Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday September 12, @04:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the were-they-in-Denver? dept.

It may sound too good to be true, but TU Delft PhD student Ming Ma has found a way to produce alcohol out of thin air. Or to be more precise, he has found how to effectively and precisely control the process of electroreduction of CO2 to produce a wide range of useful products, including alcohol. Being able to use CO2 as such a resource may be pivotal in tackling climate change. His PhD defence will take place on September 14th.

[...] For mitigating atmospheric CO2 concentration, carbon capture and utilization (CCU) could be a feasible alternative strategy to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). The electrochemical reduction of CO2 to fuels and value-added chemicals has attracted considerable attention as a promising solution. In this process, the captured CO2 is used as a resource and converted into carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), ethylene (C2H4), and even liquid products such as formic acid (HCOOH), methanol (CH3OH) and ethanol (C2H5OH).

The high energy density hydrocarbons can be directly and conveniently utilized as fuels within the current energy infrastructure. In addition, the production of CO is very interesting since it can be used as feedstock in the Fischer–Tropsch process, a well-developed technology that has been widely used in industry to convert syngas (CO and hydrogen (H2)) into valuable chemicals such as methanol and synthetic fuels (such as diesel fuel). The figure attached describes these three processes and the way electroreduction of CO2 could potentially close the carbon cycle.

Beer, from air. Others use barley as an intermediary.

Publication: Aula TU Delft, PhD defence Ming Ma, Selective Electrocatalytic CO2 Conversion on Metal Surfaces.


Original Submission

Related Stories

American Society of Clinical Oncology: Alcohol Use Increases Risk of Cancer 39 comments

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has released a statement (open, DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.1155) (DX) discussing the links between alcohol consumption and cancer:

The statement provides evidence of a connection between light drinking and an increased risk of esophageal and breast cancer. Heavy drinkers face a much longer list of risks, including mouth cancer, throat cancer, cancer of the voice box, liver cancer, and colorectal cancer. That's a whole lot of cancers.

"The message is not, 'Don't drink.' It's, 'If you want to reduce your cancer risk, drink less," said Dr. Noelle LoConte, lead author of the statement. "And if you don't drink, don't start." She says this "subtle" take on the issue is somewhat less cautionary than the warnings about smoking. But the message rings the same.

The doctors behind the statement aimed to draw attention to what they view as a public health problem and advocate for a push towards better education and research.

Also at Medscape and ASCO (shorter press release).

Previously: Study Shows 3 Drinks a Day May Cause Liver Cancer

Related: Even Moderate Drinking Linked to a Decline in Brain Health
Researchers Make Alcohol Out of Thin Air
No Magic Pill to Cure Alcohol Dependence Yet
Early Age of Drinking Leads to Neurocognitive and Neuropsychological Damage


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Fluffeh on Tuesday September 12, @05:40AM (1 child)

    by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @05:40AM (#566556) Journal

    From TFA:

    In his PhD thesis Ming Ma, working in the group of Dr. Wilson A. Smith, describes the processes that take place at the nanoscale when different metals are used in the electroreduction of CO2. For example, using copper nanowires in the electroreduction process leads to the production of hydrocarbons, while nanoporous silver can produce CO. Furthermore, as Ma discovered, the process can be very precisely regulated by changing the lengths of the nanowires, and the electric potential. By tuning these conditions, he is able to produce any carbon based product, or combinations in any ratio desired, thus producing the resources for the three follow up processes described above.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:21AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:21AM (#566564)

    Jesus needed at least water.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @07:07AM (7 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @07:07AM (#566572)

      One of the highest producer of CO2 is fermentation. Some estimates indicate around 60 g of CO2 per liter of beer. [triplepundit.com].
      Ok, it's a back of the napkin calculation, let's cut it in half: say 30g CO2/liter of beer.
      US had 24172 Ml of beer in 2014 [wikipedia.org] - which means CO2 emissions by fermentation in the 750 Mton of CO2.
      Comparison time: in 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 Mtons of carbon dioxide equivalents. [epa.gov]. Oh, wow. That's like 10% only from the beer consumption on conservative estimates!

      (Ok, Ok. I'll stop here before the govts will start putting a cap on beer production/consumption).

      But, there's a thing: place the "synthetic fuel" Dutch factory close to a Heineken plant and maybe Noordoostpolder [wikipedia.org] and you can export the diesel to France... err... China... oh, stop it, will you?

      (grin)

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday September 12, @07:34AM (4 children)

        by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @07:34AM (#566587) Journal

        Of course the CO2 released during fermentation was previously captured by the very plants that get fermented. Therefore the process is carbon neutral (except for the carbon used in the industrial farming process, that is).

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @08:42AM (3 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @08:42AM (#566626)

          Of course the CO2 released during fermentation was previously captured by the very plants that get fermented. Therefore the process is carbon neutral (except for the carbon used in the industrial farming process, that is).

          Of course, CO2 is CO2 irrespective of its source. As CO2 had the habit of doing, it captures more heat than the other major components of the atmosphere.

          On the same line, the CO2 farted from cows still comes the carbon captured by the grass - it doesn't stop those vegans to promote their mantra as "greener than thou".

          So... in any case, just stay away from my stake and beer, or else... No, really, I mean it!

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Tuesday September 12, @11:46AM (1 child)

            by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday September 12, @11:46AM (#566688)

            So, is a cow only carbon-neutral if you bury it once it dies? I mean I like my aged steak, but I'm not too keen on having to *dig* for it..

            Besides, the problem with steak is the water use, rather than the by-products.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/food-water-footprint_n_5952862 [huffingtonpost.com.au]

            --
            (Score: tau, Irrational)
            • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @12:30PM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @12:30PM (#566702)

              So, is a cow only carbon-neutral if you bury it once it dies? I mean I like my aged steak, but I'm not too keen on having to *dig* for it..

              This is what I understood one of the argument of the vegans is.
              They can bury their steak if so they like it, but better stay away from mine (rump-steak 42-day-properly-aged and then twitching-blue grilled over charcoal is my favourite - a good balance, to my taste, between flavour and texture).

              Besides, the problem with steak is the water use, rather than the by-products..

              Oh, so this is why the Murray-Darling basin dries out!
              Those paid-by-tax-water thieves in outback NSW sucking dry the Barwon-Darling system have nothing to do with it. Perhaps this is why, unlike the Northern Territory under-age detention case, we haven't heard about any outcome; silly me, out-of-sight-out-of-mind has nothing to do with it.
              Tell you what: I'll insist my steak be raised in Tasmania then, lately they have excess of water.

              (grin)

          • (Score: 2) by lx on Tuesday September 12, @01:10PM

            by lx (1915) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @01:10PM (#566707)

            Cows fart methane which is about 200x as potent as CO2.

            So yeah, cows bad.

      • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday September 12, @03:15PM (1 child)

        by LoRdTAW (3755) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @03:15PM (#566763) Journal

        Beer causes global warming? 😞

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @03:26PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @03:26PM (#566767)

          Beer causes global warming? 😞

          While the above might be true, a thing is certain: beer produce some... mmmm... localized cooling. Mouth, throat and stomach areas mainly.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Tuesday September 12, @07:31AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @07:31AM (#566585) Journal

      I bet they do need water, too. At least I don't see how they could get the hydrogen from CO2. The only listed product without hydrogen is carbon monoxide.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @06:47AM (9 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @06:47AM (#566567)

    In the same time, the Aussies developed a marvel of technology, on par or even better than the Dutch: a keg monitoring device [abc.net.au] that "tracks the temperature of the keg, how long it has been at those temperatures so we can tell how the product inside is coping, how fast it's staling and the location using geolocation technology" (essentially, by the photo, an Arduino with sensors, GPS, probably a memory card and maybe an LCD)

    Binary Beer technology, invented by home brewer Michael Burton and developed at the University of Wollongong, could be a saving grace and a game changer for the beer industry.
    ...
    Mr Burton's simple device, which uses sensors that attach to the keg, has started rolling out worldwide.
    ...
    Industry Game changer
    Binary Beer is now in talks with some of the biggest of the world's brewers, including Heineken and Anheuser-Busch.

    Oh, wow! I'm truly impressed by the leaps-and-bounds the technology progresses in Australia. If we keep it this way, we may even get our own space agency... sometime!!

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @06:56AM (8 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @06:56AM (#566571)
      Not a chance. The moon has neither liquid water, nor suitable soil for the production of Barley, and there's absolutely zero chance of Aussies paying the costs involved in space travel without a positive guarantee of piss waiting at the end of the line. Y'all aren't going to the moon until someone else builds a brewery on it and you damn well know I'm right.
      --
      "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @07:14AM (5 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @07:14AM (#566576)

        The moon has neither liquid water, nor suitable soil for the production of Barley

        You mean it's very much like... outback Australia?
        If there are minerals to be mined there, I guarantee you'll see Aussies in a fly in, fly out [wikipedia.org] arrangement.

        • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @07:57AM (4 children)

          by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @07:57AM (#566599)
          Trouble is that's not going to make economic sense without a revolution in physics, not on the necessary timescale, it's simply too expensive to boost out of the gravity well to get started. There'll be Aussies mining there after the Chinese build a brewery, and after the relative cost of labor evens out enough to allow them to pay you less than their own guys - not a day before.
          --
          "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @08:19AM (3 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @08:19AM (#566613)

            Trouble is that's not going to make economic sense without a revolution in physics

            3He [wikipedia.org] perhaps ('twas an Aussie [wikipedia.org] who discovered it - without "Binary Beer" the English beer must've been awful at the time).

            Theoretically, the fusion of 3He and 2D produces 4He and 1 proton which is trapped by the magnetic field - unlike 2D + 3T which produces a neutron (which has the nasty habit of making the enclosure brittle by collisions).
            The required revolution is only a technological one - higher fusion temperature, make the enclosure large and/or the magnetic confinement stronger.

            • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @10:31AM (2 children)

              by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @10:31AM (#566665)
              Yeah that's great, just a few little issues though.

              See what you're talking about is light helium. It's one of the lightest things that exist in the universe. Light, in this case thought not always, meaning 'having very little mass.' Now if you'll remember you're physics E=MC^2. So in a fuel, all other things being equal, we'd prefer heavy, but ok, minor quibble, moving on. It's a naturally occurring, stable isotope of helium and there's no need to go to the moon to get it. There's speculation that it could be used to fuel a fusion reactor without neutrons, and that's wonderful! I hope it works and it sounds like it might. But that doesn't change the situation I was talking about much at all, it has no direct effect. Cheaper energy can reduce the costs of virtually everything, of course, but that's the best case here - cheaper energy.

              ^3HE is believed to be more abundant on the Moon than on Earth, and that's sparked all kinds of naïve and illiterate "science journalism" but it doesn't really mean much. On Earth it's supposed to be ~.000137% (I hate to even write that number, it reeks of false precision) of the Helium, which is only 5.2ppm in the atmosphere, and IIRC most of the usable Helium on the planet was extracted from natural gas. On Luna there's little atmosphere and the best I know no signs of natural gas, and the 'helium reserves' that the Chinese want to claim consist of traces clinging to loose shale and rocks near the surface.

              You don't burn the kind of calories it takes to escape orbit just so you can scrape rocks for helium and ship it back to Earth mate. Not even for the highest grade helium.
              --
              "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @02:06PM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @02:06PM (#566732)

                So in a fuel, all other things being equal, we'd prefer heavy, but ok, minor quibble, moving on.

                You mat want to recheck your physics: mass defect and binding energy [wikipedia.org] is in no relation to do with the original weight of the nuclei undergoing fission or fusion.
                If you fuse two heavier-than-iron nuclei, you'll need to spend energy and you'll obtain something that will likely shed protons as fast as they can (no natural elements with more than 94 protons can be naturally found on Earth)

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:44PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:44PM (#566752)

                > Now if you'll remember you're physics E=MC^2. So in a fuel, all other things being equal, we'd prefer heavy, but ok, minor quibble, moving on.

                I'm sure any day now you'll be announcing your matter-energy converter that makes E=mc^2 relevant for fuel :)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:28AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:28AM (#566584)
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @08:45AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @08:45AM (#566628)

          This water does not exist in the form of ice, save perhaps in the permanent shadows of some craters at the lunar poles. Instead, it is chemically bound to rocks in the uppermost layer of the lunar surface, to a depth "of less than a micrometer [0.00004 inches],"

          If you think I'll go and lick the rocks on the moon for "chemically bound to rocks" molecules of beer, you are crazy!

          (grin)

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @06:51AM (56 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @06:51AM (#566570)
    He's making this out of CO2. Is this 'air' or is it a pollutant? It's really an either/or question, it can't be both, they are actually mutually exclusive.

    --
    "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @07:09AM (29 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @07:09AM (#566573)

      It's really an either/or question, it can't be both, they are actually mutually exclusive.

      Oh?!? Based on what?

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @07:42AM (28 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @07:42AM (#566592)
        "Oh?!? Based on what?"

        Definitions. Definitions themselves.

        What is a pollutant? I'm going to ask google, even though I know that's an actively hostile and revisionist source, and I certainly don't mean to imply any endorsement of their selection or ordering of results. The whole point is that I'm not cherry picking my preferred source, I'm actively doing the opposite, and this is still obvious from definition.

        "A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or..." -Wikipedia
        "pollutant. (pə-l t'nt) A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil." - dictionary.com
        They list Webster third. As expected Webster mangles and makes the simple complex, listing as their first meaning:
        "to make ceremonially or morally impure :defile"
        but they finally get to the normal modern usage of the term in 2.b
        "to contaminate (an environment)..." Webster

        Since two of those definitions refer to another root, "contaminate," let's take a quick look at that one too. Again, using nearly the worst possible source;
        "to make impure or unsuitable by contact or mixture..." - dictionary.com
        "to soil, stain, corrupt, or infect by contact or association..."
        "to make inferior or impure by admixture..."
        "to make unfit for use by introduction of..." - Websters tortured wordbook, err I mean Merriam Websters online.

        What does each and every one of these definitions have in common? Let me boil them down just a little bit more for you.
        "introduced into" - wikipedia
        "contact or admixture" - dictionary.com
        "contact or association"
        "admixture"
        "introduction of" - webster

        You can't introduce air into air. You can't do any of these things if both the subject and the object are the same thing. It simply makes no sense.

        So the first, fundamental quality of *pollution* that shines through all of these definitions, and would no doubt fair even better if I had a decent dictionary handy to consult, is that it's something *different from* the substance that is being polluted.

        You can't pollute air by adding air. That's just nonsense.

        Air is a compound gas, of course, and changing the proportions of the constituents could have drastic effects, but that no more makes it pollution than my grey old hair makes me a pop-tart.

        --
        "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12, @07:59AM (5 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 12, @07:59AM (#566601) Homepage
          I completely disagree with your premise when it comes to terminology. To me it's clear that you can pollute a mixture by adding more of a component of that mixture to the base mixture, such that you take it from an acceptable level of that component to an unacceptable level.

          "X is part of Y, and Y is good, therefore Y with more X is good" is not logical supportable, yet what you've said seems to imply you think it's the case.
          --
          I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @08:15AM (4 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @08:15AM (#566609)
            "I completely disagree with your premise when it comes to terminology. To me it's clear that you can pollute a mixture by adding more of a component of that mixture to the base mixture, such that you take it from an acceptable level of that component to an unacceptable level."

            So you disagree with the definition of the word pollution. Ok, noted. If you find yourself doing this frequently then you should definitely come up with a new word for the new language you're speaking, just to distinguish it from English.

            ""X is part of Y, and Y is good, therefore Y with more X is good" is not logical supportable, yet what you've said seems to imply you think it's the case."

            I have done nothing of the sort. What YOU appear to have done is to smuggle in the postulate "anything that is bad is pollution."

            And that's just not what the word means.
            --
            "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12, @09:25AM (3 children)

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 12, @09:25AM (#566643) Homepage
              > What YOU appear to have done is to smuggle in the postulate "anything that is bad is pollution."

              I have done nothing of the sort.
              --
              I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
              • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @10:04AM (2 children)

                by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @10:04AM (#566656)
                "I have done nothing of the sort."

                Well all right let's take a look at this then.

                Here's your caricature of my position;

                ""X is part of Y, and Y is good, therefore Y with more X is good""

                I never used the word 'good' and what I actually said, boiled down to match your statement structurally, would actually be;

                X is a natural component of Y, therefore adding X to Y is not pollution.

                If we equate my 'pollution' with 'bad' which is the inverse of your 'good' then these things line up but if not, then I must leave it to you to explain yourself, for I certainly see no sense in it. I took no position on whether adding more X to Y was good, or bad, I only said it was not 'pollution.'
                --
                "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
                • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12, @10:13AM (1 child)

                  by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 12, @10:13AM (#566660) Homepage
                  > I only said it was not 'pollution.

                  And that is where we are in the clearest disagreement. I believe pollution is non-binary, and depends upon concentration (and other contextual properties). Explicitly - concentration x1 of X in Y can be considered not pollution, and concentration x2 of X in Y can be considered pollution.
                  --
                  I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
                  • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @10:33AM

                    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @10:33AM (#566666)
                    Alright, let me know when you decide on the name for your new language, and good luck with that!
                    --
                    "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @08:28AM (10 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @08:28AM (#566617)

          You can't pollute air by adding air. That's just nonsense.

          It's not "adding air to air" - it's adding CO2 in excess that becomes pollution.

          "Making ... from air" (the thing that irked you on the straw-man trail) does not necessarily mean all the components of the air are used in the making. If you extract CO2 from air and make things, you still made the things "from air".
          Of course, if you make the things from a liquefied CO2 bottle, it may be you are making things from... mmm... "thick liquid" instead; and if you just release the CO2 in the air of a room, you may die of CO2 poisoning - you may try it (not on yourself, I suggest find a non-human enemy instead) if you want a demonstration why too much CO2 in air is a pollutant.

          • (Score: 2, Troll) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @08:47AM (9 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @08:47AM (#566629)
            "It's not "adding air to air" - it's adding CO2 in excess that becomes pollution."

            It's adding air to air. Air is a composite gas, CO2 is one of the normal components, we're only dickering over the ratios. That's not pollution. And I'll add that contrary to apparently widespread but completely nonsensical assertions, not all things that are bad are pollution.

            "If you extract CO2 from air and make things, you still made the things "from air"."

            Exactly my point.
            --
            "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @09:00AM (8 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @09:00AM (#566635)

              Oh, come on, Arik! Really now. You find nothing funnier to post than some bickering over definitions?

              Look, I am one of the guys that say "AGW is happening due to the increased CO2 concentration in air".
              You call it pollutant or non-pollutant, CO2 doesn't care about your definitions: it will continue to trap more heat for longer than the other major components of the Earth atmosphere (and, given a chance, it will poison you if its partial pressure is high enough).

              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @09:37AM (7 children)

                by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @09:37AM (#566646)
                It's not about funny, I like to make a funny as much as anyone, but this is damn serious.

                I'm a problem solver, son and grandson of problem solvers, I've been doing it as long as I can remember and I expect I'll be doing it on my deathbed.

                And I tell you completely serious, no joke, the first step to solving a problem is to define the problem.

                If you don't know what the problem is, your chances of solving it are not going to be good. The better you can define the problem, the better equipped you are to find solutions for it. If you can't even give a non-contradictory executive-overview level of the problem, then the chances of you solving it are extremely remote.

                Pollution is a clearly defined term, with a clearly defined meaning, which has been increasingly misused just as we've seen repeatedly in this thread, as a slur word with no particular definition other than 'something bad.' There are a couple reasons that come to mind for this - one is that very clearly the AGW people way back when they were first planning world domination decided it was good branding to call carbon 'pollution' even though they knew damn well it wasn't. People were primed and edgy about pollution, it was a genius move from that point of view, but it's certainly done nothing to encourage me to view it as anything other than marketing. And the second is simple hollywood degeneracy, hollywood inevitably condenses everything down into 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in time for the climax, and I really wish that I could believe that people take that for what it is, but clearly we don't always do that. People unironically and unashamedly talk about 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys' in situations where it's utterly childish and unrealistic, where even 30 years ago it would have been seen as such, even joe sixpack would have been embarrassed for you to hear you say something so astonishingly naïve, like all you knew of life was some bad movie. Today our most respected leaders make such utterances daily.

                So this attempt to change the meaning of the word pollution to mean 'anything bad and scary' really doesn't inspire confidence in these people or their hypothesis, but it doesn't actually mean they're wrong, just dishonest, and the continuing success of this fraud may have more to do with the general degeneracy than with their efforts specifically.

                Whole subject depresses me man. If for no other reason than that I love the English language. We have a large and varied variety of words for bad things because it's incredibly useful to be able to accurately define exactly what sort of bad thing you need dealt with. Now we're busy collapsing all of those words into one big cloud of synonyms that all mean the same thing and thus can convey little or no useful information as to the nature of the problem. This is just a violent assault on the language itself, and the culture, the history that it preserves and conveys across the generations.

                I weep for the next generation.
                --
                "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
                • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12, @10:15AM

                  by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 12, @10:15AM (#566661) Homepage
                  > Pollution is a clearly defined term, with a clearly defined meaning

                  The definitions you quoted are not identical to each other. Therefore you yourself seem to have proved that the definition is not as clear as you have just claimed.
                  --
                  I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
                • (Score: 2) by tfried on Tuesday September 12, @10:35AM (4 children)

                  by tfried (5534) on Tuesday September 12, @10:35AM (#566668)

                  Pollution is a clearly defined term, with a clearly defined meaning

                  Apparently not so, for you have not been able to point us to any definition that is remotely clear in the sense you would like it to be.

                  , which has been increasingly misused just as we've seen repeatedly in this thread, as a slur word with no particular definition other than 'something bad.'

                  The "something bad" is actually a core part of the term from early on. E.g. wiktionary says

                  The meaning "that which makes physically foul" is from 1540s.

                  Which is also pretty much the only part that is still left, today, of the early recorded uses of the word.

                  I absolutely concede that adding CO2 to air is not something I would refer to as a prototypical example when explaining pollution. I would also concede that it makes more sense to say that the atmosphere is polluted, here, not the air, since CO2 in the given levels is not a problem for breathing, etc.

                  Further, I will even concede that the use of the term pollution has undergone significant changes. This however is very simply a side-effect of awareness of / debate on environmental issues at large. A new topic was starting to be discussed, using existing terms, and so those terms took on new connotations. There is absolutely nothing specific to climate change, in this respect, however. Light pollution and noise pollution are equally non-prototypical uses that emerged in the late 1960s, early 1970s, long before "carbon pollution" came into use (which I believe to be a term of the late 1990s, early 2000s, although I have not found a definite source; let's see if you can point us to earlier uses).

                  Look, I can see your distress with labelling CO2 as a pollutant. But that's not because you are worried about the English language. That's because you simply do not think man made CO2-emissions have the negative effects on climate that "the AGW people" ascribe to them. Do us all a favour, and try to bring how that point, instead of simply sabotaging any debate with silly word games.

                  • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @11:07AM (3 children)

                    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @11:07AM (#566674)
                    "Apparently not so, for you have not been able to point us to any definition that is remotely clear in the sense you would like it to be."

                    I pointed to not one but three definitions and showed how each and every one of them necessarily implied exactly the definition of the word that I used. You can't have missed the post, just up the tree.

                    "The "something bad" is actually a core part of the term from early on."

                    No disagreement there. Another thing I posted recently which you might have more easily missed was my own definition, which I initially avoided giving for the same reason that I posted the dictionary definitions - to avoid the accusation I'm pushing my own definition. I'm only describing the word as precisely as I can, because i do not have access to a decent dictionary currently, and only after showing that it's implied by the dictionary definitions still commonly given. But it is, very succinctly - connotation: alien element denotation: harmful. That's the core of the word, and that is the meaning you're generally going to find if you're reading important books on important subjects rather than millennial weblogpostings on the innertubes.

                    CO2 in the atmosphere is just not foreign matter. That doesn't mean that too much (or too little) of it couldn't be a problem, but we have a lot of different words for bad things for a reason and it's really not helpful to make them all into synonyms.

                    "I absolutely concede that adding CO2 to air is not something I would refer to as a prototypical example when explaining pollution. I would also concede that it makes more sense to say that the atmosphere is polluted, here, not the air, since CO2 in the given levels is not a problem for breathing, etc."

                    That may make more sense to you, but it's still not accurate.

                    This goes back to how important it is to accurately define the problem. Your first sentence is showing good instincts, but your second? Still twisting to find a way to make the wrong word fit. Depending, of course, on where you are, I'd imagine that neither the atmosphere, nor the air, is very polluted. Pollution was a huge problem back in the late 70s, most places I've been this century there's been little issue, a few areas around big cities certainly to the contrary, and keeping in mind I've never set foot in some of the places I expect the most serious issues are to be found, e.g. mainland China.

                    You're not talking about air quality though. CO2 levels could increase significantly without any real effect on air quality. As you say, 'not a problem for breathing, etc.' This is nothing like pollution.

                    Increasing the amounts of any constituent gas implicitly requires decreasing the amount of one or more other gases. Too much nitrogen? Well IIRC it's mostly a filler anyway, not a problem until it pushes something else too low, then THAT is the problem. Too much oxygen? HUGE problems, for us at least. Every little spark becomes a local blaze, every local blaze a regional conflagration, every regional conflagration a national catastrophe. Fires start easier, burn hotter, spread faster and further, and resist efforts to extinguish more effectively. Once burned, forests have difficulty recovering, all plants are choking on the oxygen and struggle to grow. Crank up the oxygen a bit more and say byebye to the last remnants of large multicellular life on dry land. However, under the surface of the oceans, safe from fire, life might benefit from the increased oxygen in unforseen ways.

                    Third in the list of things that are air, argon, a noble gas, so again we should be able to increase the amount quite a bit, as long as we don't depress something else too low in the process. You can kill with argon, you know, but it's the lack of oxygen that actually does the deed.

                    So what's that leave? Oh yeah, CO2. Increase that and what happens? You increase plant growth rates right off. Plants love CO2, they eat it all day long, and they shit oxygen. Keep cranking it up and that greenhouse effect might just ruin your day though.

                    Increasing the occurrence of any of these elements would be bad, but it would not be pollution.
                    --
                    "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
                    • (Score: 2) by tfried on Tuesday September 12, @11:57AM

                      by tfried (5534) on Tuesday September 12, @11:57AM (#566693)

                      I pointed to not one but three definitions and showed how each and every one of them necessarily implied exactly the definition of the word that I used. You can't have missed the post, just up the tree.

                      And you can't have missed my post(s) where I detailed that these definitions definitely do not mean what you would like them to mean. You tried to counter that using the funny argument that air and CO2 are logically "the same", and thus cannot be "mixed".

                      I'll stop trying to talk you out of that, but please stop pretending that made anything close to a coherent argument WRT the definition of pollution.

                    • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @01:16PM (1 child)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @01:16PM (#566710)

                      Increasing the amounts of any constituent gas implicitly requires decreasing the amount of one or more other gases.

                      Only if the total amount remains unchanged.
                      There no indication that the weight of the entire Earth atmosphere was...mmmm.... conserved.

                      You can kill with argon, you know, but it's the lack of oxygen that actually does the deed.

                      Wrong, if your are given 95% oxygen and 5% carbon dioxide, you are likely to pass out - increased blood pressure and hyperventilation are the immediate effects. At 10% CO2, you'll be unconscious in minutes and dead in under one hour [cdc.gov], even if the rest of 90% is oxygen.

                      The respiratory reflexes [wikipedia.org] aren't governed by the low concentration of oxygen but by the increased concentration of CO2 [wikipedia.org] in the blood - this is why asphyxiation with inert gases is mostly used in euthanasia [wikipedia.org]

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:28PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:28PM (#566928)

                        Actually, at those levels, the oxygen itself would likely kill you:

                        http://science.howstuffworks.com/question493.htm [howstuffworks.com]

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @11:42AM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @11:42AM (#566685)

                  And I tell you completely serious, no joke, the first step to solving a problem is to define the problem.

                  And I'm telling you that "pollution" attached to "AGW" is a false problem. You can define the "pollution" term to God and one bus-stop beyond that and it won't get you any closer to solving, mellowing or adapting to GW.
                  Your grandfather would tell you "Sidetracked much? That's not funny"

                  Whole subject depresses me man. If for no other reason than that I love the English language.

                  I'm not a native English speaker, It doesn't stop me solving problems (and creating others, otherwise where's the fun in living?)
                  I can empathise with you in some respects (like "hacker" and "begging the question") but only in contexts the meaning really matter.

                  Yes, I agree that

                  People unironically and unashamedly talk about 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys' in situations where it's utterly childish and unrealistic

                  but this happens mainly in US, a lot of the other countries know the difference between politics, science, fiction and Marvel-trash. As an example (not a proof), see TF-current-A.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tfried on Tuesday September 12, @08:41AM (8 children)

          by tfried (5534) on Tuesday September 12, @08:41AM (#566625)

          So to play along with your dictionary game:

          a)

          "contact or admixture" - dictionary.com
          "contact or association"
          "admixture"

          How do these three out of your five defining terms of "contamination" contradict everybody else's notion that a pollutant is not necessarily something all new to the mix?

          b) For the two "introduce", let's look up what that actually means. E.g. merriam webster: "3. :a putting in :insertion", dictionary.com: " 5. an act or instance of inserting." wiktionary: "3. To add (something) to a system, a mixture, or a container."

          Where do these definitions refer to something all new?

          • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @08:54AM (7 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @08:54AM (#566632)
            Again, none of these words make sense if both the subject and the object are the same.

            Let's see if we can agree on a little common sense here. Once we narrow those words down as much as you've done, there's nothing to prevent the subject and object from being the same, in some sense. If we ignore everything else and look just at that, we could talk about introducing oxygen to oxygen, contact between oxygen and oxygen, admixture, even, between otherwise identical oxygen from two different sources.

            But I suspect you do speak English and you realize that this is nonsense. You can't contaminate, or pollute, oxygen by adding oxygen. You could do it by adding *already polluted oxygen* to pure oxygen, but adding pure oxygen to pure oxygen cannot possibly be pollution, do we agree on that?
            --
            "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
            • (Score: 2) by tfried on Tuesday September 12, @09:29AM (3 children)

              by tfried (5534) on Tuesday September 12, @09:29AM (#566644)

              if both the subject and the object are the same

              So you are really trying to argue that "air" and "CO2" are the same? You might want to review set theory, then, or enlighten us on the new meaning of "same".

              • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @09:47AM (2 children)

                by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @09:47AM (#566652)
                Air is a compound gas composed of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, CO2, and a few other gases in minute quantities. The exact ratio is variable and has varied considerably over time.

                Introducing more of one of the constituent gases in a compound gas is not 'pollution.' It's changing the ratio.

                Pollution does not mean fnord.

                It denotes introduction of a foreign element, and connotes that the result is harmful.

                --
                "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
                • (Score: 2) by tfried on Tuesday September 12, @10:06AM

                  by tfried (5534) on Tuesday September 12, @10:06AM (#566659)

                  It denotes introduction of a foreign element

                  I have completely understood that this is the definition you want to apply, but you have failed to make that point without resorting to unsound reasoning such as saying that "air" and "CO2" are the same.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @01:37PM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @01:37PM (#566718)

                  Introducing more of one of the constituent gases in a compound gas is not 'pollution.'

                  Really? Even when the introduced constituents become poisonous?
                  Because CO2 at 10% will cause mass extinction to all human (and majority of mammalian) life.
                  Unlike O2 and N2 and argon, CO2 modifies the pH of the body's internal medium [wikipedia.org], and the human metabolism is quite sensitive to that.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12, @10:18AM (2 children)

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 12, @10:18AM (#566663) Homepage
              If Y is polluted with X, would adding more pure Y *reduce* the X pollution?
              --
              I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
              • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @11:16AM (1 child)

                by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @11:16AM (#566680)
                "If Y is polluted with X, would adding more pure Y *reduce* the X pollution?"

                If you have a container of Y polluted with some portion of foreign matter X, to which you add more pure Y, you would now have a larger quantity of polluted Y, with a lower concentration of pollutant X. However, it would still be polluted, and you would have lost a portion of pure, unpolluted Y, in the process. So, depending on exactly what Y and X are and what you're trying to do, that could be a serious problem. Or not.

                --
                "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
                • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12, @11:43AM

                  by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 12, @11:43AM (#566687) Homepage
                  So pollution is a binary attribute in terms of presence or absence??!

                  It is clear that it is you who disagrees with the rest of the world in your definitions.
                  --
                  I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
        • (Score: 3, Touché) by PiMuNu on Tuesday September 12, @09:20AM (1 child)

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday September 12, @09:20AM (#566642)

          This is a stupid semantic argument.

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by MostCynical on Tuesday September 12, @11:50AM

            by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday September 12, @11:50AM (#566690)

            You must be new here..

            --
            (Score: tau, Irrational)
    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:13AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:13AM (#566575)

      Sola dosis facit venenum

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @07:46AM

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @07:46AM (#566596)
        It looks like I got five responses and yours was, by far the best so far.

        However I believe if you will cast your eye down the page to my reply to c0l0, it actually deals with your far more coherent objection as well.
        --
        "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @10:58AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @10:58AM (#566672)

        Paracelsus?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:12PM (#566734)

          Better than paracetamol or parafahrenheit.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:24AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:24AM (#566582)

      Global warming will be solved by Ethanol_fueled and the alcohol from CO2 in the air, better than some Nazi nitrogen fixing process that goes BOOM when there is a little flood, or something!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:31AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:31AM (#566586)

        CO2

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:43AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:43AM (#566593)

          Carbon Oxygen Squared! You got a problem with that? CO16. Rather rare isotope, but not impossible.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @08:36AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @08:36AM (#566620)

        A pity is wasn't an US university to discover it.
        You, with your "teach the controversy" ideas, see what you've done? Put breaks on the science's appeal in US! Now Ethanol_fueled will need to immigrate!!

        (and to think that producing ethanol from air may appeal even for people of some religions which frown at fermented liquors! US lost a major trump here and got a minor Orange clown instead.

        large grin)

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Tuesday September 12, @07:39AM (5 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @07:39AM (#566590) Journal

      According to your logic, drinking sea water should be healthy: Salt is something your body needs, and sea water contains a lot of it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @07:54AM (4 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @07:54AM (#566598)
        "According to your logic, drinking sea water should be healthy"

        According to your logic, anything that is unhealthy is pollution?

        --
        "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
        • (Score: 2) by tfried on Tuesday September 12, @08:14AM (2 children)

          by tfried (5534) on Tuesday September 12, @08:14AM (#566608)

          According to your logic, the term "pollution" is independent of context?

          So would you rather I enhance your fuel tank with some sugar, or your cereals with some gasoline?

          • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @08:18AM

            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @08:18AM (#566611)
            "According to your logic, the term "pollution" is independent of context?"

            I'm absolutely certain I said the exact opposite of that.

            "So would you rather I enhance your fuel tank with some sugar, or your cereals with some gasoline?"

            Neither thanks.

            --
            "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tfried on Tuesday September 12, @08:21AM

            by tfried (5534) on Tuesday September 12, @08:21AM (#566614)

            Or, since you seem so hung up about adding something that was already in the mix: You don't think you can pollute a river by adding (large amounts of) salt? You don't think you can pollute flour by adding rodent hair? You don't think you can pollute vegetables by adding mold? You don't think you can pollute your silicon dies by adding to much of the doping elements? You don't think you can pollute your view of the night sky by lighting a strong bulb next to your eye?

            You don't think you can pollute a debate by insisting on nonsense definitions nobody else seems to share?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:17PM (#566738)

          According to your logic, anything that is unhealthy is pollution?

          According to my logic, any politician is unhealthy thus pollutant. Care to disagree?

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12, @07:49AM (6 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 12, @07:49AM (#566597) Homepage
      Remind me - is Nembutal for medicating people or killing people?

      And did you never hear the case of the bloke who died after drinking 10 litres of water in a day? So is water lethal, or necessary?

      The world isn't binary.
      --
      I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:59AM (#566602)

        The world isn't binary.

        There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who use monospaced fonts and those who don't.

      • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @08:04AM (4 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @08:04AM (#566604)
        Well that makes two of you that appear to believe anything harmful is pollution. That's just mindblowing to me.

        You might scroll down for my other answer, but I'll add, water is lethal, water can be necessary, but neither of those propositions has any direct bearing on the question of whether or not it's pollution! You can't pollute water by adding water, that's nonsense. You can make beneficial water into harmful water by increasing the dose - in any number of scenarios - but none of that has jack shit to do with it being pollution.

        Hypothetically, you could go into some extraterrestrial environment where life had evolved in the absolute absence of water, and introduce water there, and probably destroy the place, well in that context then yeah, I guess water could be pollution.

        --
        "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12, @08:08AM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 12, @08:08AM (#566606) Homepage
          > Well that makes two of you that appear to believe anything harmful is pollution. That's just mindblowing to me.

          I suspect your mind was blown before you read my comment, as noone with a correctly-connected brain could have interpreted it that way. Polluting your brain with too much THC or LSD, are we?
          --
          I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @08:19AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @08:19AM (#566612)

          You can pollute your body with too much water, then you die.

          • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @08:40AM (1 child)

            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @08:40AM (#566624)
            "You can pollute your body with too much water, then you die."

            Yeah, no, you actually can't.

            But you can certainly drown. No pollution required, the purest of water will work just fine.
            --
            "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
            • (Score: 2) by martyb on Tuesday September 12, @12:01PM

              by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @12:01PM (#566697) Journal

              "You can pollute your body with too much water, then you die."

              Yeah, no, you actually can't.

              But you can certainly drown. No pollution required, the purest of water will work just fine.

              Let me introduce you to "water intoxication": WebMD [webmd.com], Medical Daily [medicaldaily.com], and Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

              --
              Wit is intellect, dancing.
    • (Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Tuesday September 12, @08:17AM (4 children)

      by stormwyrm (717) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @08:17AM (#566610) Journal

      Quick question: is Vitamin D beneficial or is it a poison? Without enough vitamin D, you could get rickets or some similar disease. However, if you get far too much Vitamin D, the way Gary Null once did after consuming one of his own supplements [scienceblogs.com], you could develop hypercalcemia and its various complications such as kidney stones and cardiac arrhythmia. The dose makes the poison. In the same way, you can't describe CO2 as only either "air" or a "pollutant". Again, the dose makes the poison. If CO2 levels in the atmosphere fell enough, that could bring about an ice age. Sort of like a vitamin deficiency. If CO2 levels are permitted to continue rising, global temperatures could rise to levels that make agriculture impossible. Sort of like a vitamin overdose. A certain level of CO2 is needed to maintain global temperatures reasonable for human life and human civilisation, just as a certain dose of a vitamin is needed to maintain good health.

      --
      The right to believe whatever you want does not mean that whatever you want to believe is right.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @08:36AM (2 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @08:36AM (#566621)
        "Quick question: is Vitamin D beneficial or is it a poison?"

        So your reply is to change the subject?

        I said nothing about 'beneficial' or 'poison.' Nor Vitamin D either, for that matter.

        "In the same way, you can't describe CO2 as only either "air" or a "pollutant". "

        Sure I can. Because I'm speaking English, where words have meanings. You can't pollute air with air, you can't pollute water with water.

        "Pollution" is not the set of all bad things. Nor is it a super-set containing that set. It is, instead, one of many words that describe *subsets* of the set of all bad things. Shocking as this may be to you, not all words for bad things are synonyms. If they were, we wouldn't need so many of them.

        "If CO2 levels in the atmosphere fell enough, that could bring about an ice age. "

        Umm, ok, and again, what does that have to do with pollution?

        "Sort of like a vitamin deficiency. "

        Which is yet another thing you have managed to mention with absolutely no apparent connection to the subject. Which I'll remind you was 'pollution.' Not "deficiency," and not "poison." I know they're confusingly similar, both starting with a 'p' and ending with an 'n' with a soft squishy sound in the middle and vowels to separate, but they're really entirely different words with distinct meanings.

        --
        "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
        • (Score: 1) by baldrick on Tuesday September 12, @11:13AM (1 child)

          by baldrick (352) on Tuesday September 12, @11:13AM (#566678)

          if you had a saltwater enviroment with a fish in it and kept adding fresh water would the fish consider you to be polluting its enviroment ?

          --
          ... I obey the Laws of Physics ...
          • (Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 12, @11:19AM

            by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 12, @11:19AM (#566681)
            No.
            --
            "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:21PM (#566740)

        If CO2 levels in the atmosphere fell enough, that could bring about an ice age.

        How much?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @12:01PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @12:01PM (#566696)

    but please call me back when they can produce 18yo Highland Park (or any other malt, just going through a Highland Park phase at present...) in a similar manner.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @02:23PM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @02:23PM (#566741)

      Well, Highland Park is harder, it will require thick air in input.

(1)