other one Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 600 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,390 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,140 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 What's preventing an OTC inhaler without the ozone-offending chemical? It costs more..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 600 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,390 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,140 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 Just because nature puts something in the air doesn't mean that we should also.......... and as I''ve said in nearly every post, there are other reasons not to inhale the stuff. People have been inhaling that stuff for years without adverse effects, generally speaking and those little inhalers do not have even a negligable effect on the atomosphere. The earth's atomosphere and has endured far worse assaults on its well-being and some little 10-year old's asthma inhaler does not pose any danger to the environment whatsoever. Not according to my three doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 600 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,390 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,140 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 Do you guys really want to trust our health to pharmaceutical companies with no oversight..... No, we want freedom. We also don't want the Government telling us what to do where it concerns our health care brother. There are sad repurcussions worldwide for all to see when this is allowed to happen. More people will die. In the presence of corruption such as is in the pharmaceutical industry, you can't have freedom. Freedom is for a moral people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Just because nature puts something in the air doesn't mean that we should also.......... and as I''ve said in nearly every post, there are other reasons not to inhale the stuff. People have been inhaling that stuff for years without adverse effects, generally speaking and those little inhalers do not have even a negligable effect on the atomosphere. The earth's atomosphere and has endured far worse assaults on its well-being and some little 10-year old's asthma inhaler does not pose any danger to the environment whatsoever. Not according to my three doctors. LOL, yeah right. Doctors stand to make more money from this, so naturally they will support the research. I doubt they are experts on the environment. Your car does more damage the ozone than those inhalers. Don't be so naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldShep Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 934 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 137 Days Won: 6 Joined: 07/20/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/12/1950 Share Posted September 27, 2011 You do realize that the single eruption of Mt. St. Helen in the 80's put more cfc's in the atmosphere than the entire history of mankind, don't you? CFCs are not a product of volcanoes. You might be thinking of chlorine which volcanoes emit oodles of in the form of HCl. Chlorine can also be added to the atmosphere in large amounts from sea salt. Both HCl and NaCl are highly water soluble and are mostly removed in the lower atmosphere by rain. It is the chlorine which damages the ozone and low soluble compounds such as CFCs (which are predominantly synthetic) remain in the atmosphere for years and reach the home of the ozone. Here read this; http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/ I read it. It's interesting there are many scientists that have different and conflicting data. I'll look into your boy. Do you have any sources for substantially increased volcanic activity in the past 50 years? Read my byline interest: We don't think so. A look at the number of volcanoes active per year, over the last few centuries, shows a dramatic increase, but one that is closely related to increases in the world's human population and communication. We believe that this represents an increased reporting of eruptions, rather than increased frequency of global volcanism: more observers, in wider geographic distribution, with better communication, and broader publication. The past 200 years (see plot below) show this generally increasing trend along with some major "peaks and valleys" which suggest global pulsations. A closer look at the two largest valleys, however, shows that they coincide with the two World Wars, when people (including editors) were preoccupied with other things. Many more eruptions were probably witnessed during those times, but reports do not survive in the scientific literature. If these apparent drops in global volcanism are caused by decreased human attention to volcanoes, then it is reasonable to expect that increased attention after major, newsworthy eruptions should result in higher-than-average numbers of volcanoes being reported in the historical literature. The 1902 disasters at Mont Pelee, St. Vincent, and Santa Maria (see 1902 arrow) were highly newsworthy events. They represent a genuine pulse in Caribbean volcanism, but we believe that the higher numbers in following years (and following Krakatau in 1883) result from increased human interest in volcanism. People reported events that they might not otherwise have reported and editors were more likely to print those reports. Additional strong evidence that the historical increase in global volcanism is more apparent than real comes from the lower plot below. Here only the larger eruptions (generating at least 0.1 km3 of tephra, the fragmental products of explosive eruptions) are plotted. The effects of these larger events are often regional, and therefore less likely to escape documentation even in remote areas. The frequency of these events has remained impressively constant for more than a century, and contrasts strongly with the apparent increase of smaller eruptions with time.~~~~~~~~~~~ See the rest of the responce here: http://www.volcano.s...ndex.cfm?faq=06 FYI, Dennis...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.26 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 What's preventing an OTC inhaler without the ozone-offending chemical? They don't work nearly as well (Ie; low flow toilets, flourescent bulbs, etc............ ad nauseaum) . Plus they make some people gag and have adverse side effects which isn't helping a crisis situation. They also cost three times as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.26 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 You do realize that the single eruption of Mt. St. Helen in the 80's put more cfc's in the atmosphere than the entire history of mankind, don't you? CFCs are not a product of volcanoes. You might be thinking of chlorine which volcanoes emit oodles of in the form of HCl. Chlorine can also be added to the atmosphere in large amounts from sea salt. Both HCl and NaCl are highly water soluble and are mostly removed in the lower atmosphere by rain. It is the chlorine which damages the ozone and low soluble compounds such as CFCs (which are predominantly synthetic) remain in the atmosphere for years and reach the home of the ozone. Here read this; http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/ I read it. It's interesting there are many scientists that have different and conflicting data. I'll look into your boy. Do you have any sources for substantially increased volcanic activity in the past 50 years? Does it matter? A volcanoe does in fact put out more cfc's in outburst than mankind has ever done in his history. It's a natural cycle. Global Warming is a hoax and basing public health policy on a lie is never a good idea. It's places the collective above the individual and that my friend is called Socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.26 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 Do you guys really want to trust our health to pharmaceutical companies with no oversight..... No, we want freedom. We also don't want the Government telling us what to do where it concerns our health care brother. There are sad repurcussions worldwide for all to see when this is allowed to happen. More people will die. In the presence of corruption such as is in the pharmaceutical industry, you can't have freedom. Freedom is for a moral people. That dear brother is why we are a Nation based upon the rule of law. We can't abandon it or elect folks above it because it suits our personal needs. That is also immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 600 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,390 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,140 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 Just because nature puts something in the air doesn't mean that we should also.......... and as I''ve said in nearly every post, there are other reasons not to inhale the stuff. People have been inhaling that stuff for years without adverse effects, generally speaking and those little inhalers do not have even a negligable effect on the atomosphere. The earth's atomosphere and has endured far worse assaults on its well-being and some little 10-year old's asthma inhaler does not pose any danger to the environment whatsoever. Not according to my three doctors. LOL, yeah right. Doctors stand to make more money from this, so naturally they will support the research. I doubt they are experts on the environment. Your car does more damage the ozone than those inhalers. Don't be so naive. As I have said in several posts now, there are a lot more reasons not to use the cfc's than the worry over Ozone and I guess I just didn't make enough of an issue to get you to understand that I'm not talking about OZONE in most of my posts about doctors. Doctors tell me that it's destructive to your health to inhale the cfc's if you use them every day. It's not an atmosphere problem it's a direct problem with your body. So, at least with me, get off the ozone thing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 27, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 600 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,390 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,140 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 27, 2011 Just because nature puts something in the air doesn't mean that we should also.......... and as I''ve said in nearly every post, there are other reasons not to inhale the stuff. People have been inhaling that stuff for years without adverse effects, generally speaking and those little inhalers do not have even a negligable effect on the atomosphere. The earth's atomosphere and has endured far worse assaults on its well-being and some little 10-year old's asthma inhaler does not pose any danger to the environment whatsoever. Not according to my three doctors. LOL, yeah right. Doctors stand to make more money from this, so naturally they will support the research. I doubt they are experts on the environment. Your car does more damage the ozone than those inhalers. Don't be so naive. Most doctors have all the business they can handle around here Shiloh, they don't need people comming around just go get a prescription renewed. Like I said before, I don't know anyone with asthma bad enough to be concerned about at all that doesn't see a doctor at least once a year and they could get their prescriptions renewed then. So it's not a money issue with doctors. They are just doing the job we hire them to do in keeping us healthy..... and shame on you for badmouthing them for doing their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts