You are the carbon they want to reduce.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/19/news/humans-may-be-fueling-global-warming-by-breathing-new-study/

Humans may be fueling global warming by breathing: new study By Olivia Land Published Dec. 19, 2023, 9:39 a.m. ET

Humans may be fueling global warming by breathing, a new study suggests.

“Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming,” according to research released last week in the UK journal PLOS.

The methane and nitrous oxide exhaled by humans make up about 0.1 of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, the writeup said.

The gases are in addition to the carbon dioxide that humans exhale.

The study, led by Dr. Nicholas Cowan from the UK Center for Ecology and Hydrology, involved 104 adult volunteers and found that nitrous oxide was breathed out by every one of them, while 31 percent exhaled methane.

Those who did not exhale methane in their breath still probably released the gas “ion flatus,” the study said, referring to burping and flatulence.

The study used 104 adult volunteers.
The study – led by Dr. Nicholas Cowan from the UK Center for Ecology and Hydrology – involved 104 adult volunteers.

“We report only emissions in breath in this study, and flatus emissions are likely to increase these values significantly, though no literature characterizes these emissions for people in the UK,” the research team wrote.

“Assuming that livestock and other wild animals also exhale emissions of N2O, there may still be a small but significant unaccounted-for source of N2O emissions in the UK, which could account for more than 1% of national-scale emissions,” they added.

Gas concentrations in the study samples allowed researchers to estimate that human breath accounts for 0.05 percent of the UK’s methane emission and 0.1 percent of nitrous oxide.

The study did not reveal a link between exhaled gases and diet.

“Concentration enhancement of both CH4 and N2O in the breath of vegetarians and meat consumers are similar in magnitude,” the researchers said. “Based on these results, we can state that, when estimating emissions from a population within the UK, diet or future diet changes are unlikely to be important when estimating emissions [exhale] across the UK as a whole.”

Paypal.

Please don't donate to my paypal account as I got banned!

About this blog

I often don't agreee with or wish that I had not posted some of what I wrote on here in the past, most of us are different people to who we were 10 or 15 years ago so please bare that in mind when you read the older posts in this blog.

I take the view that to delete it is to kind of get rid of a record of what I used to write, so some of these posts remain published not because I agree with them or would publish them now but because they are a record of what I have written in the past. That same way you wouldn't tear up old photos just because you're not the same person you were in the photo.

On Bovaer in the cow feed.

Times when regulatory agencies have been wrong or mislead about additives and medication after assuring the public that they are safe and effective
:
*Vioxx/recoxifib being safe, drug companies straight up lied about the heart issues they were seeing.

*Gardisil in terms of deceptions over cost to taxpayer, efficacy and danger of it causing HPV cancers.

*mRNA Sars CoV2 vaccines being "safe and effective", even recommending them to children who are the least at risk by covid.

*Thalidomide was recommended for morning sickness in pregnant women and it in fact caused deformities, it was thought that it was impossible for it to pass to the baby so it was never looked at.

*slow release oxycontin being non addictive

Times when experts and doctor thought a medicine. food additive, therapy or medical was safe, valid or effective but have since been found not to be:

*calomel/mercury

*the chemical imbalance theory of "mental illness".

*heroin being non addictive

*radium being health promoting

*tape worms for weight loss

*phentermine for weight loss

*doctors believing it is possible to take benzodiazipines every day without getting withdrawal symptoms when you stop.

*hydrotherapy

*lobotomy

The UK gives out less than 1% of the world's emissions and cows are much less than that, it simply is not worth messing with the food supply of an entire nation to have almost no effect on "man made climate change" even if one does accept the validity of that theory.

The government can't possibly know the effects long term because there have not been long term studies of humans drinking Bovaer fed milk.

Also the line that it metabolises in the cow's system, of course it does!

Most drugs metabilise when you swallow them, what chemicals does it metabilise in to?

Why aren't we told that?

We have a right to know if we are eating it. We have a right to informed consent.

It says here that Bovar doesn't go in to the cow's milk, but what about it's meat? What about it's tripe? Are we supposed to believe that a cow can be fed with Bovaer and it will not be present in it's stomach?

Have tests been done on it's presence in tripe and other meats/offal?

There have been many instances of big pharma simply hiring ghost writers to write up studies that show the pharma company's product in a positive light and then paying well known experts in their field to put their name to the paper.

With the huge amounts of money up for grabs with putting this in to the cow feed of an entire country it would make basic economic sense for whoever produces Bovaer to do exactly what I outlined above.

There could be billions to be made here, a few million in the pockets of some experts to declare this product safe is not much of an expenditure.

Also humans have a very delicate gut microbiome, if some metabolite of this drug gets though in to the milk, what will that do to the human microbiome? Does anyone know?

I personally don't believe in man made climate change (at least not at anywhere near the rates we are asked to believe from the mainstream climate alarmists and Lord Monkton thoroughly disproved these figures, it doesn't matter what sort of "consensus" there is if the maths and the models are simply wrong) but even if I did; changing a big portion of the country's food supply with something there could not possibly be long term studies on humans for simply to affect less than 1% of the world's greenhouse emissions simply doesn't make sense from a risk benefit perspective.

However from a profit maximisation perspective; it of course makes sense for these companies all the while being able to claim brownie points for being "environmentally friendly".

I do not consent to this being in the food supply anywhere in the UK or in the food supply of any animal in the UK

NB: we are told in the studies what they think Bovaer metabolises in to but we were not told on the government's page claiming Bovaer is safe in the cow feed supply and this post was a reply to that.