#61
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On 11/28/2017 10:43 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-27 16:03, Frank Krygowski wrote: What you don't seem to understand is that smelling a diesel is not equivalent to ingesting a significant amount of pollution. They are identical only in your imagination. One of your biggest logical problems is equating your imagination with actual fact. You stumble over that time and again. When you can smell it then it goes into your lungs unless you stop breathing. Which is hard to do uphill on a bicycle. It's simple. No, it's simplistic. There is a big difference between "simple" and "simplistic." Look it up. What I don't accept are opinions whose source are just a paranoid's imagination. Then keep riding on roads. It's your lungs, not mine. I will keep riding on roads, as I have done for well over 60 years now. And I hope everyone else also ignores your paranoid "Danger! Danger!" crap. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On 11/28/2017 12:11 PM, Joerg wrote:
I don't need studies. Of course not. You've got your imagination. It's all you listen to. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On 2017-11-28 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/28/2017 10:43 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-27 16:03, Frank Krygowski wrote: What you don't seem to understand is that smelling a diesel is not equivalent to ingesting a significant amount of pollution. They are identical only in your imagination. One of your biggest logical problems is equating your imagination with actual fact. You stumble over that time and again. When you can smell it then it goes into your lungs unless you stop breathing. Which is hard to do uphill on a bicycle. It's simple. No, it's simplistic. There is a big difference between "simple" and "simplistic." Look it up. It is simple. Fumes (mostly Diesel soot) - air - cyclist - lungs. What I don't accept are opinions whose source are just a paranoid's imagination. Then keep riding on roads. It's your lungs, not mine. I will keep riding on roads, as I have done for well over 60 years now. And I hope everyone else also ignores your paranoid "Danger! Danger!" crap. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ike-blog#img-2 I know, this doesn't truly exist in your world and will never go into the lungs with the head stuck in the sand. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 12:10:06 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-28 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/28/2017 10:43 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-27 16:03, Frank Krygowski wrote: What you don't seem to understand is that smelling a diesel is not equivalent to ingesting a significant amount of pollution. They are identical only in your imagination. One of your biggest logical problems is equating your imagination with actual fact. You stumble over that time and again. When you can smell it then it goes into your lungs unless you stop breathing. Which is hard to do uphill on a bicycle. It's simple. No, it's simplistic. There is a big difference between "simple" and "simplistic." Look it up. It is simple. Fumes (mostly Diesel soot) - air - cyclist - lungs. What I don't accept are opinions whose source are just a paranoid's imagination. Then keep riding on roads. It's your lungs, not mine. I will keep riding on roads, as I have done for well over 60 years now. And I hope everyone else also ignores your paranoid "Danger! Danger!" crap. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ike-blog#img-2 I know, this doesn't truly exist in your world and will never go into the lungs with the head stuck in the sand. Odd arguments from someone who takes pride in burning real wood for his BBQ and who uses a wood stove. I bet you inhale more particulates than I do -- and I ride on the super-dangerous, smoke filled roads in my city hell. https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/wood-smoke BTW, Portland air is better than Folsom air today. https://airnow.gov/index..cfm?action...30& submit=Go No data for Cameron Park, which is probably way worse based on its over-all super-dangerousness. And look at the forecast for Folsom . . . trending toward "moderate." "Health Message: Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion." Guess those guys in bicycle paradise shouldn't be riding.. For my zipcode: "good." "Health Message: None." I can ride without fear of respiratory disease! -- Jay Beattie. -- Jay Beattie. -- Jay Beattie. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On 2017-11-28 12:59, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 12:10:06 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-28 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/28/2017 10:43 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-27 16:03, Frank Krygowski wrote: What you don't seem to understand is that smelling a diesel is not equivalent to ingesting a significant amount of pollution. They are identical only in your imagination. One of your biggest logical problems is equating your imagination with actual fact. You stumble over that time and again. When you can smell it then it goes into your lungs unless you stop breathing. Which is hard to do uphill on a bicycle. It's simple. No, it's simplistic. There is a big difference between "simple" and "simplistic." Look it up. It is simple. Fumes (mostly Diesel soot) - air - cyclist - lungs. What I don't accept are opinions whose source are just a paranoid's imagination. Then keep riding on roads. It's your lungs, not mine. I will keep riding on roads, as I have done for well over 60 years now. And I hope everyone else also ignores your paranoid "Danger! Danger!" crap. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ike-blog#img-2 I know, this doesn't truly exist in your world and will never go into the lungs with the head stuck in the sand. Odd arguments from someone who takes pride in burning real wood for his BBQ and who uses a wood stove. Nope. As I wrote before we have an EPA-approved very clea buring wood stove. This is its yuonger brother, ours is even lower in particles: http://www.quadrafire.com/Products/3...od-Insert.aspx When it burns and is operated correctly you can't smell a thing and there is no smoke. Unlike on our dog walk when the school bus goes by. ... I bet you inhale more particulates than I do -- and I ride on the super-dangerous, smoke filled roads in my city hell. https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/wood-smoke BTW, Portland air is better than Folsom air today. https://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=...30&s ubmit=Go No surprise. Flsom is in the valley and they get all the crud from Sacramento and the Silicon Valley. No data for Cameron Park, which is probably way worse based on its over-all super-dangerousness. Usually much cleaner than the valley unless there are forest fires. This is Los Angeles but when I reach the last peak before I let the road bike roll down towards the valley my view is similar, brown soup over the city yet clear where I am: https://www.ccair.org/wp-content/upl...10/LA-smog.jpg One of the many reasons I do not want to live (or even work) in a city. People in cities get so used to it they don't even notice. My comeuppance was when I returned from a job in Aberdeen (Scotland) to Duesseldorf (Germany). That is when I realized how unclean the air is near the river Rhine where the large cities are. And look at the forecast for Folsom . . . trending toward "moderate." "Health Message: Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion." Guess those guys in bicycle paradise shouldn't be riding. For my zipcode: "good." "Health Message: None." I can ride without fear of respiratory disease! In city traffic with Diesel engines and all? Dream on. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On 11/28/2017 3:10 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-28 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/28/2017 10:43 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-27 16:03, Frank Krygowski wrote: What you don't seem to understand is that smelling a diesel is not equivalent to ingesting a significant amount of pollution. They are identical only in your imagination. One of your biggest logical problems is equating your imagination with actual fact. You stumble over that time and again. When you can smell it then it goes into your lungs unless you stop breathing. Which is hard to do uphill on a bicycle. It's simple. No, it's simplistic. There is a big difference between "simple" and "simplistic." Look it up. It is simple. Fumes (mostly Diesel soot) - air - cyclist - lungs. What I don't accept are opinions whose source are just a paranoid's imagination. Then keep riding on roads. It's your lungs, not mine. I will keep riding on roads, as I have done for well over 60 years now. And I hope everyone else also ignores your paranoid "Danger! Danger!" crap. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ike-blog#img-2 I know, this doesn't truly exist in your world and will never go into the lungs with the head stuck in the sand. Wow, you're a deceptive character you are! Let's look at the entire article, shall we? See https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ists-bike-blog Some quotes, for those who don't care to read the entire article: "Cycling does remain many, many times better for your health than not cycling, even factoring in exposure to pollution and the risk of accident. What’s more surprising is that on two wheels you might even be exposed to less of the smelly stuff than those using other forms of transport." Also: "Barrett stresses this was no more than an illustrative demonstration study, but the graph of cumulative exposure is nonetheless interesting, with the cycle courier encountering the SECOND-LEAST amount of less black carbon overall, and being exposed to less than the ambulance driver during work hours as a proportion of the total day." [Emphasis mine] And "... it does seem that cycling helps dissipate smog through movement in the open: A lot of it is about ventilation, and the cycle courier is in a big, open air room, whereas the ambulance driver is in an enclosed box." And "So, as a cyclist, what can you do to limit your exposure? One simple idea is to take quieter back streets, where the concentration of some pollutants can be considerably lower than on main roads." (Which is precisely what I was saying, and precisely what I did on the eleven mile utility ride I just completed.) Finally, what you, Joerg, usually fail to understand: "As ever, all this needs to be placed in context. And the context is clear: CYCLING IS, ON BALANCE, VERY GOOD FOR YOU EVEN IN BIG CITIES. [Again, emphasis mine] "A study last week in the British Medical Journal said London’s hire bike scheme had brought a clear net benefit to health, as activity outweighed the risks from pollution or crashes. An earlier study on Barcelona’s equivalent bike hire scheme, published in the British Medical Journal, estimated the system saved the city an average of more than 12 lives a year overall." Joerg, I know you'll never quit the "Danger! Danger!" crap. I'm just trying to make sure nobody actually believes you. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On 2017-11-28 13:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/28/2017 3:10 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-28 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/28/2017 10:43 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-27 16:03, Frank Krygowski wrote: What you don't seem to understand is that smelling a diesel is not equivalent to ingesting a significant amount of pollution. They are identical only in your imagination. One of your biggest logical problems is equating your imagination with actual fact. You stumble over that time and again. When you can smell it then it goes into your lungs unless you stop breathing. Which is hard to do uphill on a bicycle. It's simple. No, it's simplistic. There is a big difference between "simple" and "simplistic." Look it up. It is simple. Fumes (mostly Diesel soot) - air - cyclist - lungs. What I don't accept are opinions whose source are just a paranoid's imagination. Then keep riding on roads. It's your lungs, not mine. I will keep riding on roads, as I have done for well over 60 years now. And I hope everyone else also ignores your paranoid "Danger! Danger!" crap. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ike-blog#img-2 I know, this doesn't truly exist in your world and will never go into the lungs with the head stuck in the sand. Wow, you're a deceptive character you are! Let's look at the entire article, shall we? See https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ists-bike-blog Some quotes, for those who don't care to read the entire article: "Cycling does remain many, many times better for your health than not cycling, even factoring in exposure to pollution and the risk of accident. I never disputed that. What I am saying is that a cyclist on heavily traveled roads breathes in lots of bad stuff. What’s more surprising is that on two wheels you might even be exposed to less of the smelly stuff than those using other forms of transport." Highly doubtful. If you test against a 1960's VW Beetle, yes. Against a new car with air filter, no. Also: "Barrett stresses this was no more than an illustrative demonstration study, but the graph of cumulative exposure is nonetheless interesting, with the cycle courier encountering the SECOND-LEAST amount of less black carbon overall, and being exposed to less than the ambulance driver during work hours as a proportion of the total day." [Emphasis mine] And "... it does seem that cycling helps dissipate smog through movement in the open: A lot of it is about ventilation, and the cycle courier is in a big, open air room, whereas the ambulance driver is in an enclosed box." And "So, as a cyclist, what can you do to limit your exposure? One simple idea is to take quieter back streets, where the concentration of some pollutants can be considerably lower than on main roads." (Which is precisely what I was saying, and precisely what I did on the eleven mile utility ride I just completed.) What I was saying is way better: Bike paths and singletrack. That usually gets you the lowest pollution. Finally, what you, Joerg, usually fail to understand: "As ever, all this needs to be placed in context. And the context is clear: CYCLING IS, ON BALANCE, VERY GOOD FOR YOU EVEN IN BIG CITIES. [Again, emphasis mine] Think about you emphasized word "EVEN". Riding on separate bike paths gets you out of the plume and this into much more healthy riding. "A study last week in the British Medical Journal said London’s hire bike scheme had brought a clear net benefit to health, as activity outweighed the risks from pollution or crashes. An earlier study on Barcelona’s equivalent bike hire scheme, published in the British Medical Journal, estimated the system saved the city an average of more than 12 lives a year overall." Joerg, I know you'll never quit the "Danger! Danger!" crap. I'm just trying to make sure nobody actually believes you. I don't care whether you believe me. I make sure my rides use as much non-road sections as possible. The #1 reason is the greatly improved safety and the #2 reason is the lower pollution I am exposed to. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:50:41 -0800, Joerg
wrote: On 2017-11-27 16:21, John B. wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:16:19 -0800, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-27 12:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-26 18:57, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/26/2017 12:29 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-26 09:16, AMuzi wrote: This is a false dichotomy in that all of it can be true and likely is. Choice is good, neither city nor rural life being perfect and humans being by their nature a diverse lot. Though as humans we need to recognize when we are damaging our bodies and the denser the area the more that will happen. This is also why I'll never understand people who say "Away with cycle paths, bicycles belong on the road". I find that, sorry to say, stupid. Why would anyone in their right mind want to travel alongside noisy and polluting combustion engines buzzing by? Another false dichotomy. Riding on the road does not mean ingesting significant pollution. Several studies have shown that even in city traffic, cyclists ingest less pollution than motor vehicle operators. Other studies have shown that bicycle commuters live far longer than those commuting by other means. Ah yes, you have a magic energy shield around you so the fumes part right in front of your face. Phhht. I can literally smell just about any Diesel that comes by. Cars have HEPA filters and a cocoon-like innard in whcih the operator resideth, bicycles ... don't. IOW, "Don't bother me with scientific studies. My own imagination is infallible." That goes for you. When have you last seen a bicycle with a HEPA filter? Do you know what a HEPA filter is? Besides, almost all of my riding involves relatively little traffic even though I rarely use bike paths. I enjoy riding quiet roads, where I may be passed by fewer than 20 cars per hour. But even on utility trips in the city or its suburbs, I can usually choose quieter streets. On our runs to the grocery store, we choose a route that gives us six miles round trip. We'll typically be passed by only a dozen cars. Good luck trying that where a metropolis is 30mi or closer. I sometimes have to ride during rush our and then it's almost bumper to bumper. Oh dear, you poor baby! Imagine! Sometimes having to ride in rush hour! But I'm sure you've convinced those in power to add a completely separate bike facility along all of your routes, right? After all, you seem to think that's the only solution to your problem. It is the only environmentally friendly one. The other solution is to use the car. Oh - and I'm sure your completely separate bike paths will be hermetically sealed, and given their own supply of filtered and purified air, right? It wouldn't do to have them downwind from some cars. One can't be too careful! The one I took on Friday does come close to roads and even ... gasp ... Highway 50 at one spot where you can hear faint vroom vroom sounds. Smells? Pine needle scent, foliage, earth, and oo, the occasionally horse poop. I rather smell horse poop than the soot from a big Diesel. You might be so city-addicted that you don't notice the difference but I sure do. Quite the opposite I would say. and, yes, I grew up in a rural environment so I am familiar with all the smells that exist "out in the country". But to those who actually reside in that environment don't even notice them, they are part of the normal atmosphere. It is only the city slickers who comment on "Oh... Smell the pine trees. Of course there is an odor of pine trees, there ought to be as all you can see is pine trees for miles around. Your comment about smelling "horse poop" is a dead giveaway. The correct term is "horse manure" and it is a normal part of the rural atmosphere, or at least the normal rural atmosphere in areas where horses are kept. In other areas it might be cow manure or chicken manure and is a perfectly normal part of the environment where those critters are raised. As a little kid I grew up in farm country. Scientifically correct expressions such as manure are mostly used by upscale folks that don't live there. Locals call it poop or ****. Which is what it is. Sometimes dung but that can already be seen as a frou-frou expression :-) Strange comment. At least in my experience. I never heard the term "**** spreader" used, they were called "manure spreaders". No one referred to a "poop pile" out back of the barn, it was a "manure pile". To take it a bit further I remember the term "manure the field" used, even in polite conversation but I certainly never heard "**** the field" used in any context. I think you are making things up..... a term used in polite company to indicate the person in question is telling lies. You remind me of the city folk that pay extra to buy the "organic" vegetables that are grown in a chemical free environment... so you can be sure that none of those nasty nitrogen rich chemicals are never, never used. You have the wrong impression there. And no, I do not eat kale. I can't stand kale. Kale? How did kale get into the conversation? What you do to maintain the chemicals necessary to support plant life is spread "natural" fertilizers... i.e. manure on the farm land. Yes, cow dung. BTDT. Nope. Any type of manure although I seem to remember that chicken manure was used with some caution as it tended to "burn the field" as the old folks described it and chicken manure does have the highest amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium of common farm manures so perhaps they did know what they were talking about. So (to be a bit vulgar) first you grow the veggies in **** and then you charge the city folks extra for doing so :-) That's what they did where I grew up. They also sold the **** itself to city dwellers to fertilize their flower beds. That must have been noticed by investment bankers who, as Jay put it, sold "**** parfait" in the shape of bundled mortgage "securities" except that those eventually blew up. You equate spreading manure on flower plants with spreading it on vegetables and then selling them for a higher price because they are "organic"? You know, that really says something about intelligence levels of the city folks who buy the stuff doesn't it. -- Cheers, John B. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
FLU
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:11:02 -0800, Joerg
wrote: On 2017-11-27 16:43, John B. wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:38:07 -0800, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-26 16:08, John B. wrote: On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 08:07:27 -0800, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-26 07:18, AMuzi wrote: On 11/25/2017 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-11-25 12:51, wrote: On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-7, wrote: the foil joke may prevent you from arranging with/into your environment try this ... if foil was a component then why not .... ? J this is an older German architectural/psych concept: terracotta buildings are healthier than steel reinforced concrete ...a much larger off the ground scale I cannot locate current info on the net Steel re-enforced in most cases means some big residential highrise in a congested area. No wonder that those people are or feel less healthy. I have never understood the desire of city folk to cram together like sardines in a can. Try an intro Anthropology book some time. Before The Inter Webs, close proximity promoted exchange of ideas and specialization of effort. Still does to some extent. It does, though specialization is not always a good thing. It results, for example, in people who can't even fix a flat. Their tool of fixing just about anything is the yellow pages. As for health, dense living results in lot of civilization diseases, higher stress levels and nowadays lung diseases because of pollution. Probably also more cancer. Just about every time I reach the top of the last hill to ride into the Sacramento Valley I see that brownish smog line and I am thankful not to have to live down there. Other times I can literally smell it. I'm not so sure about the higher stress levels. I grew in a rural village in New England and have lived in cities like Miami Fl, Tokyo, Japan, Jakarta Indonesia and Bangkok Thailand and to be frank I have never felt any stress from living in cities. Such stress is often subconscious and not openly felt but it's there. Honking, screeching tires, hustle and bustle, police sirens, general traffic noise in the city ... versus tranquility, bird chirping, gentle leaf rustling, rooster crowing in the country. It has been studied scientifically many times. Quite obviously you have never really lived in the country. Honking, screeching, indeed. What you have in the country is roosters that get up before daylight to proclaim their rights to the big manure pile that they claim as their fief. The cows bellowing to be milked... Good Lord, the pressures! If you do go to town you have the be careful to be back for milking time. No sleeping in on weekends the cows got to be milked and the chickens fed and the eggs gathered. ... All very regular patterns, unlike much of the stuff going in cities. You are making things up again. Being woken up at first rooster crow, before the sun comes up, may be a regular pattern but not particularly a pleasant one. Or not being able to leave the farm for more then twelve hours because you have to do the milking? You don't even want to stay up to watch the "Late Show" on the tellie as those damned roosters don't sleep late. ... No two weeks vacation either, you got to get the plowing done and the garden in or there won't be anything to eat next winter. Hint: Agricultural things have progressed quite well since you were a kid. Nowadays they have GPS controlled combines which can be operated by staff and not only the owner of the farm. Sure. Combine harvesting has been going on even longer then I've been around and they are expensive, which is why you seldom see one in the normal farmer's inventory. But what you don't think about is that to be economical combine harvesting can only be used in large fields that are relatively flat have straight boundaries. It isn't effective in fields that are irregular in shape or are not relatively flat. And sure studies are made of the pressures of city life... All you need to do is write up a good proposal and get the grant and away you go. A government funded study. We get them over here. Every few years you see an article in the Bangkok newspaper about someone that got yet another grant to study "Prostitution in Thailand". So ignoring the fact that prostitution have been studied innumerable times in the past some bloke gets a grant to study them once again. Having lived in the country and in the city, I don't need studies. I know and made my choices accordingly. Interestingly my wife who grew up in a huge city sees it the same way. She would never move back there. Well yes, the best of both worlds. Out of the built up areas and still close enough that one can drive into town for shows and shopping. One might call it the dilettante life style. -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|