Scientist Warns Plasma And LCD Televisions Could Be Destroying Our Environment

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]babybudha[/nom]Well,according to the most accurate history/science book (AKA. The Bible), the earth is only about 6000 years old.[/citation]

Why are people getting all mad at this comment? I just assumed he was joking and thought it was kind of funny. Although not living in the US, I generally assume that nobody really believes this.

Also, @Mat-Tito, I completely agree with you. Whether global warming exists or not (though I believe it does), it is essential that we as a species do our best to limit the amount of pollution we create and conserve what resources we haven't already depleted. You'll be hard pressed to find somebody arguing that fish stocks are dying out naturally or that the terrible air quality in many cities is a natural phenomenon.

 

[dmacfour]

Oh god not the 6000 year old debate again. Maybe you should try reading the bible yourself sometime. Tell me where the bible says how old the earth is instead of quoting some medieval theologian who really didn't know how old the earth is.

 

[Ananan]

Medival Theolgian?

My confirmation class teacher (a pastor) taught us the earth was no more than 11,00 years old (an enlightened thought when you consider the usual 6000 year theory) by providing some sort of eveidence based on the layers of "dust" on the moon and now long they would have taken to accumulate. He taught it as fact.

This took place more recently than the middle ages.

 

[alchemy69]

I have ripe banana. Bananas go bad in a week. Therefore the universe is less than a week old. QED. Any memories you have of a time before this week were planted in your head by God to fool scientists.

 

[klarkmdb]

Well,according to the most accurate history/science book (AKA. The Bible), the earth is only about 6000 years old.

Guys, you really have to read through your bible. If you read in the book of GENESIS it states that the bible is really billions of years old. And that proves what history and science says. It's really happening you know, the end of times is really near as we see these reports of intelligent people.

 

[grieve]

I for one follow science rather then the bible, however I was raised Catholic.

Sir Isaac Newton predicted the world will end in 2060, after reading about Newton and his achievements in Mathematics and Science I believe this prediction. I also think 2060 at our present pace is reasonable.

 

[Neog2]

Medival Theolgian?

My confirmation class teacher (a pastor) taught us the earth was no more than 11,00 years old (an enlightened thought when you consider the usual 6000 year theory) by providing some sort of eveidence based on the layers of "dust" on the moon and now long they would have taken to accumulate. He taught it as fact.

This took place more recently than the middle ages.

Really really interesting, but I would like to see some inkling of proof. Because there are tons of ways that can be shot down. But I wont
shoot it down until I understand where the guy was coming from.

So help my out send some info.

Neog2.

 

[Titanius]

The end is near, oh no! Please... You people do scare rather easily. So a scientist claims that this gas is harmful, ok fine, but we don't let this gas escape into the environment, so what's the big deal? I mean there are thousands of gases and other harmful products that will be 100 times more powerful than CO2 but do you know what? It is kept inside, not released into the environment. The gas is used to produce the TVs, it is not needed to use the TVs. Get it? It means your shinny new HDTV isn't a pressurized gas tank but a harmless TV, nothing more nothing less. Hell I could go on and on that producing CRT (Cathode-Ray Tube) TVs is even more dangerous or better hazardous. Scientist these days just want publicity for finding irrelevant facts about a very popular product. Next we'll hear that computer components are built using harmful materials, even the RoHS parts...ooh be afraid be very afraid!

 

[harrycat88]

I've been hearing about this global warming BS by DOOM sayers for over 30 years now and I havn't seen or noticed any changes that they keep talking about all the time.
Why don't they do us a big favor and Shut the F#@! UP.
We already have the EPA/OSHA on our backs, we don't need Doom sayers and speculators making things worse such as raising the price of gasoline over $4 a gallon like it is today.
And speaking of Gasoline, just think, when Labor day weekend get's here, the price will be $5 a gallon and you can thank people like these morons for bringing us such wonderful deceptive news about the greenhouse effects and global warming BS etc,etc,etc
If you give me a negative rating for this, then you're a queer.

 

[Abydosone]

[citation][nom]MDillenbeck[/nom]"Warming is caused by the sun, thus greenhouse gases don't cause temperature fluctations". Now add taking a course on argumentative composition or logic - or regularly read R. Moody's logical fallacy of the day. Learn that logic arguments like "how can you believe his statement that most US citizens don't save enough money - he's disshevelled, smelly, and an atheist so he can't be right!" are invalid and unsound, as are arguments like "all crows are black birds, therefore the black bird I see must be a crow". The point is this - just because sun spot fluctuations and thus solar radiation fluctuations can cause global temperature variations, not all variations in global temperatures are solely caused by fluctuations in solar activity/radiation.So, once you actually understand what science is - such as the drastic definition of a theory in science (a hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly over many, many, many replications by independent parties that has yet to be proven false) versus in common speach (a guess) - and have a solid foundation in the sciences required (statistics and other forms of mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, and logic/argument - and perhaps a bit of policy science), you'll be ready to make sound, valid, and rational arguments.Until that time, I'll keep believing in greenhouse gases and anthropogenic influences on global greenhouse gas levels, the theory of evolution, and the Universal Theory of Gravity - though I am sure there are those who will tell me the only reason that the book dropped on my foot was because God willed it since I'm one of those wacko SOBs who believes in the scientific method![/citation]


The sun is a star. Stars get bigger and hotter as they age. Astronomy 101 there bud. Of course the sun expanding has something to do with it, if it hasn't, how would you explain the average temperature of each of our planets increasing slightly over the years? Global warming and in fact "solar system warming" is happening whether we want it to or not. There is nothing you can do but delay it and hope it does not affect you in your lifetime. Eventually our star will die, and then what? Blame it on human pollution problems? I think this whole "going green" campaign is just over-hyped for something that cannot be prevented in the long run.

 

[frozenlead]

Well, let's see.
We all know it is a fact that the earth has gone through major climate changes before, and multiple times.
Doesn't it seem entirely probable that, through the scientific process of homeostasis, the earth will, once again, go through a climate shift?
So, wait, that means that the earth heating up and cooling off is completely NATURAL? Wow.
When was the last time you woke up, and it was 67 degrees while the sun was out, and 54 when it went down. Then, the next day, it was 67 degrees when the sun was out, and 54 when it wasn't.
Temperatures change, people, it's just the way the world works.

 

[artaemis]

Okay here... There are WAY too many people that have strong opinions about things they don't seem to know a whole lot about. Let's get some things straight:
1) I'm not saying to not challenge science or to not always weigh facts with appropriate skepticism, but assuming that the scientific community as a whole is some sort of political machine that is trying to trick the public into doing things is unarguable in terms of real logic. If the public can't believe them, where are we? That's like trying to argue about whether life is real or is it just a figment of our imagination. Or what color things are when it's dark. Philosophical, yes. Arguable and discussable, no. If it can't be tested by science, or if the scientists flat-out lie to us, it can't be debated. End of that story.
2) Yes, temperatures on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis fluctuate. No one is arguing that. It's the rate of change of the average WORLD temperature over a long period of time that is the issue. Yes, the average world temperature has been both warmer and colder in the past, but it's the RATE of warming that is the issue here. Animals and plants would be able to adapt if the change was happening slowly, but it's not. That is a FACT (see #1).
3) We could probably argue forever and never get to a good answer about the exact % contribution humanity is putting in on warming the earth with gases and deforestation and overfishing and breathing and whatever. The bigger point is that the Earth is warming up (see #1 and #2) and humanity in general is having some kind of effect, and scientists generally agree (see #1 again) that we should try to stop it because the consequences will most likely be generally detrimental to our general well-being.
4) As far as what those 'bad' consequences will be, there are lots of models and theories, but they all have the same theme: Large icy areas will melt, ocean levels will rise, millions of people and billions of acres of arable land will be displaced by salt water, climate patterns will shift, many species will likely be unable to adapt and will become extinct. Don't believe me or all the scientists? (see #1)

 

[Ananan]

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I've moved on to place my trust in science.

I have to think back to remember what he was teaching. As far as I can recall his "proof" was centered around the our first moon contacts, and the fact that the predicted layer of sedimant (or "moon dust, or whatever) was far more shallow than scientists had calculated.

He gave some sort of calculations that it would have taken 11,00 years for this "dust" to accumulate.

It had a major effect on my thinking (you have to remember - I was in grade school at the time).

 

[pereira5375]

According to the UN the average American has a per capita CO2 emmission of 20 metric tons. So by my calculation if 5 of you who actually believe this garbage would give the ultimate sacrifice for the cause the rest of us 300,000,000 Americans could enjoy our LCD's and Plasmas guilt free.

 

[elpresidente2075]

According to the UN the average American has a per capita CO2 emmission of 20 metric tons. So by my calculation if 5 of you who actually believe this garbage would give the ultimate sacrifice for the cause the rest of us 300,000,000 Americans could enjoy our LCD's and Plasmas guilt free.

That... doesn't make any sense...

 

[islseur]

[citation][nom]artaemis[/nom]..but assuming that the scientific community as a whole is some sort of political machine that is trying to trick the public into doing things is unarguable in terms of real logic. If the public can't believe them, where are we?[/citation]
In deep intellectual slavery and manipulation.

[citation][nom]artaemis[/nom]If it can't be tested by science, or if the scientists flat-out lie to us, it can't be debated. End of that story[/citation]
Your stance amazes me. You thing that "if the scientists flat-out lie to us, it can't be debated."? You think lies and deceit should not be questioned?

Millions of people can die because of 1 lie. That's the price of lies. You just hope and pray that you won't find yourself one day to be one of those poor fellas.

 

[piratepast40]

Many of you are off tilting at your own personal windmills and are missing what the guy is saying - this is another use for the fluorocarbons that were replaced by (supposedly) less offending chemicals used for refrigeration. These compounds have many uses and if the general concensus (right or wrong) is that we should limit the amount used in consumer products, then there should be some awareness.

A bigger issue on this forum that people should be aware of is the censoring function. I find it rather insulting that some jerks have the ability to "vote" about what they think the rest us us should be able to hear!

 

[vcolon]

rofl...so who's going to jump all over this one, Barrack Hussein Obama or John spineless Mccain

 

[randomizer]

Don't dis the ABC unless you can name it right, it's the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The women's sport channel :lol:

 

[pereira5375]

Ok elpresidente allow me to break this down for you. There are the equivalent of 68 million tons of CO2 created by the use of NF3 gas in the production of LCD and plasma TV's. Each American is accused of causing the release of 20 metric tonns (UN) of CO2. So therefore if only 4 (I said five before that was incorrect) of you would give the ulitmate sacrifice (you know like our soldiers do - this is a war after all) the rest of us 300,000,000 Americans could have our LCD'c and plasmas guilt free.
Although I'm afraid the extra electrical use of my plasma might require a few more of you to give all for the cause.

 

[pereira5375]

What I'm saying is why is this even a story? Even if you believe in this garbage we are talking about equivalent of the CO2 output of 4 Americans in one year vs the entire LCD and plasma industry. It is a ridiculous story. It wouldn't even be a story if it weren't for foolish people eating it up and not considering the ramifications of "fixing" it.

 

[Rifte]

pereira5375, if each American releases 20 tonnes of CO2 then it would be 68,000,000/20 which is 3.4 million. NOT 4

 

[Rifte]

To put it into perspective 68million tonnes is almost exactly twice the yearly emissions of my entire country(NZ) with 4.1million people. So yes it's not such a ridiculous story now is it.

 

[Coffey]

A group of top theoretical scientists believe that there is at least a 20 percent chance that our reality is in fact a computer simulation. This concept would be like The Matrix. It is an intriguing prospect that perhaps gives the Bible a 20 percent chance that the earth is indeed only 6000 years old, the length of time that these vast quantum programs have been executing. When quantum computing becomes a reality here then perhaps we can program a world in a universe where we are the fathers.

 

[Alternator]

[citation][nom]Mat-Tito[/nom]Every time I hear ppl debating about global warming I can't help but think that we are missing the point. I don't really care if global warming is happening or not, I actually care much more about how much we pollute and waste. We need to protect where we live, would you let someone in your family dirty your house or break everything inside of it? I don't think so. Why not do the same for our planet. I think media has a big role in this because when I was younger pollution and recycling were the big issues and most of us agree that those are important, but now it has switch over to global warming which is basicly a different name for the same thing but creates much more confusion and problems... My two cents...[/citation]

I agree with this too! Whether or not people believe in global warming, they should believe in the problems cropping up in resource supply/demand/wastage!

I also wonder how well the co2 trading scheme's coming out will actually work at the end of the day (beyond shuffling money from one person to another)...
Mainly because I can't see how it will reconcile with an economic system that seems to require constant growth to avoid the "R" word (which in my mind roughly translates into ever increasing usage of resources)
Top it off with a population which is also increasing!

But I've already succumbed to the LCD allure, and have a nice 27" display for my computer (although I also use that as an excuse not to bother with an even bigger LCD tv)