Suburbs VS Urban centers

Post by h***@gmail.com
The fight between suburb and urban is always going to be around. To
each their own.
But here are the facts...
Urban environments efficiently use land. This preserves space for both
parks and open space. Suburbs can gobble up as much of the countryside
as they want, especially in the MSP area, where its just flat farmland
and forests.

What divel. Land is not gobbled up. It is used to provide a humane
environment for humans, which cities do not do anywhere near as well.

Post by h***@gmail.com
Suburban architectures is plastic and cheap. Old pine stock used to
build the homes of Mpls and St. Paul in the early 1900s is stronger
than new cut oak used in the suburbs of the area.

Mass production of past eras is on the whole only marginally better than
current construction when function is concerned.

Post by h***@gmail.com
Suburbs depend on the interstate highway system and regional highways
for transportation. Most suburban dwellers travel between many suburbs
to accomplish an activity many city dwellers could do within the
neighborhood.

Again untrue, but then lies are the urban militant's forte.

Post by h***@gmail.com
The hierarchy road system to sub developments are much more dangerous
than a normal thru-street. Many more children get run over by the
family SUV than do getting hit in a regular city street -- Kids should
NOT play in the street, regardless of the traffic volume.

All the city kid can do is play in the street. That is where gangs come
from. The city's contribution to the human race: gangs.

Theses same

Post by h***@gmail.com
streets flow into 'collector' streets that run about 45 MPH -- way too
fast for bike and ped traffic to comfortably co-exist.

Parks in cities are dangerous. They are always controlled by some group
and you can't go there after dark in any circumstance. You have to go home
and lock yourself in.

Post by h***@gmail.com
Suburbs were and are built around the car

Most suburbs were built around mechanized transportation, as were
industrial cities, which could not have existed without a non-walking city.

-- you must use it to go to

Post by h***@gmail.com
the store for bread and the kids are stuck in the house all day,
unless mom or dad can drive them to the mall or other community
center, or a friends house in the sub development down the road.
If you like to drive, like in the suburbs. If you enjoy getting places
fast and without polluting the air and wasting money, like in a dense
urban city, complete with everything you need within a mile radius.

Transit is SLOW buddy.

Pat

2007-04-06 02:22:37 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com
The fight between suburb and urban is always going to be around. To
each their own.
But here are the facts...

Yikes, another arogent jerk. Who died and named you the keeper of the
facts. 2+2=4 is a fact. "I like cities" is an opinion.

Post by h***@gmail.com
Urban environments efficiently use land. This preserves space for both
parks and open space.

Where I live, we are spread out. We don't need to "preserve"
anything. BTW, spreading things out means a better control of things
like storm water so you don't need to dump it into rivers and pollute
the heck out of them.

Suburbs can gobble up as much of the countryside

Post by h***@gmail.com
as they want, especially in the MSP area, where its just flat farmland
and forests.
Suburban architectures is plastic and cheap. Old pine stock used to
build the homes of Mpls and St. Paul in the early 1900s is stronger
than new cut oak used in the suburbs of the area.
Suburbs depend on the interstate highway system and regional highways
for transportation. Most suburban dwellers travel between many suburbs
to accomplish an activity many city dwellers could do within the
neighborhood.
The hierarchy road system to sub developments are much more dangerous
than a normal thru-street. Many more children get run over by the
family SUV than do getting hit in a regular city street -- Kids should
NOT play in the street, regardless of the traffic volume. Theses same
streets flow into 'collector' streets that run about 45 MPH -- way too
fast for bike and ped traffic to comfortably co-exist.
Suburbs were and are built around the car -- you must use it to go to
the store for bread and the kids are stuck in the house all day,
unless mom or dad can drive them to the mall or other community
center, or a friends house in the sub development down the road.
If you like to drive, like in the suburbs. If you enjoy getting places
fast and without polluting the air and wasting money, like in a dense
urban city, complete with everything you need within a mile radius.

Wrong. I need open space and trees and mountains and lack of
congestion and distance between things. While I have all of that
within a mile, I doubt that is what you meant. To me, having
"everything" within a mile is just about my definition of hell.

Post by h***@gmail.com
Thanks for your time.
-Jeremywww.jeremyhop.com

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-06 02:50:40 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com
The fight between suburb and urban is always going to be around. To
each their own.
But here are the facts...

Yikes, another arogent jerk. Who died and named you the keeper of the
facts. 2+2=4 is a fact. "I like cities" is an opinion.

Post by h***@gmail.com
Urban environments efficiently use land. This preserves space for both
parks and open space.

That depends on your accounting practices. If you account per unit of area
(such as square mile) you are correct. However, if you account for it per
person housed, the more densely populated an area is, the less impervious
surface there is _per person_. So if the number of people is constant, the
more ecologically friendly way to house them is on relatively small lots in
a small part of the overall area. About the least ecologically friendly
size lot is 1 acre. I have a presentation given by a man from the EPA at a
workshop I attended last year if you would like to see the numbers involved.

Of course, that presumes that the land that is not housing people is not in
itself in some way contributing to runoff or pollution (such as factory
farming).

-Amy

Jack May

2007-04-07 05:11:42 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
That depends on your accounting practices. If you account per unit of
area (such as square mile) you are correct. However, if you account for
it per person housed, the more densely populated an area is, the less
impervious surface there is _per person_. So if the number of people is
constant, the more ecologically friendly way to house them is on
relatively small lots in a small part of the overall area. About the
least ecologically friendly size lot is 1 acre. I have a presentation
given by a man from the EPA at a workshop I attended last year if you
would like to see the numbers involved.

By your definition the goal is to have everybody live in a prison. No
thanks.

Baxter

2007-04-07 19:01:03 UTC

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

By your definition the goal is to have everybody live in a prison. No
thanks.

No, that's YOUR definition - not hers.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-07 22:27:37 UTC

By your definition the goal is to have everybody live in a prison. No
thanks.

I think it's so sweet that you've picked up this straw man technique from
George. It's every bit as ridiculous and ineffectual when you do it as when
he does it, but every bit as amusing.

Mr.Cool

2007-04-06 18:46:26 UTC

Post by Pat
Wrong. I need open space and trees and mountains and lack of
congestion and distance between things. While I have all of that
within a mile, I doubt that is what you meant. To me, having
"everything" within a mile is just about my definition of hell.

O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the air
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

Pat

2007-04-07 01:06:01 UTC

O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the air
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

Yes !!!

Jack May

2007-04-07 05:14:59 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the air
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes transit.
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels in stop
and go traffic..

Mr.Cool

2007-04-07 15:26:55 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the air
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes transit.
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels in stop
and go traffic..

Hmmm Maby because theres a hell of a lot more people in the city did
you think of that?
Suburbs only appear to be less pollusive beacause they are alot more
spread out and distant from each other. Their are lot of people that
come in and out of cities on
a daily basis because so many people that work in the cities live in
the suburbs.
Sure I agree with you that cities cause alot of pollution in the air,
but thats mainly cause theres
so many people living/working in them. Since everything is so
convenient or as you like
to say "Conjested" theres alot of things within walking distance for
example for me
I within a mile or two theres is a library,7 gas stations,an ace
hardware,4 parks, and one lake.
You call it conjested? I call it convenient. Its not like theres any
traffic on the small streets in my
neighborhood so i dont see how its is "conjested". Unless by your
deffinition of conjested is
no huge open spaces to drive you four wheeler.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-07 22:28:46 UTC

"Mr.Cool" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
...

Post by Mr.Cool
Sure I agree with you that cities cause alot of pollution in the air,
but thats mainly cause theres
so many people living/working in them. Since everything is so
convenient or as you like
to say "Conjested" theres alot of things within walking distance for
example for me
I within a mile or two theres is a library,7 gas stations,an ace
hardware,4 parks, and one lake.
You call it conjested? I call it convenient. Its not like theres any
traffic on the small streets in my
neighborhood so i dont see how its is "conjested". Unless by your
deffinition of conjested is
no huge open spaces to drive you four wheeler.

That's "congested."

Mr.Cool

2007-04-08 03:13:43 UTC

On Apr 7, 5:28 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
...

That's "congested."

Okay have you ever thought that their might be a happy medium between
out in the middle of no where and in the stop and go grid lock of new
york city?
By what I can tell your dffinition of "conjested" is having a neighbor
next door.
To me that seems quite rediculis.....

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-08 14:11:25 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
On Apr 7, 5:28 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
...

That's "congested."

No. My spelling of "congested" is with a G. Turn on the spell checker in
your e.mail program and see.

Pat

2007-04-08 06:03:58 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the air
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes transit.
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels in stop
and go traffic..

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.

My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.

So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

Clark F Morris

2007-04-08 12:25:50 UTC

much snipped

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

That pollution caused by electricity generation for both rural and
urban areas is bad because the US refuses to enforce the same
environmental regulations as Germany. See postings by Hans Joachim
Zierke on misc.transport.rail.americas regarding lignite plants in
Germany. They are more efficient and the pollution at the stack is
low enough to allow observation decks in some cases. Lignite burns
dirtier than coal.

Mr.Cool

2007-04-08 12:53:30 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the air
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes transit.
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels in stop
and go traffic..

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.
And I could just name a random event to come back to yours if I wanted
to, for example
up in Hastings,MN in rural country they have one massive oil refinery
plant and that creates
the most pollution in the state. Cities have alot of pollution
granted, but theres alot more
people living in cities then in Suburbs so its predicted as much. Its
not the fact that cities have density to them,for the most part theres
alot more people, more people means more driving, thus more pollution.
If their were as many people in the City that lived in rural country
then it would cause just as much pollution.

2007-04-08 17:12:05 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds. In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.

That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

George Conklin

2007-04-08 19:51:09 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

NYC has to import its electricity so it should stop complaining.

Mr.Cool

2007-04-10 04:08:00 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds. In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.
That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

george conklin

2007-04-10 10:29:33 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds. In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.
That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

The Amish use kerosene, and that is even less efficient than electricity,
unless you count the heat towards heating your house. They also use propane
to cool milk, and propane coolers are very inefficient.

2007-04-10 15:51:50 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds. In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.
That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

If you buy a plug-in electric car you will be using *lots* more
electricity than you did before.

Mr.Cool

2007-04-10 23:00:26 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds. In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.
That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

If you buy a plug-in electric car you will be using *lots* more
electricity than you did before.

How can you people rip on the city for using electricity? Just because
rural towns don't
use as much does not make them better, If more people lived in those
towns then
they would need to produce more power.

2007-04-10 23:19:38 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds. In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.
That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

If you buy a plug-in electric car you will be using *lots* more
electricity than you did before.

Umm, try reading for comprehension next time.

george conklin

2007-04-11 00:01:17 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds.
In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.
That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

If you buy a plug-in electric car you will be using *lots* more
electricity than you did before.

Fair comment, but cities have to import their electricity from rural areas.
NYC is a classic case. Even Canada has to help support NYC's energy use.

Pat

2007-04-11 05:02:34 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds. In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.
That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

If you buy a plug-in electric car you will be using *lots* more
electricity than you did before.

Cities use vastly more electricity due to the nature of cities. I
don't live very far north of NYC but quite a ways west and quite a bit
higher in elevation. So I don't have air conditioning. I don't need
it because I am not surrounded by concrete. Therefore, I use a lot
less electricity than someone in NYC. I use a LOT less than a
southern city for the same reason. AC, TVs, bars, nightclubs,
streetlights, etc. all use electricity.

Mr.Cool

2007-04-12 17:12:14 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds. In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.
That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

If you buy a plug-in electric car you will be using *lots* more
electricity than you did before.

But are you saying that we should get ride of those things because
they use electricy.
People, out world runs on electricy,electricy does not mean pollution.
It depends on what way
electricy is made. Gas is what pollutes our world, not electricy.
Electricy is fine.

Pat

2007-04-13 03:56:08 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds. In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.
That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

If you buy a plug-in electric car you will be using *lots* more
electricity than you did before.

Electricity is a HUGE polluter. Your electric lights and electric
refrigerator and electric stover and electric heat and electric hot
water heater and your electric everything else belch out HUGE amounts
of pollution. Who are you trying to kid? Wake up and smell the coal
generation plant.

Baxter

2007-04-13 03:26:32 UTC

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Pat
Cities use vastly more electricity due to the nature of cities. I
don't live very far north of NYC but quite a ways west and quite a bit
higher in elevation. So I don't have air conditioning. I don't need
it because I am not surrounded by concrete. Therefore, I use a lot
less electricity than someone in NYC. I use a LOT less than a
southern city for the same reason. AC, TVs, bars, nightclubs,
streetlights, etc. all use electricity.

I've lived in cities, and in the country. I've been as hot in the country
as I've ever been in the city - and I don't use air conditioning.

Pat

2007-04-11 04:59:10 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Okay that is one isolated event, for one thing most cities dont have
coal plants.

It's not random. The entire northeastern US has pollution from the Ohio
Valley power plants -- it arrives on the prevailing westerly winds. In
the NY Times a couple of years ago, it was noted that NYC air pollution
from cars was exceeded by air pollution from electrical power
generation.
That means: if you drove an all-electric car ('zero emissions') in NY,
you'd be making the air worse than if you drove a gasoline car.

Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

It's Amish country. They don't use too much electricity, but they use
other fuels for heat/light/etc.

Jack May

2007-04-11 06:16:39 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

It's Amish country. They don't use too much electricity, but they use
other fuels for heat/light/etc.

The Amish use LED lights on their horse buggies. They have to use
electricity to charge the batteries in the buggy to power the lights which
are required by law. The LED lights are produced and sold by a Silicon
Valley high tech company obviously with markets besides Amish buggies.

The Amish love the LEDs because they can go longer in between times when
they have to take the car battery out of the buggy to go get it charged.

I have no idea what they found in their Bible to justify using LED lights

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-11 12:15:44 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

It's Amish country. They don't use too much electricity, but they use
other fuels for heat/light/etc.

The Amish use LED lights on their horse buggies. They have to use
electricity to charge the batteries in the buggy to power the lights which
are required by law. The LED lights are produced and sold by a Silicon
Valley high tech company obviously with markets besides Amish buggies.
The Amish love the LEDs because they can go longer in between times when
they have to take the car battery out of the buggy to go get it charged.
I have no idea what they found in their Bible to justify using LED lights

It's probably yet another legal requirement they've been forced to
compromise their values to comply with.

Pat

2007-04-12 14:51:32 UTC

On Apr 11, 8:15 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Mr.Cool
Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

It's Amish country. They don't use too much electricity, but they use
other fuels for heat/light/etc.

The Amish use LED lights on their horse buggies. They have to use
electricity to charge the batteries in the buggy to power the lights which
are required by law. The LED lights are produced and sold by a Silicon
Valley high tech company obviously with markets besides Amish buggies.
The Amish love the LEDs because they can go longer in between times when
they have to take the car battery out of the buggy to go get it charged.
I have no idea what they found in their Bible to justify using LED lights

It's probably yet another legal requirement they've been forced to
compromise their values to comply with.

Amy, I am quite suprised and pleased by your views on that. I though
you would take the "planners shouldn't consider religion" view that
you have been taking and say "get them off the street because they
don't meet legal requirements". Being sensitive to their religion and
culture -- and in fact giving a legal loophole based on religion -- is
a fine thing to do. Does this make things less safe? Sure. Will
people get killed because of it? Sure. Can you possibly plan for all
contingencies? Nope. Do the people involved accept the risk and are
they willing to live with (or die with) it? Yup.

See, it isn't all about central planning, government control, and
secularism.

BTW, at least around here, the Amish don't use forward-facing lights
and most don't use backward-facing ones. Most just use a reflective
triangle facing back. Jack must be near "liberal" Amish. We also
have Mennonite, which are more apt to have lights.

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-12 23:24:21 UTC

Post by Pat
On Apr 11, 8:15 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Mr.Cool
Well virtually every city,suburbs and rual community uses
electricity,
unless you
live in Omish country, your part of the problem....

It's Amish country. They don't use too much electricity, but they use
other fuels for heat/light/etc.

The Amish use LED lights on their horse buggies. They have to use
electricity to charge the batteries in the buggy to power the lights which
are required by law. The LED lights are produced and sold by a Silicon
Valley high tech company obviously with markets besides Amish buggies.
The Amish love the LEDs because they can go longer in between times when
they have to take the car battery out of the buggy to go get it charged.
I have no idea what they found in their Bible to justify using LED lights

It's probably yet another legal requirement they've been forced to
compromise their values to comply with.

Amy, I am quite suprised and pleased by your views on that. I though
you would take the "planners shouldn't consider religion" view that
you have been taking and say "get them off the street because they
don't meet legal requirements". Being sensitive to their religion and
culture -- and in fact giving a legal loophole based on religion -- is
a fine thing to do. Does this make things less safe? Sure. Will
people get killed because of it? Sure. Can you possibly plan for all
contingencies? Nope. Do the people involved accept the risk and are
they willing to live with (or die with) it? Yup.
See, it isn't all about central planning, government control, and
secularism.

I never said it was. I am all about citizens having a voice in what happens
around them. But the idea that you can give citizens remotely what they
want without someone putting a plan down anywhere is what I was arguing
against.

I'm also not against religion. What I *am* against is that most religious
people don't give much thought to what pretty much all relgions have in
common--or should--stewardship of the earth (or much of anything else, truth
to tell). Amish and Mennonites in particular have obviously given the
matter a great deal of thought and take care to live in accordance with that
principle. If you're going to believe it, great. But really know what the
lifestyle is that your beliefs imply, and live that life. When the form of
a church building is completely contrary to anything that could be in
harmony with the environment, how can it possibly be preaching anything that
might lead the congregation into harmony either?

Post by Pat
BTW, at least around here, the Amish don't use forward-facing lights
and most don't use backward-facing ones. Most just use a reflective
triangle facing back. Jack must be near "liberal" Amish. We also
have Mennonite, which are more apt to have lights.

We have Mennonites, but rarely see them. I think they've arranged their
lives so they have most things within easy distance so they never have to
enter our world.

drydem

2007-04-08 18:02:46 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the air
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes transit.
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels in stop
and go traffic..

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

Air pollution is a global issue. Locally the DC area uses mainly
diesel/oil electric utility plants. However, there is a new clean
electricity energy program in place in the DC area
to purchase *green* electricity from wind farms,

http://www.pepcoenergy.com/naturalgaselectricity/greenEnergy.aspx

For example,
below are sample web pages with respect to one such jurisdiction:

http://www.pepcoenergy.com/naturalgaselectricity/mocoCleanEnergyRewards.aspx
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/deptmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/rewards.asp

note that the energy credit provide for *green* electricity is to
offset
to the extra cost ( bringing the cost of *green* electricity down to
a price close to regular electricity generated by oil or coal) ----
purchasing *green* electricity is more expensive
than regular coal/oil generated electricity ...

HTH

George Conklin

2007-04-08 19:51:57 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the air
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes transit.
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels in stop
and go traffic..

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

According to Scientific American, the USA, due to its vast land and
forets, abosrbs more carbon than it produces.

Clark F Morris

2007-04-08 22:24:22 UTC

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:51:57 GMT, "George Conklin"

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the

air

Post by Mr.Cool
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes

transit.

Post by Jack May
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels

in stop

Post by Jack May
and go traffic..

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

According to Scientific American, the USA, due to its vast land and
forets, abosrbs more carbon than it produces.

George do you have a web citation or specific issue reference for
that? Do you recall whether Canada would be included in that
statement?

Amy Blankenship

2007-04-08 22:36:58 UTC

Post by Clark F Morris
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:51:57 GMT, "George Conklin"

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the

air

Post by Mr.Cool
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes

transit.

Post by Jack May
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels

in stop

Post by Jack May
and go traffic..

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

According to Scientific American, the USA, due to its vast land and
forets, abosrbs more carbon than it produces.

George do you have a web citation or specific issue reference for
that? Do you recall whether Canada would be included in that
statement?

Does it really matter? Presumably the forests were performing carbon
binding before European settlers arrived. What do you think the likelihood
is that the North American forests have increased their carbon binding since
that time?

George Conklin

2007-04-08 23:06:16 UTC

Post by Clark F Morris
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:51:57 GMT, "George Conklin"

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the

air

Post by Mr.Cool
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes

transit.

Post by Jack May
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels

in stop

Post by Jack May
and go traffic..

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

According to Scientific American, the USA, due to its vast land and
forets, abosrbs more carbon than it produces.

George do you have a web citation or specific issue reference for
that? Do you recall whether Canada would be included in that
statement?

I have a hard copy at work, but I'm out for a week. I could look then. A
man at the EPA gave it to me.

drydem

2007-04-09 05:40:19 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the

air

Post by Mr.Cool
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes

transit.

Post by Jack May
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels

in stop

Post by Jack May
and go traffic..

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

According to Scientific American, the USA, due to its vast land and
forets, abosrbs more carbon than it produces.

Because you didnot provide a full citation of your
source I can only guess that you might be referring
to a controversial study lead by a Dr. Fan, et al
published in Science (October 18, 1998)[1] which reportedly
suggested that the North American carbon sink was capable
of absorbing more CO2 than the USA was producing;
Currently, many if not all scientists now believe that
study had overestimated the North American carbon
sink's ability to absorb CO2 .

Most scientist now estimate that the USA gross annual
output for CO2 is about 6 billion tons, while the USA
net annual output of CO2 (which is added to the earth's
atmosphere) is about 3 to 4 billion tons. Most of the
estimates indicate range from 10 to 30 percent of the
CO2 generated by the USA is reabsorbed back into the
land ( via the North American carbon sink).

[1] A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by
Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models
S. Fan, M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi,
P. Tans
Science 16 October 1998:Vol. 282. no. 5388, pp. 442 - 446.DOI: 10.1126/
science.282.5388.442

other sources
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981020074617.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/200011104246.html
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=441
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5409/1815a
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/4/1533

george conklin

2007-04-09 20:18:50 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution the

air

Post by Mr.Cool
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes

transit.

Post by Jack May
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels

in stop

Post by Jack May
and go traffic..

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

According to Scientific American, the USA, due to its vast land and
forets, abosrbs more carbon than it produces.

Because you didnot provide a full citation of your
source I can only guess that you might be referring
to a controversial study lead by a Dr. Fan, et al
published in Science (October 18, 1998)[1] which reportedly
suggested that the North American carbon sink was capable
of absorbing more CO2 than the USA was producing;
Currently, many if not all scientists now believe that
study had overestimated the North American carbon
sink's ability to absorb CO2 .
Most scientist now estimate that the USA gross annual
output for CO2 is about 6 billion tons, while the USA
net annual output of CO2 (which is added to the earth's
atmosphere) is about 3 to 4 billion tons. Most of the
estimates indicate range from 10 to 30 percent of the
CO2 generated by the USA is reabsorbed back into the
land ( via the North American carbon sink).
[1] A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by
Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models
S. Fan, M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi,
P. Tans
Science 16 October 1998:Vol. 282. no. 5388, pp. 442 - 446.DOI: 10.1126/
science.282.5388.442
other sources
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981020074617.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/200011104246.html
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=441
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5409/1815a
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/4/1533

I am not aware that Science has posted a retraction, are you?

drydem

2007-04-13 11:56:15 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution
the

air

Post by Mr.Cool
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes

transit.

Post by Jack May
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution levels

in stop

Post by Jack May
and go traffic..

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a lot of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

According to Scientific American, the USA, due to its vast land and
forets, abosrbs more carbon than it produces.

Because you didnot provide a full citation of your
source I can only guess that you might be referring
to a controversial study lead by a Dr. Fan, et al
published in Science (October 18, 1998)[1] which reportedly
suggested that the North American carbon sink was capable
of absorbing more CO2 than the USA was producing;
Currently, many if not all scientists now believe that
study had overestimated the North American carbon
sink's ability to absorb CO2 .
Most scientist now estimate that the USA gross annual
output for CO2 is about 6 billion tons, while the USA
net annual output of CO2 (which is added to the earth's
atmosphere) is about 3 to 4 billion tons. Most of the
estimates indicate range from 10 to 30 percent of the
CO2 generated by the USA is reabsorbed back into the
land ( via the North American carbon sink).
[1] A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by
Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models
S. Fan, M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi,
P. Tans
Science 16 October 1998:Vol. 282. no. 5388, pp. 442 - 446.DOI: 10.1126/
science.282.5388.442
other sources
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981020074617.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/2000111042...
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=441
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5409/1815a
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/4/1533

I am not aware that Science has posted a retraction, are you?

Scientific journals don't post retractions.

Politicians do retractions.

However, scientific journals often publish corrections and/or
changes to a scientific models ( the North American Carbon Sink
is a ecological scientific model). It may also publish
new theories or scientific models which are better than
previous scientific models.

In this particular case, Science magazine did published atleast
one letter to the editor asserting the orginal study had
overestimated the carbon sinks capacity. Science magazine
also publish another study about a year later which downgraded
the capacity of the North American Carbon Sink. From the reports
I've seen to present, most scientist support an extensively
downgraded CO2 absorption capacity estimates of the North
American Carbon Sink ecological model which puts its
capacity at about 2.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

On the other hand, the latest report I've read
point to an increased the USA CO2 emissions
of about 7 billion tons of CO2 annually.
Which would results in an annual USA net carbon
emission output of over 4 billion tons
( if all thing stay the same).

george conklin

2007-04-14 19:20:48 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while pollution
the

air

Post by Mr.Cool
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that idealizes

transit.

Post by Jack May
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution
levels

in stop

Post by Jack May
and go traffic..

Hmmm Maby because theres a hell of a lot more people in the city did
you think of that?
Suburbs only appear to be less pollusive beacause they are alot more
spread out and distant from each other. Their are lot of people that
come in and out of cities on
a daily basis because so many people that work in the cities
live
in
the suburbs.
Sure I agree with you that cities cause alot of pollution in the air,
but thats mainly cause theres
so many people living/working in them. Since everything is so
convenient or as you like
to say "Conjested" theres alot of things within walking distance for
example for me
I within a mile or two theres is a library,7 gas stations,an ace
hardware,4 parks, and one lake.
You call it conjested? I call it convenient. Its not like theres any
traffic on the small streets in my
neighborhood so i dont see how its is "conjested". Unless by your
deffinition of conjested is
no huge open spaces to drive you four wheeler.

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a
lot
of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

According to Scientific American, the USA, due to its vast land and
forets, abosrbs more carbon than it produces.

Because you didnot provide a full citation of your
source I can only guess that you might be referring
to a controversial study lead by a Dr. Fan, et al
published in Science (October 18, 1998)[1] which reportedly
suggested that the North American carbon sink was capable
of absorbing more CO2 than the USA was producing;
Currently, many if not all scientists now believe that
study had overestimated the North American carbon
sink's ability to absorb CO2 .
Most scientist now estimate that the USA gross annual
output for CO2 is about 6 billion tons, while the USA
net annual output of CO2 (which is added to the earth's
atmosphere) is about 3 to 4 billion tons. Most of the
estimates indicate range from 10 to 30 percent of the
CO2 generated by the USA is reabsorbed back into the
land ( via the North American carbon sink).
[1] A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by
Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models
S. Fan, M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi,
P. Tans
Science 16 October 1998:Vol. 282. no. 5388, pp. 442 - 446.DOI: 10.1126/
science.282.5388.442
other sources
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981020074617.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/2000111042...
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=441
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5409/1815a
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/4/1533

I am not aware that Science has posted a retraction, are you?

Which is a bitch, not a scientific study. I am not aware that Science
magazine has published a refereed article refuting the original, nor a
retraction saying that data were wrong. Journals DO publish retractions for
errors.

drydem

2007-04-15 00:44:38 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool
O so you having to get into your car,using gas while
pollution
the

air

Post by Mr.Cool
to basicly do anything outside of
your house must be your definition of heaven then right?

More urban legend crap from the ignorant loser class that
idealizes

transit.

Post by Jack May
Dense cities have more congestion leading to higher pollution
levels

in stop

Post by Jack May
and go traffic..

Hmmm Maby because theres a hell of a lot more people in the city
did
you think of that?
Suburbs only appear to be less pollusive beacause they are alot
more
spread out and distant from each other. Their are lot of people
that
come in and out of cities on
a daily basis because so many people that work in the cities
live
in
the suburbs.
Sure I agree with you that cities cause alot of pollution in the
air,
but thats mainly cause theres
so many people living/working in them. Since everything is so
convenient or as you like
to say "Conjested" theres alot of things within walking distance
for
example for me
I within a mile or two theres is a library,7 gas stations,an ace
hardware,4 parks, and one lake.
You call it conjested? I call it convenient. Its not like theres
any
traffic on the small streets in my
neighborhood so i dont see how its is "conjested". Unless by your
deffinition of conjested is
no huge open spaces to drive you four wheeler.

My firm did a community report card last fall for a small, rural
county. One of the most interesting findings was that the county, in
the far western part of NYS had some of the most polluted air in the
state for one measure -- I believe ozone IIRC. I called the state to
ask some questions, one of which was "why do you have this measuring
station in the first place, considering most of the other counties
didn't have such stations". I was told that is was a base-line to
measure the pollution as the winds came across the state. As it turns
out, the ozone was from the coal plants in Ohio and the state was
checking to see if the air got cleaner or dirtier as it moved across
the state. So we have pristine areas with bad air -- go figure.
My point is that the pollution was in a rural area, but caused by the
power plants needed for the cites. It was the cities exporting the
pollution to the poor folks who lived in the rural areas and didn't
expect to have bad air quality.
So for whatever you think of your air quality in the city, take into
account that it is as good as it is because you have exported a
lot
of
your pollution to other areas because you wouldn't want a big, old
coal plant in the midst of your city -- you want it out "where it
won't hurt anyone".

According to Scientific American, the USA, due to its vast land and
forets, abosrbs more carbon than it produces.

Because you didnot provide a full citation of your
source I can only guess that you might be referring
to a controversial study lead by a Dr. Fan, et al
published in Science (October 18, 1998)[1] which reportedly
suggested that the North American carbon sink was capable
of absorbing more CO2 than the USA was producing;
Currently, many if not all scientists now believe that
study had overestimated the North American carbon
sink's ability to absorb CO2 .
Most scientist now estimate that the USA gross annual
output for CO2 is about 6 billion tons, while the USA
net annual output of CO2 (which is added to the earth's
atmosphere) is about 3 to 4 billion tons. Most of the
estimates indicate range from 10 to 30 percent of the
CO2 generated by the USA is reabsorbed back into the
land ( via the North American carbon sink).
[1] A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by
Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models
S. Fan, M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi,
P. Tans
Science 16 October 1998:Vol. 282. no. 5388, pp. 442 - 446.DOI: 10.1126/
science.282.5388.442
other sources
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981020074617.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/2000111042...
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=441
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5409/1815a
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/4/1533

I am not aware that Science has posted a retraction, are you?

False.
You certainly have a rather warped sense of how the scientific
community works. (9_9)

The letter was from a knowledgable scientist in the same field who
cast doubt on Dr. Fan's pioneering model and was a normal part of
last stages peer review in the scientific process. Scientific
journals
like Science Magazine are neutral and don't publish retractions
(of support) for scientific models, hypothesis, and theories.
Publications is based on scientific merit regardless of how
controversal the study may be. Corrections are published
when error has been found or there was a falsification of data.
Normally the initial publication peer review process prevents this
from occuring. Dr. Fan's controversal and pioneering study
created a novel scientific model to estimate the carbon absorption
of the North American land mass. WRT to the letter, it had
argued that Dr. Fan's model's estimated CO2 absorption rates
was based on questionable historical assumptions about
the North American climate. A year later, Science published
another paper which downgraded the North American Carbon
Sink capacity. It would be nice if Dr. Fan's model was true
but it seems to me that the only people who still cling onto
his original estimations are oil and coal lobbyists. (9_9)
Since I don't have the actually research papers - I can't
go into this topic further - however, suffice to say the I
ideal that the North American Carbon Sink is going to save
us from our own carbon emission has been already
been dismissed by scientist everywhere.

What gets us in trouble is not what we don't know.....
but what we know for sure that just ain't so.
---Mark Twain

Baxter

2007-04-07 00:30:35 UTC

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Pat
Where I live, we are spread out. We don't need to "preserve"
anything.

Yes you do. You just haven't realized it yet.

Post by Pat
BTW, spreading things out means a better control of things
like storm water so you don't need to dump it into rivers and pollute
the heck out of them.

No, it means your pollution is spread out where you can't deal with it
instead of being "point source" where you could clean it up before putting
the storm water in the rivers. What you're doing now unmanaged (letting
natural processes clear the water) could be done better managed (settlement
basins, etc.)

Pat

2007-04-07 01:14:44 UTC

Post by Baxter
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Pat
Where I live, we are spread out. We don't need to "preserve"
anything.

Yes you do. You just haven't realized it yet.

No. If they developed every single inch of developable land within 10
miles of my house, you'd couldn't develop 25% of the land. Some land
is just plain undevelopable, isn't that great!!! The state park just
to the south (about 2 miles from the house) is about 100 square
MILES. There's probably another 100 square MILES of state forest to
the north. The SNI WANTS to develop the Rez. Plus we have lots of
steep hillsides that can't be developed. Lumber is still a big
industry here. All of NYS is NOT NYC.

Post by Baxter

Post by Pat
BTW, spreading things out means a better control of things
like storm water so you don't need to dump it into rivers and pollute
the heck out of them.

You're out of your gourd. Let nature take it's course. Nature is a
lot better about things than man is. Let the rain soak in, like it's
supposed to, not have the run-off dumped into rivers. That changes
the ecology. Besides, lots of people eat the fish out of the rivers
and streams around here.

Baxter

2007-04-07 19:00:16 UTC

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter

Post by Pat
Where I live, we are spread out. We don't need to "preserve"
anything.

Yes you do. You just haven't realized it yet.

So why are you building on the good land? Why not build on the land that is
not useful for farming, timber, etc? Here in Oregon, we try to leave land
free for timber, farming, and the like.

Post by Baxter

Post by Pat
BTW, spreading things out means a better control of things
like storm water so you don't need to dump it into rivers and pollute
the heck out of them.

You didn't understand a word I wrote. Take off your blinders and actually
read what I write instead of just trying to make yourself feel better.

George Conklin

2007-04-07 12:02:23 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com
The fight between suburb and urban is always going to be around. To
each their own.
But here are the facts...

Yikes, another arogent jerk. Who died and named you the keeper of the
facts. 2+2=4 is a fact. "I like cities" is an opinion.

Post by h***@gmail.com
Urban environments efficiently use land. This preserves space for both
parks and open space.

Even in NYC there are considerable distances between things. That is why
the subway was built, so the rich could put the poor in the remote location
called Brooklyn, and still spend their 1-hour commute getting into Manhattan
so they could pay lower wages. The goal was to keep residences far far from
the valuable land in Manhattan and to push the middle class out. It still
works that way across the nation. Smart Growth? More of the "push them
out" school.

Baxter

2007-04-07 19:03:03 UTC