A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FLU



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old November 28th 17, 07:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,966
Default 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  
Old November 28th 17, 07:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,966
Default 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  
Old November 28th 17, 08:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,204
Default 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  
Old November 28th 17, 08:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,149
Default 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  
Old November 28th 17, 09:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,204
Default 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  
Old November 28th 17, 09:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,966
Default 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  
Old November 28th 17, 09:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,204
Default 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/
  #68  
Old November 29th 17, 12:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default FLU

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:57:35 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/27/2017 6:43 PM, 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. 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.

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.


Grant? I always just paid up and left.


Ah, but when you get a "grant" someone else pays :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #69  
Old November 29th 17, 12:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default 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  
Old November 29th 17, 01:15 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.