What is Digg?64 Comments
- thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17in related news, the calories in their giant burgers could power a car further and cheaper than gasoline.
- benhocking, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18The headline is a little misleading (which in Avijit's defense, is the headline from the article itself). Not that I'm defending fast food, but saying that it's worse for the air than all the trucks on the road because it's worse in one area is overstating things a bit. I do think it's a good idea to control these VOC's (as the article suggests), I just think that keeping things level-headed is also a good idea.
For example, I don't know the statistics, but I'll bet that driving a truck for 1,000 miles contributes far more CO2 to the atmosphere than cooking four normal sized hamburgers.
On the other hand, reading about the rapid-cook technology should give some people pause before ordering from a fast-food restaurant again. - alanspach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I don't eat fast food or drive trucks, but i do burn tires in my backyard
- candre23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"I'm sorry: Your a retard!"
And YOU'RE criticizing grammar? I heart irony. - zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I knew fat people were evil, I just knew it. It's all your friggen fault.
- thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"the engines will actually exhaust cleaner air than they take in."
who told you this, a magic troll? - FilteringCraig, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I dugg this story because it is interesting, but someone should look up the difference between "then" and "than" before writing their title.
- candre23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If you think the VOC emissions from cooking burgers is bad, it's NOTHING compared to what the cow emitted while it was alive. http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2005/08/should_we_have.html?t=archive
Clearly, cows are the cause of global warming. - Darmichar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Heavy diesel engines are cleaning up in leaps and bounds. They are not the black smoke monsters they were, even 10 years ago. With the recent addition of EGR technology and low sulfur diesel fuels, as well as stricter regulations for the engines due to release in 2007, in some areas(read high pollution areas) the engines will actually exhaust cleaner air than they take in.
- chad78, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I like this comment from the article:
Maybe everybody should stop eating! Then we'll save the planet! - IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Writing skills are plummeting. :(
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4but only under ideal circumstances. realistically you will have to burn a hamburger to produce steam and that isnt going to get you very far.
Another interesting fact, an overweight man burns more energy walking a mile than a hummer H2. - BigKoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The article is not about C02 or global warming. It's about VOCs (volatile organic compounds). They are little particles that float around in the air and are not good to breath. It's like the smog you see in the city. This isn't about C02 or global warming. It's about the quality of air you breath in.
- akira117, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Don't piss with magic trolls man!
One gave me pudding once......ummm pudding.... ;7P - benhocking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@drizek: One gallon of gas contains 31,000 kcal of energy. An H2 gets 13 mpg (according to the EPA, although as with other cars this is optimistic), so one mile takes 31,000/13 kcal or about 2400 kcal. A typical person burns 100 kcal walking 1 mile. An overweight man might burn 200-300 kcal per mile. (I burn about 140 kcal per mile when running.)
Even against a car getting 50 mpg, the car requires 620 kcal/mile.
Point is, human powered locomotion actually isn't that inefficient - as long as you're not actually bringing the car with you à la Fred Flinstone. Of course, this ignores the fuel costs inherent in bringing the food to your mouth in the first place. - jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Please look up the word "THAN" and begin using it immediately.
- dazeg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Cows produce a LOT of methane. Methane has a far greater effect on global warming via the greenhouse effect than CO2. And one of the biggest contributers to the greenhouse effect is good ol' water vapour, which man has really no effect on.
Kill cows
Eat beef
Save the planet! - benhocking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3With respect to your first issue, that's the title that treehugger.com used. It's still a bad title, but don't blame Avijit.
- Luyseyal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3FrankTheTankWSU -
You wrote "2. Treehugger.com is conflating the term VOC with Greenhouse Gases."
I modded you down because you don't appear to have even read the article. This has nothing to do with greenhouse gases, but rather particulates, an important component in smog.
-l - davidlow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Volatile Organic Compounds are not all dangerous. Some of them are, yes, but the fumes from a burger and the fumes from a tailpipe are totally different. As the article correctly points out, some of the dangerous ones are present over a grill, but it distorts things greatly to include all the safe VOCs in this statistic.
- FilteringCraig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3candre23 made my day...
Then vs. Than
Your vs. You're
Now all we need is Its vs. It's and this post doubles as a full grammar lesson. - aimee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Wow, that is interesting. I can't believe this research hadn't been done before
- thatsiebguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4And driving.
- mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"one word: Burger King"
"I'm sorry: Your a retard!"
self ownage = comedy gold - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's really beside the point, as it's not talking about whether the specific VOCs are safe or not, but whether they contribute to smog. And the fact is that yes, most of the VOCs coming off of cooked meat will react with the nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere and produce low lying ozone, aka smog.
Now, whether this amount is significant by comparison to other sources is debatable. I'd argue that it probably isn't. The comparison to trucks is a bit silly, as trucks have catalytic converters specifically made to eliminate VOCs (among other things).
It does mention an idea (law? plan?) to put catalytic converters on all restaurants, which would work, but makes me wonder where the hell we're going to find all that extra platinum. The stuff is fairly rare, and we're using most of current production already, along with recycling existing sources. - MadMan459, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sheesh... it's an old joke. Here's a quarter, go buy a sense of humor.
Bullwinkle : "In a word, 'you said it'."
Rocky : "That's three words!"
Bullwinkle: "I'm a heavy tipper." - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We should start eating hybrids.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If I ever visit LA, I'll think... "Man, this air is so polluted with Big Macs"
- Darmichar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2thewaz, you should get a job in big media, nice taking my comment out of context.
You forgot to copy the seven words before the comment you grabbed. - FrankTheTankWSU, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Reported as inaccurate -
1. Your title is mis-leading, this article doesn't say that fast food restaurants are worse then all of the trucks on the road, because that is an absolutely ridiculous claim that even a hack website like treehugger.com wouldn't bother to make.
2. Treehugger.com is conflating the term VOC with Greenhouse Gases. VOC's do not = Global Warming. VOC is not even a term with standard scientific clarification, and even if it was, it has no direct correlation to global warming. A truck driving a 1,000 miles might not generate as much VOC particulate matter as 4 hamburgers (even then I dispute this claim anecdotaly, but have no honest evidence on the fact) but a truck driving a 1,000 miles certainly generates more Greenhouse Gases then 4 hamburgers.
I am liberal and pro-environment, but I am anti-stupidity, and this surely qualifies. I will take increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy and Carbon Standards any day of the week vs. cat converters at McDonalds... - dallen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just don't cook them on a fast food grill
- ylikone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey this is AWESOME! Lets ban fast food restaurants! 2 birds with 1 stone, less pollution, less fatties!!
- stalky14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mr. Dick Cheney, ladies and gentlemen. Let's give him a big hand.
- apocalizer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can still use used frying oil (for french fries) to power a diesel car for cheaper. Not sure about cleaner, though.
- akira117, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Yea you would think hitting ctr + c would be easy.....guess not :7(
- JLD3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1VOC's react with nitrogen oxide and sunlight...to form ground level ozone.
VOC's are also what give many things their smell - the smell of wet paint, the smell from your Christmas Tree, etc. - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8so you just assume logbase 10 and build an argument off of that? whos to say its not log base 2 or log base 1000? Show some actual proof and an actual forumla before making comments like a dumbass.
- henryuta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2how hard is it to remember that its Than rather than Then... I was in ESL for 5 months and even I learned to remember it.
- stalky14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> They are little particles that float around in the air and are not good to breath
You know, I've gotten used to the "their/there/they're" problem and the "loose/lose" problem, and "then/than" is a rarity, but one I cannot understand and see far too frequently online is "breath/breathe". There is really no subtle difference here. They are pronounced differently, and the first one is a noun, the second is a verb. Why is this one so hard? - galaxym100, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article should have a offer a cheese to go with all that wine.
- hummumgerr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1White Castle, baby! Steam grilled!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9DAMN YOU RONALD MCDONALD!?!?
- Metman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Clearly, cows are the cause of global warming." - sorry I just love that statement.
- nikkkko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Don't be sorry, just improve your grammar. Otherwise people will think YOU'RE the retard.
- intoflatlines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While cooking may release more VOC's than driving a car, the exhaust from internal combustion engines release far more greenhouse gases such as CO2, CO, and sulfur oxides to name a few.
- Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yah, should obviously use "than"...
...but it's easy enough to not have cemented into habit considering most people pronounce "then" and "than" very-nearly or exactly the same way. Gotta learn it sometime, somewhere...let's not flame people for an innocent mistake. I wouldn't waste a post about someone who wrote "who" instead of "whom." - rushoffailure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I bet they're digging up Dave Thomas's corpse to ship off to Gitmo right now.
- 8177, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Save The Planet, Kill Yourself
-George Carlin - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1guess youre right. Im not sure where i heard that.
- epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1VOC's are not particulate(solid) matter they are "volatile" hence a gas, think ground level ozone and hydrocarbon fumes that evaporate into the air see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compound
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is