcoal and sulfur fuel. They also need an ingredient that can inject oxygen to speed up the explosion, historically relying on potassium nitrate. These three chemicals are mixed together into a sooty substance known as gunpowder. When a spark hits gunpowder, the potassium nitrate feeds oxygen to the fire, helping it quickly burn the charcoal-sulfur fuel. This produces volumes of hot, rapidly expanding solids and gases that can be used to fire a bullet, explode an artillery shell or launch a Roman candle. The original blends of black powder can be a bit too unstable and messy for some uses, though, so the potassium nitrate is often replaced by perchlorates, a family of chemicals all featuring a central chlorine atom bonded by four oxygen atoms. Two types in particular — potassium perchlorate and ammonium perchlorate — have become the go-to oxidizers of the pyrotechnics industry. Perchlorates may have introduced a new problem, though: In high enough doses, they limit the human thyroid gland's ability to take iodine from the bloodstream, potentially resulting in hypothyroidism. The thyroid needs iodine to make hormones that control a variety of body functions, and people running too low on these hormones can develop a wide range of disorders. Children, infants and especially fetuses suffer the worst from hypothyroidism, since thyroid hormones are crucial for normal growth. Perchlorates have also been shown to cause thyroid cancer in rats and mice, but scientists believe humans are less vulnerable to this effect. Low doses of perchlorates don't seem to hurt healthy adults — volunteers who took 35 milligrams for 14 days or 3 milligrams for six months showed no thyroid-related problems, and studies of workers exposed to similar amounts for years also failed to uncover any major side effects. Plus, perchlorate advocates often point out that it should theoretically all be incinerated in the sky before any can fall down to contaminate the ground. But a 2007 study of an Oklahoma lake following fireworks displays overhead found that perchlorate levels spiked more than 1,000 times above the baseline level for 14 hours after a show. While the maximum concentration detected was 44.2 micrograms — less than 1 milligram — per liter, the study was still the most concrete evidence yet that fireworks release perchlorates into waterways. Another study by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection found perchlorate levels up to 62 micrograms per liter at eight groundwater-monitoring wells on the Dartmouth campus, near where fireworks are regularly fired. EPA spokesman Skip Anderson cautions that these weren't health-effects studies, and points out that more data are needed to determine how great a risk perchlorates pose in surface water around the country. Still, he says, their results "suggest that some perchlorate in fireworks is not combusted and therefore can wind up in the environment." The smoke from fireworks' burned charcoal and sulfur fuel also contains particulate matter that can get lodged in people's lungs, an immediate danger for those with asthma or chemical sensitivities. Prolonged exposure to similar airborne particles from diesel exhaust has also been shown to cause lung cancer. Air-quality monitors reportedly spike for about three hours after a fireworks show. One positive of both perchlorates and particulates is that they most likely don't pose a long-term threat. Particulates fade away after a few hours, and perchlorates dissipate days or weeks after being released. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about some other chemicals that help light up the sky. Metallic compounds In addition to gunpowder, fireworks are packed with heavy metals and other toxins that produce their sparkling shower of colors. Like perchlorates, the exact effect of fireworks' heavy-metal fallout is still mainly a mystery, but scientists do know that the metals themselves can wreak havoc in the human body. • Strontium (red): This soft, silvery-yellow metal turns red when it burns, is extremely reactive with both air and water, and can be radioactive. Some strontium compounds dissolve in water, and others move deep into soil and groundwater; radioactive strontium has a half-life of 29 years. While low levels of stable and radioactive strontium haven't been shown to affect human health, they both can be dangerous at high doses. Radioactive strontium can damage bone marrow, cause anemia and prevent blood from clotting correctly, and lab studies have shown it can lead to birth defects in animals. Stable strontium is mainly a threat to children because it can impair their bone growth. • Aluminum (white): Since aluminum is the most abundant metal in Earth's crust — and one of humanity's most widely used — avoiding exposure is almost impossible. Virtually all food, water, air and soil contain some amount of aluminum — the average adult eats about 7 to 9 milligrams of the silvery-white metal every day in food. It's generally safe at these levels, but it can affect the brain and lungs at higher concentrations. People and animals exposed to large amounts of aluminum have performed poorly on mental and physical tests, and some studies suggest aluminum exposure may lead to Alzheimer's disease, although that connection has yet to be proven. • Copper (blue): Fireworks' blue hues are produced by copper compounds. These aren't very toxic on their own, but the copper jump-starts the formation of dioxins when perchlorates in the fireworks burn. Dioxins are vicious chemicals that don't occur naturally and aren't intentionally produced anywhere; they only exist as unwelcome byproducts of certain chemical reactions, one of which happens in blue fireworks. The most noted health effect of dioxin exposure is chloracne, a severe skin disease with acne-like lesions mostly on the face and upper body. Dioxin doesn't stop there, though — the World Health Organization has identified it as a human carcinogen, and it's also been shown to disrupt hormone production and glucose metabolism. • Barium (green): Fish and other aquatic organisms can accumulate barium, which means it can move up the food chain. The silvery-white metal naturally bonds with other elements to form a variety of compounds that all have different effects — none are known to be carcinogenic, but they can cause gastrointestinal problems and muscular weakness when exposure exceeds EPA drinking water standards. Symptoms may include vomiting, diarrhea, breathing trouble, changes in blood pressure, numbness around the face, general muscle weakness and cramps. High levels of barium exposure can lead to changes in heart rhythm, paralysis or death. • Cadmium (various): Used to produce a wide range of fireworks colors, this mineral is also a known human carcinogen. Breathing high levels of cadmium can seriously damage the lungs, and consuming it can fluster the stomach, often resulting in vomiting and diarrhea. Long-term exposure can lead to kidney disease, lung damage and fragile bones. Plants, fish and other animals take up cadmium from the environment, meaning that any released into waterways from a fireworks show can be passed up the food chain. In 2004, Disney began using compressed air to launch fireworks at Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., reducing at least the issues of smoky particulates in the air and perchlorates in the water. Researchers have also been fine-tuning alternative propellants that use nitrogen-rich materials in place of perchlorates, but those are still likely several years away from hitting the market.
Quote:Several readers have commented that toxins in fireworks are insignificant, or are combusted before they can contaminate the ground. Both are valid arguments — this article doesn't claim that fireworks are definitively dangerous to environmental health; it simply highlights the concern that known toxins are unnaturally entering the environment and scientists don't know exactly what ecological effects they have. The potential dangers alone have been enough to spur Disneyland and some communities to explore other options, and researchers are pursuing alternatives to perchlorates due to the possibility of health effects. As for combustion, the article cites two studies that found perchlorates can still make it into lakes, either from shells being overstuffed or from duds that fail to combust. Only a small amount was found, but only two lakes were studied. Again, this article aims simply to point out the potential dangers since scientific understanding is still limited. The explanations of the chemicals that give fireworks their colors have also drawn some fire from commenters. The environmental impact of these hasn't been studied well enough for anyone to know their ecological effects; rather than speculating how they might affect ecological health, the article summarizes the toxicological profiles of these chemicals, primarily using information from the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The article makes clear at several points that it's merely presenting the potential dangers inherent to the materials in question. While common chemicals like table salt that contain otherwise dangerous components are known to be safe, the effects of fireworks' toxins in the environment are much less understood.
Sunday, January 2, 2011 12:08 PM
Quote:The only negative aspect of 'climate change' politics is the creation of carbon as a commodity which can be traded.
Sunday, January 2, 2011 1:50 PM
Sunday, January 2, 2011 2:10 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Niki One sentence of your opinion on the matter and a link to the information given would have served the same purpose. Thanks. " I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
Sunday, January 2, 2011 2:33 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, I am dismayed to find you at first complaining about the lack of information from Niki to back-up her statement...
Quote: Only to complain again about the large quantity of information she provided in backing up her statement. I'm sure you can see how your position might be frustrating to people who try to accommodate you.
Quote:One wonders if there is a pre-screening facility or editor that people can send their submissions to, in order to ensure it meets your standards of 'quantity of evidence and information' before it is posted in the forum. --Anthony.
Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:34 PM
Quote: "How are fireworks environmentally bad ?" "No answer yet,huh? Niki made this statement as if it was accepted fact. Why ?"
Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:41 PM
Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:42 PM
Sunday, January 2, 2011 8:10 PM
Monday, January 3, 2011 8:11 AM
Monday, January 3, 2011 10:54 AM
Quote:But humans do have a radical effect on our environment through deforestation, desertification and overfishing. These all effect co2 levels and also temperature. though mainly through changes in convection cycles. i would support such arguments if i thought it would help, just as i would use the bible as a basis for environmental argument if i thought it would help. but this distraction into reducing our carbon footprint is aside from the point, and to this end, we have supported disasters like ethanol and natural gas. I suspect that the only solution is for humans to become radically environmentalist, religious if you will, but in the direction of understanding, scientifically, exactly what it is that we are doing that endangers each of us. If the earth dies, we all die. If those things on the earth that are resistant to each disease die, then we lose our best chance at curing that disease. if we destroy the transpiration cycle, there is less rainfall. less biomass. less food and fewer products and hence there will be fewer humans.
Quote: As virtually all types of plants, animals and environmental ecosystems will be affected by warmer climate in some way or another, so will the human society in all its complexity be affected by often unpredictable, wide-ranging and far-reaching global warming consequences. By far the most important areas from the point of view of human well-being affected will be: • Water supplies • Food supplies, and • Human health Water makes up 70% of the human body’s chemical composition. It is therefore a resource without which we cannot exist. By the middle of the 21 st century, water availability is projected to [temporarily] increase in higher latitudes and in certain wet tropical regions [due to melting of mountain glaciers], and decrease in drier parts of the tropics and subtropics, especially during the summer period. The water quality will also be negatively affected by heavy precipitation events which may contaminate drinking water supplies. Energy generation will also affected by water scarcity. Reduced water supplies will have a negative impact on the power plants depending on water for their functioning, for example, dams, nuclear plants etc. Agricultural productivity for food supplies is, in general, projected to decrease as the temperatures rise. Agricultural food production will be further affected by extreme weather events such as droughts and floods. The warming of oceans will have a negative impact on commercial fisheries. Among other things, a number of infectious diseases is certainly expected to rise. It’s a well known fact that disease-carrying insects breed well in wet hot conditions, hence, the result. That will be especially true for tropical countries. Many millions will suffer from malnutrition because of shortages in food supply. This will lead to weakened immune systems and general health deterioration.
Monday, January 3, 2011 11:20 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: Anyway, it was pretty
Monday, January 3, 2011 12:17 PM
THEHAPPYTRADER
Monday, January 3, 2011 12:57 PM
Monday, January 3, 2011 1:11 PM
Quote: I was absolutely astonished Obama backed.
Quote:I have my own reservations about nuclear, as well.
Monday, January 3, 2011 4:00 PM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:12 AM
HARDWARE
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:23 AM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:27 AM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Righteous9: In other news, specificicity and facts determined tedious; empty rhetoric cool Hi Hardware, can you link me to those specific scientists that were touting global cooling? I've heard that claim and tried to find said scientists, but must have done a crappy job searching. would have thought some right wing blogs would have sent some of these guys up by name, but no luck...I did find the talking point repeated over and over, wihtout any specifics. That said, I also found something on a couple of scientists from way back that did some theorizing that man could and probably would have an effect on the temperature of the earth at some point, and they were uncertain as to whether or not the issue would be greenhouse gasses, which would cause warming, or smog, and the subsequent reduction of sunlight, which would cause cooling. I think they were leaning towards the smog winning out at the time, and thus, a possible global winter...but I don't think they were screaming about global cooling as a certainty...and I don't think there was anything contradictory about what they were trying to determine.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:44 AM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:45 AM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:46 AM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:53 AM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 8:08 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Righteous9: uh.... thanks Kaneman. Given that the first two sources you posted didn't immediately give me what I was looking for, which was NOT whether or not scientists were claiming global cooling at one point in history, but that the very same scientists who are claiming global warming now were, could you do me the favor of just sifting through all that and pointing out one or two that actually fit that criteria? The bandied about assertion is that these current scientists who insist climate change is being influenced by humanty are uncredible, because they were preaching the end at the hands of global cooling just 30 years ago, not that some scientists who are inconsequential in the conversation today were.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 8:20 AM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 8:35 AM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 9:37 AM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 11:24 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by TheHappyTrader: I don't buy in to the manmade global warming theories because they seem to ignore several relevant factors like the earths extensive geological history and the influence our sun has on our climate, probably because we can't really mess with that.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 12:04 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Quote:Originally posted by TheHappyTrader: I don't buy in to the manmade global warming theories because they seem to ignore several relevant factors like the earths extensive geological history and the influence our sun has on our climate, probably because we can't really mess with that. I read this from sentiment frequently from those who don't "believe" in man-made Climate Change. Yet whenever I read a paper or other research on the subject, it's almost always factored in. I wonder why that is? "I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 12:08 PM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 12:17 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: They really were very pretty
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 1:57 PM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 2:15 PM
Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:54 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kaneman: Also, a lot of people say all scientists believe... Well, here is alink to senate reports.... http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL