Bad science ....

[captaincarot]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Just to show that I have nothing against the Daily Mail (). Here's another piece of idiocy. Follow the bouncing ball ....
Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing corresponding increases in the seas which are leading to destruction of coral reefs and other wildlife. Therefore to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the oceans we should add doses of 'lime' (I take this to be calcium hydroxide) which will combine with carbon dioxide to form calcium carbonate, thus reducing the pH of the sea.
Problem? Where do we get the calcium hydroxide from? By burning calcium carbonate as limestone - driving off carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (as well, probably, as burning carbon to heat the limestone .....).

at least we've got a good old sheffield lad that can do joined up thiking shame the same can't be said about certain people at the mail.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by treecreeper

......... The minister, with a straight face, said the charges were part of the government's climate change objectives. ...........

Have you a link for that? It is, after all, hospitals which decide their charges, not the Government .....

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by captaincarot

at least we've got a good old sheffield lad that can do joined up thiking shame the same can't be said about certain people at the mail.

Thanks. However, it wasn't the Mail - I forgot to put the link in .... Just add lime (to the sea) ? the latest plan to cut CO2 emissions | Environment | The Guardian

[captaincarot]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Thanks. However, it wasn't the Mail - I forgot to put the link in .... Just add lime (to the sea) ? the latest plan to cut CO2 emissions | Environment | The Guardian

wouldn't expect the grauniad to be too bright either. it's for social workers an artyfarty types, yours a fellow sheffielder, (physicist)

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by captaincarot

........, yours a fellow sheffielder, (physicist)

You're forgiven! Actually some of my best friends are physicists and chemists and I have many a happy argument .... although ecologists tend to seek biological solutions to problems while 'hard' scientists tend to go for engineering solutions. I suspect that engineering causes as many problems as it cures (see the 'lime the sea' suggestion that I quoted).

There's another one on the same page which I hadn't taken in:
"His proposal is to build a fleet of remote-controlled, energy-self-sufficient ships that would spray minuscule droplets of seawater into the air. The droplets would whiten and expand clouds, reflecting sunlight away from the Earth and into space."
You'll see the problem - the mists would be low level which means that the Earth surface would cool but the upper atmosphere (still with increasing greenhouse gas levels) would be having heat-radiation thrown
at it from both directions!
In one of my debates recently I suggested that the best replacement for carbon-burning as an energy source would be solar radiation. My engineer friend's reply was that the albedo created by massed ranks of solar panels would counteract any savings .... on reflection, I'm not convinced and would like to see some calculations!

[captaincarot]

but if you sprayed the droplets into the high atmosphere through a really long tube you might be on to a winner.

[treecreeper]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Have you a link for that? It is, after all, hospitals which decide their charges, not the Government .....

I can't locate the original reference but if you look near the top of this the decision to charge for parking is traced back to the Department of Health

New NHS apartheid as free hospital parking to be rolled out in Wales... but not England | Mail Online

[Gerel]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

There's another one on the same page which I hadn't taken in:
"His proposal is to build a fleet of remote-controlled, energy-self-sufficient ships that would spray minuscule droplets of seawater into the air. The droplets would whiten and expand clouds, reflecting sunlight away from the Earth and into space."
You'll see the problem - the mists would be low level which means that the Earth surface would cool but the upper atmosphere (still with increasing greenhouse gas levels) would be having heat-radiation thrown
at it from both directions!

Isn't he suggesting that a layer of white fog would reflect the light back at the shortwave end of the spectrum which passes more easily through the atmosphere?

Theoretically preventing sunlight from reaching the surface, where it would be converted into heat to be radiated back into the atmosphere as infra-red which is retained by the greenhouse gases and particulates, could have an net cooling effect.

I have no idea whether it would work but I think his proposal is based on preventing the shift from short to long wave radiation.

[pressld2]

And any calculations about the efficiency of such a proposal would have to account for the fact that water vapour itself is a greenhouse gas.

Nothing's ever simple, is it?

Dave P.

[mickmassie]

Originally Posted by captaincarot

at least we've got a good old sheffield lad that can do joined up thiking shame the same can't be said about certain people at the mail.

You obviously don't know Paul too well as yet. He is about as Sheffield as I am Chiswick. I'm not sure he can put wood in th'oil. M.

[captaincarot]

Originally Posted by mickmassie

You obviously don't know Paul too well as yet. He is about as Sheffield as I am Chiswick. I'm not sure he can put wood in th'oil. M.

hahahah
nope never met him just noticed he lives in sheffield which was where i was born.

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by captaincarot

i can agree with this whole heartedly. i can't however sit back and not attack religions when they're foisted at me unfortunately.
i'm a firmly in agreement with what richard dawkins has to say on the subject of religions.
and when people start to promote them it makes my blood boil.

[quote=captaincarot;508518]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

Sadly the UK is well dummed down. Even if not professing Christiantiy
surely we should have greater understanding of our cultural heritage?[/[/b]QUOTE]

captaincarot
i fail to see why an absence of interest in a book of myths written between the 4th and 6th centuries in order to control the peasants. has absolutely anything at all to do with a dumbing down of the general populace.

on the other hand the abject lack of understanding of scientific methodology and practice combined with the hysterical reactions displayed to pseudo scientific theories most certainly does.

Captaincarot

I was extremely careful in my original post about peoples' lack of knowledge about biblical stories, not to make it religious, but rather about the cultural ignorance that it portrays - which I consider lamentable.

"Even if not professing Christiantiy surely we should have greater understanding of our cultural heritage"

[bold emphasis mine for this quote]

I certainly did not "foist" a religious opinion on you You chose to either misinterpret what I said, or not read my comment carefully enough.

People seem happy to buy Advent calendars, enjoy a Whitsun holiday and go to the musical "Jospeh", but yet have no appreciation of how these things fit into our heritage.

Personally I find this ignorance sad and indicative of "dumming down".

Likewise, I also find the poor use of the English language an indication of "dumbing down".



Please note, there is no way, from this reply, that you can assume you know anything about my religious beliefs, or absence of such beliefs.

[Herd900rd]

Originally Posted by Meta menardi

Taxes? Why should the chronically sick be taxed further. ..... . Very poor argument.

I wasn't aware that the chrinically sick WERE being taxed. Chronically sick don't usually drive, isn't hospital transport provided and don't relatives help.

Chronically ill people could be refunded by voucher. It seems sensible to deter the selfish shopper.

Poor argument it may very well be. I am not proud of my arguing skills. I am just looking for a bit of sense, not necessarily mine.

Wild About Britain should perhaps steer the thread in the direction of "green car-parks" and the effect of kerbstones on a snail's navigation mechanism.

On a personal note, Menardi or Minardi (a F1 merchant I believe)?

[Herd900rd]

Originally Posted by Herd900rd

I wasn't aware that the chronically sick WERE being taxed.

A small amount (fractions maybe) on whatever tax you pay it would be if you fought for it appropriately.
Personally, I think a tax on meat would be quite cool.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Herd900rd

On a personal note, Menardi or Minardi (a F1 merchant I believe)?

meta menardi - the european cave spider - nothing to do with formula one i think you'll find.

with regard to "detering the selfish shopper" how many people go shopping at hospitals - the only people likely to park in a hospital car park are staff (who arent charged) , day patients - who are there for treatment , and the families of the chronically ill or those otherwise in for treatment.

why should any of these people have to pay more on top of the taxes they have already paid to fund the NHS ? (and also as has been noted most hospital's parking has been outsourced so parking charges do not contribute to the NHS anyway)

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by eeyore

meta menardi - the european cave spider - nothing to do with formula one i think you'll find.

That's a relief then ....

with regard to "detering the selfish shopper" how many people go shopping at hospitals - the only people likely to park in a hospital car park are staff (who arent charged) , day patients - who are there for treatment , and the families of the chronically ill or those otherwise in for treatment.

Some hospitals do charge staff ... which, in many places, is logical to encourage workers to use other forms of transport. [I'll resist the temptation to mention the special car parks next to the Obesity Clinics ]

..........most hospital's parking has been outsourced so parking charges do not contribute to the NHS anyway)

No but it contributes to the hospital's income. There is, really, no such thing as an NHS nowadays - just a lot of units with their own budgets and managers .... the main reason, I think, why our health system is in such a mess .......

[Meta menardi]

Originally Posted by Herd900rd

On a personal note, Menardi or Minardi (a F1 merchant I believe)?

Meta menardi is the name of a rather scary looking spider that lives in dark places, but I do hope that people mistake me for a glamorous racing driver.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

No but it contributes to the hospital's income. :

generally speaking not .. it was the govt that pocketted the outsourcing fee into the general exchequer so they probably got spent on propping up banks, MPs duck houses, or invading foreign countries rather than on the NHS.

and the outsourced company - which round here is the NCP - pocket the parking charge to pay their staff and share holders - hence the ridiculously high nature of the charges (at swindon £5 for 3 hours).

however in our case there is a country park where you can park free allday within 5 minuites walk of the hospital so i (and many other people) just park there - effectively meaning the the council countryside service is picking up the cost of the parking provision , which is nuts when you think about it.

[treecreeper]

Originally Posted by eeyore

generally speaking not .. it was the govt that pocketted the outsourcing fee into the general exchequer so they probably got spent on propping up banks, MPs duck houses, or invading foreign countries rather than on the NHS.

and the outsourced company - which round here is the NCP - pocket the parking charge to pay their staff and share holders - hence the ridiculously high nature of the charges (at swindon £5 for 3 hours).

however in our case there is a country park where you can park free allday within 5 minuites walk of the hospital so i (and many other people) just park there - effectively meaning the the council countryside service is picking up the cost of the parking provision , which is nuts when you think about it.

£5 for 3 hours!! And I was complaining about the Wirral charge of £2 for a whole day! What is most annoying about this Swindon situation is that the more unwell people who can't cope with the 5 minutes walk are the ones will have to pay the £5

[Paul mabbott]

Gordon Bennet, Mick, fancy given the halt away! Who'd have Georgied that I wasn't an Offa otherwise.... stone the crows .....

Originally Posted by mickmassie

You obviously don't know Paul too well as yet. He is about as Sheffield as I am Chiswick. I'm not sure he can put wood in th'oil. M.

[captaincarot]

hobjob

i'd rather consider it an advancement.

and sorry if a caused any offence by misunderstanding your intention

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by Herd900rd

I wasn't aware that the chrinically sick WERE being taxed. Chronically sick don't usually drive, isn't hospital transport provided and don't relatives help.

Hospital transport is heavily rationed according to need.
If can travel in a car = no hospital transport; well thats
a rough rule of thumb.

If relatives provide the transport it costs them not only their
fuel, but often time off work, time away from their children
etc, etc,. From where I live it is a 46 mile round trip.

Most hospitals have a system for reduced car parking fees
for regular v frequent attenders (e.g. oncology) and for relatives of
those who are in-patients for > 2-3 days.

I went to A&E on my own once by car, and was admitted.
I had to pay to park to get in - but there were arrangements
for me not to get on-going clamps and fines though.

I had a trivial operation last week - still cost my missus £2.50
(cheapest fee) to pick me up at 19.00.

For those on low incomes and very tight budgets these
amounts add up fast.

The NHS is by no means "free at the point of delivery" for many,
many things these days - as a rather apolitical old codger I find
this very, very sad.

But lets not debate this any further in this thread

[Digit]

I was operated on in a Cardiff hospital for prostate cancer and from my home the round trip was 120 miles, obviously as I was an in patient I was driven there and collected post op.
With my wife and family visiting the cost soon added up, with my son being self employed he suffered a loss as well.
But let me make one point, we are not complaining, but the £3 plus parking fee did tend to add insult to injury.
Now of course there is no charge here in Wales.

Roy.

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by eeyore

the only people likely to park in a hospital car park are staff (who arent charged) ..............

Oh yes they are at Ipswich (though not as much as the punters).

[Digit]

So they were here in Wales, which I thought was bloody diabolical!

Roy.