 |
Xanadu 2012: Pollution Deficit |
Category: Articles 13 comments 3 Nov 2005 @ 12:13 by swanny : Example:Ps. A glaring example of this is the radioacitive wastes created by nuclear energy which have no adequate and "timely" means of disposal and have hence resulted in the overall rise in the radioacitvity of the planet. 3 Nov 2005 @ 12:30 by swanny : adendum Radioactivity. Military activities and the testing of nuclear weapons have been a major source of radioactive contamination of the Arctic. Most atmospheric testing was carried out before 1962, with the Russian island of Novaya Zemlya being the major Arctic testing site. Fallout levels peaked in the 1960s and testing stopped in 1980. Radionuclides on moss and lichen can reach humans through a simple three-member food chain with caribou in the middle. Radionuclides can also concentrate in mushrooms and berries. All these foods are part of the traditional diet. Their contamination not only affects people's nutrition but also their cultural identity. Radionuclide doses are generally higher for Arctic indigenous peoples living on traditional foods than for people further south. AMAP has calculated that radionuclide contamination from nuclear weapons testing has resulted in approximately 750 additional fatal cases of cancer in the Arctic (AMAP 1997). The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986 particularly affected Fennoscandia and northwestern Russia. The initial threat was through the contamination of milk by iodine 131. This was quickly replaced by the threat from caesium 137 with its longer-term contamination of berries, mushrooms and animals grazing on lichen and moss. After the accident, indigenous people in some parts of the Arctic had significantly increased radioactive levels (AMAP 1998). Significant levels of the naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes polonium 210 and lead 210 exist in northern Canada and Alaska. These isotopes settle on vegetation, such as lichens, which are consumed by caribou. Levels in caribou are higher than in other mammals in the northern Canadian environment (Indian and Northern Affairs 1997a). Man-made radiation sources The radiation from natural and man-made radiation sources are identical in their nature and their effects. These materials are distributed in the environment, and in our bodies, according to the chemical properties of the elements. The NRC, the EPA, and other US and international agencies, require that licensees limit radiation exposure to individual members of the public to 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year, and limit occupational radiation exposure to adults working with radioactive material to 5,000 mrem (50 mSv) per year, and 10,000 mrem (100 mSv) in 5 years. The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results from exposure to man-made radiation sources, such as medical X-rays. 3 Nov 2005 @ 12:46 by swanny : exceptions It may just be though, that some people or peoples are more sensitve to increased global radiation levels, than others. For instance, traditional peoples may be less genetically prepared or disposed to accomadate such as well as people or peoples who may be geosensitive or such. Generally though most cannot tolerate radiation naturally beyond a certain level. 3 Nov 2005 @ 13:02 by swanny : info? Now that's odd, there seems to be no or little information available on planetary or global radioactive levels, when one would think that such, would be quite important or significant to monitor and manage. 3 Nov 2005 @ 23:19 by jmarc : calculate yourself {LINK:http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html|calculate your own} {LINK:http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm|about natural radiation} {LINK:http://www.eoc.jaxa.jp/satellite/sendata/amsr-e_e.html|AMSR} 3 Nov 2005 @ 23:26 by swanny : Interesting Interesting Its hard to get the facts or accurate data I heard estimates that the radiation for manmade sources ranges from negilible to up to 20% of total so if you average that out, then man made radiation may result in about 10% of total radiation, which might not as I said be a problem to most but to those who are extra sensitive. 4 Nov 2005 @ 11:21 by swanny : concensus I was looking for a site or a group or agengy that monitors or has monitored the total global or planetary radiation level for a while. I would think with the satellites we have that this would not be that difficult ie: to give a "count" or so for any particular year. This would be useful I think because it could then correlate to cancer rates and risks perhaps or notify us of any excessive radiation or perhaps even "gamma rays" for space. Hmmmm I wonder if the sun spots give off radiation? Anyway for what I been able to gather thus far is that the man made portion of the total global amount is anywhere from 1% to 20% which is quite a variation I agree and not that useful. If one averages it out though and makes room for error then one could probably say that for the last hundred years the total manmade radiation of the total global radiation is about 7 or 10% or so per anum, which is a far chunk. But again as stated above the radiation "tolerance" is probably different for different people so maybe some ie: the canaries (canaries in a coal mine) might be overly suseptible to the effects. 4 Nov 2005 @ 11:34 by swanny : fire I would say the anomily and sensitivity by some to radiation or increased radiation levels is due to the fact perhaps that the newest radiation exposure ie: man made radiation has only been around for say about 150 to 200 years , hence exposure to this new 8 % per annum is relatively unprecidented whereas the exposure to "natural radiation" has been evolving for perhaps some 100,000 to 1 million years by various mammals so there has been a long period of time to adapt. This relativly short 175 adaptive period then of late does present then as a possible concern. Now I suppose one could argue that exposure to man made radiation has been occuring since the advent of the invention of fire and well then that's pickin nits isn't it. 4 Nov 2005 @ 11:53 by swanny : China I suppose my concern is based on the "news" that the emerging giant of China, is set to embark in a massive effort to supply its desparate energy needs by building very many nuclear plants. This does not seem "logical" or "natural" to me and for the Chinese to begin this, is out of keeping and charactor with what I percieved was there "wise" and "natural" nature. The reasoning for this is that nuclear technologies while "impressive" are not particularilly "sustainable". To be a sustainable technology suggests a more primative or simple or basic and natural ontology? When one starts dependending thus on unsustainable technologies, one creates a senario of tension, conflict and war. The reason I say again that nuclear technologies are unsustainable is due to the realization that they aren't cost effective due to the dangerous and undisposable waste and residue they produce. If the costs of disposable are factored in at present means, then they consitute a pollution or perhaps "energy" deficit means of energy or power. 4 Nov 2005 @ 12:06 by swanny : Energy Deficit ENERGY DEFICIT I WONDER IF THAT'S IT THEN, THAT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY NEEDED TO "CONTAIN" OR DISPOSE OF NUCLEAR GENERATED ENERGY IS MORE THAN OR EQUAL TOO OR MINISUALLY LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY PRODUCED, GENERATED, OR GAINED, HENCE THE REALIZATION IT IS AN UNSUSTAINABLE AND INEPT TECHNOLOGY. 4 Nov 2005 @ 12:20 by swanny : the math.. MATHEMATICAL HYPOTHESIS IF A NUCLEAR REACTION PRODUCES 100 WATTS OF POWER BUT IT TAKES 120 OR 100 OR 98 WATTS OF POWER TO PROCESS DISPOSE OF AND OR CLEAN UP THE MESS OR WASTE FROM THE NUCLEAR REACTION THEN THE NET GAIN IS BETWEEN 2 TO -20 WATTS. 100 - 120 = - 20 OR 100 - 98 = 2 OR 100 - 100 = 0. I REST..... SIR SWAN 4 Nov 2005 @ 13:16 by swanny : In Conclusion... PS Proposal I suppose an "objective" or proposal in such if anyone should want to further this, would be to see what were the inputs and outputs if a reaction took place that would leave residue or waste that was benign or in a "radioactive neutral or safe (is there such a thing) state" and if this would result in a "net" gain, loss or stasis of energy, over the life of the process. Sir IN CONCLUSION In conclusion then, if one has to use much or to much of the energy generated by a nuclear reaction, to treat or process the waste produced by the nuclear reaction then it isn't a particularly efficient or sustainable technology or source of energy, is it! Most efficiency ratings of the various energy and power sources whether water, solar, methane, ethtane, oil, wind, nuclear, etc., come it at or below 5 or 10 % efficiency rate at any rate over the life of the source. Nuclear waste though having a life of many thousands of years though, if factored in, makes it probably the least efficient and likely source of sustainable energy or technology for us and our grandchildren. Something to consider in this "fly now, pay later" society of ours. A. G. Jonas Canada November 4, 2005 4 Nov 2005 @ 18:04 by swanny : waste Just to present some "balanced" reporting here are the results of a nuclear phobia quiz.... 1. All nuclear materials remain highly toxic for thousands of years. false -Some radioisotopes have-lives of seconds or days, while others like plutonium-239 has a half-life of 2.4 x 104 years. 2. Man-made radiation is more toxic to humans than naturally occurring radiation even if the dose is the same. false - The body makes no distinction; it sees radiation as deposited energy regardless of its source. 3. The human body has the capability to repair damaged caused by exposure to radiation. true - Many of the DNA lesions induced by ionizing radiation are similar to identical to those induced as a consequence of normal metabolic activity. DNA repair mechanisms can act to reduce the consequences of this damage. 4. In the US, most cases of cancer in humans are known to be caused by man-made radiation. false - Most cancers have an unknown cause or etiology. 5. I would rather live within a 50 mile radius of a coal-burning plant than a nuclear power plant. false - Actually a coal burning plant gives off slightly more radioactivity due to the thorium and uranium content in coal. But in both cases the levels are extremely low. 6. One of the chief dangers from nuclear power plants is that they can explodelike a nuclear bomb. false - There's a big difference between a nuclear core and a nuclear bomb. After detonation, the density of uranium (or plutonium) atoms in a bomb is incredibly high, enough for fissions to take place and energy to be released in a hundred millionth of a second! So it flies apart. The density of atoms in a nuclear core is much less, and, even in a meltdown situation would generate heat at a much slower rate than is necessary to fly apart. The act of meltdown actually terminates the explosive process, because when a core "melts down" it spreads out and goes sub-critical. 7. It is safer to drive behind a tanker truck carrying gasoline than a truck load of spent nuclear fuel. false - People occasionally die in gasoline truck accidents, but the DOE and the nuclear industry claim that no one has died or been hurt by a radiation release due to a nuclear waste transportation accident. 8.On average, people are exposed to more radiation from nuclear power plantsthan from radon gas in homes. false - An individual gets about 200 millirems of radiation per year from naturally occurring radon. A normally functioning nuclear power plant exposes a person to about .01 millirem, if the person lives within 50 miles of the plant. 9.Since the construction of the first nuclear power plant, man-made radiation in known to have resulted in new species of plants and animals. false - New species don't occur any more frequently today than before nuclear plants were built. 10. The fact that nuclear power plants have elaborate evacuation plans for the surrounding area indicates they are inherently more dangerous than other types of plants. false - Evacuation plans have only been around since 1980 and are an example of "regulatory ratcheting" by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Other countries do not have these plans. Chemical plants do not have evacuation plans even though evacuations in their vicinity are more likely to be necessary than around a nuclear power plant. Most evacuations are due to rail or truck accidents involving toxic chemicals. Here is the site link = http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/ Well what does that tell us? What is the truth? What is relavent or what is the "democratic consensus" then and why is there always a seeming failure to address or even include the "waste" consideraton? Other entries in Articles 23 Aug 2022 @ 09:55: Gravity battery ref 23 Aug 2022 @ 09:53: Gravity battery ???. 2 May 2022 @ 06:45: How to Get Quality Dofollow Backlinks 23 Nov 2021 @ 18:26: What is Linkbuilding 25 Jun 2021 @ 15:37: Longitude at sea? 24 Aug 2020 @ 12:42: Climate and ocean 24 Aug 2020 @ 12:37: Climate update Aug 2020 15 Mar 2020 @ 19:11: Hang in.. 29 Jul 2019 @ 16:12: Onward 28 Feb 2019 @ 14:41: Solar Neighborhood pic
|