Your first point is not a complete thought; disregarding the extreme vagueness of the statement unto non-relevance (seriously, share what you’re smoking).
Your second point is about open field incineration, something the other poster never advocated for.
If you’re being disingenuous it’s done poorly. If not, you read like a loon talking to himself and quoting about clouds when folks are discussing gaseous containment.
If you don’t understand my first point, you’ll have to explain what you don’t understand for me to help you out instead of being snarky
My second point is not “about open field incineration”, the first sentence of the abstract of the paper includes that phrase, but it’s a whole damn paper. It’s about how the plastics are not just simple bonds of carbon and oxygen and have a lot of really quite bad chemicals you don’t want to throw out into the atmosphere, which op wad claiming was fine.
Your first point is not a complete thought; disregarding the extreme vagueness of the statement unto non-relevance (seriously, share what you’re smoking).
Your second point is about open field incineration, something the other poster never advocated for.
If you’re being disingenuous it’s done poorly. If not, you read like a loon talking to himself and quoting about clouds when folks are discussing gaseous containment.
If you don’t understand my first point, you’ll have to explain what you don’t understand for me to help you out instead of being snarky
My second point is not “about open field incineration”, the first sentence of the abstract of the paper includes that phrase, but it’s a whole damn paper. It’s about how the plastics are not just simple bonds of carbon and oxygen and have a lot of really quite bad chemicals you don’t want to throw out into the atmosphere, which op wad claiming was fine.