Searches

How much does spam pollute?

How much does spam pollute?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

The spam it is not only annoying but also highly polluting, as shown by various statistics. The so-called "spam"But the victims of the Junk Mail that waste time and energy in viewing and deleting useless data.

The spam it does not only involve e-mail but also social networks and part of the online world. It is estimated that 95 trillion were submitted in 2010 alone unwanted emails, a figure with 18 zeros. The GHG Association (Green House Gas), calculated that for each "spam email " the same amount of CO2 is emitted as a car that travels just under a meter.

Does it seem little to you? Try to make a calculation and it will turn out that with that mileage you could go around the world two million times! About 0.3 grams of CO2 are emitted for each meter, now try to multiply them by 95 trillion, the result will be detrimental to the balance of the Earth Ecosystem.

Another survey links to spam, harmful emissions equal to 28.5 tons of CO2 per year. To do our part, we might consider installing a filter anti-spam so as to protect the e-mail account and not be complicit in such emissions: GHG has shown that in the absence of a spam filter, harmful emissions are increased by 270%!

Among the countries more spammers there is the United States which contributes 21% to spam pollution and China, with 15%. It seems that each year, for the creation, forwarding, reception and consultation of messages - including those managed by the anti-spam filter -, 33 billion kWh would be required for a total of 104 billion hours for consultation and cancellation of the Junk Mail: by this time, the tallest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa, could have been built thousands of times.



Video: How fights spam using Distil Networks (May 2022).


Comments:

  1. Shandley

    I agree with all of the above-said. We can talk about this topic. Here, or in the afternoon.

  2. Kuhlbert

    I find you admit the error. We will examine this.

  3. Moogull

    Bravo, I think this is the admirable thought

  4. Jaques

    I am also worried about this question. Where can I find more information on this issue?



Write a message