An inconvenient truth: environmental perspective film vs digital

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ever 3 years or so your digital camera will become a piece of junk, while your 50 years old rolleiflex or 30 years old Leica or your 20 years old Nikon F3 is still usable.

The production of image sensors for your camera and hard disk for storing your digital images causes a lot of pollution to the environment too.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
If you jump (without any parachutes, cables, gliders, anything) from the Empire State Building, it is gravity that will pull you down to the ground, and the longer you take to fall, the harder you will.
Click to expand...

Not quiet true.. Terminal velocity depending on several factors is reached after several seconds of free fall so if you fall from the Empire State Building or from an airplane at say 10,000 ft. you will hit the ground at the same speed. Either way you most likely won't get up and walk away..
 
colyn said:
Not quiet true.. Terminal velocity depending on several factors is reached after several seconds of free fall so if you fall from the Empire State Building or from an airplane at say 10,000 ft. you will hit the ground at the same speed. Either way you most likely won't get up and walk away..
Click to expand...

Irrefutably. :angel:
 
Quote-
Either way you most likely won't get up and walk away..
Isn't that why they call it 'terminal velocity'?
 
xabi said:
Ever 3 years or so your digital camera will become a piece of junk, while your 50 years old rolleiflex or 30 years old Leica or your 20 years old Nikon F3 is still usable.

The production of image sensors for your camera and hard disk for storing your digital images causes a lot of pollution to the environment too.
Click to expand...
Speaking of terminal velocity, it'll be interesting to see when digital photography hits it. Film has about a 150 year head start. Give it time, and we'll eventually hit the material limit of the technology. Things will eventually stabilize, and your digital camera will have a decent shelf life. The entire history of film is a winding path of development and obsolescence. I've got a shelf full of old cameras that are in perfect working order, and yet effectively unusable. A lot of people smugly comment about the future headaches of trying to access contemporary electronic formats in the future, while conveniently overlooking the looming possibility that a decades old film camera is going to be rather difficult to use if the proper film goes off the market.
 
landsknechte said:
Speaking of terminal velocity, it'll be interesting to see when digital photography hits it. Film has about a 150 year head start. Give it time, and we'll eventually hit the material limit of the technology. Things will eventually stabilize, and your digital camera will have a decent shelf life.
Click to expand...
Not going to happen in the near future. Just think, first digital computer was created 60+ years ago. Ever saw any signs of "stabilization" ? I regret to inform that none of us are going to let our sons and grand-sons any digital/electronic equipment.... They are not build to last that time. They will be obsolete in few years. New consumer tecnology will come and substitute all our worderfull sd/cf/etc cards, sensors, cd's, dvd's, bluray's ...
 
Hmm... nobody's mentioned battery chargers, although I did quickly flick through this thread.

Battery chargers = slight power drain = more power requred from powerstation = more fuel used to create power = more waste byproduct.
Every digital camera requires batteries. Some less "eco-friendly" than others. Some digital cameras are even supplied with a charger.
... and how many digital cameras are bought?

Think... snowball. Think... "not my concern".
 
Since others have brought up politics and agenda, I might suggest that climate-change deniers turn off conservative idiot AM hate-jock radio... quit listening to jackasses like "Rush Limbaugh" and Sean Hannity, laugh along with the rest of in Normal America (often referred to as "liberals" on hate-jock radio) and do a little research. It's happening, it's real, and Gore's movie simply put the facts on the table - clearly, and in lay-person terms.

Those with the "agenda" use their typical patterns of logical fallacy to refute an inconvenient truth.

1. Shoot the messenger/ad-hominem attacks against Gore (logical fallacy...)
(This one's a real laugh. I don't like Al Gore, therefore climate change isn't true...)

2. I remember some other false alarm back whenever, when they said blah, blah, blah... (logical fallacy)
(That incident, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, was false... so this must be false too!)

3. Muddying the waters. There is overwhelming consensus among international scientists that climate change is real and the result of human activity. There are "a few" who disagree (most are paid by some Republican think-tank associated with big oil). The Right wing noise machine will profile these individuals on Fox Noise, to give the appearance that there is more of a legit debate than there actually is, hence muddying the waters.

Same tired rhetorical nonsense that's meaningless BS. It's amazing people will put forth this kind of "argument". It's all I can do not to laugh in their faces when they do. "Rhetoric" and debate - how to make a point, should be taught in grammar school in the US.

Here's a nice article that's spot on, if interested:

Republican Witch-Hunts Against Climate Change Scientists?

Apparently, Republican leaders have been singling out climate-change experts for special scrutiny and intimidation if they express views on global warming which are contrary to the administration's official line. This isn't the least bit surprising because Bush has demonstrated a repeated preference for ideology over science...

...Playing politics with science, though, is precisely what Republican leaders have consistently done because it’s so rare that genuine science supports the Republicans’ agenda.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/200594.htm


It's really a shame that the big PR dollars and the Republican noise machine have swayed so many. We're talking about our planet here.


Undeniable Global Warming

By Naomi Oreskes
Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html


It's real, it's happening, and I wish more people wouldn't fall for the Rhetorical CRAP put out there by the big oil's puppet, the modern GOP.
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
Since others have brought up politics and agenda, I might suggest that climate-change deniers turn off conservative idiot AM hate-jock radio... quit listening to jackasses like "Rush Limbaugh" and Sean Hannity, laugh along with the rest of is in Normal America (often referred to as "liberals") and do a little research. It's happening, it's real, and Gore's movie simply put the facts on the table - clearly, and in lay-person terms.

Here's a nice article that's spot on, if interested:

Republican Witch-Hunts Against Climate Change Scientists?

Apparently, Republican leaders have been singling out climate-change experts for special scrutiny and intimidation if they express views on global warming which are contrary to the administration's official line. This isn't the least bit surprising because Bush has demonstrated a repeated preference for ideology over science...

...Playing politics with science, though, is precisely what Republican leaders have consistently done because it’s so rare that genuine science supports the Republicans’ agenda.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/200594.htm


It's really a shame that the big PR dollars and the Republican noise machine have swayed so many. We're talking about our planet here.





Those with the "agenda" use their typical patterns of logical fallacy to refute an inconvenient truth.

1. Shoot the messenger/ad-hominem attacks against Gore (logical fallacy...)

2. I remember some other false alarm back whenever, whenever, when they said blah, blah, blah... (logical fallacy)

Same tired rehtorical nonsense that's meaningless.
Click to expand...


ditto .
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
If you jump (without any parachutes, cables, gliders, anything) from the Empire State Building, it is gravity that will pull you down to the ground, and the longer you take to fall, the harder you will. Something silly like Newtonian physics, although "refutable" at the quantum level, very applicable in every day life.

That is some "irrefutable science" that you can take to the bank. :p
Click to expand...
In theory you could jump the same way in Einstein’s universe and land closer to reality
 
NickTrop said:
Since others have brought up politics and agenda, I might suggest that climate-change deniers turn off conservative idiot AM hate-jock radio... quit listening to jackasses like "Rush Limbaugh" and Sean Hannity, laugh along with the rest of in Normal America (often referred to as "liberals" on hate-jock radio) and do a little research. It's happening, it's real, and Gore's movie simply put the facts on the table - clearly, and in lay-person terms.
Click to expand...

I love this place! The humor is just plain off the hook!
 
There is virtually NO DEBATE in the scientific community that climate change is occurring, is occurring rapidly, and is the result of human activity.

Period.

Those very, very few scientist who disagree are on the fringe and often on Exxon's payroll. It's really sad how Republicans - arch conservatives in particular, have politicized the science of climate change and even sadder that so many conservative AM hate-jock listening bobbleheads will take "Rush Limbaugh's" word on the matter, calling it "junk science" over years and years of irrefutable science.

Don't fall for the "junk science" movement.


What is the Junk Science Movement?

...the Junk Science movement is a focused and well-funded campaign to use the "junk science" label to discredit specific points of view, particularly a wide range of environmental concerns. Proponents of the anti-environmental Junk Science movement are sometimes referred to as "junketeers"..."Junk science" is simply a negative term for any kind of science that we don't like. There are as many definitions of junk science as there are people who use the term.
http://www.project-whitewash.org/junk.html
 
pedro.m.reis said:
Dont know what pollutes more.
I do know what i can do:
- I recycle everything i can;
- I have 100% low consuption light at home;
- I drive a economic car;
- I will teach my daughter to respect the enviroment.

That i do, and we all could do. Its better than waste time trying to find out if silver halide pollutes more than computers or not.
Click to expand...
The only REAL environmentalists I know, live in the woods and use fallen leaves for toilet paper. Now what?
 
Let's see: do you think An Inconvenient Truth was projected in movie theatres using a video projector or a film projector? Was it shot on 35mm or on DV?

It might help to answer your question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom