• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Tim Cooke
Sheriffs:
  • Knute Snortum
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ganesh Patekar
  • Tim Moores
  • Carey Brown
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • salvin francis
Bartenders:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Frits Walraven
  • Pete Letkeman

Global Warming bulletins  RSS feed

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Steven Bell:


(so you don't have to go and find it again)
'Let's say I created a new fuel source. It was clean burning, and could provide efficient energy. The problem: It is flammable to the point of being explosive, colorless, and odorless. How many deaths would you allow, per year, before considering this new fuel source to be too dangerous to allow and outlawing it?'

1, 10, 100???



Presumably you are talking about natural gas. I love cooking on gas. Electricity and the other hobs are just not the same.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Came across a new term to worry about. It's the term Global Dimming discussed on a BBC Horizon Program, an effect first noticed by a professor studying climate changes over the Indian subcontinent then found the same symptoms around the world looking at satellite images.
Over the past few decades the world gets less sunlight than it did previously.
So what you might ask, but it is now been attributed as the major cause of the drought that caused the decade long drought in Ethiopia and South Saharan Africa and continues to do so. 30,000 people die annually in these regions. Previously it was thought that poor farming practices and cattle grazing might have caused it. Usually rain falls when water collects on tiny particles like pollen, dust and salt evaporated from the sea, until they get too heavy to stay in the air. With the larger CO2, sulphate and nitrate particles caused by pollution the water collects on the many more particles but many particles don't get enough water to make them fall to earth.

There has been improvement with less pollution being produced now and airplanes helping to churn the air, but a side effect of the improvement is that the earth is now hotter by .6 degree, by the year 2040 it'll be hotter by 4 degrees and at the end of the century, by 10 degrees. In the interim most large cities will be regularly flooded during winters and the British landscape will gradually change to resemble the North African landscape. Other parts of the world would be worse off. Equatorial forests a rich source of plants to make drugs etc. will wither in the heat. The seas will boil and catch fire as methane gases are released by the oceans.Methane is several times more polluting than CO2.

The heatwave in 2003 where thousands of French people died is a result of the global warming from less global dimming.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


Presumably you are talking about natural gas. I love cooking on gas. Electricity and the other hobs are just not the same.



Yes! And in the US alone it kills serveral hundred people each year. ( I think it is around 800, but I don't have the numbers in front of me.) Yet I don't hear anybody screaming that we need to get rid of natural gas, but we have all these busy body idiots screaming that we are going to kill ourselves off with cell phones and pesticides. (on a side note, now that I mentioned pesticides, it's been shown that 'organic' produce is no better for you than regular produce, and is potentially more harmful due to higher levels of bacteria)

As far as global warming goes:
Over the past 30 - 40 years the 'global temperature' has increased somewhat. However if you look at longer temperature trends it is part of a long process of warming and cooling this planet has gone through since before we ever came up with internal combustion engines. We are actully in a cooler period now. The idea that we are causing the 'horrible global warming' is at best a stretch and worst an absolutly ridiculous idea that will ultimatly slow our natural progress toward better/faster/more efficient machines. If the air is so bad now, why weren't global tempuratures increasing in the early 1900's when the air was far more polluted?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
..the earth is now hotter by .6 degree, by the year 2040 it'll be hotter by 4 degrees and at the end of the century, by 10 degrees. In the interim most large cities will be regularly flooded during winters ..



About time to migrate north, and invest in 'Sailing for Dummies'!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
Came across a new term to worry about. It's the term Global Dimming discussed on a BBC Horizon Program, an effect first noticed by a professor studying climate changes over the Indian subcontinent then found the same symptoms around the world looking at satellite images.
Over the past few decades the world gets less sunlight than it did previously.


ah yes, the next Big Bad Thing humans cause and we should all feel guilty for...

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:

So what you might ask, but it is now been attributed as the major cause of the drought that caused the decade long drought in Ethiopia and South Saharan Africa and continues to do so. 30,000 people die annually in these regions. Previously it was thought that poor farming practices and cattle grazing might have caused it. Usually rain falls when water collects on tiny particles like pollen, dust and salt evaporated from the sea, until they get too heavy to stay in the air. With the larger CO2, sulphate and nitrate particles caused by pollution the water collects on the many more particles but many particles don't get enough water to make them fall to earth.


Complete bollocks. Droughts and spreading of desert areas in the Sahel region are caused almost completely by the local practice of herding goats that eat everything and cutting down all the trees.
Centuries of that has eroded away the topsoil leaving the land infertile.
This also helps cause droughts (once the topsoil is gone rivers and lakes dry up, wind patterns change, the entire climate changes).
This has been observed in Spain for centuries until they started to do something about it...
Add poor farming practices (or at least practices not suited to arid land)

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:

There has been improvement with less pollution being produced now and airplanes helping to churn the air, but a side effect of the improvement is that the earth is now hotter by .6 degree, by the year 2040 it'll be hotter by 4 degrees and at the end of the century, by 10 degrees. In the interim most large cities will be regularly flooded during winters and the British landscape will gradually change to resemble the North African landscape. Other parts of the world would be worse off. Equatorial forests a rich source of plants to make drugs etc. will wither in the heat. The seas will boil and catch fire as methane gases are released by the oceans.Methane is several times more polluting than CO2.

The heatwave in 2003 where thousands of French people died is a result of the global warming from less global dimming.



Those temperature figures are based on seriously flawed data.
They're taking only very short term changes into account.
Since the start of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has actually gone down slightly (but not enough to be statistically relevant, the same way that 0.6 degrees isn't statistically relevant).
The doomsday scenarios you present are all too familiar and have been screamed out to the masses for the last 20 years or so by the treehuggers. They're based part (large part) on outright lies and part on bad science (deliberate misinterpretation of data, overexageration of observed effects, etc. etc.).

Fact remains there's no such thing as "global warming" in the sense the alarmist treehugging reds proclaim as their gospel.
The "global dimming" is similarly not present. At most some areas may have a temporary effect due to large forrest fires (like in Indonesia in 2003) which may have a temporary effect on the local climate.

If anything the treehuggers should be glad if such an effect did exist on the massive global scale you proclaim, as it would cause a sinking of surface temperature and therefore reduce the effect of the "global warming".

But of course they'll find a way to link the two together and make their doomsday scenario even more elaborate in order to scare even more people into giving them whatever they want (which is complete global power, a theocracy with the "environment" as the one and only god to whom all have to pledge obedience on fear of death).
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 872
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Will, some say global worming is real and some say it isn't. However, I do understand that people tend to believe something more if they have more a stake in the potential offender.

In the case of pollution and the potential risk of global worming it is capitalism and consumerism is is hold for account. So they are the one who would depute the existence of global worming for their own self interests. On the other side anti capitalists and socialists are going to use the global worming issue against the capitalists.

So we can deduce that listening to these groups of people is a waste of time because there views is mostly invalid regardless of what the truth is. A valid view often comes from a person who has good understanding of opposing views.

On question worth asking is, does the collative of capitalism care about environmental risks, because bad planet is bad for business.

My understand of capitalism is that it has much in common with mother nature, survival of the fittest opposed to the communist approach that seems to perpetuate weaknesses; equality for the unfit.

From this understanding, we can work out if capitalism will over graze this planet by studying mother-nature. My understanding is there is a continuous cycle of over grazing death and rebirth growth. Only though trial and error and luck a balance is achieved.

The kind of environmental issues we face today can on this scale and of this type has never happened before in history so it seems that we are bound to make our first mistake.

Capitalism approach to the environment's could be the same as mother nature's other animals, they don't worry about that never happened before, would a wilderbeast run away from a predator if none of its ancenters never bean eaten.

Capitalism and the Tragedy of the Common shttp://www.spectacle.org/497/commons.html

Global Warming? What a load of poppycock!
http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
 
Gerald Davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 872
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Helen Thomas
The environmental documentory that you mentioned has repeated so I got to watch it.

We are ganna die !!!
 
blacksmith
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jeroen Wenting:

Were he to have appeared as Mao or Stalin would people have reacted so violently?

No. Mao and Stalin were much more successful at getting rid of their scapegoats permanently.
 
mister krabs
Ranch Hand
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
Were he to have appeared as Mao or Stalin would people have reacted so violently? Both caused far more missery and death than any single German soldier ever did in WW2...



So how many British soldiers died fighting against Mao? We are talking about the person who is third in line to the British crown.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1033
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:
...
Solar energy - At least this can be seen as truly a clean source of power, however, it is somewhat dependant on location! Here in Queensland we have more than enough sun and I could easily generate enough power for my needs by putting a couple of solar panels on my roof and contributing to the national grid when I have excess so that I can draw from the grid when I have need. The only thing that stops me from doing this is economics! Currently such a setup would cost me about $20,000 (after receiving considerable governmment grants that exist to try and encourage this) and would give me a net gain of around $100 a month. Thats a very long 200 month (17 yr) return on investment, longer possibly than I am likely to remain in my house - so I cant justify doing it. If we assume that the technology goes on improving and getting cheaper then eventually this should be the way to go - I should think that once the ROI time gets closer to 5yrs it'd become staggeringly popular..
You might have a few more problems trying to implement this kind of technology in grey sky'd Europe though!!



Researchers at the University of Toronto announced last week that they have developed a new form of solar cell that is sprayable and may be able to get 5 times the power out of sunlight. This sort of work could reduce the cost of solar power significantly. see Nanotech photo cell

On the topic of nuclear power, I'm not sure about its use, but research should continue. Currently we are still at the "open fires in thatched huts in forest" stage with nukes.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:


Were he to have appeared as Mao or Stalin would people have reacted so violently? Both caused far more missery and death than any single German soldier ever did in WW2...



The Sun newspaper is much more worried that the Prince might have cost the UK the Olympics.He might make up for it by doing charity work at Jewish charities. As long as it's not the Kaballah frequented by the likes of Madonna and Guy Ritchie.
[ January 17, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Gerald Davis:
Helen Thomas
The environmental documentory that you mentioned has repeated so I got to watch it.

We are ganna die !!!



More importantly we are ganna die out !!!
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by peter wooster:


On the topic of nuclear power, I'm not sure about its use, but research should continue. Currently we are still at the "open fires in thatched huts in forest" stage with nukes.



not quite. We passed that stage around 1948.
We're now in the stage of streetlights powered by natural gas, something that for almost a hundred years worked quite well with hardly any accidents (and those minor).

The idea that every nuclear powerstation is a thermonuclear bomb waiting to go off is deliberate misinformation (read: blatant lie) on the part of the anti-nuclear lobby...

P.S. I'd rather live within 1km from a nuclear powerstation than within 5km from a windfarm.
I've worked IN a (decommmisioned at the time) nuclear powerstation, nothing dangerous or mysterious about them.
The only room closed of was the former reactor chamber, which was cooling for another 20 years or so before being opened for general use.
And that former nuclear plant was in use as a radiology lab so everyone had to wear dosimeters. Noone got doses over the legal limit (which is a few percent of the medical limit) except one person once in an accidental spill where he got a liter of samples for medical use just out of the reactor over his clothes).
[ January 17, 2005: Message edited by: Jeroen Wenting ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
Noone got doses over the legal limit (which is a few percent of the medical limit)



Some people seem to have a funny reaction to the word "radiation". Maybe it was all those dodgy 60s programmes where radiation was a magical force that could turn you into a three armed mutant if you got too much of it.

I've heard of people worrying about how much radiation they get from having an x-ray, despite the fact that they receive more radiation in a five minute walk in the sun. Its a bit like people who complain about phone masts but then spend most of their day talking on their mobile.
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I know all too well Joe. Having worked in a radiation lab and studied physics specialising in nuclear physics I've often shaken my head at the incredible amount of disinformation and misunderstandings out there.

Sure radiation can be dangerous in high doses, but everything in overdose is dangerous.
The most toxic substance known to exist it O2, also known as oxygen. In low concentrations it's vital to survival of carbon based lifeforms on this small blue green planet, in high concentrations it's deadly.
Another substance, O3, is poisonous to certain carbon based lifeforms yet without it we'd be subject to dangerously high levels of UV radiation from our star, the sun. UV radiation btw which is absolutely vital to life on earth in the low concentrations which reach the surface of the planet...

What many people don't realise is that that 3 hour flight to the beach in Spain gives them a higher exposure to hard radiation than all the X-rays they're likely to get over several years.
Each of those X-rays in turn will give them more exposure than working for a year or so in a nuclear powerstation (in fact people working in nuclear powerstations have to report every exposure to radiation so their total exposure over time can be tracked correctly).
The legal limits for people working in radiation labs and nuclear powerstations is a factor 10-100 higher than that for the general population, and even this limit is a factor 1000 or so lower than the amount which causes even mild radiation sickness.

Pilots on the transatlantic routes have an exposure dozens of times higher than the general population (depending in part on the number of times they make the crossing). Despite attempts to prove there's an adverse effect on their health there is no data at all to make such a link.

The number of accidents in nuclear installations (not counting nuclear weapons release during which the release is on purpose) during which radioactive material was released into the environment in concentrations high enough to cause harm to people or other living beings can be counted on the fingers of one hand with room to spare since the industrial use of nuclear technology in the 1940s.
That count is exactly 2: Chernobyl (which doesn't really count as it was no accident) and a single release in Japan in the 1960s when a containment vessel ruptured, poisoning fish along a stretch of coast.
Even the dumping of reactor cores in the Barentz sea by the Soviet navy didn't cause noticable contamination outside a radius of a few kilometers from the immediate dump location and then only very near the seafloor.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:


Some people seem to have a funny reaction to the word "radiation". Maybe it was all those dodgy 60s programmes where radiation was a magical force that could turn you into a three armed mutant if you got too much of it.

I've heard of people worrying about how much radiation they get from having an x-ray, despite the fact that they receive more radiation in a five minute walk in the sun. Its a bit like people who complain about phone masts but then spend most of their day talking on their mobile.




Some people can take a lot of radiation but others with developing DNA or ruined metabolism or physiology cannot.
[ January 18, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Gerald Davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 872
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I had a dream that radiation gave me and others the power to levitate at the same time it was screwing up my body. This was one of the most scariest dreams I ever had. Radiation is scary like being microwaved alive.

Ps I have noticed it is ok to joke about microwaving the children and humping the cat but it isn't funny the other way round.
 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Gerald Davis:
I had a dream that radiation gave me and others the power to levitate at the same time it was screwing up my body. This was one of the most scariest dreams I ever had. Radiation is scary like being microwaved alive.

Ps I have noticed it is ok to joke about microwaving the children and humping the cat but it isn't funny the other way round.



Turn off the breakers in the house, close all the blinds, and never step outside for the rest of your life. That should remove most of the radiation from your life.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 624
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Steven Bell:


Turn off the breakers in the house, close all the blinds, and never step outside for the rest of your life. That should remove most of the radiation from your life.



Dont forget to cover your walls + windows with aluminium foil!
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Gerald Davis:
I had a dream that radiation gave me and others the power to levitate at the same time it was screwing up my body. This was one of the most scariest dreams I ever had. Radiation is scary like being microwaved alive.



Mostly that's caused by lack of reliable information about the subject.
You can't see it, smell it, feel it. That makes for scary tales, not unlike ghost stories, zombies, and vampires...

The anti-nuclear lobby makes good use of that lack of education by spreading tons of lies about radiation in order to scare people into supporting them.
In combination with the Hollywood image of the mad scientist trying to take over the world (Doctor X, MAD, Blofeld, etc. etc. etc.) which causes people to not believe any scientist saying there's nothing to fear and a general lack of capability on the part of scientists to talk in terms non-scientists can understand (PR is not taught to them, as I can attest to) people never get reliable information they can understand and don't trust what information they do get unless it comes from the anti-nuclear lobby.
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Steven Bell:

Turn off the breakers in the house, close all the blinds, and never step outside for the rest of your life. That should remove most of the radiation from your life.



Even this wouldn't stop all radiation, and it only takes a single particle hitting a bit of DNA to kill you.... just think of all those billions of particles wooshing through you at any one moment..... Its like playing a game of Russian Roulette (albeit with a gun with a very large number of barrels) every moment for the rest of your life. There's no point worrying about it really.

While its reasonable to take sensible precautions (e.g. wear a dosimeter when working near radiation sources), the number one most dangerous radiation-related thing people can do is sunbathe and most people aren't that concerned about that.

Besides, radiation was probably a key factor in keeping evolution ticking along nicely (unless you come from Dover, PA), so we wouldn't be here without it - it can't be that bad!
[ January 19, 2005: Message edited by: Joe King ]
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
not to mention that every substance in your house, from the wood of your table or wooden floor to the stone in the bricks to the metal of the doorknobs, is radioactive.

It may not be a lot, but it's more than zero so there's some radiation reaching you even in a sealed environment.

In fact, even the air you breathe is slightly radioactive.
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
not to mention that every substance in your house, from the wood of your table or wooden floor to the stone in the bricks to the metal of the doorknobs, is radioactive.

It may not be a lot, but it's more than zero so there's some radiation reaching you even in a sealed environment.

In fact, even the air you breathe is slightly radioactive.



That's just counting "radiation" as particles emitted in a certain bandwidth. I suppose if we were going to be pedantic, we'd have to count light and heat as radiation as well.
 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:


That's just counting "radiation" as particles emitted in a certain bandwidth. I suppose if we were going to be pedantic, we'd have to count light and heat as radiation as well.



well, ya. thats all it really is.
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:


That's just counting "radiation" as particles emitted in a certain bandwidth. I suppose if we were going to be pedantic, we'd have to count light and heat as radiation as well.



of course.
Light is radiation, in fact light is the exact same kind of radiation as is gamma rays and x-rays.
Intense light can burn and even kill. This is what a laser is after all
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It is the wavelength that makes it dangerous. If I toss a softball to you it won't hurt much. If Roger Clemens throws a fastball at you, it will hurt quite a bit. Gamma Rays are highly energetic and when they hit they damage. Normal light rays can only do damage when you sit on the beach for several hours.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Gerald Davis:

Ps I have noticed it is ok to joke about microwaving the children and humping the cat but it isn't funny the other way round.



Reminds me of a TV program of Scottish Sikh in a Turban.
Put the Sikh in central Glasgow and the Sikh gets called every name under the sun.

Put the same turbanned Sikh in a Scottish kilt doing the Bhangra on the comedy corner in a very Glaswegian pub speaking Sikh/Punjabi and it's loud clapping and genuine laughter. The plaid of the kilt was designed by a Sikh and is officially in the books.

Kind of figures that Scottish football is shite.
Scoots whae hae.
I dare say there aren't that many global warming jokes!
[ January 20, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
It is the wavelength that makes it dangerous. If I toss a softball to you it won't hurt much. If Roger Clemens throws a fastball at you, it will hurt quite a bit. Gamma Rays are highly energetic and when they hit they damage. Normal light rays can only do damage when you sit on the beach for several hours.



It's not the wavelength even.
Anything is dangerous if your exposure to it is high enough...

There is no difference between gamma rays and x-rays, they're in the same energy bands...
The gamma radiation from a single radioactive decay occurrance won't likely kill you, a blast from several million is likely to.

Same with UV. In theory a single UV photon can cause skin cancer, but in practice you will need a lot more exposure before the chances of that go up into the more than academic.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
There's the global warming joke :-

MD of ACME Refridgeration Inc : Global warming is going to raise temperatures too high and our products are contributing to that.

Accountant : With a warm planet fridge sales are going to rocket.

and

We saved the world from waves of [political stuff covering the World Wars] , and from the very ugly, unfriendly aliens in "Independence Day." Surely we can also save it from a few kazillion tiny greenhouse gas molecules.
[ January 20, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
peter wooster
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1033
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

It's not the wavelength even.
Anything is dangerous if your exposure to it is high enough...

There is no difference between gamma rays and x-rays, they're in the same energy bands...
The gamma radiation from a single radioactive decay occurrance won't likely kill you, a blast from several million is likely to.

Same with UV. In theory a single UV photon can cause skin cancer, but in practice you will need a lot more exposure before the chances of that go up into the more than academic.



It may be true that the highest energy X-Ray and the lowest energy Gamma Ray are basically the same, but this is highly misleading. The lowest energy X-Ray is 100eV, the lowest energy Gamma Ray is 100,000eV. That is 3 orders of magnitude. Visible light is another 2 orders of magnitude less energetic and microwave is another 3 to 5 orders of magnitude less energetic than visible light. So to get fried by the most energetic microwave would take 100,000,000 times as many photons as it would to get fried by the least energetic gamma radiation.
 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
So ah... how many people in, oh, ever have been fried by gamma rays?
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Since those hoaxes covering UFO's were discovered no one takes UFO's seriously either. Any global warming hoaxes to date ? Once those a few kazillion tiny greenhouse gas molecules acquire sexual characteristics...

eeeek! A gamma capsule of those gases messed with our Y chromosome.
[ January 20, 2005: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
peter wooster
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1033
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Steven Bell:
So ah... how many people in, oh, ever have been fried by gamma rays?



A large number on August 6 and 9 1945!

Also Dr. Enrico Fermi who discovered the chain reaction and worked on the Manhatten project died of stomach cancer at age 53 in 1954.
[ January 20, 2005: Message edited by: peter wooster ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1408
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Steven Bell:
So ah... how many people in, oh, ever have been fried by gamma rays?

Gamma rays caused a great deal of suffering for Bruce Banner.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Steven Bell:
So ah... how many people in, oh, ever have been fried by gamma rays?



http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/51/10/713
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by peter wooster:


A large number on August 6 and 9 1945!



Which is exactly how the anti-nuclear lobby plays their ploy.
You're comparing the deliberate largescale emissions from a nuclear bomb going off with the lowrate emissions which are quite natural...
In fact, you will get less exposure from a nuclear powerplant even if some waste does leak into the environment (and there's stringent safeguards in place to prevent that and minimise the damage if it does happen) than you get from cosmic radiation every day of your life.
Powerstations, unlike the doomsday predictions from the likes of Greenpeace, aren't bombs just waiting to go off.


Originally posted by peter wooster:

Also Dr. Enrico Fermi who discovered the chain reaction and worked on the Manhatten project died of stomach cancer at age 53 in 1954.



Which was never linked to radiation. Like it or not, cancer has many other causes.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Sir Willian Stewart, chairman of the Radiological National Protection Board highlighted four studies waiting to be replicated, which show that
mobile phones could have a harmful effect.
 
author
Sheriff
Posts: 8981
19
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The nanotech photocell is awesome:

Even if we imagine that nuclear power is totally safe, it has another inherent problem...

It is a terribly centralized technology. Centralized technologies have several serious problems:

- They are strategically vulnerable, i.e. they make great targets for terrorists.

- They are tools for corporations, they empower corporations and governments, and take power from the population.


Imagine instead, if we put 10,000% more funding into research for things like that nanotech photocell...

In a few years we could have relatively clean, renewable power everywhere on the planet, no masssive corporate or government taxes schemes!
 
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
The nanotech photocell is awesome:


yes, very cool.


Even if we imagine that nuclear power is totally safe, it has another inherent problem...

It is a terribly centralized technology. Centralized technologies have several serious problems:

- They are strategically vulnerable, i.e. they make great targets for terrorists.


Which basically makes it the same as most other technologies.


- They are tools for corporations, they empower corporations and governments, and take power from the population.


Not really understanding how supplying people with power removes power from the people, and there really isn't a reason for government to be involved other than maybe some zoning issues. That's like saying supermarkets take power from the people because they control the food supply.


Imagine instead, if we put 10,000% more funding into research for things like that nanotech photocell...

In a few years we could have relatively clean, renewable power everywhere on the planet, no masssive corporate or government taxes schemes!



You're of course assuming that throwing money at something is a way to solve problems.
 
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff
Posts: 8981
19
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator


Not really understanding how supplying people with power removes power from the people, and there really isn't a reason for government to be involved other than maybe some zoning issues. That's like saying supermarkets take power from the people because they control the food supply.


You're of course assuming that throwing money at something is a way to solve problems.



Take 2:

In many areas technology is moving towards decentralized designs. Mainframes give way to load balancing clusters, hard disks have failovers, the net itself is massively decentralized. What happened in Ohio last summer is a call for a more distributed approach to power production and distribution.

Centralization is vulnerable... a single power plant worth billions is an easy target. A distributed grid of thousands of small power plants distributed over a wide geographic area, is much less vulnerablein every way. When your backyard nanocell produces surplus power it gets fed into the grid, and you earn money.

If that central powerplant goes offline for any reason (and no matter what fuels it), massive problems occur.

Now, from a governmental / corporate perspective: Whoever controls the one central powerplant (the one to rule them all ), has a virtual monopoly, and the local / regional population will be dependent on the beneficence of that monopoly. Long experience shows us that monopolies tend not to be all that beneficent.

Now, on to research dollars. I gotta tell you that there is a corollary between funding research in a technology, and technological gains in that area. Would say that we've "thrown money" at nuclear power research? Who has paid for that? Taxpayers have. And in general the end result is NOT a taxpayer owned co-op, but instead a corporate asset, benefitting a few.

All I'm saying is that the taxpayer dollars being funneled into research for centralized power technologies of any kind, should instead, largely, be funneled into research for DE-centralized power technologies.
 
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!