Diapered Jason

I guess for you probably not. I still love you though, hehe.

Ow, that hurt a little on the inside. You definitely have thorns. I certainly can understand why someone in your position would be very defensive.

Whenever an engineer develops an attitude like this, he/she should be fired immediately, because it is attitudes like this that have led to some pretty nasty engineering disasters. Asbestos and lead are great examples, mostly because people were thinking exactly what you are thinking now. "You can't say for sure lead causes infertility, therefore you cannot stop companies from using it in their products." Here is a word to the wise, if there is even a remote possibility one plane may crash, the problem must be investigated with all planes. Generally, if something is wrong with one of the planes, something is wrong with all the planes. In severe cases, all the planes must be grounded. This kind of investigation is a regular occurrence in the aviation industry. The same holds true with your examples, which you are wrong about. All factory emissions were investigated and you will be happy to know the EPA no longer allows them to release chemicals such as benzene and sulfur dioxide into the air. Some factories had to shut down as a result. Aren't you glad Gas Works Park is a park instead of a coal gasification plant KittenAB? One of the main reasons scientists exist is to help identify the problems engineers have created. For example, the Carnot cycle was developed after the discovery of the first engine to help understand and develop it. Of course, an engineer would say the difference between a scientist and an engineer is a scientist creates problems while an engineer solves them(lame engineering joke). Nevertheless, engineers often create a system without knowing the science involved, simply because the science is not there yet. As such, we are still learning about the effects our activities have on everything else; however, engineers have gotten better at predicting the many consequences that may come about as a result of a new product. I am sure everyone has heard about nanotechnology to a certain degree. Engineered nanomaterials are now being studied extensively to determine its possible effects on health, safety, and the environment before they are being used in commercial applications. Nuclear power was not so lucky though. I would hate to see nanotechnology become the next nuclear power, but we have to make sure what we are doing is not damaging the environment and our health while at the same time keeping in mind the nanotechnology disasters that occur in science fiction movies are not real. As for the scientists you describe, I am afraid I don't know anything about them. Scientists become more renowned when they create more publications. They only loss credibility when they falsify results or something similar. Could a publication be refuted? Submitted manuscripts are thoroughly reviewed to ensure accuracy in their claims before publication. Sometimes the publisher requires editions be made to the manuscript before it can be published. These editions are always minor and center on grammatical and spelling errors. Rarely do I ever see someone's publication refuted. About the only instance I can think about is Dr. Alan Heeger who helped discover the semiconducting polymer. This may sound complicated, but the one publication he made that was refuted was his theory on the origin of band gaps in semiconducting polymers. His theory was proven wrong, but he still strongly believes in his theory. Was he discredited though? Nope. In fact, he received the Nobel prize in chemistry the year 2000. He has made grand contributions to that area of science despite being wrong about one thing. As a final statement, I do not think we are doomed. I am still hopeful that the very same technology that got us into this mess will get us out, but it will take effort.

???

I wish I could post actual articles on here, but I do not have access to any scientific journals anymore. Also, I think that would be a breach of copyright laws too. Here, try reading this instead. It has good solid references. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full Oh, and Letluvsrool, there are many scientists and engineers in these forums, just this one is currently unemployed. Love your humility though.

To be honest, when I read your title, I thought you talking about the polymer polystyrene, but I know exactly what you mean though after reading your thread. Tis a dark day when an inspiring musician dies. Luckfully, metal, the type of music that I enjoy listening to, only became popular once. Lets hope that never happens again.

Why are people so judgmental? Well in some instances, when we judge other people, we are really judging ourselves or comparing that person to ourselves. Perhaps the person who is judging feels better or even contempt when the judged person is less well off then themselves. Sometimes, I think people are instinctively competitive like a couple of dogs fighting over their food.

During my experience in college, homework was generally worth very little, but of course, every little point counts. Tests and projects represented the biggest part of the grade and all of my classes I had taken during college were graded on a curve. During my community college years, it was good enough to just do the homework and take the tests. I would get decent grades, but there was much more homework at the community college compared to the university I attended later. I also think the community college had better teachers as well, but that's off subject. During my time at the university, I learned just doing the homework, tests, and any other assigned work resulted in poor marks. As it turns out, most people at that level of education are quite dedicated shifting the curve higher. So if you have a 9am-5pm mentality, you would have gotten left in the dust. In my department, the guy who consistently got the worst grade was a WOW fanatic, lol. The homework is a great way to study for the all important tests, but I found it also helps to read the texts, and write down pertinent information from the texts, then take a good look at the optional texts as well. Sometimes I would reread the texts (for quantum mechanics, I had to reread a few sections 3 times to fully understand the material). During the end of my junior year at the university I adapted this into my studying habits and as a result set the curve numerous times my senior year. My method of study is not without flaws though. It completely falls apart when given no texts. I performed relatively poorer when I had to rely on a PowerPoint presentation or lecture with no professor-to-white/black-board interaction. If you want grades above 3.5 out of 4.0, you will need to work you ass off. Midnight is usually when I stopped working. I worked Friday nights often and weekends too. Yes, yes, yes, I had no social life. I'll just say once in a while, you will get lucky and set the curve. By the end of school I was to say quite good at it, now what do I do? Finding a job is proving to be a little more complicated than school despite the growth in my field.

Oh boy. I think I am getting out of this mess. I still love you all though. See you all around the forums.

I am afraid it is much more complicated than that. I. Mineral Processing 1. Exploration 2. Liberation 3. Separation II. Materials Processing 1. Roasting or calcining 2. Reduction of oxides or smelting (coke is required here) 3. Refinement and alloying III. Materials Manufacturing 1. Casting or extrusion 2. Rolling/stamping just to mention a few 3. Anneal if necessary This is just a very brief outline of what materials processing and manufacturing is. Recycling allow us to skip directly to the refinement and alloying process in the case of metals after collection and sorting. You are right, it is not profitable for the recycling companies to come to your house and take all your recyclables and then sort them, but if you bring your recyclables to the recycling center yourself and sort them yourself, they will pay you; however, I am sure the waste management company is milking this to the best of their ability. I am also well aware of all the chemicals they use in these processes. Most of the time the chemicals used are recycled so they can be used again. Also the acid rain problem is no joke. During the reduction of metal sulfides, sulfur dioxide is created. If released into the atmosphere the chemical will react with water to create sulfuric acid. This situation has been contained though as the materials processing companies must capture all sulfur dioxide emissions and convert it to sulfuric acid. Also, your logic about weather is with out reasoning. It is called global warming, not warming in one particular location on Earth. You are referring to local fluctuations in weather. I will return to my earlier point. Scientists have reached a consensus about global warming years ago, politicians still have not. You think I am faking this information, because you think I want your money. Come on, read between the lines.

There is nothing scientific about those websites you listed. That is politics. Your second statement is correct. The carbon dioxide emissions emitted by natural sources are roughly 20 times greater than that of human activity; however, most of this is absorbed by the current ecosystem. The problem is the carbon dioxide emissions emitted by our activities such as energy generation is not offsetted by the ecosystem. Thirdly, recycling saves time, money, and energy. Do you have any idea how much energy it costs to drill for oil and dig up minerals as well as to refine it. Steel is a perfect example. To make steel from iron ore or iron oxide, fully integrated steel mills with very large blast furnaces such as the ones in Pittsburgh are required. In the Seattle area, there are submerged arc furnaces responsible for the recycling of scrap metal and require much less energy and space. Environmentalists did not derive this industry, it was in fact economics. It is also harder then you think to find landfill space. I am sure you have heard of nimby (not in my backyard). You pointed out electronic recycling companies. This is a very profitable business. Precious metals are abundant in computer circuits and using the proper isotope of lead in the solder makes all the difference. One last thing, this conversation is getting out of hand. Sissybabyemily and kittenAB, lets be mature here and not call each other names. I am sorry if I perpetuated this. Nobody here is stupid. All I want to see is a healthy debate here.

lol, ManBearPig was a great South Park episode, but your history is flawed. Climate change originally called global warming was discovered by multiple groups of people working in many different locations. Climate change was not discovered until they put their data together. For the article, I think you are saying the carbon emissions during the ice age caused the Earth to warm up substantially allowing Earth to exit the ice age. You do realize the green house gas emissions directly relates to the derivative of average world temperatures for each year or temperature variation, not the average world temperature. Granted there are many other factors to consider, but that is just one relationship. I think you misinterpreted that article, did not describe it correctly, or just read the title. Also, if you think I am talking about Time Magazine when I am referring to research publications, then you really have no idea what a research publication is.

Pluto undergoes drastic world average temperature changes just through one rotation around the sun due to significant changes in its radial distance from the sun. You probably know that Pluto is sometimes closer to the sun than Neptune. Of course, one rotation around the sun for Pluto is about 248 "Earth" years. It is a good thing that is not the case with Earth. I can tell you have never read a research publication. These publications are very detailed and use only objectiveness in writing. They usually contain an abstract, introduction, procedure, results and discussion, conclusions, acknowledgments, and lastly references. There is nothing subjective about them. I ask you, who is the ignorant extremist? A question made with your words, not mine.

Don't blame science when you are talking about politics. Scientists are charged with presenting the facts and do not have control over these laws or what products are considered green. Green is not a technical term, but rather subjective. That type of terminology is never used in the technical fields. Any one who has experience in the scientific and especially engineering fields will tell you it is not ultimately up to them. Obviously, if you are a good manager, you will listen to your engineer, but that will not stop the ad agency for that company from spreading lies about their product if they will see more profits as a result. Scientists and engineers do not under any circumstance determine what is in the commercial. I know what laws you are referring to. A perfect example would be the new law which bans light sources with efficiencies under 30% in the US effectively eliminating incandescent lighting. Again, this decision was not made by a scientist. Politicians came up with this idea and everyone knows how inefficient they are (Probably less than 30% efficiency). Of course, as a consumer, I want an energy efficient light bulb that lasts as long as possible to reduce costs regardless. Anyone who is logical will ask for the same. We do not need a law to tell us this. Still, I find it very strange that everyone is talking about consumer products as the problem when the real problem, at least when it comes to green house gas emissions, is energy generation. So I ask myself, what the hell are politicians thinking?

You will definitely need to take antibiotics orally, which will require a prescription. The topically creams may not have much effect in this case.

I see what you are saying, I thought you were referring to research directly related to climate change, not the research done by companies. I was referring to scientists engaged in research performed at universities and national laboratories. Companies and corporations do not have an interest in studies dealing with climate change or for that matter, the effects of any pollutant they may produce. In fact, they will do all they can to stop this type of research and find a way to make the evidence seem circumstantial when it is actually inculpatory evidence. Most of the time when I see a 'green' product being advertised though, I usually see a quick flash of fine print which states that the statement is not approved by the FDA or is currently being investigated by the FDA. The Cheerios commercials do the exact same thing in that their ability to help lower cholesterol is probably greatly exaggerated. Of course, the FDA is not flawless either.

I am glad you could share your story aliceisonfire, and welcome to the dailydiapers.com boards and chat.

True, that is sometimes the case, but what is your point?

I partially agree with that statement, though most climate change research is government funded and I think you are a little confused on the definition of natural. The reason everyone sounds like an extremist is because that is what the news reports. The news corporations are for profit and know if they scare you, you will continue watching. In addition, 'green' products are not actually green at all, but more comparable to clean coal in that it is not really clean at all. Granted, we will always need coal for coke to make steel, so I am not saying coal is all bad, but no matter what way you use coal though, it will be dirty not clean. I have known from the get go that the so called 'green' products were a scam. What you really want as a consumer is efficiency, but everyone has always wanted that regardless of what they have been told is 'green'.

Oops, I was referring to the causes of climate change. I can see why that can be confusing. Well, I think it is time I hit the old dusty trail.

"Sigh," No scientist has ever said that our current climate change is due only to natural causes. Please refrain from putting words in the mouths of scientists. Thank you.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

I apologize, I did not mean to start a debate here, but everyone should understand; Gays and lesbians are in the public eye right now, and as a result people out there think they are a threat.

I had a friend who was 19 years old and had to call his parents every night. Every Single Night! If he did not call, his parents would get worried, lol. As for his maturity, there are plenty of people older then him that act younger them him, not talking about ABs of course. With those examples in mind, it is very hard to verify what his age is, but he sounds like a senior in high school, which fits his indicated age of 18.

On a random website I found (claims their statistics are from the EPA, but was clearly an alarmist's website) said the percentage of waste that ends up in the landfills that is diapers is about 2.3% by weight in the U.S. and 15% in Europe (they did not specify whether is was by weight or volume in that case but claimed the large percentage is due to more recycling in Europe overall). Of course these diapers are from all sources. If one is really concerned about waste produced by disposable diapers, try investing in flushable diapers, but there is a draw back to that unfortunately.