PDA

View Full Version : Introducing Denver's own Dr. William Hern!


Pontius Pirate
02-10-2009, 10:20 AM
I think it was Agent Smith in the Matrix who said "Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet." Turns out he may be right:

Denver's own Dr. William Hern has been studying the correlation between humans in the 1st world and malignant cells. He found that human beings in industrialized countries have the same four characteristics that doctors look for in diagnosing something as cancerous (and oncologists need to find only two in order to diagnose something as malignant):

http://www.drhern.com/fulltext/why/paper.html

Hern was asked to present at a conference on population growth in India not too long ago and basically laid this all out on the table. He was booed off the stage. Now he performs abortions. There is some dark humor in all that.

What do you think? Are we or aren't we?

Archer81
02-10-2009, 10:21 AM
No, we are not.


:Broncos:

Pontius Pirate
02-10-2009, 10:27 AM
I think the octoplet mom makes a good case for Dr. Hern

vancejohnson82
02-10-2009, 10:28 AM
I think the octoplet mom makes a good case for Dr. Hern

my sentiment exactly

Kaylore
02-10-2009, 11:04 AM
Growth isn't bad. It's unplanned/unsupported growth.

TheReverend
02-10-2009, 11:13 AM
It's pretty undeniable, isn't it?

Pontius Pirate
02-10-2009, 11:21 AM
Growth isn't bad. It's unplanned/unsupported growth.

Where is growth planned & supported? Isn't our economy proof that U.S. growth is based on rampant greed and living beyond one's need / means?

snowspot66
02-10-2009, 11:23 AM
We're not a cancer. The only thing we'll kill is ourselves. The world will go on without us. It will be here billions of years after we're gone. It doesn't need us. We shouldn't be out to save the world we should be out to save ourselves.

Fan In Exile
02-10-2009, 12:48 PM
It's pretty undeniable, isn't it?

No, it isn't undeniable. This quack isn't saying anything new and the people who have said it before made predictions that were just plain wrong.

He starts with the assumption that Humans are harmful which like any good lie is a half-truth. Humans however are not like a malignant neoplasm in that they recognize the harm that they do and change it. This is why there is more forested land now than there was 50 years ago, or why the air quality has gone up in the past 20 years, or that acid rain isn't the crisis it once was.

I'm not saying that we've fixed all of the problems but that we are certainly working on them and things are better now than they have been in the past.

His inability to distinguish between people and a disease tells us more about his limited mental faculties than it does about people.

TheReverend
02-10-2009, 02:02 PM
No, it isn't undeniable. This quack isn't saying anything new and the people who have said it before made predictions that were just plain wrong.

He starts with the assumption that Humans are harmful which like any good lie is a half-truth. Humans however are not like a malignant neoplasm in that they recognize the harm that they do and change it. This is why there is more forested land now than there was 50 years ago, or why the air quality has gone up in the past 20 years, or that acid rain isn't the crisis it once was.

I'm not saying that we've fixed all of the problems but that we are certainly working on them and things are better now than they have been in the past.

His inability to distinguish between people and a disease tells us more about his limited mental faculties than it does about people.

Right... but you're acting like we've improved the air quality or the volume of forested lands from their natural state.

Air quality gotten better due to some great exhaust emissions technology, but even some of that is lethal (most catalysts in use NOW regenerate through NO2 production... which is bad bad bad). Maybe at some point we can find a clean, happy medium with the planet and it's resources, but at the moment, we're still bad news for it and each other.

TheReverend
02-10-2009, 02:03 PM
...and what are you using as the standard for improved air quality? US and Europe?

Pontius Pirate
02-10-2009, 03:08 PM
New Scientist actually posed the following question to a group of scientists not too long ago: what would happen if humans disappeared?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225731.100-imagine-earth-without-people.html?page=1

"On the whole...a humanless Earth will likely be a safer place for threatened biodiversity. "I would expect the number of species that benefit to significantly exceed the number that suffer, at least globally," Wilcove says.

Fan In Exile
02-10-2009, 04:29 PM
Right... but you're acting like we've improved the air quality or the volume of forested lands from their natural state.

Air quality gotten better due to some great exhaust emissions technology, but even some of that is lethal (most catalysts in use NOW regenerate through NO2 production... which is bad bad bad). Maybe at some point we can find a clean, happy medium with the planet and it's resources, but at the moment, we're still bad news for it and each other.

You clearly didn't understand the point. It's not about whether we are good or bad for the environment it's that we are essentially different from a disease in that we are self-aware and attempting to change. Disease of course is neither.

snowspot66
02-10-2009, 04:53 PM
New Scientist actually posed the following question to a group of scientists not too long ago: what would happen if humans disappeared?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225731.100-imagine-earth-without-people.html?page=1

"On the whole...a humanless Earth will likely be a safer place for threatened biodiversity. "I would expect the number of species that benefit to significantly exceed the number that suffer, at least globally," Wilcove says.

That is to be expected. We are at the top of the global food chain. Deer populations explode when mountain lions and wolves aren't present. That doesn't make mountain lions and wolves a cancer though. We are animals too.

broncofan7
02-10-2009, 05:23 PM
The spaceship will soon be here to take us all away--those of us in our Nike's anyway.

TheReverend
02-10-2009, 05:32 PM
You clearly didn't understand the point. It's not about whether we are good or bad for the environment it's that we are essentially different from a disease in that we are self-aware and attempting to change. Disease of course is neither.

We're also the only sentient disease...

The point is, our existence is far more destructive to our environment than any other. Maybe some day that won't be the case. But today, it sure as **** still is.

Fan In Exile
02-11-2009, 06:34 AM
We're also the only sentient disease...

The point is, our existence is far more destructive to our environment than any other. Maybe some day that won't be the case. But today, it sure as **** still is.

Well there you go then, except for the differences we're identical.

TheReverend
02-11-2009, 06:50 AM
Well there you go then, except for the differences we're identical.

I think you're missing... well just about everything.

I could care less about what the scientist said, or what the specific classifications are. Point blank, we're awful for the planet, and despite strides, a LONG ways away from being beneficial or even coexisting, if EVER.

You bring up air quality, and I say where? In the US and Europe where standards are tightening slowly but surely, but probably leveled by increased population, use, and larger vehicles? And even there we account for how much of the global population?

Now how's the air quality in India and China and other areas with extreme population issues?

And aside from all this, we're facing extreme natural resource issues in the near future.

I'm not sure what your point of view even is.

HILife
02-11-2009, 06:54 AM
The spaceship will soon be here to take us all away--those of us in our Nike's anyway.

Hopefully it's not during the primetime shows like House and Heros. I'm trying to get back into watching them.

Fan In Exile
02-11-2009, 11:17 AM
I think you're missing... well just about everything.

I could care less about what the scientist said, or what the specific classifications are. Point blank, we're awful for the planet, and despite strides, a LONG ways away from being beneficial or even coexisting, if EVER.

You bring up air quality, and I say where? In the US and Europe where standards are tightening slowly but surely, but probably leveled by increased population, use, and larger vehicles? And even there we account for how much of the global population?

Now how's the air quality in India and China and other areas with extreme population issues?

And aside from all this, we're facing extreme natural resource issues in the near future.

I'm not sure what your point of view even is.

The real problem here is that you're not following the thread. The original point of the article was that people are the equivalent of a disease.

My response to that was that although we do hurt somethings we are self aware and working at correcting them.

So your response of it doesn't matter we're awful is a complete non-sequitur, and just demonstrates your inability to make a crucial distinction.

As if that weren't enough you then parrot a lot of the hot button worries that are so in vogue among people who aren't informed. Air quality in developed countries has improved greatly and given regulations that don't take effect for a time, looks like it will keep improving. Air Quality in undeveloped countries follows a rather predictable path as they develop. It starts bad but gets better as their infrastructure improves. Moreover as developed countries export better technology it allows them to take a better path than the ones other countries have taken.

As far as the extreme natural resources shortage that we're facing that drum has been beaten many times and every time the growth of technology has always outpaced the shortage, whether it's food or energy or materials.

Just because you've got your panties in a twist, don't assume that the people who disagree with you don't understand. Some people remember the global cooling crisis of the 70's or the population bomb. Those same scare tactics are the ones they're using now, and although it gets them money we don't have to get caught up in it.

TheReverend
02-11-2009, 11:40 AM
You do realize I work IN air quality right?

You're very funny though.

TheReverend
02-11-2009, 11:47 AM
Okay, so in fairness to you, I read through the article.

Now it becomes apparent to me that YOU are the one "not following the thread", as you're the one off on the "we have the capability to change!!!!!!!!111" tangent.

Thread topic:
<TABLE cellPadding=7 width=500 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="52%">Malignant Tumors</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="48%">Human Species</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>
Rapid, uncontrolled growth
Metastasis
De-differentiation
Invasion & destruction of adjacent normal tissues
Grows in spite of host starvation until host dies</TD><TD vAlign=top>
Rapid population growth
Colonization, urbanization
Adaptability through culture
Ecological destruction by most human societies; now threatens global ecosystem
?</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I suppose WHEN we actually change and/or solve these issues, then you can have a leg to stand on. Until then, we certainly fit all these criteria.

Pontius Pirate
02-11-2009, 01:19 PM
The real problem here is that you're not following the thread. The original point of the article was that people are the equivalent of a disease.

My response to that was that although we do hurt somethings we are self aware and working at correcting them.

So your response of it doesn't matter we're awful is a complete non-sequitur, and just demonstrates your inability to make a crucial distinction.

As if that weren't enough you then parrot a lot of the hot button worries that are so in vogue among people who aren't informed. Air quality in developed countries has improved greatly and given regulations that don't take effect for a time, looks like it will keep improving. Air Quality in undeveloped countries follows a rather predictable path as they develop. It starts bad but gets better as their infrastructure improves. Moreover as developed countries export better technology it allows them to take a better path than the ones other countries have taken.

As far as the extreme natural resources shortage that we're facing that drum has been beaten many times and every time the growth of technology has always outpaced the shortage, whether it's food or energy or materials.

Just because you've got your panties in a twist, don't assume that the people who disagree with you don't understand. Some people remember the global cooling crisis of the 70's or the population bomb. Those same scare tactics are the ones they're using now, and although it gets them money we don't have to get caught up in it.

I think your argument is a slippery slope. I.e. just by citing a couple of instances when, collectively, the human species has adapted it's behavior DOESN'T preclude the analogy from working. The larger picture of humans definitely holds that we are bad for the environment.

Perhaps our "sentient" nature as you call it makes us even more pernicious - i.e. we've found ways to adapt our behavior where it was harming the planet BECAUSE it will allow us to exploit it over a longer period of time.

Fan In Exile
02-11-2009, 01:56 PM
Maybe when you guys learn how to make a distinction you'll figure out the problem with the analogy.

Fan In Exile
02-11-2009, 01:58 PM
You do realize I work IN air quality right?

You're very funny though.

So how about you get off your high horse and try posting an actual rebuttal. Just because you work in something doesn't mean you understand it, or that you have a historical perspective on something. So far you haven't demonstrated the mental acuity that would make me just take your word for something.

TheReverend
02-11-2009, 01:58 PM
Maybe when you guys learn how to make a distinction you'll figure out the problem with the analogy.

I thought you didn't want to stray from the thread topic? Now that it doesn't fit your OPINION you want to?

I also would like to personally applaud you for keeping the majority of your horrid opinions to yourself as a lurker for the past three years. If you could go back to doing that full time so as not to embarrass your genetic make-up any further, that'd be great.

Fan In Exile
02-11-2009, 02:28 PM
I thought you didn't want to stray from the thread topic? Now that it doesn't fit your OPINION you want to?

I also would like to personally applaud you for keeping the majority of your horrid opinions to yourself as a lurker for the past three years. If you could go back to doing that full time so as not to embarrass your genetic make-up any further, that'd be great.

You really have a problem following lines of thought don't you? The problem is that although there are some similarities with the analogy it misses an important distinction, when you figure out how to make distinctions between things then you'll understand. It has nothing to do with me wanting to stray from the topic.

How exactly is it a horrid opinion that people aren't really an infectious disease? You've got some real logic problems going for you.

Tombstone RJ
02-11-2009, 02:43 PM
I think it was Agent Smith in the Matrix who said "Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet." Turns out he may be right:

Denver's own Dr. William Hern has been studying the correlation between humans in the 1st world and malignant cells. He found that human beings in industrialized countries have the same four characteristics that doctors look for in diagnosing something as cancerous (and oncologists need to find only two in order to diagnose something as malignant):

http://www.drhern.com/fulltext/why/paper.html

Hern was asked to present at a conference on population growth in India not too long ago and basically laid this all out on the table. He was booed off the stage. Now he performs abortions. There is some dark humor in all that.

What do you think? Are we or aren't we?

Hern is basically right in that the human population is akin to cancer in the way it grows and spreads (no, I did not read the above link, just guessing here).

However, I'd say the human population is not necessarily an malignant tumor, that is, we can stop killing the Earth. We can change, and we will. You have to be positive in your thinking!:sunshine:

TheReverend
02-11-2009, 02:47 PM
You really have a problem following lines of thought don't you? The problem is that although there are some similarities with the analogy it misses an important distinction, when you figure out how to make distinctions between things then you'll understand. It has nothing to do with me wanting to stray from the topic.

How exactly is it a horrid opinion that people aren't really an infectious disease? You've got some real logic problems going for you.

Let's see.

First you criticize the concept and support yourself with some horridly incorrect information.

Then you create this "self-aware and attempting to change", when more accurately it's "self-aware and FORCED by circumstance to change", and considering we're the only sentient disease, we're the only ones with the facility TO change.

Then you claim I'm not following the thread... though everything I've stated has been directly in line. Sadly, you have not been following the thread, because if you read the simple criteria for the "Disease definition", we currently fit all of the above.

Now if you want to amend your argument with the wishful thinking that one day we may NOT fit the criteria, then so be it. But at this point in time, the human species is certainly a malignant force on the global environment of planet earth on unrivaled scale since whatever took out the dinosaurs... and we may prove to be even MORE harmful than that over time.

Pontius Pirate
02-11-2009, 02:49 PM
Maybe when you guys learn how to make a distinction you'll figure out the problem with the analogy.

To be absolutely clear: I believe you're trying to suggest that the analogy is completely impossible and you're basing that on the fact that "humans recognize the harm they do and then change."

You then cite the forrested land increase and a couple other positive environmental shifts as proof that we collectively change our destructive habits.

Your argument, then, is just as much a half-truth. I.e. a couple examples of positive shifts in our behavior do NOT define our collective impact.

We can still change destructive habits AND be a cancer. I.e. you can't refute this analogy by citing tangential differences in how we act. We're also not single-cell organisms - does that kill the analogy? No.

Also: cancer has been shown to change it's behaviors in response to changes in the hosts biology.

Tombstone RJ
02-11-2009, 02:54 PM
Of course, to complete the analogy, we need to start spreading to Mars, and then really fugg that planet up.

I don't know if we can really harm a dead planet, that is, a planet with no life. However, don't be dissing the peeps. We can destroy all if we want!























hardy har har!

Fan In Exile
02-11-2009, 08:33 PM
To be absolutely clear: I believe you're trying to suggest that the analogy is completely impossible and you're basing that on the fact that "humans recognize the harm they do and then change."

You then cite the forrested land increase and a couple other positive environmental shifts as proof that we collectively change our destructive habits.

Your argument, then, is just as much a half-truth. I.e. a couple examples of positive shifts in our behavior do NOT define our collective impact.

We can still change destructive habits AND be a cancer. I.e. you can't refute this analogy by citing tangential differences in how we act. We're also not single-cell organisms - does that kill the analogy? No.

Also: cancer has been shown to change it's behaviors in response to changes in the hosts biology.

It does kill the analogy when we don't act the way that it predicts. It's that simple really. The example aren't tangential they're crucial. If you think there is a counter example why don't you bring it up. We're doing our best to fix all of our problems in a way that doesn't also destroy ourselves.

We're working on air, water, and land pollution. We're working on preserving endangered species. We're working on preserving and expanding biodiversity.

There isn't one ecological problem that we've created that we aren't working to fix. That is not a malignant tumor or anything of that nature. He's just another enviro-wacko who can't deal with reality.

Fan In Exile
02-11-2009, 08:37 PM
Let's see.

First you criticize the concept and support yourself with some horridly incorrect information.

Then you create this "self-aware and attempting to change", when more accurately it's "self-aware and FORCED by circumstance to change", and considering we're the only sentient disease, we're the only ones with the facility TO change.

Then you claim I'm not following the thread... though everything I've stated has been directly in line. Sadly, you have not been following the thread, because if you read the simple criteria for the "Disease definition", we currently fit all of the above.

Now if you want to amend your argument with the wishful thinking that one day we may NOT fit the criteria, then so be it. But at this point in time, the human species is certainly a malignant force on the global environment of planet earth on unrivaled scale since whatever took out the dinosaurs... and we may prove to be even MORE harmful than that over time.

Let's see about you. You say that I'm incorrect and yet you can't seem to lay out where my points are faulty. You've only pulled that old internet trick of I work in that field so I must know more than you. Well put your money where your mouth is so to speak. Cite something.

I did read the criteria and we don't fit because we work to fix the environment which a malignant tumor doesn't do. It's as simple as that. So unless you want to make the incredibly stupid argument that we aren't working to fix our argument give up and save what's left of your pride.

You're also arguing my point for me. Even you can see the stupidity of his argument which is why you're trying to call us a sentient disease, which clearly is distinct from the neoplasm of the article.

Sodak
02-11-2009, 08:47 PM
If the Great Library in Alexandria, Egypt hadn't burned, we would have passed this point a long time ago.

Pontius Pirate
02-11-2009, 10:55 PM
It does kill the analogy when we don't act the way that it predicts. It's that simple really. The example aren't tangential they're crucial. If you think there is a counter example why don't you bring it up. We're doing our best to fix all of our problems in a way that doesn't also destroy ourselves.

We're working on air, water, and land pollution. We're working on preserving endangered species. We're working on preserving and expanding biodiversity.

There isn't one ecological problem that we've created that we aren't working to fix. That is not a malignant tumor or anything of that nature. He's just another enviro-wacko who can't deal with reality.

WORKING is the operative word, right? Like, I could be a heroin addict WORKING on getting clean, but we all know I'll always be an addict, right? And who is it that is WORKING on anything? An assortment of concerned scientists? Let's be real: 90% of the human population could care less about preserving biodiversity. You're delusional if you think the collective human species are actually working in concert to improve the environment. The reality is this:

"Humans are destroying the environment as we depend more and more on natural resources. As opposed to 50 years ago, humans now use 3 times more water and eat 5 times more seafood. Though we still have the same amount of natural resources as 50 years ago, we use shockingly larger amounts. As opposed to 50 years ago, humans also output 4 times more carbon dioxide and burn much more fossil fuel. Capacity for nature to absorb carbon dioxide has changed little but humans are emitting much more. This has led to a rise of CO2 into the atmosphere, ultimately in rising temperatures.

Over the last three decades, the earth's average temperature has climbed nearly 1F. Four of the last six years were the warmest on record. "During this century, temperatures will rise between 2-10F. By July 2085, if carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase two percent a year, the United States will no longer see temperatures under 85 degrees in the summer anywhere in the United States" ("NASA Study Suggests Extreme Summer Warming in the Future")."

What exactly are we doing about climate change, the dissolution of the glaciers, the rising tides, etc? As I read it, the collective human species is throwing the world a bone (i.e. we're doing nothing of substance, which feeds Hern's analogy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

BTW - where do you get that Hern has some environmental agenda? I think you're not giving him any credit when you call him an environmental whacko. The reality is that he's concerned about population growth - he never once in his entire career has waved the environmental banner. Your knee-jerk reaction in labeling him an "environmental whacko" merely discredits your own argument.

watermock
02-12-2009, 02:49 AM
New Scientist actually posed the following question to a group of scientists not too long ago: what would happen if humans disappeared?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225731.100-imagine-earth-without-people.html?page=1

"On the whole...a humanless Earth will likely be a safer place for threatened biodiversity. "I would expect the number of species that benefit to significantly exceed the number that suffer, at least globally," Wilcove says.

Let me remind you of Genisis.

[God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

We have forgotten the fruitful.

TheReverend
02-12-2009, 04:43 AM
Let's see about you. You say that I'm incorrect and yet you can't seem to lay out where my points are faulty. You've only pulled that old internet trick of I work in that field so I must know more than you. Well put your money where your mouth is so to speak. Cite something.

Sorry for the delay, was nailing someone.

Anyways, sure. Let's take a look at the most populated areas of the world, shall we?

China's air pollution is one of the worst in the world:
- leader in sulfur emissions
- second largest producer of greenhouse gases
- China ranks 94 out of 133 countries listed in the Environmental Performance Index (Yale University).

70% of Chinese monitored cities are moderately to severely polluted (they don't meet the World Health Organization Air Quality Standards).

33% of urban dwellers breathe toxic air, equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.

India:

Industrialization and urbanization have resulted in a profound deterioration of India's air quality. Of the 3 million premature deaths in the world that occur each year due to outdoor and indoor air pollution, the highest number are assessed to occur in India. According to the World Health Organization, the capital city of New Delhi is one of the top ten most polluted cities in the world. Surveys indicate that in New Delhi the incidence of respiratory diseases due to air pollution is about 12 times the national average.

According to another study, while India's gross domestic product has increased 2.5 times over the past two decades, vehicular pollution has increased eight times, while pollution from industries has quadrupled. Sources of air pollution, India's most severe environmental problem, come in several forms, including vehicular emissions and untreated industrial smoke. Apart from rapid industrialization, urbanization has resulted in the emergence of industrial centers without a corresponding growth in civic amenities and pollution control mechanisms.

Regulatory reforms aimed at improving the air pollution problem in cities such as New Delhi have been quite difficult to implement, however. For example, India's Supreme Court recently lifted a ruling that it imposed two years ago which required all public transport vehicles in New Delhi to switch to compressed natural gas (CNG) engines by April 1, 2001. This ruling, however, led to the disappearance of some 15,000 taxis and 10,000 buses from the city, creating public protests, riots, and widespread "commuter chaos." The court was similarly unsuccessful in 2000, when it attempted to ban all public vehicles that were more than 15 years old and ordered the introduction of unleaded gasoline and CNG. India's high concentration of pollution is not due to a lack of effort in building a sound environmental legal regime, but rather to a lack of enforcement at the local level. Efforts are currently underway to change this as new specifications are being adopted for auto emissions, which currently account for approximately 70% of air pollution. In the absence of coordinated government efforts, including stricter enforcement, this figure is likely to rise in the coming years due to the sheer increase in vehicle ownership.

Source: US Energy Information Agency


I did read the criteria and we don't fit because we work to fix the environment which a malignant tumor doesn't do. It's as simple as that. So unless you want to make the incredibly stupid argument that we aren't working to fix our argument give up and save what's left of your pride.

And you apparently can't comprehend how many times I've said we're the only sentient disease. That means we're only the disease capable of realizing our nature and attempting to find a balance. That's not some desire to do right, that's a means of perpetuating our survival... nothing more. Do you really think that if there were a second earth within reasonable travel distance, we would give two ****s about strip mining this planet to death?

You're also arguing my point for me. Even you can see the stupidity of his argument which is why you're trying to call us a sentient disease, which clearly is distinct from the neoplasm of the article.

You can't possibly be that dense. Can you?

baja
02-12-2009, 05:43 AM
This thread has hit on the real objective of the elites we so often talk about here. Their objective is depopulation of the planet. They believe the mission has fallen to them to save the planet from death by over population. It has been stated they want to reduce the population by 80% and the game is on right now.

Fan In Exile
02-12-2009, 05:58 AM
Sorry for the delay, was nailing someone.

Anyways, sure. Let's take a look at the most populated areas of the world, shall we?

China's air pollution is one of the worst in the world:
- leader in sulfur emissions
- second largest producer of greenhouse gases
- China ranks 94 out of 133 countries listed in the Environmental Performance Index (Yale University).

70% of Chinese monitored cities are moderately to severely polluted (they don't meet the World Health Organization Air Quality Standards).

33% of urban dwellers breathe toxic air, equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.

India:

Industrialization and urbanization have resulted in a profound deterioration of India's air quality. Of the 3 million premature deaths in the world that occur each year due to outdoor and indoor air pollution, the highest number are assessed to occur in India. According to the World Health Organization, the capital city of New Delhi is one of the top ten most polluted cities in the world. Surveys indicate that in New Delhi the incidence of respiratory diseases due to air pollution is about 12 times the national average.

According to another study, while India's gross domestic product has increased 2.5 times over the past two decades, vehicular pollution has increased eight times, while pollution from industries has quadrupled. Sources of air pollution, India's most severe environmental problem, come in several forms, including vehicular emissions and untreated industrial smoke. Apart from rapid industrialization, urbanization has resulted in the emergence of industrial centers without a corresponding growth in civic amenities and pollution control mechanisms.

Regulatory reforms aimed at improving the air pollution problem in cities such as New Delhi have been quite difficult to implement, however. For example, India's Supreme Court recently lifted a ruling that it imposed two years ago which required all public transport vehicles in New Delhi to switch to compressed natural gas (CNG) engines by April 1, 2001. This ruling, however, led to the disappearance of some 15,000 taxis and 10,000 buses from the city, creating public protests, riots, and widespread "commuter chaos." The court was similarly unsuccessful in 2000, when it attempted to ban all public vehicles that were more than 15 years old and ordered the introduction of unleaded gasoline and CNG. India's high concentration of pollution is not due to a lack of effort in building a sound environmental legal regime, but rather to a lack of enforcement at the local level. Efforts are currently underway to change this as new specifications are being adopted for auto emissions, which currently account for approximately 70% of air pollution. In the absence of coordinated government efforts, including stricter enforcement, this figure is likely to rise in the coming years due to the sheer increase in vehicle ownership.

Source: US Energy Information Agency

Good grief you just googled air quality and india didn't you? Because otherwise why would you be spewing this crap from 2000 and think that it has anything to do with the conversation? Remember I already pointed out that although air quality is bad in developing countries it is something they work on. "Although air pollution is increasing in many developing countries, analyses show that they are merely replicating the development of the industrialised countries. When they grow sufficiently rich they, too, will start to reduce their air pollution." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/aug/15/physicalsciences.globalwarming)

Which shows the difference between us and a disease, we're trying to keep our planet alive not kill.


And you apparently can't comprehend how many times I've said we're the only sentient disease. That means we're only the disease capable of realizing our nature and attempting to find a balance. That's not some desire to do right, that's a means of perpetuating our survival... nothing more. Do you really think that if there were a second earth within reasonable travel distance, we would give two ****s about strip mining this planet to death?



You can't possibly be that dense. Can you?

This is the part that amuses me. On the one hand you keep saying that the analogy works, and on the other hand you keep trying to point out that we aren't a disease like he's talking about we're a sentient disease. You are so stupid.

Fan In Exile
02-12-2009, 06:05 AM
WORKING is the operative word, right? Like, I could be a heroin addict WORKING on getting clean, but we all know I'll always be an addict, right? And who is it that is WORKING on anything? An assortment of concerned scientists? Let's be real: 90% of the human population could care less about preserving biodiversity. You're delusional if you think the collective human species are actually working in concert to improve the environment. The reality is this:

"Humans are destroying the environment as we depend more and more on natural resources. As opposed to 50 years ago, humans now use 3 times more water and eat 5 times more seafood. Though we still have the same amount of natural resources as 50 years ago, we use shockingly larger amounts. As opposed to 50 years ago, humans also output 4 times more carbon dioxide and burn much more fossil fuel. Capacity for nature to absorb carbon dioxide has changed little but humans are emitting much more. This has led to a rise of CO2 into the atmosphere, ultimately in rising temperatures.

Over the last three decades, the earth's average temperature has climbed nearly 1F. Four of the last six years were the warmest on record. "During this century, temperatures will rise between 2-10F. By July 2085, if carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase two percent a year, the United States will no longer see temperatures under 85 degrees in the summer anywhere in the United States" ("NASA Study Suggests Extreme Summer Warming in the Future")."

What exactly are we doing about climate change, the dissolution of the glaciers, the rising tides, etc? As I read it, the collective human species is throwing the world a bone (i.e. we're doing nothing of substance, which feeds Hern's analogy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

BTW - where do you get that Hern has some environmental agenda? I think you're not giving him any credit when you call him an environmental whacko. The reality is that he's concerned about population growth - he never once in his entire career has waved the environmental banner. Your knee-jerk reaction in labeling him an "environmental whacko" merely discredits your own argument.

Way to quote Wikipedia, nothing shows a mastery of the argument than quoting wikifreakinpedia. If you want to know what we're doing look at the air quality standards or the water quality standards. Look at the investments in alternative fuels. For crying out loud they gave Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize, clearly they're working on it. Just because the process is too complex for you to understand doesn't mean they aren't doing anything.

Yeah the temp has risen over the past decades but before that they were scaring people with global cooling. Maybe it's time all the pantywaists out there shut up for a minute and let cooler heads prevail instead of wackos who think humanity is a disease.

BTW he's an environmentalist wacko because he's trying to compare humanity to a disease because of our environmental impact. All he's doing is looking at the negative side. He's completely ignoring the positive. Whereas a balanced look shows that things are bad but we're working on them.

TheReverend
02-12-2009, 06:06 AM
Good grief you just googled air quality and india didn't you? Because otherwise why would you be spewing this crap from 2000 and think that it has anything to do with the conversation? Remember I already pointed out that although air quality is bad in developing countries it is something they work on. "Although air pollution is increasing in many developing countries, analyses show that they are merely replicating the development of the industrialised countries. When they grow sufficiently rich they, too, will start to reduce their air pollution." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/aug/15/physicalsciences.globalwarming)

Which shows the difference between us and a disease, we're trying to keep our planet alive not kill.




This is the part that amuses me. On the one hand you keep saying that the analogy works, and on the other hand you keep trying to point out that we aren't a disease like he's talking about we're a sentient disease. You are so stupid.

You're unbelievable... Never once have I said that.

Also, Mumbai is near crisis levels and I'm not sure if you noticed a little event called the Olympics but China's having SERIOUS issues too. In fact, just last year they had an audition for retrofit technology where they ripped a lot of catalyst technology off from my company and others like Johnson Matthey. But are still yet to do anything.

The good news, we're currently CARB certifying a great level three device that will go on just about every school bus in california and will be shipping MANY to overseas to help solve their problems if they can pony up the cash.

Now, if you have ANY shred of evidence supporting any of your completely eroneous bull**** statements, feel free to supply. Otherwise, please do everyone a favor and keep your nonsensical lies to those people in your immediate lives as a lurker so you don't poison the good folks of the orangemane.

Good day, sir.

Fan In Exile
02-12-2009, 06:48 AM
You're unbelievable... Never once have I said that.

Also, Mumbai is near crisis levels and I'm not sure if you noticed a little event called the Olympics but China's having SERIOUS issues too. In fact, just last year they had an audition for retrofit technology where they ripped a lot of catalyst technology off from my company and others like Johnson Matthey. But are still yet to do anything.

The good news, we're currently CARB certifying a great level three device that will go on just about every school bus in california and will be shipping MANY to overseas to help solve their problems if they can pony up the cash.

Now, if you have ANY shred of evidence supporting any of your completely eroneous bull**** statements, feel free to supply. Otherwise, please do everyone a favor and keep your nonsensical lies to those people in your immediate lives as a lurker so you don't poison the good folks of the orangemane.

Good day, sir.

You are a total whack job, really. The evidence was right there in the post did you not notice the quote about how developing countries progress? Yet, you keep trying to point out points of data as if anecdotal evidence has any meaning in the face of the trend that I'm talking about.

It's also hilarious that you're talking about sending out products that help air quality at the same time that you're talking about how we don't do anything to help out. You are such a mass of contradictions that it's hilarious.

Of course now that I realize that when you say you work in air quality what you really mean is that your job is dependent on people believing they have to spend lots of money to fix it and you gladly take that money I totally understand your posts.

TheReverend
02-12-2009, 07:32 AM
You are a total whack job, really. The evidence was right there in the post did you not notice the quote about how developing countries progress? Yet, you keep trying to point out points of data as if anecdotal evidence has any meaning in the face of the trend that I'm talking about.

It's also hilarious that you're talking about sending out products that help air quality at the same time that you're talking about how we don't do anything to help out. You are such a mass of contradictions that it's hilarious.

Of course now that I realize that when you say you work in air quality what you really mean is that your job is dependent on people believing they have to spend lots of money to fix it and you gladly take that money I totally understand your posts.

No, I do quality control here which is pretty transcendent of the "green" sector.

You realize this is to help MAN MADE issues, right?

We're not cleaning up the air quality issues caused by ****ing polar bears.

I'm shocked at your level of ignorance, yet at the same time, it's come to my attention that all I'm doing is giving you the attention you apparently desperately crave. Since you can't follow simple trains of thought or provide ANYTHING remotely relevant to your "points", then so be it.

Best wishes and goodluck with your mental disabilities.

Fan In Exile
02-12-2009, 07:41 AM
No, I do quality control here which is pretty transcendent of the "green" sector.

You realize this is to help MAN MADE issues, right?

We're not cleaning up the air quality issues caused by ****ing polar bears.

I'm shocked at your level of ignorance, yet at the same time, it's come to my attention that all I'm doing is giving you the attention you apparently desperately crave. Since you can't follow simple trains of thought or provide ANYTHING remotely relevant to your "points", then so be it.

Best wishes and goodluck with your mental disabilities.

I do realize that we are cleaning up man made issues. Notice the emphasis on cleaning up. Did you ever hear a virus say excuse me I didn't mean to kill all those cells let me fix that, or a tumor say pardon me I'm using too much blood let me put that supply back the way I found it? These are all things that we are doing, that makes us different. That means you're unable to see the difference which really points out where the mental disabilities are.

You still haven't responded to the report on how developing countries improve their air quality as they get richer, so before you say I didn't prove anything try reading the post and responding to the evidence.

So you work in quality control, that means you're even less qualified to talk about global air quality than I thought. If I want to know if the machining process works I'll come to you, but when we're talking about air quality standards I'll go to someone qualified. Your job still depends on these scare tactics, that you don't even understand.

TheReverend
02-12-2009, 07:51 AM
I do realize that we are cleaning up man made issues. Notice the emphasis on cleaning up. Did you ever hear a virus say excuse me I didn't mean to kill all those cells let me fix that, or a tumor say pardon me I'm using too much blood let me put that supply back the way I found it? These are all things that we are doing, that makes us different. That means you're unable to see the difference which really points out where the mental disabilities are.

As much I want to leave this alone, stupid people irk me beyond belief, so you'll get your little "look at me mommy i broke the vase! I'm being bad because I need attention" issues fulfilled.

If any of these other diseases you're referencing COULD understand their survival would be prolonged by finding a way to keep the host alive, then they would.

This is survival, not any remose.

You still haven't responded to the report on how developing countries improve their air quality as they get richer, so before you say I didn't prove anything try reading the post and responding to the evidence..

First off, supply a report.

Secondly, it doesn't work like that. Countries respond out of necessity.

Industrialism starts, the air and environment gets poisoned and hopefully before it reaches a critical level, steps are taken. It's far from the case in India and China, and other SE Asian nations that are poisoning themselves at alarming rates. Any "richness" is purely coincidental.

So you work in quality control, that means you're even less qualified to talk about global air quality than I thought. If I want to know if the machining process works I'll come to you, but when we're talking about air quality standards I'll go to someone qualified. Your job still depends on these scare tactics, that you don't even understand.

Wrong type, but how would I expect you to have any background in a field you think you know you're talking about.

I don't know anything about machining/welding/iso etc. I do know plenty about certain test cycles like the Euro NIDC, FTP traces, ISO 8178-C1, and many other standard test protocols. CFR required test procedures, CO2, CO, NOX, NO, NO2, HC, CH4, PM measurement methods, sampling protocol, and calibration methods. Oh, and their effects on the environment.

Perhaps you'd like to contact someone in the EPA about any of your blatantly incorrect statements?

Fan In Exile
02-12-2009, 08:38 AM
As much I want to leave this alone, stupid people irk me beyond belief, so you'll get your little "look at me mommy i broke the vase! I'm being bad because I need attention" issues fulfilled.

If any of these other diseases you're referencing COULD understand their survival would be prolonged by finding a way to keep the host alive, then they would.

This is survival, not any remose.

Not only are you a know it all about air quality you're also an amateur shrink. Not only can you diagnose, me but you've figured out every person on the earth. I don't know why you hate people maybe you weren't breastfed long enough but give it break, people do plenty of stuff to help the environment because they want it to get better.

I like how you keep digging yourself into a hole. If the disease weren't like they are but were like us then they would act like we do. Notice the key to your argument is that the disease have to be different because the analogy sucks.

First off, supply a report.

Check the link

Secondly, it doesn't work like that. Countries respond out of necessity.

Industrialism starts, the air and environment gets poisoned and hopefully before it reaches a critical level, steps are taken. It's far from the case in India and China, and other SE Asian nations that are poisoning themselves at alarming rates. Any "richness" is purely coincidental.

Please the report says just the opposite so until you can supply something with a little more substance than the word of some internet poster, I'll be treating this comment for what it's worth.



Wrong type, but how would I expect you to have any background in a field you think you know you're talking about.

I don't know anything about machining/welding/iso etc. I do know plenty about certain test cycles like the Euro NIDC, FTP traces, ISO 8178-C1, and many other standard test protocols. CFR required test procedures, CO2, CO, NOX, NO, NO2, HC, CH4, PM measurement methods, sampling protocol, and calibration methods. Oh, and their effects on the environment.

Perhaps you'd like to contact someone in the EPA about any of your blatantly incorrect statements?

Fine I'll call you to see if my exhaust system meets standards but you aren't the expert on developing economies that you're trying to pass yourself off as.

Here's what it breaks down to you hate people so you think they're a disease get some therapy and come back.

TheReverend
02-12-2009, 08:49 AM
Not only are you a know it all about air quality you're also an amateur shrink. Not only can you diagnose, me but you've figured out every person on the earth. I don't know why you hate people maybe you weren't breastfed long enough but give it break, people do plenty of stuff to help the environment because they want it to get better.

I like how you keep digging yourself into a hole. If the disease weren't like they are but were like us then they would act like we do. Notice the key to your argument is that the disease have to be different because the analogy sucks.

Check the link

Please the report says just the opposite so until you can supply something with a little more substance than the word of some internet poster, I'll be treating this comment for what it's worth.

Fine I'll call you to see if my exhaust system meets standards but you aren't the expert on developing economies that you're trying to pass yourself off as.

Here's what it breaks down to you hate people so you think they're a disease get some therapy and come back.

So you're illiterate too?

Let me get this straight... you don't trust what the EPA, US Energy dept, or what people who work in the field say because you think it's some "grand scam", so what information do you trust? I'm sure it's insanely credible.

We have three chemists that develop our washcoat here FROM India, so yes, I get the crisis picture just fine. And we, and especially me, don't do any state personal emissions testing, tyvm.

So either bring some actual information to the table, or go back to exile pussy.

Pontius Pirate
02-12-2009, 10:00 AM
Way to quote Wikipedia, nothing shows a mastery of the argument than quoting wikifreakinpedia. If you want to know what we're doing look at the air quality standards or the water quality standards. Look at the investments in alternative fuels. For crying out loud they gave Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize, clearly they're working on it. Just because the process is too complex for you to understand doesn't mean they aren't doing anything.

Yeah the temp has risen over the past decades but before that they were scaring people with global cooling. Maybe it's time all the pantywaists out there shut up for a minute and let cooler heads prevail instead of wackos who think humanity is a disease.

BTW he's an environmentalist wacko because he's trying to compare humanity to a disease because of our environmental impact. All he's doing is looking at the negative side. He's completely ignoring the positive. Whereas a balanced look shows that things are bad but we're working on them.

Okay, I think you're getting a little too heated here. Not sure why you're getting so angry. In my view, when people get emotional, they slowly begin to erode their argument, so maybe you should quit while you're behind.

You asked me to cite some evidence of a negative impact that man was having on the environment that WASN'T improving. You then have problems with the source I cite. By the way, the wiki link is simply summarizing reports from the UN, NCAR, New York Times, AP, NASA, etc. - I suppose you have problems with all those sources too?

I go back to the heroin addict - sure he wants to change, and he goes to rehab and WORKS on changing and all that - but his fundamental behavior will always be the same: he's addicted to heroin, much like our primary behavior (currently, as Hern makes clear) is to consume and grow. And in that you have the malignant analogy. Only when we evolve again (as Hern makes the case) will our fundamental nature hopefully change.

Would love to hear your reply if you're able to do so without your emotion getting the best of you

Fan In Exile
02-12-2009, 10:12 AM
So you're illiterate too?

Let me get this straight... you don't trust what the EPA, US Energy dept, or what people who work in the field say because you think it's some "grand scam", so what information do you trust? I'm sure it's insanely credible.

We have three chemists that develop our washcoat here FROM India, so yes, I get the crisis picture just fine. And we, and especially me, don't do any state personal emissions testing, tyvm.

So either bring some actual information to the table, or go back to exile p***Y.

Look back through the thread you moron you've never presented anything from the epa or anyone else about how current air quality compares to previous years. So pull your head out of your ass go find some facts and get with the program.

As far as presenting actual information read the analysis of developing countries that I pointed you to.

Really you think that just because you work with three guys from India that you understand the global response to pollution? How does a person as dumb as you clearly are even know how to turn a computer on?

Fan In Exile
02-12-2009, 10:15 AM
Okay, I think you're getting a little too heated here. Not sure why you're getting so angry. In my view, when people get emotional, they slowly begin to erode their argument, so maybe you should quit while you're behind.

You asked me to cite some evidence of a negative impact that man was having on the environment that WASN'T improving. You then have problems with the source I cite. By the way, the wiki link is simply summarizing reports from the UN, NCAR, New York Times, AP, NASA, etc. - I suppose you have problems with all those sources too?

I go back to the heroin addict - sure he wants to change, and he goes to rehab and WORKS on changing and all that - but his fundamental behavior will always be the same: he's addicted to heroin, much like our primary behavior (currently, as Hern makes clear) is to consume and grow. And in that you have the malignant analogy. Only when we evolve again (as Hern makes the case) will our fundamental nature hopefully change.

Would love to hear your reply if you're able to do so without your emotion getting the best of you

LOL You really think wikipedia is a good source? All of those things are improving we've made huge strides you're just so blind you can't see it. Come back when you can point to something that's getting worse then we can talk.

baja
02-12-2009, 10:15 AM
Okay, I think you're getting a little too heated here. Not sure why you're getting so angry. In my view, when people get emotional, they slowly begin to erode their argument, so maybe you should quit while you're behind.

You asked me to cite some evidence of a negative impact that man was having on the environment that WASN'T improving. You then have problems with the source I cite. By the way, the wiki link is simply summarizing reports from the UN, NCAR, New York Times, AP, NASA, etc. - I suppose you have problems with all those sources too?

I go back to the heroin addict - sure he wants to change, and he goes to rehab and WORKS on changing and all that - but his fundamental behavior will always be the same: he's addicted to heroin, much like our primary behavior (currently, as Hern makes clear) is to consume and grow. And in that you have the malignant analogy.<b> Only when we evolve again (as Hern makes the case) will our fundamental nature hopefully change.</b>

Would love to hear your reply if you're able to do so without your emotion getting the best of you


After watching a couple of episodes of Judge Judy I agree the only way we make a significant change is with a quantum leap in consciousness.

TheReverend
02-12-2009, 10:38 AM
Look back through the thread you moron you've never presented anything from the epa or anyone else about how current air quality compares to previous years. So pull your head out of your ass go find some facts and get with the program.

As far as presenting actual information read the analysis of developing countries that I pointed you to.

Really you think that just because you work with three guys from India that you understand the global response to pollution? How does a person as dumb as you clearly are even know how to turn a computer on?

http://www.sepa.gov.cn/quality/air.php3?offset=60

51-100 is High
100-200 is very high

(Feel free to look up SEPA's--China's state environmental protection agency-- Air Pollution Index, if you don't believe the values)

only 5 out of 26 regions are below the "high" range. if 50 years ago their air quality were worse, or even near that scale, they'd have SERIOUS issues right now, or would have already faced several environmental epidemics.

As far as my colleagues are concerned, yes I'll take first hand accounts from graduate level chemists and engineers that are widely respected in the industry over some dip**** on the internet that thinks the global environment is A-OK!

Since you've already proven you can't read, here's a pretty chart for you to show what we couldn't even measure 50 years ago, dip****:

http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/en/11airpollution.pdf

Fan In Exile
02-12-2009, 12:05 PM
http://www.sepa.gov.cn/quality/air.php3?offset=60

51-100 is High
100-200 is very high

(Feel free to look up SEPA's--China's state environmental protection agency-- Air Pollution Index, if you don't believe the values)

only 5 out of 26 regions are below the "high" range. if 50 years ago their air quality were worse, or even near that scale, they'd have SERIOUS issues right now, or would have already faced several environmental epidemics.

As far as my colleagues are concerned, yes I'll take first hand accounts from graduate level chemists and engineers that are widely respected in the industry over some dip**** on the internet that thinks the global environment is A-OK!

Since you've already proven you can't read, here's a pretty chart for you to show what we couldn't even measure 50 years ago, dip****:

http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/en/11airpollution.pdf

First off the point is that we as a people are trending toward better air quality than we have in the past so your posting of sites that talk about a poor quality as a one time data point doesn't address the overall trend, as I've pointed out to you on more than one occasion.

Second did you think I wouldn't get the Chinese website translated? There is only one city where the listing is for slightly polluted, everything else is good or superior. Even the data you're bringing up shows that you're wrong. You can't imagine how funny that is to me. Check here (http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sepa.gov.cn%2Fquality%2Fair .php3%3Foffset%3D60&lp=zh_en&btnTrUrl=Translate)

Pontius Pirate
02-12-2009, 12:07 PM
LOL You really think wikipedia is a good source? All of those things are improving we've made huge strides you're just so blind you can't see it. Come back when you can point to something that's getting worse then we can talk.

Ask and ye shall receive. Enjoy!

1) A United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) study called the Global Environment Outlook (which involved 1,400 scientists and took five years to prepare) concluded the following: It "found that human consumption had far outstripped available resources. Each person on Earth now requires a third more land to supply his or her needs than the planet can supply." It faults a failure to "respond to or recognise the magnitude of the challenges facing the people and the environment of the planet... 'The systematic destruction of the Earth's natural and nature-based resources has reached a point where the economic viability of economies is being challenged - and where the bill we hand to our children may prove impossible to pay'...

2) Most biologists believe that we are at this moment at the beginning of a tremendously accelerated anthropogenic mass extinction. E.O. Wilson of Harvard, in The Future of Life (2002), estimates that at current rates of human disruption of the biosphere, one-half of all species of life will be extinct by 2100. In 1998 the American Museum of Natural History conducted a poll of biologists that revealed that the vast majority of biologists believe that we are in the midst of an anthropogenic mass extinction. Numerous scientific studies since then—such as a 2004 report from Nature, and those by the 10,000 scientists who contribute to the IUCN's annual Red List of threatened species—have only strengthened this consensus.

3) The sea level has been rising at a rate of around 1.8 mm per year for the past century, mainly as a result of human-induced global warming. This rate is increasing; measurements from the period 1993–2003 indicated a mean rate of 3.1 mm/year. Global warming will continue to increase sea level over at least the coming century. Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets.

TheReverend
02-12-2009, 12:17 PM
First off the point is that we as a people are trending toward better air quality than we have in the past so your posting of sites that talk about a poor quality as a one time data point doesn't address the overall trend, as I've pointed out to you on more than one occasion.

Second did you think I wouldn't get the Chinese website translated? There is only one city where the listing is for slightly polluted, everything else is good or superior. Even the data you're bringing up shows that you're wrong. You can't imagine how funny that is to me. Check here (http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sepa.gov.cn%2Fquality%2Fair .php3%3Foffset%3D60&lp=zh_en&btnTrUrl=Translate)

Sweet translation, genius.

Click here for an actual english version that shows my 50-100=high and over 100=very high is accurate:

http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/

Way to go...

TheReverend
02-12-2009, 12:23 PM
To simplify it for you further because you're incredibly slow:

http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/english/advice/advice.php

Health effects from air pollution come about due to a combination of the concentration of the air pollutants and the amount of time you are exposed to the air pollution. Brief exposure to moderately high pollution levels will normally not lead to any significant problem. For most of us, therefore, the general API is more relevant as it represents the air pollution that we shall be exposed to for most of the time. For the Roadside API, although it is naturally higher on a given day due to the close proximity to vehicle emission sources, it is less relevant as we often spend only quite short periods of the day in busy streets and roads. It will be of more interest to those who spend several hours each day close to busy roads.
The suggested precautionary actions are summarised below:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=1><TBODY><TR align=middle><TD rowSpan=2>Air Pollution Level</TD><TD colSpan=2 rowSpan=2>API</TD><TD colSpan=2>Advice to Public</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD align=middle width="30%">General API </TD><TD align=middle width="30%">Roadside API</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="20%">Severe</TD><TD vAlign=top width="5%" bgColor=#000000>aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="15%">201-500</TD><TD vAlign=top width="30%">The general public are advised to reduce physical exertion and outdoor activities</TD><TD vAlign=top width="30%">The general public are advised to avoid prolonged stay in areas with heavy traffic. If it is necessary to stay in streets or roads with heavy traffic, they are advised to reduce physical exertion as far as possible.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="20%">Very High</TD><TD vAlign=top width="5%" bgColor=#ff0000>aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa </TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="15%">101-200</TD><TD vAlign=top width="30%">Persons with existing heart or respiratory illnesses (such as coronary heart and cardiovascular diseases, asthma, chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive airways diseases)are advised to reduce physical exertion and outdoor activities</TD><TD vAlign=top width="30%">Persons with existing heart or respiratory illnesses (such as coronary heart and cardiovascular diseases, asthma, chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive airways diseases) are advised to avoid prolonged stay in areas with heavy traffic. If it is necessary to stay in streets or roads with heavy traffic, they are advised to reduce physical exertion as far as possible.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="20%">High</TD><TD vAlign=top width="5%" bgColor=#ffff00>aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa </TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="15%">51-100</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle colSpan=2>No immediate response action is suggested --
Long-term effects may, however, be observed if exposed at this level persistently for months or years</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="20%">Medium </TD><TD vAlign=top width="5%" bgColor=#00ffff>aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="15%">26-50</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle colSpan=2>No response action is required.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="20%">Low </TD><TD vAlign=top width="5%" bgColor=#009900>aa
aa
aa
aa
aa
aa </TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="15%">0-25</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle colSpan=2>No response action is required.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
As the health effects on individuals may vary, you should seek advice from a medical doctor if you are in doubt or feel uncomfortable. If you are a smoker, you should quit smoking now!

Atlas
02-12-2009, 01:12 PM
I think it was Agent Smith in the Matrix who said "Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet." Turns out he may be right:

Denver's own Dr. William Hern has been studying the correlation between humans in the 1st world and malignant cells. He found that human beings in industrialized countries have the same four characteristics that doctors look for in diagnosing something as cancerous (and oncologists need to find only two in order to diagnose something as malignant):

http://www.drhern.com/fulltext/why/paper.html

Hern was asked to present at a conference on population growth in India not too long ago and basically laid this all out on the table. He was booed off the stage. Now he performs abortions. There is some dark humor in all that.

What do you think? Are we or aren't we?

God, I hate the offseason

Pontius Pirate
06-13-2009, 01:53 PM
I thought it was worthwhile re-opening this thread as Dr. Hern was on PBS the other night discussing the murder of Dr. Tiller, and the issue of abortion in general. This is a must-watch. Dr. Hern is a brave man.

http://jezebel.com/5289359/dr-warren-hern-it-is-terrifying-and-its-infuriating-theres-no-excuse-for-this

Hulamau
06-13-2009, 03:19 PM
I think the octoplet mom makes a good case for Dr. Hern

Bingo .. :-)

BroncoLifer
06-13-2009, 03:52 PM
.....Dr. Hern is a brave man.

]

Which aspect of crushing the skull of a live, late-term fetus with his forceps do you consider the bravest?

Archer81
06-13-2009, 04:47 PM
What is ridiculous in all this, is that the developed world has declining birth rates. The developing world is also showing signs of declining birth rates...cancer doesnt shrink on its own, now does it?


:Broncos:

Pontius Pirate
06-13-2009, 04:50 PM
Which aspect of crushing the skull of a live, late-term fetus with his forceps do you consider the bravest?

The fact that women who come in for late-term abortions are doing so because there is a serious health risk at hand, and Dr. Hern helps them. Specific examples include stillborn death (i.e. the baby is already dead inside the womb), encecaphalitis (i.e. the baby would be born without a brain), etc. As Dr. Carhart said, the women who are coming in for late-term abortions are not doing so because of a "change of heart" - they are doing so because they need help as something catastrophic has ALREADY happened.

To answer your question, I think Hern is brave because he is still helping women despite being threatened constantly, having to work behind bullet-proof glass, and despite his friend just being murdered for doing exactly what Hern does - by some extremist who is no different than the extremists we wage war on regularly in the middle east.

But maybe you didn't watch the special, or maybe you speak before you think - which would be expected from people who think like Scott Roder does.

Pontius Pirate
06-13-2009, 05:03 PM
What is ridiculous in all this, is that the developed world has declining birth rates. The developing world is also showing signs of declining birth rates...cancer doesnt shrink on its own, now does it?


:Broncos:

Pulled from a doctor's research on cancer growth rates:

"Exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely since it is boundless. Beyond a size where the tumor is a few percent of the host size, the host cannot fully sustain the tumor. At that point exponential growth gradually slows and may approach a Malthusian asymptotic limit."

BroncoLifer
06-13-2009, 06:52 PM
The fact that women who come in for late-term abortions are doing so because there is a serious health risk at hand, and Dr. Hern helps them. Specific examples include stillborn death (i.e. the baby is already dead inside the womb), encecaphalitis (i.e. the baby would be born without a brain), etc. As Dr. Carhart said, the women who are coming in for late-term abortions are not doing so because of a "change of heart" - they are doing so because they need help as something catastrophic has ALREADY happened.


The two examples you give, which I have no moral objections to (a stillborn death is NOT an abortion and a brainless fetus is not viable), is only one portion of his practice. You conveniently don't mention Hern's other, more objectionable practices.

Other specific examples of why he has provided late-term abortions include abortions motivated by fetal chromosomal abnormalities (e.g. Down's Syndrome), fetal physical abnormalities and rape and incest cases (or claims thereof). None of those circumstances threaten the life of the mother but his "services" certainly ends the life of the VIABLE, able-to-survive-outside-the-womb fetus. Bottom line --- There is a reason why only an extremely small number of people are willing to perform these "services" and that reason is the barbarity of the practice.

Perhaps you feel that it's better not to impose retarded, disfigured or unwanted children on society or their parents, but I just don't find them so inconvient or uncomfortable to be around as to warrant euthanasia.

To answer your question, I think Hern is brave because he is still helping women despite being threatened constantly, having to work behind bullet-proof glass, and despite his friend just being murdered for doing exactly what Hern does - by some extremist who is no different than the extremists we wage war on regularly in the middle east.


Hern himself is pushing the Middle East analogy -is that where you got it from? While it makes for a colorful quote, it is a non-sequitur.


But maybe you didn't watch the special, or maybe you speak before you think - which would be expected from people who think like Scott Roder does.
So you posess the amazing power to know how or what I think? Way to go for the red herring approach, dude. Here's something I do know - I am not going to change your opinion nor you mine, so I'm not going to keep going on this topic. Debating this topic is not why I registered at the Orange Mane.

I'll leave with a snippet from a LA Times story on Hern (the write was friendly and sympathetic to him): "When Hern performed his first abortion on a 17-year-old girl, he later wrote, he cried with a sense of relief because he had made a difference in her future." How about we go for a wider perspective: He made a huge difference in two futures.

Archer81
06-13-2009, 07:20 PM
Pulled from a doctor's research on cancer growth rates:

"Exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely since it is boundless. Beyond a size where the tumor is a few percent of the host size, the host cannot fully sustain the tumor. At that point exponential growth gradually slows and may approach a Malthusian asymptotic limit."


Or you could say...death.

:Broncos:

footstepsfrom#27
06-13-2009, 07:45 PM
I thought this thread was about the Broncos medical team...glad I skipped it.

Pontius Pirate
06-13-2009, 07:57 PM
The two examples you give, which I have no moral objections to (a stillborn death is NOT an abortion and a brainless fetus is not viable), is only one portion of his practice. You conveniently don't mention Hern's other, more objectionable practices.

Other specific examples of why he has provided late-term abortions include abortions motivated by fetal chromosomal abnormalities (e.g. Down's Syndrome), fetal physical abnormalities and rape and incest cases (or claims thereof). None of those circumstances threaten the life of the mother but his "services" certainly ends the life of the VIABLE, able-to-survive-outside-the-womb fetus. Bottom line --- There is a reason why only an extremely small number of people are willing to perform these "services" and that reason is the barbarity of the practice.

Perhaps you feel that it's better not to impose retarded, disfigured or unwanted children on society or their parents, but I just don't find them so inconvient or uncomfortable to be around as to warrant euthanasia.

Hern himself is pushing the Middle East analogy -is that where you got it from? While it makes for a colorful quote, it is a non-sequitur.


So you posess the amazing power to know how or what I think? Way to go for the red herring approach, dude. Here's something I do know - I am not going to change your opinion nor you mine, so I'm not going to keep going on this topic. Debating this topic is not why I registered at the Orange Mane.

I'll leave with a snippet from a LA Times story on Hern (the write was friendly and sympathetic to him): "When Hern performed his first abortion on a 17-year-old girl, he later wrote, he cried with a sense of relief because he had made a difference in her future." How about we go for a wider perspective: He made a huge difference in two futures.

Fair enough - if you don't want to continue, I understand. This is a football forum and I doubt anyone here cares. Alas, I care...

1) The PBS documentary posed the question as to whether the killing of Dr. Tiller was terrorism. I don't need Hern's commentary for me to realize it was.

2) Kansas law requires two different physicians to agree that a woman's health is seriously at risk in order for a late-term abortion to be permissible.

3) Dr. Hern claims that he only performs late term abortions when the mother's health is at risk, or the fetus has developed such serious health issues as to make it's survival unlikely. If you can pull up some facts to dispute this, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Bottom line, I think we both agree that late-term abortions are not ALWAYS wrong - which is really the point here. Absolute's do not work in this issue.

FireFly
06-13-2009, 08:55 PM
We're not a cancer. The only thing we'll kill is ourselves. The world will go on without us. It will be here billions of years after we're gone. It doesn't need us. We shouldn't be out to save the world we should be out to save ourselves.

Wow, deep.

Very nicely articulated.