http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC14/Fukuoka.htm Another reason I am saying you have to use airplanes is that you have to grow them fast, because if there is 3% less green area around the world, the whole earth is going to die. Because of lack of oxygen, people won't feel happy. You feel happy in the spring because of the oxygen from the plants. We breathe out carbon dioxide and breathe in oxygen, and the plants do the opposite. Human beings and plants not only have a relationship in eating, but also share air. Therefore, the lack of oxygen in Somalia is not only a problem there, it is also a problem here. Because of the rapid depletion of the land in those parts of Africa, everyone will feel this happening. It is happening very quickly. There is no time to wait. We have to do something now.
Kirk -----Original Message----- From: murdoch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:15 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair > Ok I'm coming in in the middle of this so I'm not >100% certain the context you're discussing this in. > Any high school text on Geology will have something >about the atmospheres composition. THe atmosphere is >79% Nitrogen, 20% oxygen and about 1% mixture of >Argon, helium and hydrogen. There are other trace >gases but those are the primary components. Notice >C02 is NOT on the list. It's WAY out on the curve. This link seemed to back you up: http://www.physlink.com/Reference/AirComposition.cfm > You'd be extremely hard pressed to significantly >alter the atmosphere unless your house was absolutely >air tight and had no "air mixing" what so ever. Although you seem knowledgeable, my first-glance inclination is to dispute this claim of yours. I do not ask that CO2 reach poisonous levels or some nonsense to prove my point. My point was simply that some household environments, without sufficient mixing, tend, over the long haul to be less-than ideally healthy. An extreme case would be with a gas leak. There is obviously *not* sufficient air mixing in that case. But a more mild and seemingly innoccuous case, that would simply interest me to know the facts about it (without having to take anyone's word for it) would be how much CO2 might accumulate here or there in a house or room that is not well-ventilated. > I'd be willing to bet that the most significant >sources of "indoor pollution" come from the outgasing >of your various platic products. Valued information that we thank you for. My focus is not limited to pollutants, but interesting. >>perished. Now we all breathe this poisonous >>explosive stuff and think it's normal. > > While it is true that too much oxygen can give you >oxygen poisoning it's not quite correct to say oxygen >is explosive. Interesting. You were responding to Keith, whom I was quoting, and I think his way of putting things was slightly tongue-in-cheek. But anyway.... > Terrestrial plants can use as much as 0.4-0.5% of >C02 and there's only about 0.04-0.05% in the >atmosphere. So any excess C02 can be efficiently used >by plants. The ocean also acts as a TREMENDOUS C02 >sink(too much would change the pH of the ocean >though). My concern with C02 would be it's heat >capacity. Methane(CH4) is worse. I would like to see some examination of what happens when you take 100 or 200 million years worth of stored hydrocarbons and burn them mostly up, within three hundred years, locking much available O2 to the C and the H. I'd be curious as to CO2 levels, at that point, not to mention H2O levels, and O2 levels. >>Well, I haven't seen that way of discussing the >>release of greater O2 percentages into the >>atmosphere. It was put forth in the context of >>the great mystery as to why there is not more of a >>historical fossil record of a wider diversity of life >>(land life?) up until a few hundred million years >>ago. Trees, for example, I don't think they're >>more than a few hundred million years old. And many >>creatures, we have fossil records of them, but they >>do not really start in abundance up until a certain >>point? > > There is no appreciable fossil record prior to 600 >million years ago(THe end of the PreCambrian and the >begining of the Cambrian period). If the estimate of >the earth's age (5 Billon years) is to be considered >correct we have fossil remains for only the last (more >or less) 10% of that time. My understanding is that >all the other fossil evidence has been "subducted" due >to volcanic processes/turnover. If you mean that the one theory holds that we can't find any evidence because it's assumed destroyed, then I am inclined not to entirely trust that theory, particularly given our discovery of *some* evidence from those periods. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 10/31/2002 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/jd3IAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
