• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle


  • pheet@sopuli.xyz
    cake
    toScience Memes@mander.xyzCFCs
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Unfortunately there can still be emissions:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1193-4

    From abstract:

    A recently reported slowdown in the decline of the atmospheric concentration of CFC-11 after 2012, however, suggests that global emissions have increased3,4. A concurrent increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern Asia contributes to the global emission increase, but the location and magnitude of this regional source are unknown3. Here, using high-frequency atmospheric observations from Gosan, South Korea, and Hateruma, Japan, together with global monitoring data and atmospheric chemical transport model simulations, we investigate regional CFC-11 emissions from eastern Asia. We show that emissions from eastern mainland China are 7.0 ± 3.0 (±1 standard deviation) gigagrams per year higher in 2014–2017 than in 2008–2012, and that the increase in emissions arises primarily around the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei.















  • Exactly why it doesn’t matter, it’s not an incendiary weapon meant to target ppl in the incendiary way, thus it’s not seen as bad of a thing as an incendiary weapon. To put it in other way: that person didn’t feel the horrible (and longer) incendiary effect because of the other effects of the weapon. Does it really matter if the person is outside or inside of an armoured vehicle? The actual incendiary weapons are whole different thing.


  • It’s irrelevant since, as in the link:

    Protocol III states though that incendiary weapons do not include: … Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armor-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

    Having an incendiary mechanism doesn’t mean it is an incendiary weapon in the sense of your quote of Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin.