It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientists say pollution may be helpful -- article link inside

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:26 AM

Mods: If this is already being discussed in another thread, please remove. Thanks.

I saw this on Yahoo! when I saw checking my email and thought that it was interesting. Releasing large amounts of sulfur-dioxide into the atmosphere doesn't sound that great to me. What about the acid rain that it'll produce? Anyone have any thoughts?

[edit on 18-11-2006 by zephyrs]

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:25 AM
Reminds me of the Animatrix, when the humans spewed black gas into the air to block the robots main source of energy.

That didn't work either.

The United States is probably the most backward, hopeless country when it comes to our climate. The government just doesn't seem to understand that THE THREAT IS REAL. It's happening. The measures we take today aren't going to have some measly effect way down the path in 2050; we well notice the difference in less than a decade. It just really peeves me that it seems like they aren't taking pollution emission as seriously as they could or damnwell should.

But reading some old Nat Geos recently, I learnt that there were even some initiatives spearheaded in the U.S. as far as 36 years ago. They mainly dealt with reducing emmisions from factory stacks by a bit, and it was state-by-state, with no national guidelines, but at least something half-decent was done.
There's not much going on now days that gets reported on . . .

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:08 AM
Yeah and Asthma prolongs life and makes it easier to breath....
Whoever wrote that article is an idiot.

[edit on 18-11-2006 by sardion2000]

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:05 PM
This reminds me of Mr.Burns being told he is that ill all the illnesses are blocking each other out; therefore although every type of illness is trying to kill him they all cancel eachother out.

Wigley said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels — the main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.

What is temporary about polluting the atmosphere? Why reduce dependence on fossil fuels in order to reduce pollution when the scientists behind this are saying pollution will help with controlling global warming.

I agree with sardion; "whoever wrote that article is an idiot". I also agree with Watch_the_rocks, articles like this show that the real threat of global warming is not being taken seriously.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:28 AM

While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.

I don't see how this is true. I've tried looking around on the net but I haven't found anything to prove this. Does anyone know anything about this?

Wigley ran scenarios of stratospheric sulfate injection — on the scale of Pinatubo's estimated 10 million tons of sulfur — through supercomputer models of the climate, and reported that Crutzen's idea would, indeed, seem to work. Even half that amount per year would help, he wrote.

Are you kidding me? These guys think it's a good idea to pump between 5 and 10 million tons of sulfur into the atmosphere?! That's insane.

A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain.

The forecast is calling for a high of 75˚ today and a 60% chance of acid rain. Sounds like a picture-perfect day to me.

In past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people. Last month, the World Heath Organization said air pollution kills about 2 million people worldwide each year and that reducing large soot-like particles from sulfates in cities could save 300,000 lives annually.

A sulfate haze could be deadly? That's stating the obvious, wouldn't you say?

Bottom line is, it seems like the scientists who're proposing this asinine idea are just trying to figure out a way to to control global warming without putting restrictions on big business. These gusy are willing to try anything except cutting emissions. It's pathetic.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by zephyrs]

top topics

log in