Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
I dunno but I don't like the idea of them myself. They just seem a bit precarious somehow.
Logically I would probably be at no greater risk than on my bike/motorbike in London, perhaps it is the tiny wheels that make them looks less stable?
0 -
Imagine the same people in rental cars instead. That should make you feel better.
0 -
I remember driving through Bristol at night and knowing there were people on them somewhere nearby having passed them prior to some traffic lights but struggling to actually see them. The lights on them are far too low to be visible. I suspect most of us on here are more aware of the possible presence of bikes or scooters than most drivers so it was quite worrying that even when specifically looking for them I struggled to pick them out. There was someone killed on a 70mph dual carriageway near me last year riding one in the early hours of the morning.
0 -
The amount of people who genuinely believe a plane’s contrail is some kind of chemical being spread. I just saw a photo of a plane flying in front of the eclipse and some of the comments are scary. They like to make out they have questioning minds and others believe whatever governments tell them whereas in fact they are unable to grasp basic science (and then ask for proof when that is pointed out). One claimed to be a pilot and claimed condensation disperses in 60 seconds and another question why water vapour would stay around so long (it was pointed out that clouds are water vapour and hang around for a long time).
The more of that sort of ‘questioning’ gets on social media the more other thickos will jump on the bandwagon of supposed independent thinking. As someone commented on there it is frightening these people get a vote.
0 -
It is strange logic that 5 years of studying science at university makes you a sheep but 2 hours of watching lunatics on Youtube makes you a free thinker who has done their own research. I am kind of fascinated by them though.
Chemtrails make no sense even ignoring the 'science' - the elites live on the surface of the earth as well so surely they also get poisoned with mind control chemicals? Maybe Bill Gates hands out the antidote at his satanic rituals.
1 -
They are seeding clouds with mind control chemicals.
1 -
But if you drink a bottle of bleach and stick a light up your arris then you are MAGAnificent.
0 -
From the Greens in Scotland on banning new wood burners (which are predominately in rural areas)
"The changes mean that new homes and buildings do not contribute to climate emissions, by banning the use of polluting heating systems such as oil and gas boilers, and bioenergy - including wood burning stoves."
Wood burners are literally carbon neutral.
0 -
Scotland does seem to have lost the plot a bit these days. Mind you, the new SNP hate speech law does seems to be creating a bit of a amusement - outside of Scotland at least.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Barely. They are terrible for particulate matter, though. Not to mention being almost laughably inefficient, especially if poor quality damp wood is burnt.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Exciting news re carrot water in the morning... need daylight for photo 2.
I hope you don't lose sleep with the anticipation...
0 -
Two different things. They are carbon neutral, full stop. And given how windy and sparsely populated a lot of Scotland is, I don't see the particulate issues being especially relevant.
So back to the "reducing carbon footprint" point. It is just plain wrong.
0 -
Surely they are only carbon neutral if you replace the trees (and I guess cover transport etc if you're being picky).
Does firewood have to be FSC or similar? (I have no idea)
0 -
A picture is worth a thousand words, the suspense is killing me, so you'd better get typing 😁
0 -
I think I need to lower my definition of exciting. 😉
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Obviously two different things. Your quote didn't say anything about carbon emissions: simply "pollution". If you are felling your own wood by hand and air drying it, you might get close to carbon neutral. Kiln dried logs outside the petrol station, less so.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Trees absorb carbon, which is released in combustion and they cannot release more carbon than they have absorbed - carbon neutral. But as you rightly point out the wood has to get from the forest to the stove. Before people claim it can't travel that far, wood pellet CHP units of the type often used for off grid medium to large buildings (think NT country house) have fine tolerances on what they will burn in order to achieve the required efficiency and emissions, and not need stripping down to remove wood tar every few weeks. Those wood pellets are not produced in the UK and have to be imported from Austria.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
On that basis coal is carbon neutral. Wood is only carbon neutral if new treees are planted at the same time. For example, Drax supposedly sources its wood from sustainable forests. Separately, it claims that the biomass generation produces 80% less carbon dioxide than burning coal.
1 -
Yes, it is a strange definition of carbon neutral if any released carbon that was originally atmospheric doesnt count.
0 -
I am on tenter hooks.
Come on Brian, it's morning now 😀
0 -
Well then, two photos: one straight after steaming the carrots, water close to boiling, then next, once the water had cooled...
I suppose I ought to chuck it in the microwave next to see if the colour change is reversible by heating. My hunch is no.
0 -
-
Yeah, sorry. Elsewhere in the articles I'm reading it talks about Scotland's CO2 targets.
Strictly, no human activity is truly carbon neutral at the moment. Smelting the iron to make the stove will have used coal or gas in all likelihood. Wind turbines use petrochemically derived epoxies and lots of concrete yadda yadda. Our firewood often comes from eastern Europe - who knows if it is sustainably grown etc.
But if it is wood, rather than something that used to be wood (e.g. coal), then its combustion is carbon neutral, strictly speaking.
I just think the Greens, like a lot of "Greens" around the UK over time, utterly self-defeat their own aims by trying to do things they happen to support under the auspices of it being green, whereas it's actually yogurt knitting.
1 -
The links people posted suggest that if you add one or other of acid or alkali now though, it should go orange. What is happening is that some other organic pigment is turning from transparent to green with a pH change, and that looked like it was reversible.
Imagine the excitement if lemon juice caused the green to go away. Imagine.
0 -
-
I did a quick carrot experiment a couple nights ago, sad, but true...
Abstract:
The purpose of the experiment was to determine if hard alkaline water (simulated by adding sodium bicarbonate and heating) would turn orange carrots green.
Materials:
Half a carrot, grater, 2 ceramic dishes, microwave oven.
Method:
Two ceramic containers were cleaned. Into each, a sample of grated carrot was added. Sodium bicarbonate was added to one. An equal quantity of water was added to each container and stirred. The samples were left for two hours and checked for changes. The samples were then heated (microwave) to a rolling boil and left overnight before being rechecked.
Results:
Not a trace of green was detected.
Discussion:
Different water? Different carrot variety (lower chlorophyll)? Only the root end was used (low chlorophyll)? Didn’t boil long enough? Boiled, not steamed (lower temp)? Ceramic dishes, not stainless steel?
Conclusion:
I’ve wasted half a carrot, a little time and are non the wiser.
0 -
I've said the combustion of wood is carbon neutral. You want a debate about science with me RC - because your starting point is already sightly wrong.
In the same way as with diesels, people don't really understand the difference between different types of pollution. Diesels are greener than petrol, but more polluting. (RC's brain explodes)
Fwiw the policy direction the Green Party in Scotland are driving is to heat pumps.
The problem is most of the people they want to buy them can't afford to buy one and replace all of their radiators. In addition, by more or less mandating heat pumps, the prices will totally skyrocket. Was already happening when I left.
I have no issue with this policy for new builds. It is proving more problematic where it reaches through to existing properties where there's not much option. Policies that cause hardship just put people off being green per se.
0 -
I am genuinely struggling to see how burning a tree and releasing all of the stored carbon into the atmosphere can be carbon neutral. Is it because the tree would eventually rot?
0 -
Yes.
0 -
That works at the scale of an individual tree over its lifetime but not necessarily at the scale of a forest (unless you replace the chopped trees).
Trees falling over and gradually rotting is rather slower than taking them down with a chainsaw and setting fire to them, they also tend to be naturally replaced at a similar rate if they die of natural causes.
0
