Is there any way to include Sulfate Aerosols into the exhaust of high-altitude aircraft?
As background, major volcanic eruptions have always led to periods of global cooling, according to the sulfates that they pump into the high atmosphere.
There have been several proposals to artificially pump sulfates into the high atmosphere to reverse, and control global warming.
On the other hand, aircraft are there all the time, so why not just use them?
Who are 'these people'?
Bollocks on your statistics - I'm too tired to quote the real figures, but if you're really interested, then trawl through the comments.
Silly self-righteous westerner.
No dude, beauty and church are irrelevant, although nicely (in the old sense) emotive.
'Illegal', 'Mexican' are obviously how you deliberately don't see yourself, which, according to many preachings, is precisely how you see yourself.
Now to the heart of it. Driving the wrong way down a highway is suicidal. Failure to recognise a vehicle driving the wrong way down a highway towards you is suicidal.
Alcohol? Sure, it helps some people do stupid things.
Murder? Hardly. I have driven a motorbike for close on 30 years now, and I could accuse most of society of murderous intent, by the same standards.
And seriously, civil disobedience is called for in your case. You're a drunken driver - you might as well prove it somehow.
Hell, you may as well be black.
No truth. Fact is, I am 46, born in a 3rd world country with horrible accident statistics.
Here we take responsibility for ourselves. We accept when we fuck up, and we accept that life is both cheap and precious.
We don't look to silly 'rational' metrics to control our society. Here, even the police are just normal people, with their own problems and agendas.
I have driven drunk regularly now for 28 years. For some reason, when I was very young, I ended up driving everyone around (in their own cars) when we were out carousing.
I have never crashed. I was only once caught in a road block, with BAC 0.25. At the time my car was difficult to drive (sticking brake pedal), and they let me go after I demonstrated how to drive it properly.
As a parent, I would hate my children to be subject to infantile legislation. Remember - any law you endorse will be suffered by your children, and perhaps your children's children.
Good, you read it. So regular drinking is good for health, including reduced crash risk. And sure, guilty people are more likely to lie for their own perceived benefit.
Fact remains, teetotalers are more of a risk on the roads than drinkers, including drinkers driving drunk.
So, how do we legislate 'fairly'?
Many countries have a zero tolerance policy to alcohol. Full stop. They include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and other hardline muslim states. If you are interested, you will note (wikipedia is your friend), that their road fatalities are substantially greater than most western countries. Even though you will lose a limb for even being drunk, let alone driving drunk.
Hell, by the same empiricism, let's put all women in gaol. Let's put all young and old people in gaol.Let's put all teetotalers in gaol. Let's put all caucasians in gaol. All of those are empirically more likely to crash than the general population.
Those who drive stupid (or, more precisely, uneducated) demonstrate, empirically, that they have no regard for others: http://www.dunlapandassociates.... So, yes, let's put all non-college graduates in gaol.
Fact is, from http://www.dunlapandassociates...: regular heavy drinkers (5+ drinks per 'setting') have a significantly lower crash risk than the general population - see table on page 48, discussion on top of page 49, and re-assessment on page 53. Our society is driven by religious bigots.
Don't be a pussy. I agreed to stop drinking for my wife, then it turned out some of my kids weren't mine after all.
Make you own peace, but don't buckle down unless you have to.
Reality, dude. Like you, I am a serial teetotaler, high functioning IT person.
Always drove drunk. Always will, unless I think I can get caught. Never crashed. Never hurt anyone. Been driving drunk 28 years now, with sober interludes.
So fuck them.
Attempting to control people will only lead to rebellion, particularly with young people.
I lost two young friends to a head-on accident. Sober. Young as in 20-odd. 25 years ago.
There is no safe level to drive, emotionally, psychologically, whatever. Most fatal accidents are 'caused' by sober drivers. Young folk will do what they need to. It is up to us to keep them as safe as we can. And legislation will not achieve that.
I just drove drunk again. Drank two bottles of wine, drove to the pub, drank some more, and then drove to my sweetheart and back.
Yet again, I failed to kill anyone.
My bad. I'll perhaps try harder next time.
All you do-gooders out there: get a life! Reality will hit you in the face however you try to protect it. I am 46, been driving a car and a motorbike drunk and sober, never crashed. Ever. Being sober will not protect you. Being aware will.
And incidentally, I reckon the guy that crashed the car had been drinking more than one drink.
Why is everyone else protecting him? Just because he was the poor sucker in that joyful situation that ended up driving the car.
Um yes, but your conception of humanity is different to mine.
Young people like to take risks. Why? Because if you don't, then you are unlikely to attract the person you want as a sexual partner.
There is no 'supposed to' or 'right' or 'wrong'. Trying to impose draconian rules on youngsters will only result in more atrocious rebellion. Trust me, I have six children, four of which are now in their teenage years.
People make mistakes, for all sorts of reasons.
And shit happens. There is no truly safe place.
Young man trying to impress? Who knows? We weren't there.
Was sex a factor in the incident?
There are many studies that show that, all other things being equal, low levels of intoxication (and a single drink certainly qualifies) are associated with reduced risk of accident.
There are many studies that show that being a young male driver is associated with significantly enhanced risk of accident, regardless of alcohol.
Being a young male driver, with no experience of drink, and an instinct to impress, perhaps was fatal in this case.
I don't know. It is a tragedy, as all deaths are, to someone.
Being uncaringly blunt, on the other hand, I am not convinced that alcohol was the true 'kicker' in this scenario, and focusing on that will do no one any good.
Page 53: " With respect to the alcohol consumption-related covariates, the previously noted counterintuitive finding regarding the relationship between alcohol consumption and crash risk continues to be evident in these results. In fact, all non-zero levels of number of drinks per setting are directionally associated with decreased crash risk, and the associations are statistically significant for drivers averaging 3-4 and 5-7 drinks per setting." This is after 'correcting' for 'confounding' variables. In fact, the 5-7 drinks at a setting group showed 0.63 times the teetotaler risk after statistical correction.
Association is not causation.
Alcohol is 'associated' with 31% of fatal accidents, where association, in this context, is very specially defined to include a non-0 BAC for anyone involved in the accident, be that any driver, any passenger, or any pedestrian.
Nevertheless, 65% of alcohol-related fatalities are solo efforts, which affect no other drivers or pedestrians.
So, even blaming the remaining 35% solely on alcohol, implies that 10% of 'innocent' fatalities are 'caused' by alcohol. Of course, some of the remaining 10% will be non-sober pedestrians, collisions by two non-sober drivers.
Sober drivers cock up too - 70% of fatalities involve no alcohol at all, in any of the parties. Drivers who crash with alcohol in their system would have had a non-0 probability of crashing, even if they were sober.
In case you're lazy, top of page 49:
"For all other drink categories (2 to 8+ drinks), drinkers were less likely to be crash involved than those reporting themselves to be non-drinkers, and the differences were significant for the 3 to 4 and 5 to 7 drink categories. Eight or more drinks per setting was associated with the lowest crash involvement expectancy (odds ratio =.66), but the difference is not statistically significant, perhaps due to the small number of drivers in this category. "
Incidentally, the table on page 48, contrary to the above sentence, shows the lowest crash risk to be associated with the '5-7' drinks per sitting category, at 0.64.
Which shows that you should read even very good reports very carefully:)
This study shows that teetotalers are 60% more likely to crash than drinkers (including drinkers driving drunk). In case you're to lazy to read all 90 pages, it's a large-scale 2004 Cali study with good control data and very good statistical analysis:
http://www.dunlapandassociates...
Crash risk of 1.6x general population is about equivalent to a BAC of 0.07.
As a self-proclaimed teetotaler, and therefore part of an empirically dangerous demographic, just like drunk drivers, are you prepared to be self-consistent and take a cab wherever you go?
I'm sorry for your loss.
However, the truth is, there is no 'safe' level to drive. The majority of fatal accidents (70%) involve no alcohol at all. 65% of alcohol-related fatal accidents are solo efforts (and 75% of those are due to lack of seat belt use), so of the 30% of fatal accidents involving alcohol (which includes, by the way, either driver, any passengers, or any pedestrians, having non-zero BAC), only 10% involve another vehicle.
You are a probabilistic anomaly - there will be many others out there who have lost family members to accidents. Most of them will have to find something other than alcohol to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
All airlines use the same aircraft.
So, yes, fundamentally, American just flies more miles.
Which you could interpret as capitalist dominance, or stupidity.
Either way, it's totally dumb to mark airlines on pollution. Same as saying white people in america produce the most trash.
Is there any way to include Sulfate Aerosols into the exhaust of high-altitude aircraft?
As background, major volcanic eruptions have always led to periods of global cooling, according to the sulfates that they pump into the high atmosphere.
There have been several proposals to artificially pump sulfates into the high atmosphere to reverse, and control global warming.
On the other hand, aircraft are there all the time, so why not just use them?
Who are 'these people'? Bollocks on your statistics - I'm too tired to quote the real figures, but if you're really interested, then trawl through the comments. Silly self-righteous westerner.
No dude, beauty and church are irrelevant, although nicely (in the old sense) emotive.
'Illegal', 'Mexican' are obviously how you deliberately don't see yourself, which, according to many preachings, is precisely how you see yourself.
Now to the heart of it. Driving the wrong way down a highway is suicidal. Failure to recognise a vehicle driving the wrong way down a highway towards you is suicidal.
Alcohol? Sure, it helps some people do stupid things.
Murder? Hardly. I have driven a motorbike for close on 30 years now, and I could accuse most of society of murderous intent, by the same standards.
And seriously, civil disobedience is called for in your case. You're a drunken driver - you might as well prove it somehow. Hell, you may as well be black.
Move to the 3rd world. Totalitarianism is entirely absent. Corruption is rife. Take your pick :)
No truth. Fact is, I am 46, born in a 3rd world country with horrible accident statistics.
Here we take responsibility for ourselves. We accept when we fuck up, and we accept that life is both cheap and precious.
We don't look to silly 'rational' metrics to control our society. Here, even the police are just normal people, with their own problems and agendas.
I have driven drunk regularly now for 28 years. For some reason, when I was very young, I ended up driving everyone around (in their own cars) when we were out carousing.
I have never crashed. I was only once caught in a road block, with BAC 0.25. At the time my car was difficult to drive (sticking brake pedal), and they let me go after I demonstrated how to drive it properly.
As a parent, I would hate my children to be subject to infantile legislation. Remember - any law you endorse will be suffered by your children, and perhaps your children's children.
Silly westerners.
Good, you read it. So regular drinking is good for health, including reduced crash risk. And sure, guilty people are more likely to lie for their own perceived benefit. Fact remains, teetotalers are more of a risk on the roads than drinkers, including drinkers driving drunk. So, how do we legislate 'fairly'?
Many countries have a zero tolerance policy to alcohol. Full stop. They include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and other hardline muslim states. If you are interested, you will note (wikipedia is your friend), that their road fatalities are substantially greater than most western countries. Even though you will lose a limb for even being drunk, let alone driving drunk.
Hell, by the same empiricism, let's put all women in gaol. Let's put all young and old people in gaol.Let's put all teetotalers in gaol. Let's put all caucasians in gaol. All of those are empirically more likely to crash than the general population.
Those who drive stupid (or, more precisely, uneducated) demonstrate, empirically, that they have no regard for others: http://www.dunlapandassociates.... So, yes, let's put all non-college graduates in gaol.
Fact is, from http://www.dunlapandassociates...: regular heavy drinkers (5+ drinks per 'setting') have a significantly lower crash risk than the general population - see table on page 48, discussion on top of page 49, and re-assessment on page 53. Our society is driven by religious bigots.
Don't be a pussy. I agreed to stop drinking for my wife, then it turned out some of my kids weren't mine after all. Make you own peace, but don't buckle down unless you have to. Reality, dude. Like you, I am a serial teetotaler, high functioning IT person. Always drove drunk. Always will, unless I think I can get caught. Never crashed. Never hurt anyone. Been driving drunk 28 years now, with sober interludes. So fuck them.
Attempting to control people will only lead to rebellion, particularly with young people. I lost two young friends to a head-on accident. Sober. Young as in 20-odd. 25 years ago. There is no safe level to drive, emotionally, psychologically, whatever. Most fatal accidents are 'caused' by sober drivers. Young folk will do what they need to. It is up to us to keep them as safe as we can. And legislation will not achieve that.
I just drove drunk again. Drank two bottles of wine, drove to the pub, drank some more, and then drove to my sweetheart and back. Yet again, I failed to kill anyone. My bad. I'll perhaps try harder next time. All you do-gooders out there: get a life! Reality will hit you in the face however you try to protect it. I am 46, been driving a car and a motorbike drunk and sober, never crashed. Ever. Being sober will not protect you. Being aware will.
And incidentally, I reckon the guy that crashed the car had been drinking more than one drink. Why is everyone else protecting him? Just because he was the poor sucker in that joyful situation that ended up driving the car.
Um yes, but your conception of humanity is different to mine. Young people like to take risks. Why? Because if you don't, then you are unlikely to attract the person you want as a sexual partner. There is no 'supposed to' or 'right' or 'wrong'. Trying to impose draconian rules on youngsters will only result in more atrocious rebellion. Trust me, I have six children, four of which are now in their teenage years. People make mistakes, for all sorts of reasons. And shit happens. There is no truly safe place.
All I can say, is that, with any death, many lives are ruined or broken. Genuinely sorry for you.
Young man trying to impress? Who knows? We weren't there. Was sex a factor in the incident? There are many studies that show that, all other things being equal, low levels of intoxication (and a single drink certainly qualifies) are associated with reduced risk of accident. There are many studies that show that being a young male driver is associated with significantly enhanced risk of accident, regardless of alcohol. Being a young male driver, with no experience of drink, and an instinct to impress, perhaps was fatal in this case. I don't know. It is a tragedy, as all deaths are, to someone. Being uncaringly blunt, on the other hand, I am not convinced that alcohol was the true 'kicker' in this scenario, and focusing on that will do no one any good.
eom
Page 53: " With respect to the alcohol consumption-related covariates, the previously noted counterintuitive finding regarding the relationship between alcohol consumption and crash risk continues to be evident in these results. In fact, all non-zero levels of number of drinks per setting are directionally associated with decreased crash risk, and the associations are statistically significant for drivers averaging 3-4 and 5-7 drinks per setting." This is after 'correcting' for 'confounding' variables. In fact, the 5-7 drinks at a setting group showed 0.63 times the teetotaler risk after statistical correction.
Association is not causation. Alcohol is 'associated' with 31% of fatal accidents, where association, in this context, is very specially defined to include a non-0 BAC for anyone involved in the accident, be that any driver, any passenger, or any pedestrian. Nevertheless, 65% of alcohol-related fatalities are solo efforts, which affect no other drivers or pedestrians. So, even blaming the remaining 35% solely on alcohol, implies that 10% of 'innocent' fatalities are 'caused' by alcohol. Of course, some of the remaining 10% will be non-sober pedestrians, collisions by two non-sober drivers. Sober drivers cock up too - 70% of fatalities involve no alcohol at all, in any of the parties. Drivers who crash with alcohol in their system would have had a non-0 probability of crashing, even if they were sober.
In case you're lazy, top of page 49: "For all other drink categories (2 to 8+ drinks), drinkers were less likely to be crash involved than those reporting themselves to be non-drinkers, and the differences were significant for the 3 to 4 and 5 to 7 drink categories. Eight or more drinks per setting was associated with the lowest crash involvement expectancy (odds ratio = .66), but the difference is not statistically significant, perhaps due to the small number of drivers in this category. "
Incidentally, the table on page 48, contrary to the above sentence, shows the lowest crash risk to be associated with the '5-7' drinks per sitting category, at 0.64.
Which shows that you should read even very good reports very carefully :)
This study shows that teetotalers are 60% more likely to crash than drinkers (including drinkers driving drunk). In case you're to lazy to read all 90 pages, it's a large-scale 2004 Cali study with good control data and very good statistical analysis: http://www.dunlapandassociates... Crash risk of 1.6x general population is about equivalent to a BAC of 0.07. As a self-proclaimed teetotaler, and therefore part of an empirically dangerous demographic, just like drunk drivers, are you prepared to be self-consistent and take a cab wherever you go?
I'm sorry for your loss. However, the truth is, there is no 'safe' level to drive. The majority of fatal accidents (70%) involve no alcohol at all. 65% of alcohol-related fatal accidents are solo efforts (and 75% of those are due to lack of seat belt use), so of the 30% of fatal accidents involving alcohol (which includes, by the way, either driver, any passengers, or any pedestrians, having non-zero BAC), only 10% involve another vehicle. You are a probabilistic anomaly - there will be many others out there who have lost family members to accidents. Most of them will have to find something other than alcohol to blame.