VN Boards Archive

[VN Boards Archive]

Welcome to the Vault Network forum archive.

This is not a complete archive, time didn't allot us the opportunity to properly backup the majority of the boards deemed "expendable". Most boards on this list have at least 20-40 pages archived (non-logged in pages, 15 topics per page).

Popular boards may have as many as 250 pages archived at 50 topics per page, while others deemed of historical signifigance may be archived in their entirety.

We may not agree with how the board shutdown was managed, but we've done what we could to preserve some of its history in lieu of that.

Please enjoy the archive.
~ Managers, Moderators, VIP's, and regular posters.

Author

Topic: Carbon Dioxide doesn't harm anything

levgre Posts: 25,822 Registered: Oct 24, '01 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 25,076 User ID: 479,056	Subject: Carbon Dioxide doesn't harm anything
	""The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is," Santorum said, according to the Associated Press." Hm I guess Santorum is shooting for the flora vote, because CO2 definitely is something humans want to avoid in higher than atmospheric levels. "Volunteers exposed to 3.3% or 5.4% CO2 for 15 minutes experienced increased depth of breathing. At 7.5%, a feeling of an inability to breathe (dyspnea), increased pulse rate, headache, dizziness, sweating, restlessness, disorientation, and visual distortion developed. Twenty-minute exposures to 6.5 or 7.5% decreased mental performance. Irritability and discomfort were reported with exposure to 6.5% for approximately 70 minutes. Exposure to 6% for several minutes, or 30% for 20-30 seconds, has affected the heart, as evidenced by altered electrocardiograms. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-dangers-carbon-dioxide-tell-plant-152230291.html -----signature----- <(o.O)> <(o.O<) (>o.O)> (>o.O<)<(''<) <( ' ' )> (>'')>
	Link to this post
deadcactus Posts: 38,266 Registered: Dec 27, '01 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 37,437 User ID: 577,555	Subject: Carbon Dioxide doesn't harm anything
	You needed a study to tell you that over 100x atmospheric C02 concentrations is bad for people? And you really think a cute soundbite is somehow the full extent of a persons reasons or justifications? -----signature----- 'member dat? True dat.
	Link to this post
levgre Posts: 25,822 Registered: Oct 24, '01 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 25,076 User ID: 479,056	Subject: Carbon Dioxide doesn't harm anything
	deadcactus posted: You needed a study to tell you that over 100x atmospheric C02 concentrations is bad for people? And you really think a cute soundbite is somehow the full extent of a persons reasons or justifications? A "cute soundbite" is not immune to being irrelevant and idiotic. There is absolute 0 worth in his point, as saying CO2 is good for plants has no bearing on whether increased levels are harmful for the climate/humans. His statement shows a complete ignorance/disregard of the sciences. I guess you are in full fledged trolling mode. For dramatic effect I quoted the details of how even minuscule levels of CO2 are highly toxic. If that annoys you fine, make your Santorum-level idiocy flames. -----signature----- <(o.O)> <(o.O<) (>o.O)> (>o.O<)<(''<) <( ' ' )> (>'')>
	Link to this post
deadcactus Posts: 38,266 Registered: Dec 27, '01 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 37,437 User ID: 577,555	Subject: Carbon Dioxide doesn't harm anything
	I hardly consider 100x the normal level minuscule. The irony is that oxygen at only 10x more than atmospheric levels is flat out deadly (versus your highly toxic annoyances) so by your logic we better start burning down some forests! -----signature----- 'member dat? True dat.
	Link to this post
levgre Posts: 25,822 Registered: Oct 24, '01 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 25,076 User ID: 479,056	Subject: Carbon Dioxide doesn't harm anything
	deadcactus posted: I hardly consider 100x the normal level minuscule. The irony is that oxygen at only 10x more than atmospheric levels is flat out deadly (versus your highly toxic annoyances) so by your logic we better start burning down some forests! 3% is a minuscule amount, this is why you want people to respect/understand Chemistry; to recognize that small changes can have very large effects. Um yeah, Oxygen is already at 20%... obviously multiplying an incredibly larger number can have a larger impact. I didn't know scaling atmospheric levels became a standard unit of measurement? -----signature----- <(o.O)> <(o.O<) (>o.O)> (>o.O<)<(''<) <( ' ' )> (>'')>
	Link to this post
deadcactus Posts: 38,266 Registered: Dec 27, '01 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 37,437 User ID: 577,555	Subject: Carbon Dioxide doesn't harm anything
	You don't understand why multiples of environmental/physiological levels are more relevant to a discussion on toxicology and environmental harm but you want to pretend to be informed? I thought you were just another politard blowing an inane comment out of context. I wasn't prepared to walk into this level of ignorance. You go ahead and carry on in here. -----signature----- 'member dat? True dat.
	Link to this post
levgre Posts: 25,822 Registered: Oct 24, '01 Extended Info (if available) Real Post Cnt: 25,076 User ID: 479,056	Subject: Carbon Dioxide doesn't harm anything
	Trololol When discussing toxicology you still use standard measurements as your base, not scaling off 'normal' levels. Relying firstly on scaling (as you are) can be incredibly inconsistent, and sometimes invalid. Scaling off normal levels can be very informative, and used correctly gives excellent perspective, yes. And I wasn't even criticizing his comment on the basis of context. Just how utterly nonsensical it was (on several levels), as a scientific statement. -----signature----- <(o.O)> <(o.O<) (>o.O)> (>o.O<)<(''<) <( ' ' )> (>'')>
	Link to this post