Here is a compound that deserves more honest attention. For decades, it has been the 'bad boy' of emissions. Its worthwile properties have been ignored. It has been 'demonized,' and it is still dragged out to scare people, even where there is very little. (Washington State Department of Ecology installed carbon monoxide monitoring stations at many locations around the state that allowed the levels to be viewed online. They are no longer available for our checking. Why do you suppose that is)?
For over twenty-five years, vehicles have made very little carbon monoxide. (My 1983 Honda tested at less than 0.01 percent (100 ppm). The test equipment apparently can't determine values less than that, or the authorities don't want us to know how low it actually is. This accusation wouldn't have normally occured to me, but I can't explain why the monitoring sites are no longer online if the monoxide level is so important. Also, there are many other instances of underhanded behavior by Ecology and others --- just read more of these web pages, and you'll get the idea).
The war on carbon monoxide has been very successful. I believe we are not supposed to know how successful. Monoxide is one of those tools used to control us.
When, in the 1960s and 1970s, the brown haze began hanging around for days on end in many places besides Los Angeles, a lot of people wanted something to be done. Even though it was the brown haze that was the concern, it was the carbon monoxide that was singled out.
My understanding is that the brown haze was particulates and nitrogen compounds. Carbon monoxide is invisible. It gets confusing, because we were given a name for the haze. It was called 'smog.' And, we were told that monoxide created the 'smog' through various chemical reactions. I believe the 'science' of all of this could use some serious examination, but that's a topic for another day.
The solution to the haze was basically to incinerate the offending ingredients. This gave us smaller particulates (less visible) and a lot of carbon dioxide (and perhaps some nastier sulfur and nitrogen compounds).
My belief in God caused me to be suspicious of this solution and course of action. Why? Because I believe He knew what He was doing when He chose the combustion products. (If this makes you uncomfortable, substitute 'Nature'). Why is it that fire makes carbon monoxide?
God did select more complete combustion for us and some other creatures. Carbon dioxide, not monoxide, is the combustion product of metabolism. Is there a reason God reserved dioxide for his favorites? Is there a good reason for not over-doing the CO2 production? (Note: 'global warming' is not a good reason. It is a lie). Should such questions be addressed by scientists?
Let me assert that they should, and, in the past, they would have. They should because they will lead to the correct path. (Diesels have been around a long time. Was there a reason they were reserved for the heavy lifting? Why didn't the old engineers put us all in diesels? I was in San Jose, Costa Rica in 1968, so I know the answer. Yet, when vehicle emissions' testing was required in some areas of Washington State, diesel cars were exempted!). Also, let me say that I have worked on my own cars most of my life. The old emissions did not bother me. Remember my 1983 Honda? If I went to get something out of the trunk (rear of the vehicle where the exhaust pipe is) and the engine was running, I would instantly suffer the consequences. My nose and eyes would immediately react. My Honda produced over fifteen percent CO2 (150,000 ppm). Why can we not recognize that the drastic increase in asthma and allergies coincides precisely with the change in emissions and the sealing of buildings? (Or, are we just afraid to admit it)?
Monoxide does not cause asthma and allergies. It does not kill people outdoors. CO2 has. What other advantages did we give up when we decided to convert all of our monoxide to dioxide at the source?
Carbon monoxide is slightly lighter than air, and being hot when it leaves the exhaust pipe tends to rise, thus getting above our breathing space and dispersing quite rapidly, much more rapidly that CO2.
Producing carbon monoxide instead of dioxide means a lower level of CO2 because of 'float.'
Is there a level before monoxide harms us, an 'optimum level,' that would help control some undesirable micro-organism? At least monoxide would not be a food source or growth medium for such things like CO2 is. Have we seen a rise in health problems associated with such organisms over the past forty years?
Is there a role for carbon monoxide in the maintenance of the ozone layer? The authorities blame monoxide for 'ground level ozone,' but seem to deny its importance, even its role, in creating other ozone. Since the war on monoxide has been successful, what would you predict for ozone? Do you have a prediction for 'wildfires?' Why?
Science is dead. How do I know? Not one voice has been raised in defense of carbon monoxide as far as I have been able to determine. Not one positive property of monoxide has been offered. How many so-called 'bad things' have some benefit? If I made a claim that poisonous snakes are bad and should all be killed, some scientist would be quick to challenge me and point out how they help control rodents, bugs, and other animals and also provide important medicines. (Since writing this, one more argument has ocurred to me --- how could I have missed it? Certainly, someone would remind me of the need for the 'diversity' that such reptiles would represent. To understand what they mean by 'diversity,' translate it as chaos leading to entropy. When it comes to ways of thinking other than theirs, they oppose 'diversity.' And, in the case of government, they want a 'global' (some would say a 'one-world') government not diverse governments. Of course, according to their thinking, if not planning, such a world government is necessary because of the chaos!).
Is monoxide really as bad as it was and is portrayed? Why was there not even one scientist who pointed out one positive thing about monoxide? Emotion was used to induce us to choose carbon dioxide over carbon monoxide, not science. We were 'steam-rollered' just like we are now being overwhelmed with 'global warming,' health care, etc.. The same techniques are used. Who created the CO2 'crisis?' The health care 'crisis?'
Just one more parting thought --- perhaps the original problem was not the kind of combustion products that came out of our exhaust pipes and chimneys. In that case, all of our efforts may have been in vain. That's normally what happens when we turn from God. It seems to me that we ran away from our destiny. We could have embraced nuclear power at that time. The plans were there for building many nuclear power plants. This would have allowed us to reduce our pollution. It seems that overnight, we abandoned this course and deceived ourselves with the idea that other kinds of combustion products would save us. Until we go back and face the issue honestly, we will continue hurting ourselves. But, that is just what some interests want us to do.
Copyright © 2009 Donald L. Beeman. All rights reserved.