Willy,
while i had never heard that explained so explicitly, i believed you, since i never thought people would glow in the dark like a wristwatch dial.
And i did know what you said in the second paragraph.
But I would not be surprised if some people do not dispute it.
Ernie
Climate Change
Before my eyes , on the East coast , from the moving of a nuclear Warhead part that was radioactive .
A high particle warning badge on an individual lit up . Individual a swallowed a nuclear particulate , Said individual Regurgitated and wasted at the same time for two days constant ,
Yes , ewww .. However , that alone , the reaction , can cause death from dehydration .
Said individual lived , but that poisoning is nasty folks ,,
That particulate was the result of plain old everyday breathing ,, did not eat Uranium
I get the point of over reacting though , the individual lived for many years after ,
I remember the nuclear garden tests , where all the plants eventually died , They use to show us those years ago .
I suppose it was because it was done to see the doses of radioactive amounts it would take to kill a certain or many plants
Well the amounts of radiation used bring to mind ; I would not walk through a Flu ward without vaccination ,
I would not sit on a nuclear reactor to how much radiation I could absorb .
I wonder How many know the Difference between an Atomic weights and measures chart
and a Nuclear weights and measures chart ?
How did this person swallow a "nuclear particulate"? BTW, it'd also be bad to inhale radioactive material.
I would not sit on a reactor either (neither would I sit in a fireplace)--but, if I did, I would not be radioactive. I would still die if the dose received was high enough.
Atomic/nuclear weights and measures chart?????? Do you mean the difference between atomic weight and atomic number?
Willy; your? ; Atomic/nuclear weights and measures chart?????? Do you mean the difference between atomic weight and atomic number?
Something like the difference in testing Carbon 12 ,and Carbon 14 ones radioactive as Nuclear Radiation ,
The other is us in our natural balance .
Atomic weight
Atomic Number
Atomic PH
These are based on forms of Static
Their is a Radiation chart , Nuclear That has the same Static Carbon weights and Balances , Based on the same statics of Carbon , as the Atomic three number chart .. (Basic Science)
You won't see the chart often if at all (the nuclear) , Because every nut on the planet would be using it to build Explosives (radioactive)
The person swallowed this as a Radioactive charged particle of our everyday Atmosphere ,
That is the Danger of Radiation leaks , it can charge the air we breathe , with radioactive nuclear particles ,(poison)
Everything is Atomic ,, But not Radioactive ..
I tend to think of extremes of this as the difference between the Sun and a Radioactive Nuclear power plant , Both can create life and /or destroy life ,
If you sat on the Sun , you would burn up .
If you sat on a Reactor , you would burn up ) Just not the same to eye or view , but science says it is the same .
This far away from the Sun We are not absorbing Nuclear Power Radioactivity , We are getting Solar Radiation (obviously) But the difference in Static Chart equations is extreme .
Without the Magnetic atmospheric shield of the planet , We would be dead in a few minutes or seconds ,
I suppose
Alpha, Delta , ( and most common nuclear talk Gamma waves , I suppose could be nearer what I am referring unto .
Juhur7--I thin we are having a failure to communicate here. :«) I think you are talking about isotopes of various elements. Can you provide a link to the kind of chart you are speaking of?
The nuclear reaction in the sun is not the same as that in a nuclear reactor--Fusion vs fission. C12 and C14 are both in every "piece" of carbon. I am still not clear on what happened to the person you witnessed who was irradiated, but I know that he/she wasn't irradiated from "charged" air he/she breathed. Either he/she ingested (mouth or breath) radioactive material or he/she was exposed to high radiation from the nuclear weapon component without ingestion. The badges measure exposure, not consumption. Every X-Ray tech wears a badge like that.
I am not as much as to search to show the charts as could be) I have owned the charts besides the Basic science ,
Yes , The thing is , they said exposure was within limits When the individual was washed .
But the continuation was about they breathed in a nuclear charged Ionized breathe of Atmosphere ?
I don't entirely understand myself and it has been a long time since my study of this ,
The difference in the Carbon compounds is , One is poison when static charged , the other is not ,
Isotopes are beyond , They (MAN ,science) have intensified or Manipulated to measure or to make isotopes ,
Where they occur naturally (returned to add ("measurable"isotopes) . They are usually poison also .To us anyway .
Kind of goes to far of my wondering about where do all these charged particles of atmosphere go , and how do they change . including us, the weather , the environment , as their part of all the gases , and elements we , the planet , live in , and on .
This message was edited Mar 24, 2014 7:12 PM
I should of added , the only thing I know for sure about isotopes is it is one of the categories used to measure Deutronium as a fuel .
>> Humans by using fossil fuels are returning that carbon back to the air where it originated from. Of course we are doing this very quickly thus the CO2 level is rising quicker than nature can put things in equilibrium.
That's a really interesting argument. It's very hard for me to believe it could ALL have been in the atmosphere at the same time, the charts I've seen don't show CO2 EVER being as high as it is now. I'll try to get some kind of data (or deductions) about CO2 levels older than glacial cores. They might be able to tell something from isotope ratios of C in coal.
Just speculating, the atmosphere is a relatively small reservoir compared to ocean sediments and soil organic matter, let alone mineral carbonates! Where did more carbon come from (over millions of years, not hundreds) as dinosaurs etc laid down those sediments that became coal and oil?
>> the CO2 level is rising quicker than nature can put things in equilibrium.
True.
If we had thriving space colonies that could hold 7-9 billion people, I wouldn't be AS worried about what we do to the planet over the next 100-1,000 years. I do assume that the planet could recover in less than 10,000 years from us putting all the oil and coal into the atmosphere, ocean, and ocean sediments.
That new equilibrium might not be hospitable to us, or any of the species we're now familiar with, and I would miss the old planet if I were still around, but it would be SOME equilibrium and some new species would appreciate it.
>> Climate scientists have failed to explain all of the natural resasons why temperatures and climate have fluctuated over time
>> they will not be able to predict the future correctly
They do still have a hard time predicting even "the present" in accurate detail, meaning predicting a few years to 10 years ahead.
They did get it right that global average temps are going up (already), averaged over the whole globe, but their earliest predictions were based on very simple models so the near-term details were (of course) not accurate.
They are still refining, but sometimes the long term is easier to predict than the short term. The Sun WILL change from a G2V yellow dwarf into a red giant in around 5.4 billion years. They're sure because they have examples of other suns to compare it with, and models that are accurate enough to predict that transition for that kind of star.
But what will the suspots be like next year, or 11 or 22 years from now? That's like predicting the weather.
Sort of like blaming Democritus or Arabic alchemists for not predicting that Teflon would break down if OVERheated (once it was invented).
If the standard of proof required is detailed and accurate short-range predictions, before we start trying to plug some of the bigger holes in a sinking boat, climatologists won't be able to provide that level of "proof" for years or decades. The complexity of the planet may make that an impossible goal.
But the long-range "forecast" that doubling or tripling the CO2 in the atmosphere will have large effects is, as I keep saying, about as hard to predict as the effect of a brick upon a glass window.
To confirm that kind of long-term prediction, we would have to collect data long enough for the long-term trends to manifest. Say, 20-50 years. Good luck reversing global warming after we put 450 billion more tons into the air!
No one has disputed yet that adding 9 billion tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere will make solving the problem much harder. If we wait 20 years before starting, the problem will be 180 billion tons harder to solve. But I'm being repetitious.
>> Humans have been able to successfully adapt to ever climate extreme on this planet.
But the population density depends on what we can grow. If we can't feed ourselves, we will starve.
If humans were all angels and would not fight to try to get food for their children while an entire region is dieing back to a level that can be supported by 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5 the crop productivity, then I wouldn't worry about the fall of civilization due to climate change for at least 100 years. Maybe not at all, as long as the starving are willing to lie down a die quietly.
But I think almost any nation would use every weapon they could buy, borrow or invent to prevent 50%, 67%, 75% or 80% of their people from starving. And chemical and biological weapons are very cheap.
Since I seem to be the only one who cares, I'll say it again: I personally think it would be "a bad thing" if half to 80% of everyone now alive starved necessarily.
I sort of thought that was one reason we became civilized at all.
Ernie,
I think most of what you said argues FOR technology's ability to greatly affect the world, or at least humanity's experience.
I had not heard that animals were "thriving" around Chernobyl. I thought they were still having huge rates of mutation, cancer and miscarriage. I could be wrong, I haven't looked it up in a few years.
>> evidentally surprised a lot of researchers that expected to find a lot of mutant specimens, like two head coyotes and such, but aninmals are thriving.
It surprises me, too. That was a LOT of curies they dumped into the atmosphere! I seem to recall reading "mega-curies" (shudder).
Of course, there could be lots of adult animals even if 1/4 of all births died stillborn or due to mutations. "Nature, red in tooth and claw". I know that NATURE can survive high mutation rates and cancer rates, she doesn't care about pain or death, only the survivors. But I truly do not know the actual rate of miscarriages, fatal mutations, long term recessive mutations and cancer in the Chernobyl area.
If they "came right back" then you win that point, Chernobyl is NOT an example of human technology changing the world dramatically
One factor that WOULD cause animals to thrive and flourish: the absence of people! Now that I think about it, I bet the wildlife WILL make a big comeback with or without high mutation rates now that humans left the area. (I wonder if some super-genius squirrel sneaked into the control room or chewed through a cable to make Chernobyl safe for squirrels?)
>> I do not know enough about it too have strong opinions either way.
Me either.
>> Exposure to radioactivity DOES NOT make you radioactive
Actually that's only mostly true. Mostly it is contamination with radioactive material that makes you radioactive, hence the shower scene in "Silkwood".
You are right that beta, gamma radiation, and maybe alpha radiation (which is fast electrons, very high-energy photons like X-rays, and helium nuclei that for some reason are spit out by some radioactive nuclei) don't make things radioactive.
The exception is neutrons, especially slow neutrons.
Neutrons are captured by the nuclei of whatever absorbs them, and sometimes the nucleus that absorbed that neutron is changed from a stable nucleus to an unstable one. Later, the unstable nucleus spits out something or fissions, emitting some radiation.
But even for neutrons, you're mostly right. It takes a LOT of neutrons to create a little residual radioactivity. In core-collapse supernova, iron nuclei absorb some neutrons and become heavier than iron. That is the only source in the universe for nuclei heavier than iron. Google supernova r-process. So the existence of any elements heavier than iron that are not 9storngly) radioactive proves that even neutron activation doesn't create ONLY radioactive nuclei.
They do that deliberately in labs, "neutron activation analysis". Even to artworks, since the residual radioactivity is so slight. They zap a sample with lots of neutrons, and then rush the sample into an X-ray spectrometer so they can record all the X-rays or gamma rays that are emitted. Seeing the exact energies (spectrum of frequencies) of those X-rays tells them what elements (isotopes) were in the sample.
I do wish you could convince people who are against nuclear power generation without even being able to pronounce it correctly that they don't have much to fear. (But they won't listen to you very closely if you call them "Eco-nuts" to their face!)
>> I remember when people were sure there would be a lot of deaths from the problem at Three Mile Island, but nothing bad happened
Very ignorant, stupid people. The amount released offsite was minuscule, as I recall. Actually, I shouldn't call them ignorant and stupid. My sister called me from Cape Cod asking whether it would be safer to flee the cape or hunker down where she was to avoid "the fallout". And she's not dumb, just prone to panic, NOT technically inclined, and better informed about literature than science or technology. And she believed some of what she heard on TV.
"Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents."
"the deliberate venting of radioactive gases from the plant Friday morning which produced a reading of 1,200 millirems (12 mSv) directly above the stack of the auxiliary building."
"the Pennsylvania Department of Health for 18 years maintained a registry of more than 30,000 people who lived within five miles of Three Mile Island at the time of the accident. The state's registry was discontinued in mid 1997, without any evidence of unusual health trends in the area."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident/
---
DDT did and could have saved many more babies sounds like "moving the world". And, apparently, mosquito netting is having a big impact. Supports my claim that technology does already have large impacts on the world (or at least, the human experience on this world).
If you feel I'm shifting my claim so much as to invalidate its point, OK, you win.
The original question was whether humans (with technology) could affect large changes on global weather. Yes, we are already doing so without even trying.
However, trying to make specific climate changes without unintended consequences almost as bad as the problem: that, I don't know. I wish we start small, now, so we can figure out how to do it safely before its much too late.
>> deforestation. Necessary to provide shelter for the population. Kill the trees or kill the people.
I hadn't heard about anyone mowing down many forests to build homes or even farms since our westward expansion. I was referring mainly to South American hardwood forests cut down to sell the logs for veneer. (If that cash went to the locals, I bet it did save lives and improve nutrition, but if it went to rich people in the cities, not so much.)
But I admit deforestation is not a "change the world" technology unless you count losing rare species in the rain forest. Point for you. (Unless you count the total deforestation since the invetion of agriculture, including (for example) the desertification of the entire "Fertile Crescent". I think that would count as major global change through human actions, mostly accomplished with bronze age and iron age tech.
>> coral reefs dieing,,,Coral reefs in many places were destroyed by an explosion of starfish.
That, and "bleaching", which is blamed on warming ocean surface (partly due to CO2), acidification of the ocean (CO2) ) and infectious bacteria (Vibrio shiloi), also more active at warmer temperatures. I can't swear to those, I just read it in a few places.
>> ozone layer thinning . I thought that was solved with the expensive banning of Fluorcarbons. or was that another mistake by the Eco Nuts.
Supports my point, both ways. Without even trying, we were well on the way to destroying the ozone layer, which would have allowed sterilizing radiation to reach the earths surface. (Well, sterilizing to bacteria, it would have only given us melanoma and blindness.) Then we reversed that trend by getting most countries to stop producing the worst ozone culprits. People + technology changing the world in ways VERY significant to humans.
"Yes we can" destroy the climate, but can we save it?
>> irrigation in the USA and Israel, visible from space...Increased food kept millions of people from starving or going to war over the last loaf of bread.
Supports my point.
>> People become weary of war and will probably stop fighting and share the last few loaves of bread
I hope so. More likely, the people starving rapidly just won't be able to REACH the zones that can grow food that decade. Unless they can FedEx enhanced Ebola virus.
>> the climate change MEASUREMENTS you don't talk about much... Figures do not lie but Liars can select from a wide array of measurements to get the charts they want, You and Drobarr can settle that.
So there's no point to my providing links to actual measurements or scientific sources? That saves me some time.
>> It should embarrass those Government Climatologists {i hesitate to call them Scientists],
OK, I give up.
If you want to get your climate facts from National Review as an unbiased source, instead of scientists, I will agree to disagree.
Rick
Rrr …I thought they were still having huge rates of mutation, cancer and miscarriage. I could be wrong, I haven't looked it up in a few years.
I Googled Chernobyl as I am not sure if I saw the documentary on Nature or NGC, and there is a dispute going on. Some people say there are not as many Swallows as there used to be and they ignore the wolves and other fauna.
rrr I do wish you could convince people who are against nuclear power generation without even being able to pronounce it correctly that they don't have much to fear. (But they won't listen to you very closely if you call them "Eco-nuts" to their face!)
eee The term Eco Nuts only refer to the extremists that do not think working men and their families and the ability for them to make a living are an important part of the Ecology. I am one of the people that believe there is room for everything and everyone that is ABLE TO ADAPT AS THEIR WORLD CHANGES.
Eee I remember when people were sure there would be a lot of deaths from the problem at Three Mile Island, but nothing bad happened
Rrr Very ignorant, stupid people. The amount released offsite was minuscule, as I recall. Actually, I shouldn't call them ignorant and stupid. My sister called me from Cape Cod asking whether it would be safer to flee the cape or hunker down where she was to avoid "the fallout". And she's not dumb, just prone to panic, NOT technically inclined, and better informed about literature than science or technology. And she believed some of what she heard on TV.
--rrr If you feel I'm shifting my claim so much as to invalidate its point, OK, you win.
I prefer to believe you are shifting your claim because you are beginning to understand the reasonableness of my arguments.
Rrr The original question was whether humans (with technology) could affect large changes on global weather. Yes, we are already doing so without even trying.
No, your original claim was that we could affect the Global Warming Problem by sprinkling iron dust over the oceans.
rrr However, trying to make specific climate changes without unintended consequences almost as bad as the problem: that, I don't know. I wish we start small, now, so we can figure out how to do it safely before its much too late.
Rrr deforestation.
eee Necessary to provide shelter for the population. Kill the trees or kill the people.
rrr I hadn't heard about anyone mowing down many forests to build homes or even farms since our westward expansion. I was referring mainly to South American hardwood forests cut down to sell the logs for veneer. (If that cash went to the locals, I bet it did save lives and improve nutrition, but if it went to rich people in the cities, not so much.)
Eee What do you think was done with all the trees that were harvested in the Pacific Northwest before the Spotted Owl fiasco? Those trees were used for building houses for the housing boom in the Post War USA.
rrr But I admit deforestation is not a "change the world" technology unless you count losing rare species in the rain forest. Point for you. (Unless you count the total deforestation since the invetion of agriculture, including (for example) the desertification of the entire "Fertile Crescent". I think that would count as major global change through human actions, mostly accomplished with bronze age and iron age tech.
eee I do not think the Fertile Crescent, except for Lebanon that had the Cedars, ever had much Timber. That was either swampy or barren land, and it was called the Fertile Crescent because of the waters in the rivers.
eee Figures do not lie but Liars can select from a wide array of measurements to get the charts they want, You and Drobarr can settle that.
Rrrr So there's no point to my providing links to actual measurements or scientific sources? That saves me some time.
eeeThe information you post would be more credible if it was from more diverse sources. It is ridiculous to believe that a group of scientists, all of who have a professional obligation to provide proven, honest opinions, agree 97%, on identical results of their individual studies. Congress and Juries do sometimes all agree for expediency, but they do not have the professional obligations that Professional Scientists have. It should embarrass those Government Climatologists {i hesitate to call them Scientists],
rrr If you want to get your climate facts from National Review as an unbiased source, instead of scientists, I will agree to disagree.
Rick this is kind of a cheap shot, and I am a bit disappointed in you. I posted a quote from a column, and stated I was not familiar with the National Review, never having read a copy. You knew that when you said that is where I get my climate facts.
The truth of the matter is, I am seeking Climate Facts, not selfserving hype nor panic stricken nightmares. I have said many times that I do believe the Climate is changing and it always has. What I do not YET believe is that from now on it is only going to GET WARMER. Once I see some facts that it is, I will then agree with you on Global Warming.
Ernie
Read through Paleontology or Anthropology to the geologic ages .
and climate change is "same old same old" It is not doing anything that has not happened before ..
Rick—My comment about exposure to radioactivity not making one radioactive was in response to an earlier comment about radioactive birds spreading bird flu or radioactive viruses or radioactive mange. These things are not real possibilities. I fear your comment regarding neutron absorption will almost assuredly lead to some people who read this thread translating it into “Yes, you can become radioactive from dental X-Rays”. Most people don't know a proton from a neutron from an alpha particle. So, I repeat, you do not become radioactive from exposure to radioactivity. I hope you will agree with that statement.
Secondly, I too care about the effects of global warming. I just don't see anyone doing anything about it, nor do I see any reasonable efforts being proposed. I don't believe that expecting people to dramatically reduce their lifestyle is workable. Sure, we in the US could maybe pay more for gas or turn the old thermostat a few degrees, but these things are small, and, for those on the lower end of the income spectrum, still quite a sacrifice. Meanwhile, expecting third world countries to be content with mud huts and oxen (dramatized a bit) ain't gonna happen. We need practical options—20 years ago like you said. Nukes, natural gas, wind and solar are good starts. If GE technology improves, making more plants into legumes would help. So would making C3 plants into C4 plants. These things are not imminent, but let's work on them. Carbon sequestration, too. Mirrors in space and whatever else I don't even know about.
Instead, our DoE, who certainly understand these things better than I do, has done NOTHING to lead and educate. This is definitely a place where Government needs to lead. I'm thrilled to see Cosmos return. Why not more real science programs explaining these things. How about the media reporting real things instead of simply reporting which politician offended another politician or spending two solid weeks on a plane crash. For the media, an exploration of GE or GW is a 5 or 10 minutes sound bite between Jeffrey Smith or Ralph Nader and some scientist no one has ever heard of. Why not a 12 week, in-depth—examination of the real science, like Cosmos? Instead we get shows like Resurrection and Naked and Hungry.
The big reason is of course, money. The media is just as hungry for it as Monsanto or Exxon and so they feed us pablum instead of educating us. I guess I agree with you regarding the down side of profit seeking. :«(.
To close on a light note. Yesterday, I heard a lady claim that dinosaurs lived after the flood and were necessary because “God needed something to clean up all the dead bodies”.
Surely there is a market for educational programming?!
If there was a good market for educational programming we would have it. Remember when TLC channel was the learning channel?
Alas, Sally. You are right.
Profit seeking can be criticized but it cannot be eliminated and still have a Sociiety.
Wages, Salaries, Consulting or Speaking Fees, all are Profits made from Effort, just as surely as the Markup on gasoline or GMO Soy beans. And without profit no one would work or give speeches, etc.
And whatever damage is done by selling a good for profit, the blame for the damage must be shared by the buyer as much as by the seller. For without the buyer being willing to pay for that good, the good would not have been created or performed.
Very simple when you look at both sides fairly, but mostly people look elsewhere, not at themselves, to find someone to blame for community created problems.
Ernie
Ernie--I agree on profits--that was mostly a cheap dig at those who feel only "evil" corporations are motivated by profit.
Rrr "The original question was whether humans (with technology) could affect large changes on global weather. Yes, we are already doing so without even trying."
Yes, we seem to be making changes in the earth's atmosphere without even trying. But these are the side effects of the huge mass of 'everything people want in order to thrive or be productive or feel productive or have fun or be more comfortable, well fed, and secure" . Ameliorating our effects on CO2 will require effort solely in the opposite direction of that which "everybody wants". And there's the sticking point, as Willy described so well. Scarcity is one thing that makes people conserve resources pretty effectively, war is another.
Ernie, what do you think today's young generation would do faced with WW II type rationing?
If it mutates cells , it can mutate a bug , Bacterium and Virus are cells .. and the mutate anyway .. if gives them more energy to do so ...
Excites their change to other process ..
juhur7--Yes, if it mutates successfully (a big if), it can pass traits on--maybe. It DOESN'T mean the thing passing whatever on is radioactive. Being affected, or damaged, by radioactivity DOES NOT mean being radioactive.
All right , But the Irony would be (radioactively created ) Still the category being the cause ..
I don't trust anything about it because ; everything in this category of tragedy has been Manipulatively created by us ,
One mistake , and poof , a mess no longer usable of purpose , only wasted ..Billion after Billion ,,
Seems were talking about Nuclear radiation like electricity , 1 aaa battery might shock you , different from taking hold of a High Voltage electrode .
one might shock you the other your fried to your carbon base ,
Still we are the cause ..
This message was edited Mar 25, 2014 7:40 PM
gee, juhur. We are also the cause of many humans living much longer and healthier lives than ever before.
sallyg said:
>> Yes, we seem to be making changes in the earth's atmosphere without even trying. But these are the side effects of the huge mass of 'everything people want ...
...
>> Ameliorating our effects on CO2 will require effort solely in the opposite direction of that which "everybody wants". And there's the sticking point
You got me. I should have said that technology, when driven by peoples' DESIRES is a huge force, capable of destroying the climate or ecology. I do not know how to redirect all that power in the direction of saving anything.
>> Scarcity is one thing that makes people conserve resources pretty effectively, war is another.
Maybe after enough crop failures and unprecedentedly hot summers and unprecedentedly violent cyclones and monsoons occur that scientists are listened to more than Deniers, people will realize that is a real problem.
That, plus developing enough remedial technologies (nuclear, solar) and reducing or redirecting our consumption somewhat, will postpone the worst effects until we can develop some mythical "silver bullet" technology like fusion power or solar power satellites.
I hope that SOMEONE takes the CO2/climate risk seriously enough to deploy some small-scale geoengineering experiments, so that at least we can start to learn the possibilities and risks, for when we need them so badly that everyone recognizes they are the lesser risks.
I don't think there is a way to do "orbiting mirrors" or solar power satellites at all, without a vigorous pre-existing space industry (meaning industry in orbit, mining asteroids or the Moon).
Ocean fertilization is not as risky as stratospheric aerosols, but it is also thought to have less promise. I don't know, "algae blooms sunk into deep sediments" is at least not "science-fiction-y". The downsides I know about are disrupting existing nutrient cycles and ocean populations, plus running out of all the other nutrients as you sink the organisms.
Both of those need to be approached carefully, even on a small scale. Basically, experiments to see what the effects are.
Going back to science fiction, how about cultivating some plankton with a carbonate shell. At some pint it sheds the shell, the carbonate sinks, but the plankton remain in the water along with their NPK, FE, etc. What sinks is mostly CaCO3. The main drawback of that is that it isn't reality.
Dreaming up PRACTICAL mitigation schemes for capturing and sequestering carbon sounds appealing. Desert to grassland to forest sounds good, if you can get the water to the deserts and enough organic matter into the sands to support roots.
Thanks for reminding me of the word "PRACTICAL", Sallyg.
>> Secondly, I too care about the effects of global warming. I just don't see anyone doing anything about it, nor do I see any reasonable efforts being proposed. I don't believe that expecting people to dramatically reduce their lifestyle is workable.
...
>> Nukes, natural gas, wind and solar are good starts. ... Carbon sequestration, too.
http://www.technologyreview.com/demo/524466/storing-the-sun/
I just saw an article in Tech Review (Storing the Sun) about Aquion's invention of cheap rechargeable batteries in the same price range as lead-acid batteries, but less toxic (no lead and no sulfuric acid). These are already being manufactured inexpensively enough to compete with diesel generators "off-grid", but can't compete with power plants burning fossil fuel.
Hopefully, someone might optimize that further with investment and scaling up. Having more efficient energy storage makes solar panels and solar thermal more competitive (at least it does for small installations).
No one bothered with that technology in the past because they are not suitable for fast-charge and fast-discharge. But they would be ideal for off-grid solar applications where you only have trickle-charge anyway, and the load is household or village-level loads, not cranking heavy engines.
The target market is the emerging Third World, where it might make solar panels practical instead of diesel generators. Having the storage capacity lets you have power overnight and during a few cloudy days (refrigerators, computers, radio/TV and cell phone chargers)
"sodium ions from a saltwater electrolyte shuttle between manganese oxide–based positive electrodes and carbon-based negative ones."
Another Tech Review article: turning CO2 into ethylene glycol. It sounds like it is still lab scale, not even pilot plant yet. But they seem to be thinking about trying to commercialize it which means make it industrially and economically practical.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/525356/a-cheaper-route-to-making-chemicals-from-co2/
NOTE: off topic digression:
>> I fear your comment regarding neutron absorption will almost assuredly lead to some people who read this thread translating it into “Yes, you can become radioactive from dental X-Rays”
I thought that all the reservations and qualifications would prevent any possibility of misinterpretation. Granted, since I tend towards 3-5 page posts, almost everyone will skim. But I hate to assume that most readers will understand the opposite of what a sentence says.
>> Most people don't know a proton from a neutron from an alpha particle.
That is a problem, but I think it would be cured of the people who care a lot about these issues, just read a little relevant science!
>> Surely there is a market for educational programming?!
Hmm. There is a big NEED, but is there any demand? Maybe we should follow the Canadian model (so to speak), where they improved the ratings of a dry news program by having a model read the news while naked. I guess that would only work on (at most) half the population, and would offend more than half the population.
>> So, I repeat, you do not become radioactive from exposure to radioactivity. I hope you will agree with that statement.
I could have said "to be made radioactive, you either have to inhale nuclear fallout or be immersed in a research reactor and deliberately be bombarded with neutrons". But that would have been a little less accurate.
I could be two-faced and make a technically mostlytrue but deliberately misleading statement:
"You can not become radioactive from exposure to radiation".
Neutrons are particles, not radiation. It doesn't take willful ignorance to confuse "radioactivity" or "radioactive materials" with radiation.
In the interests of full disclosure, and thank you for not calling me on it, I did ignore gamma-activated nuclei where an absorbed gamma way can pump a little extra energy into a nucleus that comes out later as a weaker gamma ray. That IS radiation, but the residual effect is pretty mild and short-lived. My belief is that if you tried to "activate" a person with that much gamma irradiation, you might have to practically cook them to make their corpse radioactive enough to twitch a counter a few days later. Hence in the context of the earlier discussion, I left it out for clarity.
Maybe I should have left the entire off-topic digression out, for clarity!
Sallyg yes I know , I take a life sustaining medication) a mistake by medical diagnosis is why I take the med ,
However , the other that was removed , I would be dead ,,, years ago ... I know what you mean ... really know .... and I see it every day of every hour of every day
Sally,
It happens that your question to me is related to a subject that i have given quite a lot of thought to, in trying to figure out what would bring our country back to its senses. So i will share some of those thoughts that do relate to your question.
First, i do not think it is just the young generation that has been affected and would have trouble adjusting to the scarcity of things they desire. The same problem affects, perhaps to a lesser degree, for all those born after WW2, and the Key seems to me is "UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS"
Those of us growing up in the depression had very low expectations foR what we might get in the future, whether a toy for Christmas or no toys. Or a job that paid for more than just groceries and rent or no job. In every aspect of our lives we just did not expect much. So when WW2 caused rationing, there was not much difference between not being able to buy gas for lack of money and not being able to buy gas for lack of gas.
But as jobs, and money became more plentiful we began, gradually at first, to start expecting more, like more money for our work, better conditions, extra money to buy clothes, all those things that we do not even think about now. Then after the war, our children started off expecting several toys every Christmas, all the gas they needed or wanted for their cars, and the entire popiulation shifted from very low or no expectations to very high expectations, and that leads us back to what you and Willy referred to about extravagant lifesthyles.
And of course, it is countless times easier to raise our expectations than it will be to lower them to the point that we can reverse the problems. When i think about these problems i have never been able to separate out "they" or "them" Like Pogo said, "It is US" My generation was the first that was able to spoil our Kids, and it just snowballed from there.
And all i have been able to come up with as a solution is that it will take something like another Big Depression, or another Big War, maybe Nuclear next time, to bring us all back to our senses, and then the few that are left can start all over again.
But i am sure you noticed the struggle people went through trying to give up their big houses when the Bubble Burst. And that is just a tiny problem to what it may take to get us back on a commonsense path.
Willy, On your comment..." We need practical options-20 years ago like you said. Nukes, natural gas, wind and solar are good starts"
Only Nukes and Natural Gas are ready for prime time because of cost, but they could not be utilized because of protests and the belief amongst a lot of our population that common sense was no longer necessary. Everything had always been provided free and easy to the Protesters and they reasonably assumed it would always be that way.
So here we are,
Ernie
Recombination devices and methods like an Atmosphere plant that have not been built yet also exist ,
A few billion to make our (the planets) base atmosphere with a few of those)as to failed power plants or the billions lost as to some of them , might be a good place to start to find answers .
Rick--It doesn't matter if it could be cured "if they read a little relevant science". The fact is, they don't. One quarter of them don't understand that the sun doesn't rotate around the earth. 65% think that only GMO tomatoes have genes. Roughly half think that the earth is 6,000 years old.
I think the only person that really grasps the situation here--at least among those who are bold enough to post--is Sallyg. Let me modify that--I know many understand the GW situation, or are very skeptical, but I thin Sallyg agrees with me about the difficulties of trying to solve it.
All of the disclaimers you made regarding when an object/person could be made radioactive went right out the window when you said "the exception is...slow neutrons." OMG, if I go to the dentist, I'll glow in the dark.
I know people (personally) who worry about compost that might come from GMOs. Never mind that commercial agriculture entities won't be sending their crop residues to a compost facility. They might, and that means I can't use city produced compost. And, good grief, now they've added biosolids! I might as well just slit my throat now.
The state of education in this country is damned sad--and getting worse.
This message was edited Mar 26, 2014 11:24 AM
Willy, I can't say you're wrong, but if we can't say anything that a mentally lazy person could possibly misinterpret, then we can't say anything at all.
Maybe it comes down to social responsibility: if I were more responsible, maybe I WOULDN'T say anything at all in public.
Ignoring for the moment the number of people who vote against "nuc-u-ler" power, and confining it only to "the dentist will make me radioactive" ... and they won't go to the dentist ... I would only feel guilty if I were trying to mislead them.
Hopefully this also excuses my sin: since I can't stop typing verbosely any more than I can stop overwatering seedlings, anyone capable of confusing neutrons with X-Rays when they are listed as separate categories in the same paragraph, already stopped reading my long posts and sinfully long sentences HUNDREDS of posts ago.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Umm ... besides ...
Dental X-rays make your hair grow long and glossy.
Dental X-rays keep you from getting gray hair.
Dental X-rays help you lose weight and increase your thigh gap.
Dental X-rays contain NO salt, high fructose corn syrup or fats.
Dentists have used only ORGANIC X-Rays since 1995.
Those are very little-known facts indeed!
Yeah , but you can't eat while you have them
They tell you indirectly that you might be pain suffering
They make funny noises
And they won't always show you the pictures your paying for afterward ..
One good thing ,,, They don't make you wear the heavy led filled vest any more while you have them ^_^
And I can't type during them either ...
This message was edited Mar 25, 2014 10:30 PM
Deleted by Willy--Apologies for the rant.
This message was edited Mar 26, 2014 8:10 AM
1963 Dna study group , I needed parental permission to get teachers permission to attend advanced or advancing classes .
My parent ; they already know that , you don't knead to know anymore about that ,,
My teacher and parent , that is retarded , it's not for you to know about .
To you Willy .. Just a memory ,, Giant waves , Dna ,, Atmospheric gas plants ,,sci fi . not going to happen ,,, huh ???
A proton ,a positive charged ion traveling around a nucleus ,
A neutron a negative charged particle traveling around a nucleus ?
I don't know the between these and an X-Ray except for models of them ,, I admit it ,, I'm guilty ,, lol?
This message was edited Mar 25, 2014 10:59 PM
juhur, you sounded a bit down on people at large, is why I commented on your post; good luck with your medical situation.
Thanks for your thoughts on that subject Ernie.
Thanks Willy. I find myself very much agreeing with your comments in general.
I'm doing my best to keep sequestering carbon here in the form of unraked tree leaves all blown under my shrubbery...believe me it's adding up
I am a depression baby. I never thought that we were deprived out on the farm. My, when I see the kiddies playing with their electronic toys, it reminds me of my early childhood. I found a picture the other day of some of the family and a great uncle. I believe that I took that picture and believe that that was the first time I ever took a picture...about 8 years old. There are only about 10 pictures of me in the first ten years. My kids have dozens and more pictures.
My wife/s family ran a camera shop so they had oodles of pictures.
My dental hygenist keeps taking xrays of my teeth. Should I be glowing by now?
I edited my thoughts above in my 3/25 post (and deleted my post from last night) and I want to reiterate them here.
I didn't mean to imply that no one here understands GW; my statement was very poorly worded. I was trying to say that Sallyg seems to agree with me (which makes her correct, of course!!) that the solutions are difficult and often impractical or not feasible. We have a problem and the way forward is not obvious or easy. I hope I am summarizing your thoughts accurately, Sallyg.
The book I have recommended on energy—Energy For Future Presidents—contains a pretty good summary on global warming. I went to check some nuclear, whoops, nucyahler, info and found the GW section, which I had forgotten. Anyway, here's an interesting except from the GW discussion:
“In 2009, President Obama attended the climate change meeting in Copenhagen...a proposed treaty was on the table. Many people expected President Obama to sign it. He didn't...his stated reason for rejecting the treaty was that China had refused to agree to inspections...Let's consider the treaty that was under consideration...(details on who cuts and how much, the US reduction is to be 80% by 2050)..Now let's be really optimistic. Assume that President Obama had won over the Republicans and that all parties—the entire world—abided by it...Assume that all of the world achieved these stupendous goals. Atmospheric carbon emissions would drop dramatically, right? Wrong. Very badly wrong. Under the treaty, CO2 levels would continue to rise to nearly 4 times the current level...above 1,000 ppm...global temperature could increase by more than 3°C.”
Ernie and drobarr—I think you will find the GW discussion in the book (written by a Cal physicist) interesting and maybe even convincing. Btw, the study at Cal was funded by, amongst others, Bill Gates, Gordon Getty, and Charles Koch. The book addresses pretty much any form of energy and does so in an impartial way. The schtick for the book is that it would give a future president a good solid grounding in the factual data needed to inform policy. I think a better title would have been Energy For Current US Voters.
Indy, The only things i really missed, were shoes in the summer time. We would get a pair when school started. Other than that, we did not feel poor as every one we knew were in the same boat. You may be a bit younger than i am, or your Dad may have been more prosperous. My Father, Grandfather and 3 uncles lost the Apple Orchards in 1928, and dad was laboring on the Railroad after that. We never went hungry and had lots of love, but not much else.
But the point i was making was that no one expected to be moving into a 5 bedroom house and parking a new car in the driveway by the time they were 30.. Now, a lot of people expect or want, to do that.
I was born in 1926, so i was old enough to be aware of the situation by 1932 or 33. And i agree, although we have a handful of pictures, cameras were very scarce in those days.
Ernie
Willy,
I will take a look at the book, but what did it convince you of? Do you believe that the Globe will continue warming from now on, and that the prior Fluctuations will not continue?
That is the main question for me. If it continues on the warming trend indefintely, we are in deep doodoo. But if this is just part of the historic fluctiations, we may not need to get our knickers in a twist. That is the question i am looking for an answer to, and once that is deternined, then we will know for sure what facts we need to deal with.
Your comments on the Treaty were also interesting. If the agreement did not firmly reverse the warming trend, but just slowed down the warming a little bit, that does not sound to me like it serves it purpose, even if it was agreed to and followed.
We all appreciate the clarity of your thinking, so if you were on the Committe what suggestions would you make to be included in the Treaty?
Ernie