4 ms·

> Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. I have never heard this definition before! How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in

> Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. I have never heard this definition before! How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? It kind of seems like such a narrow definition of “pollutant” enables the justification of burning darn near anything short of man-made nuclear isotopes that don’t otherwise exist in nature. How does this definition serve a practical purpose? edit: To address your hurricane analogy, I am not a fan of hurricanes or their damage. I have had friends die in hurricanes. I agree that trying to argue an arbitrary definition of “pollution” to serve one’s pre-existing ideas or pedantic need to be Dictionary Emperor is silly and likely pointless at best, though.

ars 4y ago
> I have never heard this definition before! Let's hear your definition then. > How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? Why is that hard? Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, Water, and some noble gasses. Other stuff might be there naturally (for example salt by the sea), but are pollutants.
- braingenious 4y ago
  From dictionary.com: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. Can you link me to where you’ve found that “pollutant” is defined as a nearly infinite group of compounds but explicitly excludes CO2? This is the first time I’ve heard this.
  - ars 4y ago
    Where in the world are you getting this "nearly infinite" business? I never said anything like that, in fact I gave you a short list. Go back and read what I wrote, I feel like you skimmed it or something. And your dictionary definition is problematic because it doesn't define "unsuitable for a specific purpose". It's basically a circular definition. I will then ask you please define "unsuitable for a specific purpose" and we are back where we started.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      You said that only nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases” should be in the atmosphere. Everything else (such as salt) is a pollutant. How many compounds are there that are not nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases”? In my estimation that is uncountable but maybe you have some hard numbers? edit: “Suitable purpose“ for me would be creating or maintaining an environment that sustains human life. Is your “checkmate” position something like “Hah! In my dictionary, ‘suitable purpose’ only relates to underwater welding, root beer production, and synthetic diamond formation!” I personally find moving goalposts to avoid talking about concrete things in concrete terms to be problematic, but I understand that if a person is quite jaded about the future of life on earth that it might seem that the only thing worth debating is semantics. Maybe avoiding boredom matters more than attempting to avert catastrophe.
      - ars 4y ago
        > In my estimation that is uncountable And? There are uncountable pollutants - why is that an issue? None of those other things belong in the air, in any amount. > would be creating or maintaining an environment that sustains human life. So my small campfire where I burn plastic is perfectly fine then? After all the toxins released are minor and rapidly dissipate, so the environment still sustains human life. Your definition doesn't even acknowledge that you can sustain life, but everyone has asthma because of all the particulate matter in the air. By your definition there are no pollutants. Or at best you can only talk about them in bulk once they reach levels sufficient to kill, but never about individual releases. By my definition each individual release of something that doesn't belong in the air is pollution. I find my definition much more usable and useful.
        braingenious 4y ago
        > By my definition each individual release of something that doesn't belong in the air is pollution. Does your classification of CO2 have a real upper limit of ppm wherein it becomes considered a pollutant? Or is it just “all plastic supply burned + 1”

ars 4y ago

> I have never heard this definition before! Let's hear your definition then. > How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? Why is that hard? Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, Water, and some noble gasses. Other stuff might be there naturally (for example salt by the sea), but are pollutants.

braingenious 4y ago
From dictionary.com: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. Can you link me to where you’ve found that “pollutant” is defined as a nearly infinite group of compounds but explicitly excludes CO2? This is the first time I’ve heard this.
- ars 4y ago
  Where in the world are you getting this "nearly infinite" business? I never said anything like that, in fact I gave you a short list. Go back and read what I wrote, I feel like you skimmed it or something. And your dictionary definition is problematic because it doesn't define "unsuitable for a specific purpose". It's basically a circular definition. I will then ask you please define "unsuitable for a specific purpose" and we are back where we started.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    You said that only nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases” should be in the atmosphere. Everything else (such as salt) is a pollutant. How many compounds are there that are not nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases”? In my estimation that is uncountable but maybe you have some hard numbers? edit: “Suitable purpose“ for me would be creating or maintaining an environment that sustains human life. Is your “checkmate” position something like “Hah! In my dictionary, ‘suitable purpose’ only relates to underwater welding, root beer production, and synthetic diamond formation!” I personally find moving goalposts to avoid talking about concrete things in concrete terms to be problematic, but I understand that if a person is quite jaded about the future of life on earth that it might seem that the only thing worth debating is semantics. Maybe avoiding boredom matters more than attempting to avert catastrophe.
    - ars 4y ago
      > In my estimation that is uncountable And? There are uncountable pollutants - why is that an issue? None of those other things belong in the air, in any amount. > would be creating or maintaining an environment that sustains human life. So my small campfire where I burn plastic is perfectly fine then? After all the toxins released are minor and rapidly dissipate, so the environment still sustains human life. Your definition doesn't even acknowledge that you can sustain life, but everyone has asthma because of all the particulate matter in the air. By your definition there are no pollutants. Or at best you can only talk about them in bulk once they reach levels sufficient to kill, but never about individual releases. By my definition each individual release of something that doesn't belong in the air is pollution. I find my definition much more usable and useful.
      - braingenious 4y ago
        > By my definition each individual release of something that doesn't belong in the air is pollution. Does your classification of CO2 have a real upper limit of ppm wherein it becomes considered a pollutant? Or is it just “all plastic supply burned + 1”