Slashdot Mirror

The early 1980s.

First link on google. It's pretty obvious that getting an answer isn't why you posted here.

"It is estimated that the effects of NO 2 on mortality are equivalent to 23,500 deaths annually in the UK" -- UK dept. for environment and rural affairs https://consult.defra.gov.uk/a... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi...

"Volkswagen’s rigging of emissions tests for 11m cars means they may be responsible for nearly 1m tonnes of air pollution every year, roughly the same as the UK’s combined emissions for all power stations, vehicles, industry and agriculture, a Guardian analysis suggests." http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

no. no they're not.

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantVarieties/plantbreedersRights/

Plant Breeders' Rights offers legal protection for the investment plant breeders make in breeding and developing new varieties. This service is open to breeders of any species of plant; agricultural, horticultural and ornamental.

Breeders can choose whether or not to apply for plant breeders' rights, which enable them to charge royalties for protected varieties. Royalties provide a means for breeding companies to fund their work.

http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/plant-breeders-rights/

A PBR is legally enforceable and gives you, the owner, exclusive rights to commercially use it, sell it, direct the production, sale and distribution of it, and receive royalties from the sale of plants.

I think you need some political pressure to clean up those power plants then (also, I doubt there's the spare capacity anyway, so it should be in place before new plants are built).

I'm not sure whether it's from the EU or just the UK, but this seems to say 6 of the more polluting power plants in the UK will be / have closed by the end of 2015. The linked PDF shows the worst, producing 3.9GW, is permitted (under older rules) to produce 87ktpa (kilo-tonnes per annum?) of NOx. I've nothing to compare that number with.

This report has some graphs and figures for pollution more generally. Of the 1105kt NOx released in 2010, 336kt was from power generation and 370kt from road transport. Page 13 shows there's been a massive reduction in road transport NOx since 2000.

Well, paper is to a decent degree C12, though there's some C14 as it's organic. The toner was probably graphite, so C12 and C14 again. Amounts - well, all of it.

There are 2 links on the 2nd paragraph, 1 on the 4th and the rest are on the unordered list as part of the 5th.

No, those are NOT my demands. Bloody Flat-Earther. My demands, as you know damn well, were that you show me the paper YOU got YOUR claim from. I've shown what papers I've got mine from, not that any other person needed those links - they googled them on their own, using the information I had already provided. A skill you apparently have yet to learn.

Are you a Fox News reporter? They're the only ones THIS incompetent.

The 24 references are listed in another of my posts and you are quite capable of going to my profile, selecting from this topic and looking them up. You won't? Ohhhh, now THERE'S a surprise! Not bothering to read is something that should have been evident to anyone within a mile of this thread.

Oh, and for those others still bothering to read, polonium-210 is the only radioisotope weighing at 210 reported in the Sellafield area. (Why bother with the link? Well, it's handy for illustrating the difference in credibility. I *CAN* show links, you CANNOT.)

From the report

Climate Factor: Increase in average temperatures
Potential Impact: Location / density of wireless masts may become sub-optimal since wireless transmission is dependent upon temperature (refractive index)
Impact on quality of radio-frequency propagation if vegetation type changes in response to climate

Towards the end, there's a discussion of how the wireless network on some Scottish rail lines was damaged by an Ice Storm-- which was of course, attributed to Climate Change. But the concerns over antenna density aren't specifically about 802.11.

I'm trying to get the clearest objective picture I can about what's going on the food industry, and it doesn't look pretty. Sorry. I'm sure you have access to information that I don't, and follow these things more closely. I rely on reports by journalists, researchers, government agencies, and activists who also have access to information that I don't, and who also follow these things more closely than I do. Just because I'm not in the field doesn't mean I can't try to find what's going on and form an opinion. I will see if I can find the Journal of Dairy Science report you're talking about.

Anyway, you can accuse me of FUD, but there are real, serious, and ongoing health consequences to food industry practices:
* Mad Cow Disease: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3355625.stm
* E Coli in Spinach: http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/4198816.html
* Salmonella in Eggs: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/business/23eggs.html?_r=1&ref=business

People die when industry cuts corners and regulatory agencies don't do their job.

More of my resources:
* Agricultural Antibiotic Use Contributes To 'Super-Bugs' In Humans - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705010900.htm
* Denmark's Case for Antibiotic-Free Animals - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/10/eveningnews/main6195054.shtml
* The above article cites Professor Ellen Silbergeld - http://faculty.jhsph.edu/Default.cfm?faculty_id=648
* The true cost of cheap chicken - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-true-cost-of-cheap-chicken-768062.html
* Agriculture Pollution report from Defra (UK government) - http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/landmanage/water/csf/index.htm
* Wikipedia page on Factory Farming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farming

Activists (I am listing them separately, to be fair):
* http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp
* http://www.ciwf.org.uk/
* http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/
* http://www.iowasource.com/health/CAFO_airqu_0805.html
* Food, Inc. (movie)
* Ominvore's Dillemma, Michael Pollan
* Eating Animals, Michael Safran Foer

A week ago the UK government published a proposal for further controlling dangerous dogs. Mention is made of compulsory insurance, microchipping and a database of owner's details, but there is no mention at all of a DNA database, even a proposed one.

By American standards, huge areas of the UK are "one big city". The distances between settlements are much smaller here, for a lot of the country a small village will be within 5 miles of a town of 10,000 or more.

There are some maps of England and Wales here: http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/strategy/annex_a.htm
I don't quite understand the way it's worked out, but Figure 2 shows places the government considers rural (sparse) in blue. There aren't many. Imagine doing that to the USA.

A few statistics:
Population density of England: 392/km^2
Population density of New York State: 158/km^2
Population density of Rhode Island: 390/km^2
Only New Jersey is more densely populated than England.

Scotland is a lot less populated.

More or less. I used to monitor the operations of the DuPont (now Invista) nylon Common Offgas Abatement Unit in the UK. See page 15 of http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/2000/pdf/section5.pdf for an overview. As part of the work, we got set annually decreasing emissions targets which we had to meet. If you emitted less than them, you could sell the difference as credits. If you missed the targets, you had to either buy credits to make up for the difference, or shut down for the rest of the year. And the targets would be pro rated to the actual production rate so you couldn't just slow down production.

By having a free market for the trading of credits, a company can buy them to hedge the cost of reducing pollution, or even make it a profit centre where the cost of emission reduction is less than the cost of credits, as you can then sell the difference. Even if the net cost of reduction is still positive for the company, this may help to make a reduction project economical for other reasons - pollution represents wasted energy and materials that would be better used productively.

Since starting emissions trading in Europe, the price of credits has fallen dramatically indicating that the scheme is more successful than expected - the price will at equilibrium be equal to the average cost of plant changes resulting in reducing pollution by the same amount. As the year-on-year targets get stricter, this shows that pollution reduction continues, as otherwise supply would dry up and demand would increase.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/glo batmos/gagccukem.htm

Read, most people are using alot more gadgets in the home but greenhouse emissions have fallen below 1990 levels for the uk. We will be missing our carbon emission target but the usuage hasn't gone up in the last fifteen years. Its possible but it involves forcing things in america which are unpopular. An idea which occurs to me is increasing the fuel tax, as it would encourages people to own fuel efficent cars. In the uk the land rover doing 17MPG is a disgrace, 30MPG is low and most people (I know) own or try to own 50-60MPG cars. Suddenly your dropping carbon emissions because cars don't require as much fuel. Then you have a surplus of money (from increased fuel tax) which you spend on enviromental incentives (changing cars over to gas, subsidising solar panels,etc...)Thats just an idea of the top of my head and probably has some holes in it.

The point is decreasing greenhouse emissions doesn't mean a decrease in energy, it means a more efficent use of the resource generating that energy and it means using newer technologies which use alternative processes/fuel that don't produce greenhouse gases.

Presumably, if it was a brain you'd be looking for, they'd need two sheeple, 'cos two brains ... oh forget it!

... and why is it sheeple and not peep?

That sounds like a 70's detective series ... Sheeple and Peep

Euan Sheeple and Daffyd Peep are detectives with DEFRA, never more than a velcro glove away from ovine controversy.

The British environment agency have conducted a study into the declining populations of these birds in the UK.

All you need to do is the reverse of what is suggested in this report, e.g. eliminate all grassland from arable farming areas and they will soon die off.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/respr og/findings/sparrow/execsumm.pdf

The problem with GM food is that it isn't necessarily sterile. So GM corn can spread its cold resistant salmon gene to traditional maize crops raised in nearby fields.

Also, note that plants that are GM resistant to certain herbicides can pass on genes of resistance to closely related plants and as such the genes could tranfers from closely related plant to closely related plant until there is no benefit for the original crop the GM was intended for. YOU NEVER GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING AND YING AND YANG SEEM TO RULE THE NATURAL WORLD.

We in fact know very little of protein folding and the effects it can have on function. Look at Mad Cow disease. That is a prion whose ill effects can take quite a long time to manifest themselves. Lets say that lab induced genetic modifications do not have the safe guards natural selection or even natural breeding have. How long and how many people will be sick from eating a tainted GM soybean related product?

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/pd f/epg_1-5-151.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,15 35428,00.html

Here's a basic google search that yields pro and con views for GM. I see no benefit to GM foods when I'm eating very well as it is today.

http://www.google.com/search?q=genetically+modifie d+herbicide&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&start=10 &sa=N

Town planning can't reduce noise? Are you serious?

Hmmmmn, I'm not a town planner but I'd say having a good underground transport system (meaning less road traffic), combined with housing zoned away from road traffic will reduce noise. Most pollution comes from road traffic, so that will be incidentally reduced too.

Do you not agree? Perhaps have a read of this Town Planning report if you still disagree.

The quarantine for your dogs is avoidable. There's a UK program called the Pet Travel Scheme (used to be called passports for pets) that lets your pet avoid the quarantine by getting a tiny (externally scannable) ID chip injected under the skin and then getting vaccinated for rabies (has to be after the chip insertion). It will require you to plan ahead by 6+ months, though.

The website is here:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/quarantine/index.h tm

The chip is harmless - it's about the size of a grain of rice, and your dog won't notice. We had our cat done, and it showed no reaction/behavior afterwards of being aware of it.

Actually our greenhouse emissions are reducing, just not as fast as they should. In fact the UK is closer to meeting its Kyoto obligations than almost all other EU countries. And our emissions are around a quarter of the per person emissions in the USA.

Do you believe everything your government tells you?

While quite a rosy picture is being painted by defra, it appears they have been forgetting to include boats and planes in their emmission counts. Oops.

I agree that the UK is generally better then the US. But that's not something I'd be particularly proud of.

> The point is, public transport just isn't available in a very large portion of the US.

No - the point is that the US (as a whole) has made a choice to live an energy-inefficient lifestyle.

You're "forced" to live far from work because of the size and luxury of house/apartment you culturally expect. Most other nations live in more modest dwellings, and hence use their land (and heat/AC) more efficiently. By contrast, the US is built on the assumption of cheap land and cheap energy, with the car allowing the latter to be used to exploit the former. Due to this cultural bias towards the car---which quite honestly has had a symbolic appeal (freedom/individuality) far outside its usefulness in the US for decades---more efficient systems such as passenger rail are not seriously considered.

It's worth noting, though, that about 80% of Americans do live in urban areas---which is the same fraction as in the UK---so most of your attempts to draw contrasts between the two countries are little more than red herrings.

So efficient options like public transit aren't predicated on living in a "tiny country" - they're predicated on public policy makers choosing efficient options. The US - perhaps because of its historical wealth - has done so to a lesser extent than many other industrialized countries. Trying to argue that it can't, though, is simply nonsensical - the near-identical urban-rural demographics between the US and European countries skewers that falsehood.

Press release from energy saving trust

and they cite Defra's Market Transformation Programme as their source..

The article this may be based on quite old stuff, though so is the Grauniad article itself. One NERC press release dates back to 2003, while the news article is dated July 25th.

NERC seems to run the lab mentioned, they are here: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/
Defra also has a site about the long term tests: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse/

rd

rd

Uhh, I call foul to your claims.

I call foul on your figures first. Emission levels are here. The carbon emissions for a modern coal-fired plant are 263gC/kWh. You are claiming 920gC/kWh. To compare, an oil-fired plant is 213gC/kWh and a gas-fired plant is 113gC/kWh! This is one THIRD of the Mazda 626's 350gC/kWh. I expect there's a mistake in your calculations.

But the problems in your argument aren't over. You're comparing coal-fired power plants against an oil-fueled 626! Coal is a poor alternative to oil. Energy densities here. Coal is at best 31MJ/kg. Oil is at worst 41MJ/kg. Gasoline in your 626 is 45MJ/kg. These energy densities influence CO2 emissions. To use a tired cliche, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Also I call foul with your conclusion. You only compared CO2 emissions per kWh and then concluded that the EV1 has better mileage!? If you want to compare mileage then you need to use the same fuels in the two cars and the plant and concentrate on the miles travelled!

But let's do some napkin calculations to get a feeling for "mileage". The electrical transport cost of overhead powerlines is less than 10%. Motors are 95% efficient. The best gas-fired plants are now exceeding 50% efficiency. So the fuel->wheel efficiency is 43%. Even the most efficient diesel generators as used on hybrids are less than 40% efficient. Cars range between 25% and 35% with petrol. So the plants use fuel more efficiently and therefore have the better "mileage".

We can also do some napkin calculations for cost. Cost calculator here. A car will typically cost 3x more per kWh than the plant. This is because plants get huge economies of scale and use much cheaper fuels. Cost alone proves nothing but combined with my previous arguments it proves that purely electric vehicles - not hybrids - are the best choice.