8/4 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
"Walking to shops damages planet more than going by car". You called
me a troll when I brought up some of the things this article says.
Have a nice day and next time drive, don't walk, if you want to go
green. ;-)
\_ Why do you waste our time with this crap? Some examples: (huh?)
- Someone who installs a "green" lightbulb undoes a year's worth
of energy-saving by buying two bags of imported veg,
as so much carbon is wasted flying the food to Britain
of energy-saving by buying two bags of imported veg, as so much
carbon is wasted flying the food to Britain
\_ ok fine. what do the concepts in the above 3 lines have
anything to do with each other? can't you find a better
piece than this, this article is making me dumber by existing.
- Trees, regarded as shields against global warming because they
absorb carbon, were found by German scientists to be
major producers of methane, a much more harmful greenhouse gas
absorb carbon, were found by German scientists to be major
producers of methane, a much more harmful greenhouse gas
\_ The German study may be incorrect as a Dutch study has
failed to confirm the same:
http://www.physorg.com/news96890121.html
Who are you? Please kill yourself.
\_ If you have a counter then please post it. If all you have to
say is childish nonsense and more personal attack, then you
can stop anytime. I was waiting for someone intelligent to
reply, not a knee jerker. Have a nice day, friend.
\_ He's suggesting that you produce a lot of carbon dioxide and
that he'd like you to offset his own carbon production by
ceasing your output. Sounds like a winnning solution. -!pp
\_ Childish smearing: A good way to avoid any intelligent
debate. As expected.
\_ Who gets 100% of their calories from beef? What a silly "study."
The obvious answer, which is later in the article, is to eat less
meat and imported veggies. Also, live less then 3 miles from the
store. Who lives that far from the store? Suburbanites?
\_ Up until this July there wasn't a grocery store in downtown LA.
\_ "180 calories to walk to the store.
150 calories to remain alive while sitting on the couch for the
same time period.
maybe we should all just die instead.
tc, bogota, colombia"
This comment on the "study" says it all.
\_ Except it isn't 150 calories to sit on the couch or we'd all
be starving. Here's some basic math on that number. Let's
assume the poster meant 150 calories per hour to sit on the
couch. 150 calories/hour X 24 hours = 3600 calories/day.
Depending on how active you are 1800-2400 calories will maintain
body weight. By this person's "says it all" comment, we'd all
quickly starve to death on a normal diet just sitting on the
couch.
\_ Is someone talking? Can't you read? That comment said it all.
\_ I read. Try some math. The comment was stupid. Try
again.
\_ If you sit on the couch 24hrs a day and not letting yourself
fall asleep, yeah you'll quickly die. Anyway, a body awake
burns more calories than a body asleep.
\_ Trolling or just pedantic?
\_ A sleeping body generates less heat. That's why you
use a blanket when you sleep in order to not feel
chilly and wake up.
\_ Ok, and this changes the numbers how? At zero
calories for 8 hours of sleep you're still burning
2400 calories/day if you burn 150/hour slacking on
the couch the other 16. You'd still starve, just
more slowly. And that's zero calories for sleeping
which we know is too low but I'm taking the extreme
case against my point for demonstration purposes.
\_ What percentage of people who get all their calories from beef
actually walk anywhere? |