Comments Quinn has made

Try some nails

Fenders and lights are a must.  Lube up more often.  If you have clipless pedals, consider changing back to the old fashioned regular pedals so that you don't break a leg when you fall on ice.  

Your front tire is the most important tire.  If the front can make it through something, chances are the rest of the bike will follow.  They now make tires that are made of a special compound that are a bit stickier.  They're called slow rebound tires.  I have a friend who took an old tire and put small nails through it so that the tire is covered with small metal studs.  Works for him!On Umbra on winter biking posted 1 year ago 18 Responses

You're wrong jabailo

I spoke to an elementary school class on climate change the other day.  I asked the kids what was causing global warming to get an idea of what they already know.  The answers I got ranged from 'pollution' to 'something to do with the ozone layer' to 'CO2.'  

I think the concept of pollution in our society is changing.  It's no longer just trash and smog in the eyes of the laity.  If a 3rd grader can make the connection between pollution and global warming, maybe there's hope in the future.On Climate, as such, is unlikely to ever be a determinant of many votes posted 1 year, 6 months ago 14 Responses

A. Gorey topic

More April fools jokes!!!On Grist is cooking up a new site; what do you want to see in it? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 32 Responses

She says "think" 13 times

This woman has very little conception of environmental issues. She  sidesteps all of the questions and regurgitates intelligent sounding answers with very little substance.  She sounds like she has no idea what she's talking about.

I mean come on now.  Climate change is not about "leaving our planet cleaner."  It's about averting catastrophe.  And she "thinks" that climate change and energy independence are closely related?  Wake up!  There's no uncertainty that they are related.

The goals we are talking about are more like deadlines and less like goals.  They are not like a business goal of making this much profit next quarter.  Goals can afford to be striven for and not reached.  Deadlines, like CO2 levels needed to avert disaster set by the IPCC, are non-negotiable.  That's being realistic.  Setting any goal lower than what science dictates is necessary is irresponsible and borderline lazy.

Nuclear energy on the scale necessary to achieve energy independence is not "realistic."  The amount of time and resources required to decommission aging nuclear plants and constructing new ones is not something we can afford.  It's unrealistic.  Especially in the time frame that we have to deal with climate change.  We do not have decades to wait for all the plants to be up and running.

A cap and trade system is not a tax incentive.  

She doesn't know what the production tax credit for renewable energy is.

"For me, it's not just about environmental policy, it's about economic policy."  Don't fool yourself honey.  It's only about economic policy.On RNC 'Victory Chair' talks about McCain's climate agenda posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

Minor Correction

It's Kutztown, not Kurtztown.On Timothy LaSalle of Rodale on the surprising climate benefits of organic farming posted 1 year, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Spelunking

Bad news for spelunkers.  

For those of you who are avid darkness lovers and cave aficionados, I'm sorry but you should probably hold off on your spelunking for a while.  Whatever it is that's killing the bats, chances are that you help the spread of it when you crawl into an afflicted cave and get the microorganism's spores (or the microorganism itself) on your skin and clothes.  Don't contaminate other caves.  Hold off on spelunking until whatever it is that's killing the bats is discovered.  On Mass die-off of bats in U.S. Northeast worries and puzzles researchers posted 1 year, 8 months ago 10 Responses

NJ

In a country the size of New Jersey, I don't think people driving further is as big of a problem as it would be in the US.  On Israel to build national electric car infrastructure posted 1 year, 10 months ago 14 Responses

PVC

PVC is a dangerous product and should be phased out of homes.  It is debatable whether or not it has its place in society at all.  It is dangerous to manufacture since it is known to cause angiosarcoma in PVC plant workers.  It is dangerous to have in a home since in the event of a housefire, it can combust and create the unfathomably deadly chemical dioxin.  PVC is extremely hard to recycle and does not break down.  It will fill landfills and burden any society with cancers and birth defects for thousands of years.

I am shocked that an alternative housing concept would employ this dangerous material.On An alternative housing concept posted 1 year, 10 months ago 16 Responses

The real cost of nuclear power

To only consider the startup capital required in calculating expense is shortsighted and irresponsible.  The cost of nuclear energy is much more than the cost of building a nuclear power plant.  Other factors need to be accounted for.  For instance, the cost to society of producing radioactive waste with a half-life of thousands of years, discharging thermal pollution into our fragile stream ecosystems, and creating the risk for disastrous meltdown and contamination need to be taken into account.  When everything is accounted for and risk assessment is quantified, nuclear power turns out to be much more expensive than at first glance.On Draft EIS for Nantucket Sound wind project is positive posted 1 year, 10 months ago 35 Responses

Coal Keeps WV Poor

"Millions of people are being pulled out of poverty as we speak by the power provided by coal."

And yet West Virginia, which leads the nation in underground coal production, is the poorest state in the union.  

Coal keeps West Virginia poor.  

The same thing goes for oil and natural gas extraction in Louisiana.  
On Why clean coal is so darn appealing posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

NOEL

There is something called the No Observable Effects Level or NOEL.  It's pretty self-explanatory but what it is is a threshold dose of toxin determined under which there are no observable effects.  The government takes this value and multiplies it by a factor of around 100 and develops standards for an acceptable level of exposure.  

My point is that it doesn't matter if the effects vary with the dose.  The fact that rats are obese with a low dose of DES and scrawny with a high dose is completely irrelevant.  In determining levels of safe exposure to a chemical, any observable effect is taken into account.  Scientists look for the threshold at which effects start and normality ceases.  Anything beyond that point is interesting and intriguing, but not relevant to regulatory toxicology.

We're not "all doomed."  Enough with the whistle blowing for the sake of whistle blowing.  

As for the question of whether any level of poison is acceptable, first define poison.  Any substance at a large enough dose is poisonous including (believe it or not) water, caffeine, and sugar.  Granted the dose would have to be enormous, but they still could be fatal.  

That said, some chemicals are more toxic than others.  But as long as people are around, there will be toxins around to affect us.  To declare that any level of toxin is unacceptable is completely unrealistic.  Since everything is toxic at a large enough dose, the best we can do is find out what dose is safe and try to keep it below that.On Are our standards for exposure to toxics all wrong? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses