This is a great list of interesting occurances, however it's a very poorly presented article. As Kimbertot already pointed out it's almost pointless to mentioned the Gloria Ramirez case without including the theories of possible explanation.
To dismiss most of these items by calling them mass hysteria, is quite a disservice to the reader, because it stops short of getting to the real mystery.
this is somewhat rubbish. some (many) of us do these things for reasons other than to clear a conscious or green-ego.
other facts seem to be missing here as well. 6% of a laundry load is what? an extra pair of socks? it also doesn't mention what percentage of energy they have used differently in that situation. (i dont know the numbers) but it may very well be that the 106% washing with an energy efficient washer still used less power than 100% washing with a regular washer.
dont get me wrong, if the point of this article and study is to make those people who do end up just using more think harder about how they are effecting the environment then that's great. but the opening paragraph makes it sound more like it's trying to scoff at those 'damned elitist greenies'.
Those layers are made of another set of resonators that convert light into heat. The result: what goes in cannot come out. “The light into the core is totally absorbed,”
so the heat cannot escape afterwards? or just that the light doesnt "come back out" because its converted to heat
To dismiss most of these items by calling them mass hysteria, is quite a disservice to the reader, because it stops short of getting to the real mystery.
other facts seem to be missing here as well. 6% of a laundry load is what? an extra pair of socks? it also doesn't mention what percentage of energy they have used differently in that situation. (i dont know the numbers) but it may very well be that the 106% washing with an energy efficient washer still used less power than 100% washing with a regular washer.
dont get me wrong, if the point of this article and study is to make those people who do end up just using more think harder about how they are effecting the environment then that's great. but the opening paragraph makes it sound more like it's trying to scoff at those 'damned elitist greenies'.
so the heat cannot escape afterwards? or just that the light doesnt "come back out" because its converted to heat