What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
50 Comments
- KMye, on 01/08/2008, -9/+35Wow, this is what we call science today?? I encourage everyone to read the PDF of his study linked at the bottom of this article. Jacobsen hasn't found any real statistics that he's even correlated with increasing ozone, which he links to CO2's still nebulous warming effect as well CO2's chemistry. He just built a model and ran it a few times, it told him there should be about 1000 additional lung and heart deaths a year, so it's his conclusion that it must be happening?
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -7/+30oh god, the global warming hippies are branching their fear mongering into new vistas...
- NSResponder, on 01/08/2008, -3/+15What complete nonsense! We generate CO2 in every cell in our bodies, and it stimulates our exhalation response. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
-jcr - inactive, on 01/08/2008, -4/+14this isn't particularly fear mongering if you read the article, even the guy who wrote the study says the number of deaths is negligible in the grand scheme of things. Plus all air pollution can cause premature deaths, so it's not like this is shocking.
- TLAKABM, on 01/08/2008, -0/+9Obviously there are too few pirates.
- PovRayMan, on 01/08/2008, -2/+10We had better ban carbon.
- MacGyver2210, on 01/08/2008, -2/+9Manbearpig is REAL! I'm like, SERIAL!
- aliengoods, on 01/08/2008, -2/+9If you think this is bad science, take a look at a lot of the studies linking second hand smoking to...well, everything that can kill you. Seriously.
- dealseeker, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Pirates, recently moved to the "severely endangered" list, are peaceful rum-drinking carnivores native to the South Pacific and parts of the Carribean.
- dealseeker, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5I blame deoxyribonucleic acid. We will have nothing to worry about once it is purged from the environment.
- inghamb87, on 01/08/2008, -3/+8Uh oh - spaghettio!
- blast_flame, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Ha! Everyone knows that the real danger lies in dihydrogenmonoxide.
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6Stanford, an institute of higher learning. Just goes to show how our schools and universities have become the playground to professors with too much money, too much time, too much tenure, and not enough accountability.
- Berkana, on 01/08/2008, -2/+6Actually, if you think about it, virtually everyone who doesn't die by traumatic impacts to the head horrific burns dies of CO2; whether you die of a heart attack or bleeding to death from a gun shot, an aneurism, or most forms of poisoning, all of these result in brain death due to an inability to bring new oxygen to the brain along with the inability to scavenge CO2 out of the brain. I know it's not quite the same thing as what this article is talking about, but just FYI, CO2 does kill most of the people on earth.
- capiCrimm, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4hrm, I was going to propose banning dioxide. Is there any advantage to your solution over mine?
- romistrub, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4And all carbon derivatives. ***** biomass.
- lump1, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4"Air pollution is thought to result in between 50,000 and 100,000 early deaths in America every year and between 1.5 and 2 million throughout the world."
Yeah, that's almost certainly on the high side. But this is a good place to remind people that nuclear power has led to the confirmed premature deaths of 56 people in the world, in all of human history (that is, if BBC's Horizon is to be believed). I myself think that the latter is an underestimate and the "millions of deaths per year" an overestimate, but I'm quite sure that neither is mistaken enough to make up the five or six order-of-magnitude difference between these numbers.
It's reports like this that remind me why my blood boils every time I see an anti-nuclear protester. It's our REFUSAL to build up our nuclear program that's killing people! - BigBlueCarbon, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4profit drives technology
read thomas sowell basic economics - DiscoJohn, on 01/08/2008, -2/+5What absolute *****. Who hired this guy?
- ryan83189, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3dihydrogen monoxide, is also bad.
- BigBlueCarbon, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4it's ok, a negative feedback loop -
when you die you stop emitting co2 - inactive, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4So are you "eco-warriors" really now trying to convince us that CO2 is poisonous? The only dangerous CO2 is the CO2 that comes out of Al Gore and his little blind followers mouths.
- rodgerdodger5, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Article about houseplants removing indoor air pollution.
http://www.zone10.com/tech/NASA/Fyh.htm
Also has a picture of Pothos Ivy. - inactive, on 01/08/2008, -2/+4we must ban CO2 immediately.
- Ragingcnu, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3FTA: "Although the report could be interpreted, and doubtless will be by some, as climate change fear mongering, Jacobson displayed a sense of perspective seen more and more rarely in the scientific community these days when he releasing his work."
I think even he realizes it's a little sensational... - tech42er, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Yup. We need to start investing in nuclear energy.
- rodgerdodger5, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2This is completely unrelated but GET A HOUSEPLANT. In fact get a couple. Some recommendations that are very hard to kill are "Airplane Plant" AKA "Spider Plant", Peace Lilly and Pothos Ivy. - NASA has done studies on these particular plants and they remove toxins from the air in your house. See reference in Wikipedia article. They remove some nasty stuff and make oxygen for you to breathe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane_plant
Airplane Plants will grow hanging in almost any window and will make these cool shoots with little baby plants hanging on them. You can bury the baby plant in another pot while it is still attached to the mother plant or cut it off and bury and it will send down roots and make another plant..very easy to grow. It has a tuber type root system that stores water and will go without watering for a long time. The goal though when you grow these is to get a airplane baby that puts out another shoot and makes another airplane baby. Then you win a prize and it is another airplane plant. They can get huge. You may also call them spider babies but I prefer to call them airplane babies. One you get one and start watching it grow, it will make you very happy. Highly recommended A+A+A+A+ - Digi2112, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2They will try and say anything to make sure you believe that if you pay more money you can save the world. Watch them take more of your money when they have done jack crap with the money they have received so far. Its sad.. Please people, Please... Don't just go along with this on the good intentions of saving the planet. All the best intentions in the world can be a path to hell. Don't let the elite make you pay for crap, THEY let happen. I have enough taxes to pay, and nothing to show for except "so called freedom" -Paying for freedom - I refuse to go along with the mind set that I will need to pay to help clean up the environment when the big money, CEO, lobbists bastards, and shaddy politicians let it happen, NOT ME!
- curtisag, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3I'd be willing to believe there are carcinogens and other pollutants in the air along with the CO2, but CO2 is not inherently dangerous to our health. This guy is either a wackjob or dishonest.
- daveisfera, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3If he realizes that it's inconsequential and negligible, then why did he publish it?
- riverstyx, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2I think they mean Carbon Monoxide. If we wanted to ban CO2 we'd have to cut down every tree and stop breathing.
- oriyn142, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Mark Jacobson is being studied by death? And 700 to 800 of them? He better tread lightly!
- capiCrimm, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1what are you saying, the text is soooo blurry.... *sips vodka*
- Filter, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2How can it be deadly when we exhale it? Too much Global Warming/Environmental BS is flying around and too many drones so willing to believe it.
- phreak79, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3Why does no one on Digg ever link to the original rather than the blogspam that regurgitates it?
- Filter, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1My vote is both.
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -3/+4more liberal tripe.
- harry8227, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2B.S.
- knobtwiddler, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2i wonder who funded this propaganda
- tech42er, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Look, it's great to reduce pollution and I wholeheartedly support alternative energy sources (especially geothermal, wind, solar and nuclear), but lying is not the proper way to go about it. If you need to lie in order to get your point across, you don;t have a valid point. These technologies should stand on their own, not be propped up by scare tactics.
- RichStradler, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1The solution is simply not to ever exhale around someone. It's all that second hand air.
- hammerattack, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2Ozone I would buy. It's highly reactive stuff. But CO2 is inert, and we exhale it in concentrations thousands of times higher than atmosphere. So... if you can't see this guy is full of *****, then go on believing all the other pseudo science out there, like magnetic bracelets and global warming.
- edwinb, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0 suggest everyone worry about this real soon. Checking wikipedia the estimated population in 2050 will be 9,000,000,000. I picked 2050 because the global warming is increasing. If the CO2 increases also, and 30,000 people a year in the world die from CO2 in the year 2050---that means 1 in 300,000 people worldwide!
That means your 2nd cousin twice removed might know a girl who dated a guy once who was that one fellows cousins grandmother, well you remember her friend from church ? Year her nephew died from CO2! It's going to be an epidemic!
Maybe Gore and Co. can make a documentary about it to save us before it's too late!
This is the nonsense you get when some one writes a blog about a newspaper article about a thesis that was plucked out of the air because it was what the researcher could get funding for :) - Hobbes24, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1i just dugg that comment but i'm not quite sure why...
- heee, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1CO2, its nasty, yeah its a killer alright....
- ryan83189, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1My estimates were in the trillions...
- blackmage439, on 01/08/2008, -3/+2Who summons the great and omnipotent noodled appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to combat illogical thinking and biased opinions?
- knobtwiddler, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1wait til a dirty bomb or a nuke goes off somewhere.. then you won't be so big on nuclear energy.
SOLAR FTW, - inactive, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1I dont know why bothering in this , After few days people will forget this and would run into other thing
CO , CO2 or whatever won't be solved not now and sure wont be on 2010!
However this study is interested :) - inactive, on 01/08/2008, -11/+5If scaring people by using global warming is what's going to cause the advancement of technology in regards to industry, I say ***** do it.
I know I'll get Dugg down for this, but large oil companies, textile corporations and all big polluters are feeling the "heat" from the global warming community and are spending their profits on reducing their own emissions. At some point, humans are eventually going to need alternative energy sources.
I would even go as far to say as ***** the coal industry and lets put our efforts into nuclear power.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is