Highserotonin90
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 772
Tell me that there is no place in the world without all this crap .... at least I die in peace ... in the end what do we think we can achieve with power alone and eliminating PUFAs ???!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
hi"in the end what do we think we can achieve with power alone and eliminating PUFAs ???!"are you asking,or is that a rethorical question?Tell me that there is no place in the world without all this crap .... at least I die in peace ... in the end what do we think we can achieve with power alone and eliminating PUFAs ???!
non-rhetorical question in the sense that we commit ourselves a lot with nutrition and lifestyle and maybe all this is canceled by the environmental pollution that we don't even see .... it would seem quite sad and frustrating.hi"in the end what do we think we can achieve with power alone and eliminating PUFAs ???!"are you asking,or is that a rethorical question?
it does not necessary,i live arround paris in the subburb where there is pollution,and i have experienced certain intense positives state that i would have though only possible in fantaisy.you can reach a state where you feel your power and energy are infinite even in polluated places,what you eat,your activities and the peoples you spend time with has way more impact than the average air pollution on how you feelnon-rhetorical question in the sense that we commit ourselves a lot with nutrition and lifestyle and maybe all this is canceled by the environmental pollution that we don't even see .... it would seem quite sad and frustrating.
No lifestyle or dietary improvement is ever cancelled, because health damage is additive.non-rhetorical question in the sense that we commit ourselves a lot with nutrition and lifestyle and maybe all this is canceled by the environmental pollution that we don't even see .... it would seem quite sad and frustrating.
I never said anything like that.@BearWithMe hi,on what do you base of your claim that sunlight increase the absorbtion through the skin of these environnementals polluants?
i thought your text implyed it when i first asked you this question a copples of days ago,why then someone sunbathing would be expose to more polluants than people that dont sunbath considering that polluants are in building/houses and outside?I never said anything like that.
There is generally more polution outdoors than indoors. Polution doesn't spread homogenously in the air. Especially the larger, heavier particles. Of course, it depends on many factors.i thought your text implyed it when i first asked you this question a copples of days ago,why then someone sunbathing would be expose to more polluants than people that dont sunbath considering that polluants are in building/houses and outside?
The thing about cars and the west is they have catalytic and dpf's now and engines are much smaller than they used to be and much cleaner air coming out of them but developing countries don't have these things, it's very apparent when visiting them how horrible it is to try breath on the streets, they are the countries which have experienced huge population growth where the west is dying but has the most strict environmental rules. Europe is a museum and thats who mandates the euro emitions standards.Actually it might be worth elaborating.
Western world have different kind of polution than before, not less polution.
Less apparent, but more dangerous polution. Polution that will kill you more slowly, without causing immediate obvious symptoms, so nobody realize it was the polution that killed them.
Car engines are perfect example of that. We are focusing on reducing CO2 and PM10 emissions, and we are very succesfull in reducing them. Cars produce less visible smoke, and we pat ourselves on our backs, how we have much less polution than before.
But the exact changes in engine construction, that will cause it to release less CO2 and PM10, will cause it to release more NOx and PM2.5.
Well, guess what is more harmful to human health...
Also, keep in mind that few decades back, people did not considered things like DDT as polution either. They thought it was perfectly safe and sprayed it everywhere like crazy.
I guarantee you that 20 years from now, many of the things we are considering perfectly safe and routinely use will be banned and considered polution.
Cars in developing countries definitely have DPFs and catalytic. The polution in developing countries in mostly industrial.The thing about cars and the west is they have catalytic and dpf's now and engines are much smaller than they used to be and much cleaner air coming out of them but developing countries don't have these things, it's very apparent when visiting them how horrible it is to try breath on the streets, they are the countries which have experienced huge population growth where the west is dying but has the most strict environmental rules. Europe is a museum and thats who mandates the euro emitions standards.
Many countries are not enforcing euro emmisons standards so they don't have to have to be sold with them from new. The current standard is euro 6 and most of China except Beijing is still on euro 3, same as India. Developing countries have many more motorcycles than cars which most dont have catalytic converters.Cars in developing countries definitely have DPFs and catalytic. The polution in developing countries in mostly industrial.
I have addresed the other points in the post you quote.
CO2 is not a pollutant. And what do you mean by "sucessfully reducing them" in regards to CO2? You know that CO2 is the end product when you burn carbon?Car engines are perfect example of that. We are focusing on reducing CO2 and PM10 emissions, and we are very succesfull in reducing them. Cars produce less visible smoke, and we pat ourselves on our backs, how we have much less polution than before.
Half of the posts in this thread are either implying I have said something I have never said, or ripping things I have actually said out of the conext, which gives them completely opposite meaning.CO2 is not a pollutant. And what do you mean by "sucessfully reducing them" in regards to CO2? You know that CO2 is the end product when you burn carbon?
Half of the posts in this thread are either implying I have said something I have never said, or ripping things I have actually said out of the conext, which gives them completely opposite meaning.
If you have quoted the whole post, it would be obvious I'm critisizing our attempts to reduce CO2. I'm literally saying reducing CO2 doesn't mean reducing polution.
Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys
Our species evolved for hundreds of thousands of years in Africa, spending most of our lives under direct sunlight. At times, there was much more UV radiation reaching Earth than today (magnetic field fluctuations, changes in solar activity...)
Nowadays, air is full of garbage ranging from agricultural chemicals to nanoparticles from car/plane/ship exhausts, and many things inbetwen. All that s**t ends up on our skin, and gets absorbed.
Add to that the fact that most people who often sunbathe also often swim outdoors, and the fact that our waters are much more poluted than our air, and skin cancer almost seems surprisingly rare.
UV radiation probably have an effect, but it is more like a catalyst than cause of skin cancer. Which makes it great scapegoat, so we don't have to admit we fked up Earth so bad it is already pretty much unhabitable.
Western world have different kind of polution than before, not less polution.
Less apparent, but more dangerous polution. Polution that will kill you more slowly, without causing immediate obvious symptoms, so nobody realize it was the polution that killed them.
There is generally more polution outdoors than indoors. Polution doesn't spread homogenously in the air. Especially the larger, heavier particles. Of course, it depends on many factors.
But the key difference is in the clothing.
When you sunbathe, you are naked. The particles fall directly on your skin an potentially get absorbed.
When you have your clothes on, most of the particles stuck on the clothes, then you wash them out and they can't get absorbed.