some climate change campaigners have suggested that parents of young children should NOT leave a light on with them in their bedroom at night,as it would greatly reduce our carbon footprint,especially if every household in the world did this.what's your view on this?
There is no climate change, only more pollution. Which of course any Government could fix easily by introducing the long distance Electric cars, the vapor carb which can go 500 miles on a gallon of gas, and the use of the hydrogen generator that increases gas mileage. But.. as you know, if it makes them money, they won't change a thing. So Oil companies win, the Coal industry wins and everyone takes a breath of pollution. So the Government blames it on the people and will tax you with a Carbon tax eventually.
Anyway, they have those cheap LED lights you can buy to put in any light socket and they use barely a penny a day in electricity, of course its even less for a night. There is also the other variety of night lights that use hardly any electricity. So the big lights can be turned off, but its your choice. I think a child should feel secure and having some sort of light even to where they can see where they are going if they have to go to the bathroom is nice. some light is needed, just how much is up to you.
Wanna bet?Come up North and see for yourself. Climate change is real,very real.
pastortim: There is no climate change, only more pollution. Which of course any Government could fix easily by introducing the long distance Electric cars, the vapor carb which can go 500 miles on a gallon of gas, and the use of the hydrogen generator that increases gas mileage. But.. as you know, if it makes them money, they won't change a thing. So Oil companies win, the Coal industry wins and everyone takes a breath of pollution. So the Government blames it on the people and will tax you with a Carbon tax eventually.
Anyway, they have those cheap LED lights you can buy to put in any light socket and they use barely a penny a day in electricity, of course its even less for a night. There is also the other variety of night lights that use hardly any electricity. So the big lights can be turned off, but its your choice. I think a child should feel secure and having some sort of light even to where they can see where they are going if they have to go to the bathroom is nice. some light is needed, just how much is up to you.
lion131: some climate change campaigners have suggested that parents of young children should NOT leave a light on with them in their bedroom at night,as it would greatly reduce our carbon footprint,especially if every household in the world did this.what's your view on this?
scousedonLiverpool, Cheshire, England UK1,643 posts
Nuliiiiiii: I have never been able to sleep with light OFF , I am afraid of my own shadow
I am the opposite, I need total darkness. My son had a problem for a while, think it was early schooldays and talks of the bogeyman from classmates, he is fine now.
Yes i know ur meaning about early days and tried to make sure my family were comfy in having lights OFF b4 i did so scousedon. Glad u like the jokes as its nice to make others smile also :-)
Nuliiiiiii: I have never been able to sleep with light OFF , I am afraid of my own shadow
Don't feel bad, I've always needed a night light as well. I now have a dual purpose one since I use a Himilayan salt rock crystal lamp as my night light. My sons, however, have always preferred sleeping in the dark.
To me, the electricity used by such low lights is irrelevant in affecting the carbon footprint. I do other things like use CF bulbs in the lights I burn the most, turn off lights in rooms I'm not in, try to combine as many things as possible into outings with the car and run it in an efficient manner route-wise, recycle and reuse as much as possible, etc.
druidess6308: Don't feel bad, I've always needed a night light as well. I now have a dual purpose one since I use a Himilayan salt rock crystal lamp as my night light. My sons, however, have always preferred sleeping in the dark.
To me, the electricity used by such low lights is irrelevant in affecting the carbon footprint. I do other things like use CF bulbs in the lights I burn the most, turn off lights in rooms I'm not in, try to combine as many things as possible into outings with the car and run it in an efficient manner route-wise, recycle and reuse as much as possible, etc.
My son always slept in a dark room much better. He would complain about lights...even a dim nightlight keeping him awake. However, in the hallway just by his bedroom door and in the bathroom, I had a nightlight plugged in so he could maneuver himself to the bathroom if he got up in the middle of the night. He said that was OK for him.
G'morning to you Nuliiiiiii. It's now 11:49am over here in Ohio and a gorgeous Indian summer warm day here. Don't have many more warm days left now as it's already frosted over at night. Heading out the door now to get some fence painting done. Long day ahead of me now.
Always nice hearing from you and reading your posts.
There is no climate change, only more pollution. Which of course any Government could fix easily by introducing the long distance Electric cars, the vapor carb which can go 500 miles on a gallon of gas, and the use of the hydrogen generator that increases gas mileage. But.. as you know, if it makes them money, they won't change a thing. So Oil companies win, the Coal industry wins and everyone takes a breath of pollution. So the Government blames it on the people and will tax you with a Carbon tax eventually.quote] First of all your vapor carb is a wet dream. Modern computer controled fuel injected engines are extremely efficient and Diesel engines are even more efficient than gasoline engines. I think you pulled that milage out of thin air because even whacko believers in this concept only tout 200 MPG. The only area where this so called vapor carb can improve effeciency is in fuel combustion efficiency and as modern fuel injected engine are already 97% effient, that only leaves 3% to play with. That won't get you from 25 MPG to 200 in this universe! Read all about it.
"big oil" knows that crude will run out one day and/or get too scarce/expensive to use to push big iron pigs down the highway so they are making big investments in alternate technologies. BP recently partnered with a co called Verenium to the tune of $90,000,000 to advance the production of Ethanol from plant waste, wood chips etc. Shell Oil has made a large investment in a private co called Iogen up in Canada to do the same thing. Exxon is getting into the act also as well as Velaro.
Hydrogen generator is another hoax. The idea being to use electricity to break down water into it's elements Hydrogen (H) & Oxygen (O)and send the H back into the engine to burn. They discard the O which makes N0 sense and they completely fail to mention that it takes energy to break down water. That energy comes from the alternator. The alternator is driven through belts from the engine and "Consumes" energy. Way more energy than any miniscule benefit from the few bubbles of H produced.
Polarbutterfly: Confused I am.Was that meant as a nice gesture or meant to be taken as sarcasm?
I was backing you up butterfly.
I saw a special on the discovery channel where they showed gigantic waterfalls pouring into a glacier and flowing out to sea. Ice that fell as snow for 10,000 years was melting at a rate unheard of in recorded history. It was shocking to see and made a knot in my stomache. Millions of gallons of the purest water on the planet just flowing into the ocean.
ooby_dooby: There is no climate change, only more pollution. Which of course any Government could fix easily by introducing the long distance Electric cars, the vapor carb which can go 500 miles on a gallon of gas, and the use of the hydrogen generator that increases gas mileage. But.. as you know, if it makes them money, they won't change a thing. So Oil companies win, the Coal industry wins and everyone takes a breath of pollution. So the Government blames it on the people and will tax you with a Carbon tax eventually.quote] First of all your vapor carb is a wet dream. Modern computer controled fuel injected engines are extremely efficient and Diesel engines are even more efficient than gasoline engines. I think you pulled that milage out of thin air because even whacko believers in this concept only tout 200 MPG. The only area where this so called vapor carb can improve effeciency is in fuel combustion efficiency and as modern fuel injected engine are already 97% effient, that only leaves 3% to play with. That won't get you from 25 MPG to 200 in this universe! Read all about it.
"big oil" knows that crude will run out one day and/or get too scarce/expensive to use to push big iron pigs down the highway so they are making big investments in alternate technologies. BP recently partnered with a co called Verenium to the tune of $90,000,000 to advance the production of Ethanol from plant waste, wood chips etc. Shell Oil has made a large investment in a private co called Iogen up in Canada to do the same thing. Exxon is getting into the act also as well as Velaro.
Hydrogen generator is another hoax. The idea being to use electricity to break down water into it's elements Hydrogen (H) & Oxygen (O)and send the H back into the engine to burn. They discard the O which makes N0 sense and they completely fail to mention that it takes energy to break down water. That energy comes from the alternator. The alternator is driven through belts from the engine and "Consumes" energy. Way more energy than any miniscule benefit from the few bubbles of H produced.
Actually you produce Hydrogen from Methanol or Ethanol,or from Water by Solar or Wind-energy,then store it as a Hydride.When heated,it will give up it's stored Hydrogen. You can't run a Car with Hydrogen produced by it's Alternator,unless you invent the Perpetual Motion Machine! You will always have to put in more Energy in,than what you get out with our conventional Machines!
The global warming scammers use a lot of the above tactics.
Faulty logic Falsified data They create their own "experts" (Al Gore for example) They subvert the overseers.
The simple fact of the matter is that for every scientist, lawmaker, politician, and businessman involved, there is money to be made if he signs onto the global warming bandwagon. But only scorn and sanction to be gained if he speaks out against it.
Still, there are thousands of scientists who HAVE spoker out against it. But they don't make the news.
Conrad73: Actually you produce Hydrogen from Methanol or Ethanol,or from Water by Solar or Wind-energy,then store it as a Hydride.When heated,it will give up it's stored Hydrogen. You can't run a Car with Hydrogen produced by it's Alternator,unless you invent the Perpetual Motion Machine! You will always have to put in more Energy in,than what you get out with our conventional Machines!
I have seen dozens of supposed "hydrogen generators" that supposedly electrolyze water much more efficiently than standard electrolysis. But I think they're all scams. Like you say you can't get more out of an equation than you put in.
I saw a special on the discovery channel where they showed gigantic waterfalls pouring into a glacier and flowing out to sea. Ice that fell as snow for 10,000 years was melting at a rate unheard of in recorded history. It was shocking to see and made a knot in my stomache. Millions of gallons of the purest water on the planet just flowing into the ocean.
ooby_dooby: First of all your vapor carb is a wet dream. Modern computer controled fuel injected engines are extremely efficient and Diesel engines are even more efficient than gasoline engines. I think you pulled that milage out of thin air because even whacko believers in this concept only tout 200 MPG. The only area where this so called vapor carb can improve effeciency is in fuel combustion efficiency and as modern fuel injected engine are already 97% effient, that only leaves 3% to play with. That won't get you from 25 MPG to 200 in this universe! Read all about it.
"big oil" knows that crude will run out one day and/or get too scarce/expensive to use to push big iron pigs down the highway so they are making big investments in alternate technologies. BP recently partnered with a co called Verenium to the tune of $90,000,000 to advance the production of Ethanol from plant waste, wood chips etc. Shell Oil has made a large investment in a private co called Iogen up in Canada to do the same thing. Exxon is getting into the act also as well as Velaro.
Hydrogen generator is another hoax. The idea being to use electricity to break down water into it's elements Hydrogen (H) & Oxygen (O)and send the H back into the engine to burn. They discard the O which makes N0 sense and they completely fail to mention that it takes energy to break down water. That energy comes from the alternator. The alternator is driven through belts from the engine and "Consumes" energy. Way more energy than any miniscule benefit from the few bubbles of H produced.
Another debate, ack.. well I will just say don't be so negative about something until you have read what does work and the vapor carb did work, the man who invented it had it tested by several people in the 70's and he drove his Galaxy 500 on a gallon of gas for 500 miles. Coils around a steel gas tank that heated up the gas tank and a vapor carb to direct the flow, it took about 10 minutes to heat up the gas to turn to vapor, then the engine started. The story should be somewhere on Google yet.
Stanley Meyers. HHO generators that work. Another Doctor also created an HHO generator which could make a flame so hot it melted steel, in fact the HHO torch cutters are available on the Net. You have to dig for it. Takes about 15 Amps to make it work. Which also the North Carolina Police department is using them on their police vehicles at the moment to get more mileage. Every bit helps. Thousands are using it to increase their gas mileage, which some are getting double their gas mileage and they have had it confirmed. If I get 5 more miles to the gallon, that is a benefit to me and the environment.
What I am saying is the Oil companies are not pushing to make a difference in any kind of engine, nor even investing in electric motors or batteries which could make hybrids the car everyone would want and eventually go straight to electric. See any money from them going towards such advancements? Nope. Instead, they are still pushing auto makers to put out gas engines that get worse today than they did in 1970. My 1981 Toyota gets 64 miles to the gallon. Magnets on the fuel line, syntec oil, a condensator, and a K&N air filter gave me double my mileage. Go figure. Why couldn't auto companies come up with something like that? A majority of their stock is owned by Oil Companies. Don't believe me, look it up. Do your research. I need a nap.
Ray, "But glaciers advance to the sea precisely because they are continually getting more and more ice piled on top. It has to go somewhere and it pushes the glacier to the sea, just as it has since time began."
Thats the whole point. Glaciers aren't advancing they are receding.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
turn the lights off in the kids bedroom at night?please read below....(Vote Below)