Searching \ for '[OT] Your ooohs and aaahs are killing the planet,' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=your+ooohs+aaahs
Search entire site for: 'Your ooohs and aaahs are killing the planet,'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Your ooohs and aaahs are killing the planet, '
2006\10\17@040337 by Jinx

face picon face
Coming up to that time of year again. Sounds like this long-
faced sandal-wearing tree-hugging misery-guts had his mail
box blown up once too often

Fireworks - Cheap Thrills with Toxic Consequences

Heavy Metal Fallout from Fireworks Creates Needless Pollution
and an Unnecessary Risk to Our Personal and Environmental Health

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Falls/9200/toxic_fireworks.html

Surprised he didn't mention Santa's reindeer piss raining down
on us at Crimbo. Never seen a yellow snowflake ? Look harder

2006\10\17@045704 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Coming up to that time of year again. Sounds like this long-
> faced sandal-wearing tree-hugging misery-guts had his mail
> box blown up once too often
>
> Fireworks - Cheap Thrills with Toxic Consequences
>
> Heavy Metal Fallout from Fireworks Creates Needless Pollution
> and an Unnecessary Risk to Our Personal and Environmental Health
> http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Falls/9200/toxic_fireworks.html

Are you the stand-in for Russel?

I am all in favour environmental protection, but I don't like that page.
Check the poisons table. Copper compounds cause dioxine? Maybe true for
some compounds, but I don't thing the copper is essential. Potassium
Nitrate causes sulfur-coal compounds? To my best knowledge PN cointains
neither sulfur nor coal. Note that what they claim might actually be
true, but this kind of sloppy presentation does not help the cause.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\10\17@054454 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>
> Are you the stand-in for Russel?
>  
Russell has a stand-in?

--Bob

2006\10\17@055330 by Jinx

face picon face
> Are you the stand-in for Russell ?

I can't deny it. A position I aspire to

> Copper compounds cause dioxin ?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321930.500-red-white-and-dioxin.html

"Americans and Canadians could be celebrating the Fourth of July
and Canada Day in a fog of dioxins after their usual fireworks
displays this weekend. Researchers at the Technical University of
Braunschweig in Germany have found high levels of the toxic
chemicals in fireworks. In the latest issue of Chemosphere (vol 39,
p 925), they say that blue fireworks release the most dioxins. This
is because the copper responsible for their colour catalyses the
formation of the poisons when chlorinated chemicals in the fireworks
burn"

The comparitive term "high" isn't defined in that article though. May
not necessarily be dangerous

> Note that what they claim might actually be true, but this kind of
> sloppy presentation does not help the cause

I've had a couple of weeks of someone banging on to me about
"New Age" issues. And last night saw the Penn & Teller Bullshit
episode about protesters. What they presented was a lot of people
who have no idea what they're talking about and merely re-spout
others opinions and loose-fitting "facts"

As you say, the message is probably valid, to a greater or lesser
degree, but the language and wide-eyed dilettante presentation is
a real turn-off for anyone who's done even a little research

For example, Penn & Teller's assistant got hundreds of signatures
on a "Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide" petition at a hippy-esque rally.
No fraud or coersion was involved. The assistant told the truth.
"It's in our rivers, the water table, weapons and food manufacturers
use it, it's everywhere in our environment..." etc etc, putting a really
scary PC spin on it. P&T said that not one person actually asked
what dihydrogen monoxide is, but all were eager to sign up to ban
it

2006\10\17@102044 by Sergey Dryga

face picon face
Wouter van Ooijen <wouter <at> voti.nl> writes:

{Quote hidden}

Looking at the page I became utterly confused.  It is either (1) I got
chemistry seriously wrong, or (2) person who wrote the "facts" on this page got
it wrong.

Naturally, I think it is (2).  I did not know that lead chloride is now an
oxidant, for example.  
Also, for strontium they say it can be radioactive! They better stop breathing
now, because CO2 contains C14 (radioactive) as well as C12.  The same is true
for any other element, there are radioactive and stable isotopes.

Would be better to focus on more contaminating things, like car emissions.

It is sometimes funny, and sometimes scarry when people who have no idea what
they are talking about get on the bandwagon and try to "protect" everybody.

<rant over>

Sergey



2006\10\17@110636 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Also, for strontium they say it can be radioactive! They better
>stop breathing now, because CO2 contains C14 (radioactive) as
>well as C12.  The same is true for any other element, there are
>radioactive and stable isotopes.

Yeah, as you say, they better stop drinking real fast, so they do not ingest
the deuterium and tritium based versions of water ...

2006\10\17@113013 by David VanHorn

picon face
> Yeah, as you say, they better stop drinking real fast, so they do not
> ingest
> the deuterium and tritium based versions of water ...


I know a number of people using "diet salt", potassium chloride, who don't
know that it's significantly radioactive.

--
> Feel the power of the dark side!  Atmel AVR

2006\10\17@114721 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
I like this line:

"In the US, outdoor firework displays may have generated about 90 tons
of sky-borne lead pollution... an obvious violation of the Clean Air
Act."

May have?
Over what time period?
How much lead goes into the air using other methods (power plants, etc)?

Given the relative infrequency of the fireworks displays, I doubt I'm
going to do much about it.  We'd be better off looking to our oil
based engines first.  Debt snowball works for environmental issues
too.

-Adam

On 10/17/06, Jinx <spam_OUTjoecolquittTakeThisOuTspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\10\17@115326 by D. Daniel McGlothin

flavicon
face
>> Also, for strontium they say it can be radioactive! They better
>> stop breathing now, because CO2 contains C14 (radioactive) as
>> well as C12.  The same is true for any other element, there are
>> radioactive and stable isotopes.
>
> Yeah, as you say, they better stop drinking real fast, so they do not ingest
> the deuterium and tritium based versions of water ...

Somehow I was of the impression that the various "lite" commercials were
all about calories....

2006\10\17@124721 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Sergey Dryga wrote:

> Looking at the page I became utterly confused.  It is either (1) I got
> chemistry seriously wrong, or (2) person who wrote the "facts" on this
> page got it wrong.

> It is sometimes funny, and sometimes scarry when people who have no idea
> what they are talking about get on the bandwagon and try to "protect"
> everybody.

I'm not really good at chemistry (I could research the issues but I'm not
/that/ interested), but I can't get rid of the nagging feeling that the
"facts" presented in the messages in this thread trying to discredit that
page (whatever its credits may be) are not much better presented or better
researched or are carried by a much better idea of the real facts than the
criticized page.

IMO the most efficient way to criticize lack of facts or wrong facts is to
present the missing or the correct facts. Anything else just feels odd. And
that doesn't seem to have happened so far...

Gerhard

2006\10\17@140346 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

The trouble is that the facts are sometimes simply not available, and the primary reason that this page is being discredited is that it appears to claim fact when they are blatantly guesses, estimates or just plain made up.  Compound this with what is clearly "bad science" and confidence in the information presented is reduced to the point where it is worthless.

It's very easy to say that fireworks "may" have put 90 tons of polution into the air, but where are the facts?  There are no research references to say where this number was derived from, so we have to conclude it's a guess.

Claiming that certain substances produced by or used in the construction of fireworks are radioactive without any context is simply "scaremongering" and has no place in a factual or useful document.  Everything around us contains some radioactive isotopes so it's mere presence is unimportant, the actual amount of radioactivity produced would be informative, but the author fails to mention any numbers, guessed or otherwise.

The page is nothing more than a joke.  In typical media style, the author has gone for shock tactics rather than presenting factual, accurate information that would enable his readers to make up their own minds.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\10\17@160525 by Sergey Dryga

face picon face
Gerhard Fiedler <lists <at> connectionbrazil.com> writes:

{Quote hidden}

OK, I was trying to be funny about it, but maybe it is a time to be serious.
I do not have time to do serious research of all compounds listed on the page,
so I will go from memory. BTW, I believe I am qualified to do that, I have MS
in BioOrganic Chemistry and PhD in Molecular Biology and have spent last 20 yr
in chemical and biological labs.

Lead Nitrate/Dioxide/Chloride - oxidizer
   Lead Chloride is not an oxidizer (fact)

Lithium blazing reds slightly toxic
   In this case, it is slightly toxic, but its compunds are used as drugs
(fact).
   Additional use is for thermonuclear weapons (fact), so let's prohibit it
completely!

Copper compounds blues dioxin pollution
   While I acknowledge that copper can be used as catalyst to make dioxin
compounds, I am pretty sure it is not the case during firework.  Fireworks
usually include inorganic chemistry at high temperatures which are not good to
make dioxins (speculation, not fact).

Aluminum brilliant whites contact dermatitis
   Aluminum oxide (AKA alum) is widely used as carrier for vaccines, anybody
who has received vaccines in their life has received Al2O3 injection (fact).

Ammonium Perchlorate propellant can contaminate ground & surface waters, can
disrupt thyroid functions
   If one spreads enough of it over ground and surface water it will be
toxic,  but during fireworks it is burned away.  Byporducts are dihidrogen
oxide (AKA water), and oxides of nitrogen and chlorine.  These are not nice,
but relative amount of emmision due to firework is negligent compared to coal-
fires electric stations or cars (speculation, not a fact).


Potassium Nitrate in black powder toxic dusts, carcinogenic sulfur-coal
compounds
   Potassium nitrate itself does not contain sulfur or carbon (coal)(fact).  A
mix of KNO3 with C and S is (was) used as black powder (fact).  KNO3 was also
used as a fertilizer (fact), I believe NH4NO3 is more widely used today.  


In general, fireworks do produce contaminating byproducts, but htis page is
pure fear-mongering.  There are many more sources of pollution that are not as
nice to look at and produce greater pollution because of greater use.

<end of serious>
<begin funny>
BTW, life itself produces pollution (fact).  We have garbage pick up truck come
every week and it is full all the time!  And this does not include the stuff
that flooooows out of houses!

Sergey



2006\10\17@182238 by Jinx

face picon face
I say ban The Environment. Nothing but trouble. Always
something wrong with it - too hot, too cold, too many hippies,
too polluted, too stormy, too volcany, too earthquakey

2006\10\17@200549 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

> [...] the primary reason that this page is being discredited is that it
> appears to claim fact when they are blatantly guesses, estimates or just
> plain made up. It's very easy to say that fireworks "may" have put 90
> tons of polution into the air, but where are the facts?  

Yes, where are they? Ask the critics, they seem to think they have them in
their belly. (At least that's what it sounds like; if not, what's the
point?)

It may be a bad page, scientifically speaking, it may present some of the
details wrongly, but that doesn't really say anything about the issue
itself. The critics parted from a bad page to discrediting the page to
discrediting the issue without themselves presenting any relevant facts.
Doesn't really sound like sound science to me, and doesn't seem to be much
different from what the author of the page did: taking one's gut for fact.

For a factoid: I could smell 4th of July fireworks across the San Diego
Bay, from quite a bit away. This is not a scientific fact, but it indicates
that there is a lot that goes into the air. How much exactly, and what it
does after it went into the air, could be researched. Whoever thinks this
should be done can do so; if someone didn't do it, why complain that
someone else didn't do it?

This page doesn't claim to be scientific, other than some of its critics.
And it isn't, like some of its critics... Who is less consistent? All this
nitpicking... this is not science. Nor engineering. And not really a good
joke either.


> There are no research references to say where this number was derived
> from, so we have to conclude it's a guess.

Now come on... read the piclist and try to find research references given
with numbers. You'll find /very/ few. And they are often only links, and of
course what's stated in the linked pages can be doubted, too.

> [...] but the author fails to mention any numbers, guessed or otherwise.

I know that. But my point was that none of the critics did otherwise. Which
in my book pretty much discredits the criticism with the same arguments.

Gerhard

2006\10\17@201518 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Sergey Dryga wrote:

Just one example:

> Aluminum brilliant whites contact dermatitis
>     Aluminum oxide (AKA alum) is widely used as carrier for vaccines, anybody
> who has received vaccines in their life has received Al2O3 injection (fact).

Where's the relevance to fireworks? Pretty much everything can be used as
medicine, in some form. Sulfur is being used in various useful drugs, so
the whole story about acid rain was just made up, right?

See, where I'm trying to get with this is that if you want to say that it's
wrong, you should state that at least with the degree of "scientific" you
requested from the page author. Which is not that easy.

> In general, fireworks do produce contaminating byproducts, but htis page is
> pure fear-mongering.  

I think you guys are really way over the top. This is not fear-mongering;
this is simply a simple guy stating his opinion, with some
pseudo-scientific factoids listed that he probably doesn't understand all
that well. Not much different from most (even here). You may understand
quite a bit more than the average person, but even you are at a loss to
scientifically (according to your own bar) state how much fireworks get
burned, what gets produced by that, how the products spread, and how that
affects nature there.

Everything else is just doing the same as the guy there: you guess that it
isn't that bad (where he guesses that it is). Where's the difference?


> There are many more sources of pollution that are not as nice to look at
> and produce greater pollution because of greater use.

I completely fail to see the relevance of this. Of course there are. But in
fact there are much more important things in the greater scheme of things
than messing with tiny electronic components, yet we do it... and have even
a mailing list for that.

Gerhard

2006\10\17@201900 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>> Also, for strontium they say it can be radioactive! They better
>> stop breathing now, because CO2 contains C14 (radioactive) as
>> well as C12.  The same is true for any other element, there are
>> radioactive and stable isotopes.
>>    
>
> Yeah, as you say, they better stop drinking real fast, so they do not ingest
> the deuterium and tritium based versions of water ...
>
>  
In our area, the water contains dihydrogen monoxide.  I'm thinking of
moving to Love Canal.
Carey

2006\10\17@204936 by Jinx

face picon face
Seeing as I started it Gerhard ....

Now, if I can find this in 10 minutes with Google, why couldn't
the author of that page, who seems way more interested and
passionate about this than I am, do the same to prove his case?
If someone says to me "The sky's falling !!!", I'd say "Show me"

I just know that Chris Conway has made more of a mess with his
car and camp fires than I ever have with fireworks

But this isn't entirely about that particular page. It's about all lazy,
emotional people who regurgitate poor information and half-truths

Anyhoo

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

"Pollution" paragraph at bottom of page. Effects of fireworks,
according to wiki, are debatable

You could quantify the effects. Amount of chemicals burned,
combustion products, prevailing winds, rainfall, volume of
atmospheric air combustion products disperse into, etc etc

http://www.nsca.org.uk/pages/environment_facts/firework_effects.cfm

"Current research indicates that deposits of pollutants from fireworks
do not pose a risk to soil or water"

Mission Statement

NSCA brings together organisations across the public, private and
voluntary sectors to promote a balanced and innovative approach to
understanding and solving environmental problems.


NSCA is both active and influential in the fields of air quality, noise,

land quality, and industrial regulation. We are a registered charity with

over 100 years experience of environmental campaigning, public

information provision, producing educational resources and policy

formulation



This appears to me a sensible, balanced approach. Basically saying,

yes, fireworks are pollutants, and people who have a problem with

combustion products need to be aware of that and no, they aren't the

biggest polluting evil in society



http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595076027,00.html


2006\10\18@005307 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Oct 17, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Jinx wrote:

>
> http://www.nsca.org.uk/pages/environment_facts/firework_effects.cfm
>
>
There's also a well known study by Disney, concerning the pollution
levels in the "ponds" at DisneyXXX, over which they shoot something
like 300+ fireworks shows each year.

BillW

2006\10\18@082326 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jinx wrote:

> Seeing as I started it Gerhard ....

My comments were not so much directed at your starting post. That was more
like an "I don't like that page". But some of the follow-ups created in me
that strong feeling that the authors didn't really bring forward themselves
what they requested from the page author. Measuring with two different
meters.


> Now, if I can find this in 10 minutes with Google, why couldn't the
> author of that page, who seems way more interested and passionate about
> this than I am, do the same to prove his case?

See, this is where I think you may be misreading the page. You're right, he
seems to be passionate about it. But I don't know whether he has the level
of expertise (or general scientific knowledge, which can be considered
expertise) that's required to find and understand as being relevant what
you can find in 10 minutes. And I don't see anything on this page that
claims that. It looks to me very obviously as a collection of something he
found in a few tens of minutes of web research without understanding it
thoroughly, and the overall drift of the page is consistent with the
information in e.g. the Wikipedia article about fireworks.

Considering this, I don't really read in that page more than "fireworks are
more than just a nice view and some noise; those colors often come with
some nasty stuff, maybe you think a bit about it next time around -- here
are some buzzwords to get you started". This may not be well presented, the
presentation probably has some objective flaws too, but as you said, "the
message is probably valid, to a greater or lesser degree". Which is
something the later critics summarily dismissed, without any more factual
research than the page author. Which in my book is not a iota better or
more justified. Which was the reason of my post regarding this.


> I just know that Chris Conway has made more of a mess with his
> car and camp fires than I ever have with fireworks

Possibly. But do you really feel compelled to make that comparison? It's
not mentioned or implied in the page, and it's completely born out of your
own judgment, not the page author's. I at least don't see an allusion to
this in the page.

> But this isn't entirely about that particular page. It's about all lazy,
> emotional people who regurgitate poor information and half-truths

Besides a few core areas of interest, we're all pretty much lazy, emotional
people who regurgitate poor and poorly researched information, half-truths
and outright lies more often than we want to know. IMO.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireworks
>
> "Pollution" paragraph at bottom of page. Effects of fireworks, according
> to wiki, are debatable

Actually, the only thing that article explicitly says is "debatable" is the
effect on acid rain: "the net effect of fireworks on acid rain is
debatable." (So much about well researched :) Besides, saying that it is
debatable amounts to saying that there may be merit, otherwise it wouldn't
be debatable (I think?). And acid rain is only one issue among many others.
It lists a few of the other concerns (and says that these are argued by
fireworks supporters -- duh :).

In any case, one bad page about the issue has nothing to do with the merit
of the issue. Which is what I was writing about.


> http://www.nsca.org.uk/pages/environment_facts/firework_effects.cfm

Well, their mission statement doesn't really say who they work for and
with. Seems to me that they work a lot with the industry (and the
governmental regulation agencies who work with the industry lobbies), so
they probably do have their business interests somewhere in this. Just
because they say that they "promote a balanced and innovative approach"
doesn't make it so :)

In any case, without further information, neither their nor Wikipedia's
opinion is any more valid than an anonymous web page author's opinion. It's
the facts collected and the solid research conducted to support it that
makes an opinion more valid. And that's a long ways out, still. Which means
to me that anyone who doesn't have these facts and dismisses the issue
doesn't really act on facts, not anymore than the page author.


> Basically saying, yes, fireworks are pollutants, and people who have a
> problem with combustion products need to be aware of that and no, they
> aren't the biggest polluting evil in society

Sounds right to me. And sounds just about what the page is saying, in other
words. And sounds quite a bit different from what some of the page critics
wrote.

Take it that way: this page has triggered a discussion about the issue (and
some related issues). A number of people now know more about it than
before. Isn't that something good?

Gerhard

2006\10\18@085424 by Jinx

face picon face
> But I don't know whether he has the level of expertise (or general
> scientific knowledge, which can be considered expertise) that's
> required to find and understand as being relevant what you can find
> in 10 minutes

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about that particular page. It
says to me "Fireworks are pointless pollutants, ban them all now".
Yes, it's his opinion, but it's not a balanced page. If I were to take
the trouble (which I won't), I daresay I could produce either a
completely opposite argument or a point-by-point pros and cons

People (New Agers specifically) I've run into in the last couple of
weeks have obviously made me biased against what are loosely
termed "crackpots". As I've tried to explain to one lady, who has
the "Science is bad" attitude, lobbyists for any cause use selected
information to promote their own agendas. In many cases you can
follow the money to see what they're really hoping to achieve (eg
selling crystals, crop circle calendars, all those "wonderful cancer-
curing gizmos, Browns Gas generators etc)

I just get annoyed by hypocrites and quacks. Thankfully the PIClist
is a fairly balanced group. Maybe we balance each other ? I know
my deductive and investigative powers and patience have been
improved no end by being here

2006\10\18@113936 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Jinx,

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:03:27 +1300, Jinx wrote:

> Coming up to that time of year again. Sounds like this long-
> faced sandal-wearing tree-hugging misery-guts had his mail
> box blown up once too often

I think "Miserable git" just about sums him up!  I like the way he uses words like "unnecessary pollution" to distinguish it from what his car produces,
which he doesn't actually call "necessary pollution"!  :-)

Basically he doesn't like something, so he wants it banned.  There's all together too much of that sort of attitude - it should be banned!  :-)))

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\10\18@135111 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jinx wrote:

> I think we'll have to agree to disagree about that particular page. It
> says to me "Fireworks are pointless pollutants, ban them all now".

To you and to Howard: I was surprised when you wrote "ban fireworks". I
didn't read that in the page. And I went back and did a search, and there's
no mention of the word "ban". The closest to this are the three items under
"Take a Stand Against Fireworks", but they are far from requesting a ban.
Writing your officials and boycott firework displays are not really
intrusive suggestions.


> People (New Agers specifically) I've run into in the last couple of
> weeks have obviously made me biased against what are loosely
> termed "crackpots".

That can happen :)  But I don't think that what you find bad with that page
is restricted to or even can primarily be found in New Age and other
crackpots.

> lobbyists for any cause use selected information to promote their own
> agendas. In many cases you can follow the money to see what they're
> really hoping to achieve

Most companies and many (if not most) scientists do the same. This is not
restricted to selling crystals etc. I dare venture a guess that the
unbalanced lobbying efforts of "traditional" enterprises surpass the
unbalanced lobbying of New Age companies and individuals by a few
magnitudes (when measured in money spent, or in exposure to the general
public).


> I just get annoyed by hypocrites and quacks. Thankfully the PIClist is a
> fairly balanced group. Maybe we balance each other ? I know my deductive
> and investigative powers and patience have been improved no end by being
> here

Definitely :)  There are enough around that keep a cool head so that
usually issues sooner or later either die or get discussed decently.

Gerhard

2006\10\18@154937 by Denny Esterline

picon face
>  Maybe we balance each other ? I know
> my deductive and investigative powers and patience have been
> improved no end by being here



ABSOLUTLY!!

I have learned more from being on this list in the last few years than in
any of my college courses. Electronics obviously, but also topics as varied
as ANZAC to zoology, of course Rusell is responsible for more that a little
of that :-)


-Denny

2006\10\18@174016 by Jinx

face picon face
> To you and to Howard: I was surprised when you wrote "ban
> fireworks". I didn't read that in the page

Surely the intent is clear from the whole tone -

"If fireworks must go on ...."

ie, if he can't get his petulant way and somebody somewhere just
simply can't have a bit of fun without a sparkler or a rocket

I'm aware of campaigns, some successful, to ban fireworks but this
is the first time I've come across the pollution argument rather than
immediate safety (injury rather than poisoning) and fire. And I still
feel the pollution argument doesn't stack up

But there ya go, I've said my piece, and it was fun looking into stuff

2006\10\18@180413 by Jinx

face picon face
> > I just know that Chris Conway has made more of a mess with his
> > car and camp fires than I ever have with fireworks
>
> Possibly. But do you really feel compelled to make that comparison?

Well, yes. It's hypocritical. If he's making more pollution with a
car than I am with a bicycle and fireworks, then he cannot, to use
a buzz-phrase, "take the moral high ground". BTW I lost interest
in fireworks when I moved to NZ, a very long time ago, probably
longer than he's been alive. OK, this is picking on him personally
but most people are hypocritical, even if they accept that they are,
so he should give up the car

I was made aware of this site this morning, because of a Parliament
issue going on in NZ

http://www.petitiononline.com

You can find petitions to ban and save just about anything, including
fireworks

2006\10\19@093147 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jinx wrote:

> then he cannot, to use a buzz-phrase, "take the moral high ground".

I think we're getting to the bottom of the thing :)

I didn't feel that he was taking a moral high ground.

I'm parting a bit to somewhere else, but it is closely related to why I
don't feel that. Industrial mass-production has taken many things far away
from the consumer, and given people (including me of course) lots of things
in their hands that they don't have much connection with, not with the
production process and not with what's going on when using. The many
environmental problems we're having are a result of that, and so is the
almost uncontrolled proliferation of war material in poor countries, to
cite just two examples.

IMO it's worthwhile trying to say "there might be going on more than you
think there is". This is IMO not (necessarily) taking a moral high ground,
but rather a necessity of our living conditions. Something that doesn't
happen often enough.


> I was made aware of this site this morning, because of a Parliament
> issue going on in NZ
>
> http://www.petitiononline.com
>
> You can find petitions to ban and save just about anything, including
> fireworks

And just as many petitions to revoke bans of fireworks it seems :)

http://tinyurl.com/ygjapp

Anyway... one question is whether the fireworks are worth the wildfires
they inevitably cause in certain (dry) regions. One could try to fall back
to the personal responsibility principle, but that's difficult with
fireworks. How do you track the one piece that started the fire (if you
find it) to the person who launched it?

Gerhard

2006\10\19@113138 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Jinx,

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:04:19 +1300, Jinx wrote:

> http://www.petitiononline.com
>
> You can find petitions to ban and save just about anything,
> including fireworks

Interesting!  Nearly 17,000 people want to prevent some sort of political shenanagins by the New Zealand Parliament, but more than twice as many
want Google to have a commemorative logo on Scouting Day!  :-)

It's a funny old World...

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\10\19@121252 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> The many
> environmental problems we're having are a result of that, and
> so is the
> almost uncontrolled proliferation of war material in poor
> countries, to
> cite just two examples.

I totally sympathise with (much) more attention to those two issues.

> IMO it's worthwhile trying to say "there might be going on
> more than you think there is".

But the problem with the page we are talking about is that it seems to
claim (at least according to some readers, not including you) (much?)
more substance than it does when one takes a slightly better look. I
would not object to a page just stating that fireworks cause "a lot of
pollution", or a page giving reasonable estimates for the amount of each
pollutant. But this page seems to claim the 'subtantiality' of the
latter with the lack of attention to details of the first. That's what I
don't like about it.

You might say that it draws attention to a good cause, but I would
counter that it draws ptential attention away from better information
that serves the same good cause.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\10\19@144013 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> I would not object to a page just stating that fireworks cause "a lot of
> pollution", or a page giving reasonable estimates for the amount of each
> pollutant.

> You might say that it draws attention to a good cause, but I would
> counter that it draws ptential attention away from better information
> that serves the same good cause.

I agree. However, our discussion is a counter example for this :)  Neither
of the two other cases you imagined would have spurred that much
discussion.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...