Author Topic: Western civilization is a health hazard  (Read 6918 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7382
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Western civilization is a health hazard
« on: July 02, 2020, 02:42:50 am »
OLD CONTENT contd.

Next, powered aircraft:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation

Quote
The environmental impact of aviation occurs because aircraft engines emit heat, noise, particulates and gases which contribute to climate change[1][2] and global dimming.[3] Airplanes emit particles and gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, lead, and black carbon which interact among themselves and with the atmosphere.[4]
...
Comprehensive research shows that despite anticipated efficiency innovations to airframes, engines, aerodynamics and flight operations, there is no end in sight, even many decades out, to rapid growth in CO2 emissions from air travel and air freight,[6][7] due to projected continual growth in air travel.[8][9]
...
Airports can generate significant water pollution due to their extensive use and handling of jet fuel, lubricants and other chemicals.
...
In cold climates, the use of deicing fluids can also cause water pollution, as most of the fluids applied to aircraft subsequently fall to the ground and can be carried via stormwater runoff to nearby streams, rivers or coastal waters.[118]:101 Airlines use deicing fluids based on ethylene glycol or propylene glycol as the active ingredient.[118]:4

Ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are known to exert high levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in surface waters. This process can adversely affect aquatic life by consuming oxygen needed by aquatic organisms for survival. Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are consumed when microbial populations decompose propylene glycol.[119]:2–23
...
Ultrafine particles (UFPs) are emitted by aircraft engines during near-surface level operations including taxi, takeoff, climb, descent, and landing, as well as idling at gates and on taxiways. Other sources of UFPs include ground support equipment operating around the terminal areas. In 2014, an air quality study found the area impacted by ultrafine particles from the takeoffs and landings downwind of Los Angeles International Airport to be of much greater magnitude than previously thought.[120] Typical UFP emissions during takeoff are on the order of 1015–1017 particles emitted per kilogram of fuel burned. Non-volatile soot particle emissions are 1014–1016 particles per kilogram fuel on a number basis and 0.1–1 gram per kilogram fuel on a mass basis, depending on the engine and fuel characteristics.[121][122][123][124][125]
...
Some 167,000 piston engine aircraft—about three-quarters of private planes in the United States—release lead (Pb) into the air due to leaded aviation fuel.[126] From 1970 to 2007, general aviation aircraft emitted about 34,000 tons of lead into the atmosphere according to the Environmental Protection Agency.[127] Lead is recognized as a serious environmental threat by the Federal Aviation Administration if inhaled or ingested leading to adverse effects on the nervous system, red blood cells and cardiovascular and immune systems with infants and young children especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral and learning problems, lower IQ[128] and autism.[129]
...
Flying 12 kilometres (39,000 ft) high, passengers and crews of jet airliners are exposed to at least 10 times the cosmic ray dose that people at sea level receive. Every few years, a geomagnetic storm permits a solar particle event to penetrate down to jetliner altitudes. Aircraft flying polar routes near the geomagnetic poles are at particular risk.[130][131][132][133]

Plus:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike

Quote
Bird strikes are a significant threat to flight safety, and have caused a number of accidents with human casualties.[3] There are over 13,000 bird strikes annually in the US alone.[4] However, the number of major accidents involving civil aircraft is quite low and it has been estimated that there is only about 1 accident resulting in human death in one billion (109) flying hours.[5] The majority of bird strikes (65%) cause little damage to the aircraft;[6] however the collision is usually fatal to the bird(s) involved.

Most accidents occur when a bird (or birds) collides with the windscreen or is sucked into the engines of mechanical aircraft.
...
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) reported 65,139 bird strikes for 2011–14, and the Federal Aviation Authority counted 177,269 wildlife strike reports on civil aircraft between 1990 and 2015, growing 38% in 7 years from 2009 to 2015. Birds accounted for 97%.[8]
...
Most bird strikes involve large birds with big populations, particularly geese and gulls in the United States. In parts of the US, Canada geese and migratory snow geese populations have risen significantly[17] while feral Canada geese and greylag geese have increased in parts of Europe, increasing the risk of these large birds to aircraft.[18] In other parts of the world, large birds of prey such as Gyps vultures and Milvus kites are often involved.[5] In the US, reported strikes are mainly from waterfowl (30%), gulls (22%), raptors (20%), and pigeons and doves (7%).[17] The Smithsonian Institution's Feather Identification Laboratory has identified turkey vultures as the most damaging birds, followed by Canada geese and white pelicans,[19] all of which are very large birds. In terms of frequency, the laboratory most commonly finds mourning doves and horned larks involved in the strike.[19]
...
Large land animals, such as deer, can also be a problem to aircraft during takeoff and landing. Between 1990 and 2013, civil aircraft experienced more than 1,000 collisions with deer and 440 with coyotes.[17]

An animal hazard reported from London Stansted Airport in England is rabbits: they get run over by ground vehicles and planes, and they pass large amounts of droppings, which attract mice, which attract owls, which become another birdstrike hazard.[21]

Pictures (warning: graphic images of Western civilization):

www.birdcontrol.it/birdstrikegallery-e.html

But not to worry! In order to reduce the incidence of birdstrikes, Western civilization deliberately kills even larger numbers of birds ahead of time!

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-york-birds-killed-70000-planes-flight-path-hudson-miracle-sully-sullenberger-landing-a7528076.html

Quote
Birds took the blame for bringing down the jetliner that "Sully" Sullenberger landed on the Hudson River eight years ago this weekend. They have been paying for it with their lives ever since.

An Associated Press analysis of bird-killing programmes at the New York City area's three major airports found that nearly 70,000 gulls, starling, geese and other birds have been slaughtered, mostly by shooting and trapping, since the 2009 accident, and it is not clear if those killings have made the skies safer.

Federal data shows that in the years after bird-killing programmes that LaGuardia and Newark airports ramped up in response to the gutsy landing, the number of recorded bird strikes involving those airports actually went up.

How about we just kill Western civilization instead?

---

While on the subject of birds as victims, let's not forget:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towerkill

Quote
Towerkill is a phenomenon in which birds are killed by collisions with antenna towers. In the United States, the US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that between 5 and 50 million birds are killed each year by tower kill.
...
In at least one instance, several thousand birds were killed at a single tower in one night. Additionally, the unnatural lights on communication towers disrupt bird migration patterns in ways that are still not fully understood. At least 231 species have been affected, with neotropical migrants making up a large proportion of all species killed.
...
There are two mechanisms of bird death due to communications towers. The first is the "blind kill" where birds flying in poor visibility do not see the guy-wires in time to avoid them. This is more of a threat for faster flying birds such as waterfowl or shorebirds. Slower and more agile birds, such as songbirds, are not as likely to succumb to blind collision.

Communications towers that are lighted at night for aviation safety may help reduce bird collisions caused by poor visibility, but they bring about a second, even more deadly mechanism for mortality.[1] When there is a low cloud ceiling, hazy or foggy conditions, lights on a tower reflect off water or other particles in the air creating an illuminated area around the tower. Migrating birds lose their stellar cues for nocturnal migration in such conditions. In addition, they often lose any broad orienting perspective they might have had on the landscape. When passing the lighted area, it may be that the increased visibility around the tower becomes the strongest cue the birds have for navigation, and thus they tend to remain in the lighted space near the tower, afraid to leave. Mortality occurs when they run into the structure and its guy wires, or even other migrating birds as more and more passing birds aggregate in the relatively small, lighted space.

as well as:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird%E2%80%93skyscraper_collisions

Quote
According to FLAP, between one and nine million birds die each year in the city from hitting skyscrapers due to mistaking reflective windows for open sky, or being drawn to lights at night.[1]

According to a 2014 article in the ornithological journal Condor, an estimated 365 million to 988 million birds die each year by colliding into buildings in the United States.[2]

You don't see birds being killed by stationary structures built according to the methods of any other civilization. This should tell you that there is something uniquely wrong with post-Renaissance Western civilization.

---

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/11/air-pollution-inequality-minorities-breathe-air-polluted-whites/3130783002/

Quote
Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately breathe air that's been polluted by non-Hispanic whites, according to a study. This new research quantifies for the first time the racial gap between who causes air pollution – and who breathes it.

"Pollution is disproportionately caused by whites, but disproportionately inhaled by black and Hispanic minorities," the study said.

Poor air quality remains the largest environmental health risk in the United States, the study warns. In fact, with 100,000 deaths per year, more Americans die from air pollution than car crashes and murders combined.

“Even though minorities are contributing less to the overall problem of air pollution, they are affected by it more,” said study co-author Jason Hill, an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota, who is white. “Is it fair (that) I create more pollution and somebody else is disproportionately affected by it?”
...
The study found that black and Hispanic Americans bear a "pollution burden:" Blacks are exposed to about 56 percent more pollution than is caused by their consumption. For Hispanics, it is slightly higher – 63 percent.

However, non-Hispanic whites experience a "pollution advantage," meaning they breathe about 17 percent less air pollution than whites cause.
...
the scientists found that whites spend more money on pollution-intensive goods and services than do blacks and Hispanics, which means they generate more pollution than the other groups do.
...
Other experts agreed with the research: “These findings confirm what most grassroots environmental justice leaders have known for decades, ‘whites are dumping their pollution on poor people and people of color,’”


Basically a scaled-up version of passive smoking (which children are the main victims of despite adults being mostly the active smokers):

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1748121/

Quote
Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke

---

sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/03/12/school-cell-tower-causing-cancer/

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/03/13/experts-wireless-headphones-airpods-could-pose-cancer-risk/