Scientist Warns Plasma And LCD Televisions Could Be Destroying Our Environment

News
By Humphrey Cheung
published

Los Angeles (CA) - A University of California scientist says our love of large television sets could be destroying our environment.

Michael Prather claims nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) gas used in the production of plasma and LCD televisions could be more than 17000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide in heating the atmosphere. The gas is not covered by the Kyoto Treaty and Prather says 4000 tons were produced in 2008 - which according to Prather’s calculations is equivalent to 68 million tons of CO2.

Prather adds that NF3 gas production is expected to double next year.

Read more ... Australian Broadcasting Channel

Humphrey Cheung
69 Comments Comment from the forums
  • lordmetroid
    Need more plasma and LCD displays!
    Come'on Cheung, stop pleasing your humongous ego and environmental agenda by posting your environmental fear-mongering.
    Reply
  • Christopher1
    I have to agree with lordmetroid. Frankly, there is no such thing as global warming. Every single bit of global warming is coming from..... anyone? The Sun. Not from gases like this.

    This is just another attempt by the radical envirofreaks (of which I was one until I did some research) to make people go back to the days of the 1800's.
    Reply
  • sajohnson22
    Christopher1 and lordmetroid look up the greenhouse gas effect and tell me they don't have an effect.
    Reply
  • jumpman
    sajohnson22Christopher1 and lordmetroid look up the greenhouse gas effect and tell me they don't have an effect.
    seriously, to think global warming doesn't happen is just plain ignorance. however, you have to realize that climate change has been happening on this planet for a good 4.5 billion years, and that all we are doing right now is speeding up that process.

    And to Christopher1, learn your history. The 1800's were the days of the Industrial Revolution, pollution was horrible during that time. So going back to the 1800's is a step backwards no matter who you ask, as far as this issue is concerned anyways.
    Reply
  • babybudha
    jumpmanyou have to realize that climate change has been happening on this planet for a good 4.5 billion yearsWell,according to the most accurate history/science book (AKA. The Bible), the earth is only about 6000 years old.
    Reply
  • xxsk8er101xx
    wow ... the responses are retarded. The article is equally bad.

    I'll conclude with this:

    Breathing could harm the environment! (psst stop breathing!! you're causing global warming!)

    Climate change is happening but the climate changes ALL the time. This is nothing new.

    educate yourself on global warming by starting with going to www.icecap.us.
    Reply
  • xxsk8er101xx
    sajohnson22Christopher1 and lordmetroid look up the greenhouse gas effect and tell me they don't have an effect.
    water vapor makes up 97% of the green house gasses in the atmosphere. 3% are methane, co2, nitrogen, etc. C02 makes up a very small fraction of that 3%. Yes water in a gas state is a green house gas.

    Green house gases keeps our planet nice and warm (not global warming). without these green house gases the planet would be as cold as -100 degrees Fahrenheit and even colder up north during the night. Because all the heat would escape into space without green house gases. These gases keeps our planet alive. It's not going to kill it.

    Again educate yourself by the link I provided.
    Reply
  • bobmercer
    Gee the only thing that comes to mind for me when reading this alarming article on my nice 24 inch LCD is “S#*t happens”.
    Reply
  • Niva
    All the guy is saying is that the gas is harmful and the industry should try to limit emissions. He might be right, if he is it's good to have it pointed out. The more we minimize our footprint on nature the better. I do like my big LCDs though :)
    Reply
  • mdillenbeck
    Okay, at Atomz web site (first one on google when searching for "CO2 exhaled by a human in one year"), you see that for all humans there are about 2.23 gigatons of CO2 per year with about 3 teratons of CO2 currently in the atomosphere. Obviously human exhalation is not a major source of CO2 - only 0.001115% by breathing from the human species. (No account was made for our livestock.)

    "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" - as stated above, it is. Take a few science courses to understand the scientific method (replication, reproducibility, independent verification, prediction) then read up on the evidence supporting CO2 as a greenhouse gas. While your at it, read up on how particulates and albedo of glaciers/ice also influence temperatures.

    "Humans devices do not produce enough CO2 to influence global atmospheric concentrations" - again, crack open some books and scientific journals. Heck, read statistical reports from various state DOTs, the EPA, and other governmental agencies. Believe it or not, there are many states where people have to take their cars in to have their emission levels tested - and they record and analyze this data. They use the wonderful mathematical invention of statistics to make accurate predictions. (So add taking a stats course or two to your list.)

    "Warming is caused by the sun, thus greenhouse gases don't cause temperature fluctations". Now add taking a course on argumentative composition or logic - or regularly read R. Moody's logical fallacy of the day. Learn that logic arguments like "how can you believe his statement that most US citizens don't save enough money - he's disshevelled, smelly, and an atheist so he can't be right!" are invalid and unsound, as are arguments like "all crows are black birds, therefore the black bird I see must be a crow". The point is this - just because sun spot fluctuations and thus solar radiation fluctuations can cause global temperature variations, not all variations in global temperatures are solely caused by fluctuations in solar activity/radiation.

    So, once you actually understand what science is - such as the drastic definition of a theory in science (a hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly over many, many, many replications by independent parties that has yet to be proven false) versus in common speach (a guess) - and have a solid foundation in the sciences required (statistics and other forms of mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, and logic/argument - and perhaps a bit of policy science), you'll be ready to make sound, valid, and rational arguments.

    Until that time, I'll keep believing in greenhouse gases and anthropogenic influences on global greenhouse gas levels, the theory of evolution, and the Universal Theory of Gravity - though I am sure there are those who will tell me the only reason that the book dropped on my foot was because God willed it since I'm one of those wacko SOBs who believes in the scientific method!
    Reply