So many issues are of a scientific and political nature that moderators can argue that you posted them in the wrong Thread wherever you put them. So this is here. So there.
My city's largest land owner and developer publishes a newspaper that announced our trees benefit our fair city to the tune of $10,750,000 per year.
Show me the figures please, I requested.
After much research, ending in the US Forest Service and a college in New York, I found a scholarly paper announcing that the cleanup of trees lies not in their production of oxygen. No. They remove NO2 and particulate matter from our air. How much? Less than 1%
How deadly are these contaminants? Far less toxic than vitamin D or caffeine.
The paper further announces that the majority of contaminants removed are in rural areas, but the greatest benefits accrue to urban areas. Go figure.
The equivalent is for you to pretend that drinking one less cup of coffee per month, or drinking one less soda per month will benefit your health. Yeah, right. Drink one less glass of milk, containing that deadly vitamin D. Then put a dollar figure on your health benefit from drinking one less glass of milk per month.
This has been a *science* notification exposing your local Environmental Wacko who turns positively giddy when you tell them something they want desperately to believe, but haven't a clue as to its validity.
