The way this compound works is by disrupting the cell membranes it comes in contact with. The cells on the surface of your skin are dead, and can't be harmed by this. This is not a material that will cause damage from skin contact.
This is my field of research, though I work with a different (better) technology.
This technology works by interfering with the membrane. It is not simply a substance that attaches to some protein on the surface that will simply be selected against. It's like saying that deer will evolve to resist rifle bullets. It's just not going to happen.
My own company has developed a similar technology, though our primary application thus far has been medical devices. It actually works quite a bit better than quaternary amines too. Even better, it is a much smaller active group that can be attached in a much more versatile manner, rather than requiring either surface polymerization or attachment with a trimethoxysilane like most quat compounds. I'd like to get my hands on some of this stuff for a head to head comparison.
Such a radical change in the membrane of the bacteria would lead to it not being a bacteria any more. At the very least it would be a new species, but more than likely it would be a new phylum, or maybe even a new kingdom altogether. This does not happen every day.
Now think about the pros and cons of changing our evil, Earth destroying ways. Specifically, remember that the vast majority of agricultural output of the Earth is driven by fossil fuels, and that those people who are "unable" to flee the sea as it approaches as a rate of a millimeter a year will certainly not be able to afford food when it costs 5 times as much to grow.
For some reason, people in this debate only think about big fat oil executives, and not the people who actually use the oil, which is EVERYBODY. They don't think about how this will hurt those people. Instead, they just get a hard on at the idea of oil executives somehow going poor. As if.
Not exactly correct. The industrial revolution made use of fuels for labor easier, true, but the true fruit of the Industrial Revolution was the concept of capital being applied to raw goods to make usable goods as efficiently as possible. Capital is any thing that humans create. Capital can be consumed, for example, by purchasing something for personal use. It can also be put to work, by purchasing a machine to do labor, whether that is a hand cranked grain mill that puts out a few pounds an hour, or a giant industrial mill that puts out a hundred tons an hour.
Even without oil, we would still have industrialism. We would just be forced to use a different source of energy. Whether that is nuclear, solar, or beasts of burden.
But yes, artificially cutting carbon emissions will make food more expensive, which WILL kill millions of impoverished people around the world. All in the name of trying to save a few hundred thousand from a flood they could simply walk away from, as it comes at a rate of a millimeter a year, IF it comes.
That's the problem with the religious fanatics. They point to the bible and claim that all they need to know is in there. Where does it say that in vitro fertilization or cloning are bad? WHERE? No answer. Same thing here. No answers. Only regurgitation of dogma.
Occasionally, there is a glimmer of real scientific discussion, like I had upthread, but for the most part it is morons blabbering on about how evil you must be for being a non-believer.
Aww, so much butthurt. Did it ever occur to you that the regulations that actually make it are the ones that they want? Why don't you go try to open up a new power plant, one that produces zero emissions, is environmentally friendly, and cheaper than fossil fuel based plants? Oh, the regulators won't allow new nuclear plants? Ri~ight. Forgot. Sorry. Guess we're stuck with coal. Because of regulations.
Understand that they will fight regulations that are harmful to them, but support the ones that are helpful to them. Politicians always take the path of least resistance, so they pass these crappy laws, and get to talk about how tough they are on polluters even as our rates go up from "compliance costs" (in reality, lack of competition).
But hey, let's all stick everyone in little boxes, and allow ourselves to be smothered in government mandated monopoly "clean" coal emissions rather than identifying the real source of our problems, ie the politicians who have been literally bought and paid for. Of course, you don't like that, because you still think that the Democrats are on YOUR side, rather than simply another arm of their corporate masters public division program (with Republicans being the other arm).
Fuck, I'm a libertarian, but I'd rather have a real, principled liberal in charge (like Nader, or Kusinich) than any "electable" candidate. But your little box doesn't allow me to say that, so I guess I'll just shut up.
But what do you do when they feed off of your hate, and grow larger and more powerful?
Because that is exactly what they are dong. And your failure (as well as 99% of Americans, as well as 99% of other nationalities) to identify the real problem with the system is what allows this monstrosity to continue.
If you would actually read my comment, rather than frothing at the mouth like the zealot you apparently are, you would see that I specifically qualified that statement as saying "with enough measurements".
And that is the "generally accepted" definition. Not overarching definition. It can be changed by the context of what you are talking about. Considering we are talking about claims that humanity is causing never before seen changes to the environment, it is safe to say that we probably need a time frame that is longer than the period that we have been doing the changing, don't you think?
But then, I suspect you don't think. You just regurgitate. You must be a hoot at parties.
Maybe, but we don't have good temperature data for that time. No empirical observation.
In fact, the Medieval Warm period (which was NOT simply confined to the North Atlantic region: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period), the temperature anomaly was almost as high as today, and spiked up in a similar manner. Who is to say that we aren't simply getting another one of those?
Thanks for the well reasoned and non-crazy counterpoint. As I said, I am a scientist, not a priest. Facts like this are the only way to change my mind. I will have to look at the methods described in the wiki sources when I have time. However, I should note that Mauna Loa is quite possibly the worst place on the face of the Earth to get a non-biased CO2 reading, as it is an active volcano. I would be more impressed if those readings came from a few other places as well, perhaps from the top of a regular mountain somewhere.
I based my numbers off of some calculations I did years ago, which I have posted numerous times, and have never until now with this post gotten even the start of an adequate response. Just "UR WRUNG" and "U STUPID NOT SCIENCTITS", as is seen from many other posts in this thread.
I, personally, wouldn't hire someone who couldn't string more than one cogent paragraph together (ie your first paragraph is good, but your second one falls apart at the 8th sentence). Nor would I hire someone who tells someone to go refute their own argument.
The IR spectrum of water: http://www.btinternet.com/~martin.chaplin/vibrat.html Note that water in the atmosphere exists at an equilibrium between gas and liquid. Note also the very broad peak of liquid water. Note even further that 3/4ths of the Earth's surface is covered with water.
The point is that CO2 does not have a net effect on the heat retained by the atmosphere. It is mere noise compared to water, which, as noted before, fluctuates wildly, and in fact CAN be controlled with water traps which don't require trillions of dollars in global investment, and will in fact have an IMMEDIATE effect, rather than one that MIGHT be felt within five centuries IF we manage to survive the epic flooding of the world caused by CO2 forced global warming if it exists.
Uh-huh. Yes, let's not go in depth, as that would show that you are out of yours. Where to you think the heat capacity of a material comes from? It comes from the energy levels of the molecule, which are enumerated by IR and Raman spectroscopy.
But hey, don't let your ignorance stop you from mindlessly repeating that which you have been indoctrinated with, and viciously attacking anyone who would dare to question that which was handed down from on high by "scientists", even if the one doing the questioning is also a scientist.
The two are tangential. You can pick 30 years, while I pick ten. Both "trends" are statistically significant for the given time period, given that there are enough measurements. But they are BOTH out of context. The ten year trend is out of context of the 30 year trend, the 30 year trend is out of context of the 300 year trend, and the 300 year trend is out of context of the 30,000 year trend, and so on.
I dare say I have forgotten more about statistics than you will ever know.
You think 100 years is any more significant than 10 when compared to geological time scales? Time scales where the entire existence of mankind has been a blink of an eye?
You are almost there. To see a statistically significant trend takes quite a bit more than just some arbitrary amount of time. It also takes reliable measurements. That is, weather monitoring stations that were once in wilderness are now in suburban areas. The solution is to look to satellite data. Problem is, we don't really have enough of that. All we can see from that is the current trend. We have no context for the past hundred years, much less the thousands or hundreds of thousands we really need to ensure this move isn't one that happens on a regular basis, and to determine the likelihood of it continuing.
Slashdot Mirror
ISO 10993 standards. Look them up.
The way this compound works is by disrupting the cell membranes it comes in contact with. The cells on the surface of your skin are dead, and can't be harmed by this. This is not a material that will cause damage from skin contact.
This is my field of research, though I work with a different (better) technology.
This technology works by interfering with the membrane. It is not simply a substance that attaches to some protein on the surface that will simply be selected against. It's like saying that deer will evolve to resist rifle bullets. It's just not going to happen.
My own company has developed a similar technology, though our primary application thus far has been medical devices. It actually works quite a bit better than quaternary amines too. Even better, it is a much smaller active group that can be attached in a much more versatile manner, rather than requiring either surface polymerization or attachment with a trimethoxysilane like most quat compounds. I'd like to get my hands on some of this stuff for a head to head comparison.
Such a radical change in the membrane of the bacteria would lead to it not being a bacteria any more. At the very least it would be a new species, but more than likely it would be a new phylum, or maybe even a new kingdom altogether. This does not happen every day.
Not only that, but suddenly everyone will want to fly again! You could say the public is...addicted!
You have obviously never met Dick Cheney.
This was the logical end of this stupidity. Face it folks, you can't be 100% safe, no matter how many liberties you give up.
You hit the nail right on the head there.
Now think about the pros and cons of changing our evil, Earth destroying ways. Specifically, remember that the vast majority of agricultural output of the Earth is driven by fossil fuels, and that those people who are "unable" to flee the sea as it approaches as a rate of a millimeter a year will certainly not be able to afford food when it costs 5 times as much to grow.
For some reason, people in this debate only think about big fat oil executives, and not the people who actually use the oil, which is EVERYBODY. They don't think about how this will hurt those people. Instead, they just get a hard on at the idea of oil executives somehow going poor. As if.
Not exactly correct. The industrial revolution made use of fuels for labor easier, true, but the true fruit of the Industrial Revolution was the concept of capital being applied to raw goods to make usable goods as efficiently as possible. Capital is any thing that humans create. Capital can be consumed, for example, by purchasing something for personal use. It can also be put to work, by purchasing a machine to do labor, whether that is a hand cranked grain mill that puts out a few pounds an hour, or a giant industrial mill that puts out a hundred tons an hour.
Even without oil, we would still have industrialism. We would just be forced to use a different source of energy. Whether that is nuclear, solar, or beasts of burden.
But yes, artificially cutting carbon emissions will make food more expensive, which WILL kill millions of impoverished people around the world. All in the name of trying to save a few hundred thousand from a flood they could simply walk away from, as it comes at a rate of a millimeter a year, IF it comes.
That's the problem with the religious fanatics. They point to the bible and claim that all they need to know is in there. Where does it say that in vitro fertilization or cloning are bad? WHERE? No answer. Same thing here. No answers. Only regurgitation of dogma.
Occasionally, there is a glimmer of real scientific discussion, like I had upthread, but for the most part it is morons blabbering on about how evil you must be for being a non-believer.
What's wrong with Detroit?
Aww, so much butthurt. Did it ever occur to you that the regulations that actually make it are the ones that they want? Why don't you go try to open up a new power plant, one that produces zero emissions, is environmentally friendly, and cheaper than fossil fuel based plants? Oh, the regulators won't allow new nuclear plants? Ri~ight. Forgot. Sorry. Guess we're stuck with coal. Because of regulations.
Understand that they will fight regulations that are harmful to them, but support the ones that are helpful to them. Politicians always take the path of least resistance, so they pass these crappy laws, and get to talk about how tough they are on polluters even as our rates go up from "compliance costs" (in reality, lack of competition).
But hey, let's all stick everyone in little boxes, and allow ourselves to be smothered in government mandated monopoly "clean" coal emissions rather than identifying the real source of our problems, ie the politicians who have been literally bought and paid for. Of course, you don't like that, because you still think that the Democrats are on YOUR side, rather than simply another arm of their corporate masters public division program (with Republicans being the other arm).
Fuck, I'm a libertarian, but I'd rather have a real, principled liberal in charge (like Nader, or Kusinich) than any "electable" candidate. But your little box doesn't allow me to say that, so I guess I'll just shut up.
Get off my lawn!
Thanks for the correction.
But what do you do when they feed off of your hate, and grow larger and more powerful?
Because that is exactly what they are dong. And your failure (as well as 99% of Americans, as well as 99% of other nationalities) to identify the real problem with the system is what allows this monstrosity to continue.
If you would actually read my comment, rather than frothing at the mouth like the zealot you apparently are, you would see that I specifically qualified that statement as saying "with enough measurements".
And that is the "generally accepted" definition. Not overarching definition. It can be changed by the context of what you are talking about. Considering we are talking about claims that humanity is causing never before seen changes to the environment, it is safe to say that we probably need a time frame that is longer than the period that we have been doing the changing, don't you think?
But then, I suspect you don't think. You just regurgitate. You must be a hoot at parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
1000AD, Greenland was 1.5 K (2.7 degrees F) warmer than today, which is 0.5K (0.9 degrees F) warmer than 1900.
Perhaps it was propaganda, or maybe they were able to make things grow there. They managed in Norway and Sweden, after all.
Maybe, but we don't have good temperature data for that time. No empirical observation.
In fact, the Medieval Warm period (which was NOT simply confined to the North Atlantic region: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period), the temperature anomaly was almost as high as today, and spiked up in a similar manner. Who is to say that we aren't simply getting another one of those?
Thanks for the well reasoned and non-crazy counterpoint. As I said, I am a scientist, not a priest. Facts like this are the only way to change my mind. I will have to look at the methods described in the wiki sources when I have time. However, I should note that Mauna Loa is quite possibly the worst place on the face of the Earth to get a non-biased CO2 reading, as it is an active volcano. I would be more impressed if those readings came from a few other places as well, perhaps from the top of a regular mountain somewhere.
I based my numbers off of some calculations I did years ago, which I have posted numerous times, and have never until now with this post gotten even the start of an adequate response. Just "UR WRUNG" and "U STUPID NOT SCIENCTITS", as is seen from many other posts in this thread.
What are you even talking about? I'm the one that brought it up, but you are claiming that I don't know about it? Are you retarded or something?
I, personally, wouldn't hire someone who couldn't string more than one cogent paragraph together (ie your first paragraph is good, but your second one falls apart at the 8th sentence). Nor would I hire someone who tells someone to go refute their own argument.
The IR spectrum of water: http://www.btinternet.com/~martin.chaplin/vibrat.html Note that water in the atmosphere exists at an equilibrium between gas and liquid. Note also the very broad peak of liquid water. Note even further that 3/4ths of the Earth's surface is covered with water.
Now note the spectrum of CO2: http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html So tiny. So little absorption. So little concentration.
The point is that CO2 does not have a net effect on the heat retained by the atmosphere. It is mere noise compared to water, which, as noted before, fluctuates wildly, and in fact CAN be controlled with water traps which don't require trillions of dollars in global investment, and will in fact have an IMMEDIATE effect, rather than one that MIGHT be felt within five centuries IF we manage to survive the epic flooding of the world caused by CO2 forced global warming if it exists.
Lack of pirates. Now we have pirates again. All is well, lol.
Some people pay their taxes in dollars and hope they don't notice, you insensitive clod!
Uh-huh. Yes, let's not go in depth, as that would show that you are out of yours. Where to you think the heat capacity of a material comes from? It comes from the energy levels of the molecule, which are enumerated by IR and Raman spectroscopy.
But hey, don't let your ignorance stop you from mindlessly repeating that which you have been indoctrinated with, and viciously attacking anyone who would dare to question that which was handed down from on high by "scientists", even if the one doing the questioning is also a scientist.
The two are tangential. You can pick 30 years, while I pick ten. Both "trends" are statistically significant for the given time period, given that there are enough measurements. But they are BOTH out of context. The ten year trend is out of context of the 30 year trend, the 30 year trend is out of context of the 300 year trend, and the 300 year trend is out of context of the 30,000 year trend, and so on.
I dare say I have forgotten more about statistics than you will ever know.
You think 100 years is any more significant than 10 when compared to geological time scales? Time scales where the entire existence of mankind has been a blink of an eye?
You are almost there. To see a statistically significant trend takes quite a bit more than just some arbitrary amount of time. It also takes reliable measurements. That is, weather monitoring stations that were once in wilderness are now in suburban areas. The solution is to look to satellite data. Problem is, we don't really have enough of that. All we can see from that is the current trend. We have no context for the past hundred years, much less the thousands or hundreds of thousands we really need to ensure this move isn't one that happens on a regular basis, and to determine the likelihood of it continuing.