Thread: Global Pollution

hi,
i just saw a USA city called seattle on tv, and comparingly with other metropolitan cities around the world like singapore, new york etc, it has hardly any plants, nor shrubs nor any trees in its total surrounding areas. So how does the concrete city of seattle breathes fresh air, if there is no vegetation. Haven't you learnt in biology that photosynthesis in plants, trees leaves produces oxygen needed for the survival? Or do people of seattle breathe in pollution carbondioxide, vehicle emmissions and other affluents???

The atmosphere is very well mixed in terms of basic constituents, such as O2 and CO2 on regional scales.

Seattle is also surrounded by high biomass forest, to its West is the Olympia peninsular with its temperate rainforest, to its east massive forest of western hemlock and Douglas firs.

Also you should probably know that land plants only provides a smaller fraction of O2 to the atmosphere than ocean dwelling photosynthesizing bacteria--Seattle is on an inland sea connected to the largest ocean of all.

I had seen it in the pics, that its a dwelling in a deforrested zone. But year after year, due to commercialization of the city people forget to live in the natural way of living and put to belief in their new ways of urbanization. So for an onlooker it looks a diverse way of modern living, but in reality people breathe in pollution and get to live with diseases. So people of seattle should stand up for a good cause, and to each corners of their city neighbourhood plant trees, plants, shrubs. It doesn't matter that one day seattle would be underneath a vast dense cover of forrest flora. But it would really conserve the environment rather than degrading it. And it would not be anything to ashamed of for aristocrates and office goers!

Pringle, Seattle has among the most environmentally conscientious people in the US.

Seattle seems an odd choice to criticise. I have only been there once, but it seemed quite spacious: not too built up and not too much traffic. There are far worse cities for either pollution or population density (or both).

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Pringle, Seattle has among the most environmentally conscientious people in the US.

You mean those damn lefties!

I came across a scientific machine which was on display at a consumer some time back at an electronics appliance store. It was a 'Oxygen Creator' machine perhaps manufactured copied from usa design. Maybe these types of machines are found on high rise offices in usa they are installed in the vent system and has machinery on the terace. Such systems are neither of use in china nor in asian india regions, since oxygen level is still intact sufficient in these parts of the world. But concerns are of usa cities like seattle which has been since 1985s and in the next 45 years would be worstly affected.
By the way, which are the other cities which are most polluted by pollutants and also cause of dense population???

Seattle has no shortage of oxygen. No city does--even ones MUCH more built up than Seattle. I doubt it's even possible to build up a city large enough to make lack of oxygen a concern.

Some US cities are passing laws to include trees along their median and in parking lots, but it has absolutely nothing to do with oxygen--it's done in hot cities to take advantage of nature's living swamp coolers.

Originally Posted by pringle

I came across a scientific machine which was on display at a consumer some time back at an electronics appliance store.... Such systems are neither of use in china nor in asian india regions, since oxygen level is still intact sufficient in these parts of the world.

What part of the world are you in? (I'm guessing China but I may be wrong.)

The fact you have seen these machines where you live but I have never seen them in America or Europe might be a clue that the problem is not in Seattle....

By the way, which are the other cities which are most polluted by pollutants and also cause of dense population???

According to this article: Full List - The World's Most Polluted Places - TIME

• Linfen, China
• Tianying, China
• Sukinda, India
• Vapi, India
• La Oroya, Peru
• Dzerzhinsk, Russia
• Norilsk, Russia
• Chernobyl, Ukraine
• Sumgayit, Azerbaijan
• Kabwe, Zambia

Most densely populated, according to Wikipedia: List of cities proper by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Manila, Philippines
• Bogor, Indonesia
• Titagarh, India
• Baranagar, India
• Serampore, India
• Pateros, Philippines
• Delhi, India
• South Dumdum, India
• Kamarhati, India
• Kolkata, India

Surprised Macau isn't in there...

What about cities like of country holland, then new york? I think they too are very much polluted.
The countries that you have listed are dingy areas where there are many industries releasing wastes, residues and gases into the environment and atmoshpere. And people pile up over one another.
But i think the environment ecosystem has a tendency to negate the pollution and bring in clearer atmosphere in these places. (but i neglect the fact that they are much harmful than what is written about pollutants).
But my thought processing was about seattle, which in years 1991 had caused temperature rise in its surroundings due to global warming cause of depletion of ozone layer also over some parts of alaska. And also lowering of oxygen content in seattle.
Not to mention countries like africa, south america and china.

And also lowering of oxygen content in seattle.

There is no possible way for oxygen content to be lowered in any way that might affect animals or even trees. People often confuse contamination by pollutants and aerosols with lack of oxygen but that isn't true. It's the stuff that's added into the air that's the problem, not the oxygen content.

If you're concerned about the "Urban Heat Island" effect then Seattle is not a particularly good example. Every large city in the world is a bit warmer than the surrounding countryside because of hard surfaces and changes in vegetation - there's no good reason to single out a fairly well-managed city like Seattle from hundreds of others with much worse local environment in America alone.

Bellevue-Skyline-Mountains-650x235.jpgmount_shuksan__north_cascades_national_park_photo_us.jpgSeattle vue.jpg


Left to right, a view of Bellevue WA (just across Lake Washington from Seattle, Mount Shuksan 2 hour drive north of Seattle, and a view across North Seattle at Mt Rainier. Notice the amount of Greenery in each one. Seattle is one of the greenest cities in the US.

Originally Posted by pringle

But my thought processing was about seattle, which in years 1991 had caused temperature rise in its surroundings due to global warming cause of depletion of ozone layer also over some parts of alaska. And also lowering of oxygen content in seattle.

This is where you get to play positive contributor to this forum and provide us any evidence of reduced O2 in Seattle, the or the Ozone hole over Seattle--as in credible government sourced measurements or peer-review studies.

Not to mention countries like africa, south america and china.

I'm going to ask you to be a lot more precise in your sentences--neither South American or Africa are countries.

This thread is teetering on the edge of a trash can--try to save it.

The pictures that you have presented might be tourism pictures that are taken perhaps in 1990s when there was less urbanization. Just yesterday i saw a video footage of seattle city and there is no sign of shrubs nor small trees on acres of mass buildings town. So this is a deforrested zone which was once a rich dense forrest and has remnants of its yester years on the boundaries of the seattle city. The main city then lacks oxygen producing and day after day of vehicle, affluents emissions then gives way to increase in pollution.

Then as seattle is commercial city so many people have cells, air-conditioners...etc which emit radiation called CO which when it reaches the sky reacts with ozone layer therby depleting it.

Originally Posted by pringle

Then as seattle is commercial city so many people have cells, air-conditioners...etc which emit radiation called CO which when it reaches the sky reacts with ozone layer therby depleting it.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

What is "radiation called CO" supposed to mean? Do you know where the ozone layer is? Do you know what has caused its depletion (which isn't over Seattle by the way)?

I hate to tell you this but if you're thinking of ozone, it's not the ozone hole that's a worry in or near a city with trees. It's ozone formed by various chemical interactions (with stuff like car exhausts) damaging the growth of trees and extremely dangerous to humans.

The ozone holes in the upper atmosphere (very much upper) are an entirely different issue. And its lack there is also extremely damaging to all planetary life. Without an ozone layer in the correct place, we couldn't exist at all.

Originally Posted by pringle

The pictures that you have presented might be tourism pictures that are taken perhaps in 1990s when there was less urbanization.

Well I was there more recently than the 90s and it looked pretty much like that. It is a very pleasant, clean city. You should visit some time. Nice waterfront, I seem to remember. I was only there for a day though.

I went up that tall building (space tower?) where they have an observation platform. There are little panels showing what you can see in each direction. Amusingly, next to Mount St. Helens, they had added a little sticker saying "no longer visible".

Alaska might be far away from seattle but ozone layer depletion might be caused by aerosols. The ozone layer protects us earth biologically by limiting the harmful effects of ultra violet radiation which can cause heating, cancer and other natural disasters.

Or more specifically chloroflorocarbons CFCs! which are emitted by cells, a/c, aerosols and vehical affluents. Other pollution like in indian cities are CO2, sulphur and C.

Originally Posted by pringle

Or more specifically chloroflorocarbons CFCs!

There has been a massive reduction in CFC use after the problem with the ozone layer was discovered. Although I gather production is still increasing in some places, like China and Brazil, despite them being signatories to the Montreal agreement.

Originally Posted by pringle

The pictures that you have presented might be tourism pictures that are taken perhaps in 1990s when there was less urbanization. Just yesterday i saw a video footage of seattle city and there is no sign of shrubs nor small trees on acres of mass buildings town. So this is a deforrested zone which was once a rich dense forrest and has remnants of its yester years on the boundaries of the seattle city. The main city then lacks oxygen producing and day after day of vehicle, affluents emissions then gives way to increase in pollution.

Pringle, I live 10 minutes North of Seattle. It is NOT an urban wasteland, in any way shape or form, but a very green and forested area.

Maybe pringle saw a science fiction program set in a post-apocalyptic future version of Seattle. You know, when the coffee runs out.

Lol, maybe. I will tell you what it looks like when I get back from the C89.5 listener appreciation party thats being held in downtown Seattle (well Capitol Hill) on Saturday. Somehow I dont thing every green thing has been removed since I was in Seattle 2 weeks ago.

I just took a look at Seattle on Google Maps, the Sattelite view. What struck me was the large amount of greenery in the city.

So what does pure oxygen mean, some people say that in the himalayan chinese region one can breathe purest oxygen, but scientifically as they are ice scaped mountains there is lesser quantity of oxygen. Then i think that when europeans and americans visit indian region the jungles they feel to breathe crude oxygen content so they might feel discomfort. Then in the americas oxygen perhaps can be found in marshy colombian areas and north american forrest regions. Nevermind what type of oxygen people in russia, britain, africa breathe. But lets suppose i visit america seattle and there i find somewhat discomfort respiratory problems even at high altitude places deforrested zones. So the pharmacy might argue that the problem lies that i came from different bio-diversity zone so i would take time to adapt. On the prescription he listed a hundred alopathy tablets that he asked me to gulp in a week time. So i could manage to alter my own genome and cure some underlying ailments. And become fresh to breathe in the contaminated seattle breeze. Perhaps the purest form of breathable oxygen which cures respiration ailments is found in thailand, malaysia regions which too one day will become a scarcity due to modern urban commercialization lifestyle. I wonder about you cities of detroit and michigan where there is massive traffic and each and every day right from 1960s there has been massive pollution of air.

So in the years of 1990s many societies like 'greenpeace' were working towards like banning whale fishing, erradicating pollution in industrial zones, ozone layer, nuclear waste issues. But nowdays greenpeace and like them never even need seem to exist. So many people of india who had been attracted towards american lifestyle craze of 1979s the cars traffic stuck on the highway nowdays seem to have relish in making that dream come true in making a little america junction itself in india. Hording mass number of cars, bikes record number of purchases and burning gallons of fuel, but this necessity comes with a price yeah thats pollution tag. Which is destroying the environment. And no one seems complaining not even americans, the feel free breathe!

Why does it seem that americans on tv seem suffering from various ailments, like jennifer lopez, wwe superstars big popa pump and even the US president. Why is it that it seems that when they come to india, they breathe in crude oxygen and become shabby but on health side they seem somewhat cured! So many of americans then go to swiss and thailand for fresh breathe.

Why does it seem that people called pringle keep making up complete nonsense?

Is this all just some bizarre, incoherent anti-American rant based on made-up facts? What's the point. I'm not even sure the majority of members are American.

Grow up.

I thought the air in Seatlle was exceptionally good to breathe, the couple times I was there, and trees seemed normally, reasonably plentiful for a city pinned along a coastline by mountains. But then every time I've been there it's been brilliant blue sky with white puffy clouds and clean winds off the Sound - people tell me it's often more humid and sometimes even rains a bit.

Seattle folks seemed to have more trouble beating back takeover by volunteer trees and blackberry thickets, than dealing with barren wastelands of unvegetated ground.

Perhaps the way the city is built on slopes creates an illusion of relative sparsity in the tree cover? I know that aerial photos of Minneapolis seem to depict an expanse of something nearly woodland - treetops like grass cover - simply because it's pretty flat and the yard tree canopies hide the houses.

Having spent a few years in Portland, I visited Seattle several times. That part of the country is one of the most beautiful places I've ever been. There is so much lush vegetation there it's a really refreshing change from the farmlands of Indiana where I've spent most of my life. The air is also very clean there (especially compared to Indy). The entire Pacific northwest is very environmentally conscious and they go to great lengths to protect their forest land, lakes, rivers, and streams.

After reading the other things from pringle which make no sense whatsoever, I'm not sure my comment will make a difference, but I just thought I'd throw my personal experience out there.

Ok about seattle, consider another topic like does a jungle or a marsh vegetative eco-system can it be a good oxygen producing environ? Like saigon jungles of india, or maybe australia marshy lands. What if the oxygen content is infact low naturally at these places even at mid altitudes? So the plants and trees have CO2 producing photosynthesis, and infact have nodules producing methane gas and nitrates! So the jungle animals like monkeys, lemurs, rhinos, crocodiles, kangaroos etc have adaptive nostrils and respiratory lungs which perhaps breathe in lesser oxygen content but still works efficiently. Or perhaps these reptilian mammalians have the proficiency in drinking in oxygenated water intake and then in the internal processing the molecular composition gets disintegrated and rich oxygen is felt as a power surge rather than breathing!

As stated, oxygen content is pretty much constant all over the world. This is not a guess.

So perhaps america thrive on pure forms of oxygenated water, right?
In the polluted places list above there are names of russian roman country as well. Perhaps these were sites of industrial years of russia.
Do you know that i had read somewhere that the more high altitute one goes then the person needs some drugs to achieve fuller expansion of lungs respiration functioning! So when in india, one breathes only in lesser amounts as oxygen in crude form is abundant.

Originally Posted by pringle

So perhaps america thrive on pure forms of oxygenated water, right?

There is no such thing as "oxygenated water".

In the polluted places list above there are names of russian roman country as well. Perhaps these were sites of industrial years of russia.

What do you mean "roman coutry"? Do you mean the city of Dzerzhinsk? If so, Wikipedia says:

Modern-day Dzerzhinsk is a large center of the Russian chemicals production industry

Which (along with poor regulations and lack of enforcement) is probably the reason for the pollution.

Do you know that i had read somewhere that the more high altitute one goes then the person needs some drugs to achieve fuller expansion of lungs respiration functioning!

Are you thinking of problems caused by altitude sickness, which is caused by low air pressure (nothing to do with "expansion of lungs"). There are medicines that can help some people.

So when in india, one breathes only in lesser amounts as oxygen in crude form is abundant.

As noted above, the amount of oxygen in the air is about the same everywhere. And what does "crude form" mean? Oxygen is oxygen.

Crude meaning do you know petrol is found as a compound deep beneath the earth surface due to years of synthesis of sediments carbon materials. Then when it is drilled it cannot be used as it is crude composed of other hydrocarbons, but under a process called 'fractional distillation' many of its components at different temperatures are separated to finally get a pure form of petrol.

Originally Posted by pringle

Crude meaning do you know petrol is found as a compound deep beneath the earth surface due to years of synthesis of sediments carbon materials. Then when it is drilled it cannot be used as it is crude composed of other hydrocarbons, but under a process called 'fractional distillation' many of its components at different temperatures are separated to finally get a pure form of petrol.

Right. Well oxygen is an element that makes up 21% of the atmosphere. There isn't any such thing as "crude oxygen" that needs purifying.

Originally Posted by pringle

So perhaps america thrive on pure forms of oxygenated water, right?

I've been reading this over and over for 5 minutes now and I still don't understand it.

Can you give me a one or two sentence breakdown of what exactly you're trying to say and how it relates to America?

Originally Posted by pringle

So perhaps america thrive on pure forms of oxygenated water, right?
In the polluted places list above there are names of russian roman country as well. Perhaps these were sites of industrial years of russia.
Do you know that i had read somewhere that the more high altitute one goes then the person needs some drugs to achieve fuller expansion of lungs respiration functioning! So when in india, one breathes only in lesser amounts as oxygen in crude form is abundant.

oxygenated water will not aid humans, we have no means of extracting it. we drink water and it goes into our stomachs, for fish however, they extract the oxygen from the water.

With altitude, the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere is always the same, however the pressure is not. Due to this the amount of oxygen that is absorbed into the blood or the 'partial pressure (pp)' differs with altitude

No, i still think that oxygen content varies from altitudes and country to country. And though humans do not drink that much water, but i think there might be advanced high purity oxygenated water plants in USA. So people there who consume it remain fresh all day energised. So water remains as primary energy producer in humans just as in mammalian reptilians, and respiration being the secondary energy provider. You just can't say we drink water and our stomach doesn't extracts any energy from it. Our body symmetry functions as an electrical induction system, so water presumed as a source of electricity through its systemic passage provides electrical impulses in other words gives vitality for the correct functioning of body organs altogether thereby supplying oxygen in a sense.

"Mammalian reptilians."

Good grief!

Originally Posted by adelady

"Mammalian reptilians."

Good grief!

Must be those blighters who control the world!

Green spaces are supposed to be considered quite importanting in planning... it reduces the urban heat island effect apparently...

But since people are so scientificcally minded... perhaps it has no greenery as part of some kind of experiment?

It's surrounded by greenery. It's full of greenery. The OP was more or less a load of cobblers.

Originally Posted by pringle

No, i still think that oxygen content varies from altitudes and country to country. .

It has been readily acknowledged that the oxygen content (mass per unit volume), but not percentage, varies with altitude. However, it is has been pointed out to you repeatedly that the oxygen content of the atmosphere is pretty much the same everywhere because the atmosphere is being continuously mixed. Theere is not point in considering this nonsense if you are fixed on an opinion without evidence. So,

1. Do you accept that the oxygen content is pretty much the same everywhere?
2. Do you understand that many of the negative consequences of pollution are due to the pollutants and not to variations in the oxyegn content?
3. Do you understand that there is no such thing as crude oxygen?
4. Have you looked at the Google Maps view of Seattle and do you accept that it is very green?


If you cannot answer Yes to each of these questions I see no point in keeping this thread alive.

Originally Posted by pringle

No, i still think that oxygen content varies from altitudes and country to country. And though humans do not drink that much water, but i think there might be advanced high purity oxygenated water plants in USA. So people there who consume it remain fresh all day energised. So water remains as primary energy producer in humans just as in mammalian reptilians, and respiration being the secondary energy provider. You just can't say we drink water and our stomach doesn't extracts any energy from it. Our body symmetry functions as an electrical induction system, so water presumed as a source of electricity through its systemic passage provides electrical impulses in other words gives vitality for the correct functioning of body organs altogether thereby supplying oxygen in a sense.

Wow the validaty of that statement... just wow.

You do not get oxygen from water, humans have some rather speciallised organs called lungs which take oxygen out of the air that breathe in. If water is involved it generally doesn't go well for you and you end up with a slight case of being dead... You do not obtain oxygen through the gut. Energy is derived from the food you eat, water has a calorific content of 0 which means that to you as an organism it contains absolutely no energy. The rest of the passage smacks of new age alternative therapy which is not correct and not science, despite many people trying to dress it up as such with fancy terms

Originally Posted by pringle

No, i still think that oxygen content varies from altitudes and country to country.

I guess you can "think" whatever you want, but the data shows differently.

i think there might be advanced high purity oxygenated water plants in USA.

I was going to say that there is no such thing as "oxygenated water" but it turns out that there are various crooks and scam artists selling something by this name. And presumably people buy it. Bizarre.

So water remains as primary energy producer in humans

Carbohydrates are the main source of energy. Water has zero energy.

just as in mammalian reptilians

There is no such thing. You might as well talk about vegetable birds.

You just can't say we drink water and our stomach doesn't extracts any energy from it.

Yes, you can. Really.

Our body symmetry functions as an electrical induction system

No. It doesn't. Really.

so water presumed as a source of electricity

Water is not a source of electricity.

through its systemic passage provides electrical impulses in other words gives vitality for the correct functioning of body organs altogether thereby supplying oxygen in a sense.

Electricity is not oxygen.

so as the air gets thinner at high altitudes... the content of what little air there is, still contains the same levles of oxygen etc? well I never would've. I apologise if I'm asking a stupid question due to not reading the thread thoroughly.

And if/when air gets thinner at altitude... surrounding the air is vacumous space? or some kind of ionsphere? and those ions are 'resting' ontop of the air? of mingling?

Originally Posted by question for you

so as the air gets thinner at high altitudes... the content of what little air there is, still contains the same levles of oxygen etc?

I can envisage a number of minor influences that could cause very minor variations of oxygen content with altitude. However, in seeking for information on such plausible variations I could find no indication that this was the case, but multiple sources stating the percentage of oxygen remained the same at all altitudes.

Note that all altitudes is likely something of a simplification. I suspect in most cases it is short hand for all altitudes within the lower atmosphere, say up to 30,000'. Even here the % will change slightly as, for example humidity rises, or small quantities of pollutants are added. The ratio of oxygen to nitrogen will not change, however.

wikipedia - Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all altitudes within the lower atmosphere, say up to 30,000'.

Well, once you get way above cloud top level the % of O2 (and N2) would have to increase a bit. Because the water vapour in lower level air decreases absolutely, not just proportionately, by being condensed out into water or ice once the atmosphere is cold enough.

Of course, the lower pressure means that there's less oxygen and nitrogen (and CO2 and everything else) per litre of air anyway.

To sum up this thread, what are the major other forms of pollution in the global world. The more industrial the developed country is needs the much waste products is produced left behind which then accumulates in water, air! Like sulphur dioxide, lead, arsenic, manganese...etc

Originally Posted by pringle

To sum up this thread, what are the major other forms of pollution in the global world. The more industrial the developed country is needs the much waste products is produced left behind which then accumulates in water, air! Like sulphur dioxide, lead, arsenic, manganese...etc

Actually it's just the opposite, on a per capita basis, modernized nations and cities usually produce less pollution than less advanced rural places.

Originally Posted by pringle

To sum up this thread, what are the major other forms of pollution in the global world. The more industrial the developed country is needs the much waste products is produced left behind which then accumulates in water, air! Like sulphur dioxide, lead, arsenic, manganese...etc

Once again, the facts seem to disagree. Full List - The World's Most Polluted Places - TIME

• Linfen, China
• Tianying, China
• Sukinda, India
• Vapi, India
• La Oroya, Peru
• Dzerzhinsk, Russia
• Norilsk, Russia
• Chernobyl, Ukraine
• Sumgayit, Azerbaijan
• Kabwe, Zambia

I started to write a response before I finished reading what you said. I honestly can't figure out what to say. We have high powered water oxygenation plants in the US? We get energy from water? Even the idea that we get a substantial amount of our oxygen requirement from water kind of baffles me. I'm still not sure I understand the topic at hand...

Originally Posted by pringle

To sum up this thread ...

A better summary might be that someone called pringle makes a series of bizarre claims that appear to have no connection with the real world and ignores any attempts to explain things to him.

I just don't understand why. Are you trying to make a point, pringle? Or are you just having a bit of a joke?

I think I'm just going to walk away from this thread. I'm afraid I might be doing myself irreparable harm.

I was playing a video game depicting germany city, and in it is seen that germany is a old industrial revolution city. So there too pollution level might had been in the past years of 1500 a.d.
In india some years back in 1995 there were many government movements in saving and planting more plants thereby securing trees conserving nature and its habitats. Many gujarati india colleges schools even patronized their long forgotten adivasi cultures and dance festivals so as to remember their forefathers tribal days living in the jungles. But since the modern onset of year 2000 many indians have forgotten the plant more trees conservation movements and even their adivasi folk dances!!!
The indians nowdays have in minds to outclass cities like modern new york and london by becoming tree less zones. But indian would atleast be in par with city of kaula lampur, if not singapore, hong kong.

I would like to note now that depictions of anything found in a fictional video game should never be used as the basis for assuming that is what that thing is like in real life.

Are you willing to admit you were very very wrong about Seattle yet?

Originally Posted by pringle

In india some years back in 1995 there were many government movements in saving and planting more plants thereby securing trees conserving nature and its habitats. Many gujarati india colleges schools even patronized their long forgotten adivasi cultures and dance festivals so as to remember their forefathers tribal days living in the jungles. But since the modern onset of year 2000 many indians have forgotten the plant more trees conservation movements and even their adivasi folk dances!!!
The indians nowdays have in minds to outclass cities like modern new york and london by becoming tree less zones. But indian would atleast be in par with city of kaula lampur, if not singapore, hong kong.

In my experience, air Kuala Lumpur looks clean, but when you park a car outside for 1 night: the next day the windshield is spotted with ashes (compared with suburban area hundred of KM away where the windshield is always clean). I'm sure the air in city looks clean but it isn't, its full of dirt.

Many indians who reside in USA for more than ten years, when they return to their homeland india they cough a lot and in comparison to usa say that india is very polluted.
But someday i'll come to seattle to see how is the atmosphere then perhaps i'll come to know.

you dont need to come to Seattle, you just have to look at the current images that have been posted in this thread, listen to the information given by those of us who live here or near here, or look at the google maps satellite views of Seattle to see you assertion of massive urban wasteland are false.

Originally Posted by msafwan

In my experience, air Kuala Lumpur looks clean,

Sitting poolside at the Renaissance Hotel drinking a Tiger beer an hour before sunset the air rarely looks clean to me. Of more concern than the particulates that you find soiling your car are the nitrous oxides and other gases from automobiles. That said the official statisitics paint a reasonable picture: http://www.jas.sains.my/portal/

Since adolf hitler the german leader of 1920s was a leader of the modern industrial revolution cities of germany. Industries produced a lot of pollution at that time in germany. And at that time their people weren't much concerned as people of today about pollution. So in the archive videos of adolf hitler one can visualize the extent of pollution the german people and adolf hitler used to cough up (consume) while in the city. Then half of their lives they then admired their forrests dwellings which remained pollution free.

Godwin!

(And still utter nonsense.)

Originally Posted by pringle

Since adolf hitler the german leader of 1920s was a leader of the modern industrial revolution cities of germany. Industries produced a lot of pollution at that time in germany. And at that time their people weren't much concerned as people of today about pollution. So in the archive videos of adolf hitler one can visualize the extent of pollution the german people and adolf hitler used to cough up (consume) while in the city. Then half of their lives they then admired their forrests dwellings which remained pollution free.

Totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Still waiting to see if you will admit you were wrong about Seattle.