 Poster: A snowHead
|
| achilles wrote: |
| I'd have thought the siting of a nuclear power stations and waste facilities would be up to experts (such as the UKAEA) to advise, rather than residents of North London - or Surrey. |
Oh really. Yes, let's put our fate in the hands of The Experts.
A more pertinent question is whether we need a UK Atomic Energy Authority at all.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Sat 14-04-07 9:31; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
David Goldsmith, would you like a coal fired or gas burning station next to your house? Or an energy producing incinerator? Or a wind farm? And what about toxic chemicals and waste that are transported all over the country by road and rail anyway? OK, so waste from a nuclear reactor is radioactive, but the quantities are relatively miniscule (especially compared with the cadmium bearing fly-ash from cola fired stations), and with modern technologies then containment and transport of the waste is less hazardous to human health than the anthropogenic pollution we currently live with day in, day out, in towns and villages.
And then what about one of the alternative fuel sources - rape seed crops for biofuel. What a nightmare these are for anyone who suffers from asthma or hayfever. What are the long term health effects of living next to a crop of rape?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
David Goldsmith, I believe they usually need to be near fairly major water sources for cooling purposes - hence positions on the coast, the severn estuary and the Loire etc. I am probably wrong about this though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| I'd have thought the siting of a nuclear power stations and waste facilities would be up to experts (such as the UKAEA) to advise, rather than residents of North London - or Surrey. |
Oh really. Yes, let's put our fate in the hands of The Experts.
A more pertinent question is whether we need a UK Atomic Energy Authority at all. |
What is the alternative to putting our fate in the hands of the experts?
Can the UK produce enough energy in the long term to keep going with the resources already at hand?
What should the UK do to ensure its energy security in the long term?
Would banning air travel suddenly mean that the UK can be self-sufficient from the point of view of energy requirements?
Would banning air travel immediately halt global warming?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
petemillis, I totally agree that one's got to look at the impacts and side-effects of all energy sources and fuels. The reason I'm so opposed to nuclear is (a) its waste disposal (b) the catastrophic consequences of accidents.
I'd have no problem with a wind farm over the back gate. They are beautiful. They are best sited, as I understand it, at offshore locations very exposed to the wind.
We need to be exploiting solar, geothermic, wave, wind, hydro etc. Coupled with a huge reduction in energy use and pointless road traffic. All this out-of-town shopping is ridiculous. I've got around by bike for two years now, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Retailers love building megastores and huge car parks. The environmental and pollution cost of the huge traffic generated is not covered by them. Likewise, ski resorts which base their operations on attracting motoring/airborne skiers do not cost in the pollution generated. We need to get a grip with these issues and ensure that pollution is costed and deterred by punitive charges or taxes.
Otherwise the sport of skiing is stuffed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| petemillis wrote: |
| There'll be a massive movement of people in big cars and SUVs all going to places, on the same day, where they can demonstrate their concern for the planet! Then they can carry on their day to day lives of high consumption smug in the knowledge that they've done their bit. |
| Edmund Burke wrote: |
| The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing |
| Voltaire wrote: |
| The perfect is the enemy of the good |
Don’t criticize those people for at least getting off their butts and doing something. Doing something is better than doing nothing. What they are doing may not be perfect, but if you strive for perfect you will do nothing (or cock up what you are trying to do).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, I agree about the wind farms - I'd be happy for one here too. And geo-thermal needs to be adopted more. It's a simple source of energy that even in the UK can provide 8kW of heat energy out for each 1kW of energy (electrical) in. An installation cost of £10k is sufficient to provide a family home or two with almost its complete requirement of heat for hot water and heating. It's something that can so easilly be incorporated into new-builds, and if done on a larger scale to supply heat and hot water for several houses then the costs fall considerably. Problem is - too many builders I know are still old-school, too many heating engineers (plumbers) are still old-school, too many people buying homes are still old-school.
There are some traffic considerations when out of town stores/retail parks are built. But unfortunately, this is where things go tits up. The local authorities, instead of saying "No" to a new project on the grounds of the traffic it will generate, they instead use it as a source of funding to increase the traffic flow. Over near Worthing, Tescos want to build a new superstore. The site is accessed via a twisty road through Titnore Woods. A concern is the safety of that road when used for so many cars. So instead of the local authority saying "No", there is a proposal that the road be widened and straightened with several hundred very old trees being cut down to make way for it. This, in an area that is already served by many out of town Tescos, Sainsburys, Asdas, and with B&Qs and Homebases and Comets everywhere, is complete and utter fumble!
I don't know how many thousands of car trips are made to Tescos at Holmbush every single day of the week, but assuming every person going there uses 2 gallons of petrol (not too unrealistic maybe, considering short journeys on a cold engine going through town are pretty bad) that's one hell of a lot of fuel use. BUT, with the size of the population of the place I live in, the local shops would not be able to meet everyone's needs. The population has grown and grown, but with most people shopping out of town the shops locally haven't grown. We, as a big family with 4 kids, try to buy most of what we want from the local butchers, Co-Op and green grocers, but there is still a huge temptation to make a trip every week or two to Lidls (just a mile or so away from me) and Tescos to restock the cupboards with some of the cheap bargains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonpim, it's fair to say that activities like these raise awareness of a problem, but doing what they're doing doesn't solve the problem. The point I was trying to make was that these people need to look at what they do every single day. How many cyclists and walkers and climbers who are "at one with the earth" don't think twice about driving around the corner to the offy? or driving to a car park from where they can go for a walk? or making their way to a "green event" the other side of the country by car or plane? or waste energy/water/food on a daily basis? or commute to work by car? There are many people who pretend to be green.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| petemillis wrote: |
| cola fired stations |
There's your solution. Cut carbon emmissions and children obesity at the same time. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
David Goldsmith, you won't look at the only realistic alternative to replacing a portion of the fossil fuel burn that is available now - nuclear. Therefore, you're looking at a massive reduction in energy use; and therefore a massive reduction in economic output. In effect, a return to the economic conditions of the 1930s, in order to return to the climatic conditions of the 1930s.
If it's a choice between my children being unemployed, my (future) grandchildren going shoeless, famines throughout Asia and Africa - or growing olives in my garden, a few more tropical storms ... and no skiing ... I'll take the latter. |
If you'll take the latter then you're seemingly advocating no action, no skiing and unquantifiable risks from global warming to the planet and humanity. But you're also suggesting that you want nuclear power. |
I merely point out that every course of action, as well as inaction, has attendant risks. The risks need to be weighed and sensible options chosen which minimise risks of various kinds. If we consider the options of business as usual versus shutting down the western economy (which you seem to advocate) then I take business as usual; but my preferred option is to mitigate the potential risks of potential global warming by greater use of nuclear power in the short/medium term coupled with greatly increased investment in alternative energy sources, hopefully to come on stream in the medium/long term.
| Quote: |
| No, I'm opposed to it. Would you like a nuclear power station somewhere local in Surrey, with an adjacent waste dump (one wouldn't want to transport this hazardous waste around the place)? Or which part(s) of the country should this plant be imposed on? |
I believe that nuclear facilities should be sited near the required resources (a large water supply), where risks are minimised (low population density) and where the interests of the local economy are served (areas of high unemployment).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
| If we consider the options of business as usual versus shutting down the western economy (which you seem to advocate) |
No, I'm advocating shutting down the pollution. Where and when did I ever advocate shutting down the western economy? I'm suggesting that we study the pollution costs of economic activity, and building them into the balance sheet.
In the 1830s and 1840s tens of thousands of men were employed cutting railway lines across this country. In the 21st century the railway system seems to lack the capacity to compete with internal/European flights and (very congested) roads. So there's one source of mass employment - building tracks, viaducts, tunnels and the rest of it.
I guess it takes plenty of manpower to build windfarms, manufacture solar panels and intall all the other new energy resources.
Yes, we'll probably have to scale back economic growth. The message of the past two centuries is that economic growth = growth in pollution. This dawned on quite a number of economists and ecologists about 35 years ago, and luckily people are now waking up to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Jonpim wrote: |
| ......... Doing something is better than doing nothing. ......... |
Often said. Often wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| I believe that nuclear facilities should be sited near the required resources (a large water supply), where risks are minimised (low population density) and where the interests of the local economy are served (areas of high unemployment). |
So you'd rather it wasn't in Surrey ... and the airborne fall-out of a nuclear accident can be contained in an "area of low population density". Well, that's very nice for those people. Want to live there yourself?
What about the wind? The effects of the Chernobyl disaster were felt in Wales and Lappland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| economic growth = growth in pollution. |
IMPLIES
no pollution = no economy
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Where and when did I ever advocate shutting down the western economy? |
Here:
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| No, I'm advocating shutting down the pollution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
No, I said that the economy can be part-converted from oil-based energy to renewable energy, thus generating loads of employment. As far as I know, this is what the Conservative Party is now advocating. Does this make the concept any more palatable for you?
Let's be clear, laundryman, have your nuclear power plant in Surrey ... or don't have it at all. Don't dump it in someone else's beautiful space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
achilles, i know what you mean. But a modern disease is apathy. A global feeling that "my actions mean nothing - so what's the point?". Decreasing turn-outs for elections is just one symptom. So our leaders and politicians continue to plough on with their own plans. Then too late we complain of the changes made. It happened recently to the medical profession. We knew MTAS this was coming for some time. We moaned a bit and said it would be a disaster. But we did nothing to try and stop it. Now we shout loudly and blame the politians. But we all know in our heart of hearts "We did nothing".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| No, I said... |
Which part of my alleged quotation of you is false?
| Quote: |
| ...that the economy can be part-converted from oil-based energy to renewable energy |
Which is what I said too (but the technology is not yet ready to deploy on a significant scale; hence the desirability of nuclear energy as a stop gap).
| Quote: |
| ...thus generating loads of employment. As far as I know, this is what the Conservative Party is now advocating. Does this make the concept any more palatable for you? |
Neither more nor less, because I think for myself.
| Quote: |
| Let's be clear, laundryman, have your nuclear power plant in Surrey ... or don't have it at all. Don't dump it in someone else's beautiful space. |
I believe the people around Sellafield are in favour of the nuclear facility there.
Let's be clear Goldsmith: you can live out whatever fantasy you have of a pre-industrial idyll that never was, but you won't inflict it on me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| ... the [solar/wind/other renewable?] technology is not yet ready to deploy on a significant scale ... |
Who's telling you that?
I think what that translates to is "It's not cheap enough for me".
It's all perfectly viable. It just needs enough people to say "Enough's enough".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
I guess it takes plenty of manpower to build windfarms, manufacture solar panels and intall all the other new energy resources.
|
Have a look at the energy and resources requirement for manufacturing solar panels. It's pretty shocking.
Also, you mentioned that the effects of the Chernobyl disaster were felt in Lapland and Wales - I think it would be more accurate to say that radiation levels were measured as being higher than the preceding background levels, but I don't think any effects were actually felt, nor do I think they will be. Chernobyl now has a massively growing ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Jonpim,
I think I understand your points. But at the risk of taking an already OT thread even more OT, you have raised one matter which I have been thinking about:
| Jonpim wrote: |
| ..............Decreasing turn-outs for elections is just one symptom. So our leaders and politicians continue to plough on with their own plans. Then too late we complain of the changes made. ......... |
The problem for me is that I feel disenfranchised. No political party appeals to me in any way. Yet if I vote for one, and others do too, it gives the appearance of giving the party a mandate, which, in my case it does not have. So a non vote at least shows the party that it has not earned my endorsement. Of course, one could start one's own party, hardly likely to be effective, or attempt to join a party and eventually influence in a different direction - a daunting task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I'd encourage you to do it, achilles. You're clearly a political animal. Time to walk into the zoo.
One of the main activities of local political parties is fund-raising, which prompts all sorts of very English activity such as 'quiz nights', 'coach outings', 'annual dinners' etc. I've just helped organise a bunch of people to see this play ...
http://www.tricycle.co.uk/htmlnew/whatson/show.php3?id=106
... which promises to stir things up a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, interesting looking site. Got to go out now and work on a family car - but I'll have a browse around it later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| I think what that translates to is "It's not cheap enough for me". |
If it's more expensive than alternatives, then there's less to spend on other things - and we're straight back to economic contraction, with its attendant hardships that you persistently fail to acknowledge.
If (God forbid) you were ever dictator, the law of unintended consequences would be writ very large indeed. That's the problem with views dogmatically held, without recourse to facts or reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Well, as I've hinted at earlier in this thread, one has to resort to a bit of dogma and zealotry when confronted by the oil industry and its many tentacles.
This isn't a rose garden.
What happened to the electric car? Ask the oil industry.
Why did we invade Iraq? Ask the oil industry.
Who's really going to benefit from more runways and Ryanair's £10 flights to America? Ask the oil industry.
Sure, we can have as much economic growth as you want ... until ... pop. It's time to remodel what we do, with a broader idea of who are the stakeholders (fish, birds and bees to be included)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
A little review of what the scientific world is thinking about climate change... 
Scientists studying climate change are something like 90% agreed that man has speeded up the warming of the planet (2-3 degrees more is likely over the next 50 years, according to friends working in climate research). This sounds a little woolly maybe but when it is compared to scientific opinion on other matters (i.e. number of corroborating published thesis in peer reviewed scientific journals) that is an outstanding margin. For example; less agree that the theory of evolution might be right (ok things are slightly slewed on that one by dubious southern states scholars - but still)... For just one of many elements have a look at Ice core sampling (giving a very clear record of global temperatures and atmospheric compositions at the time i.e. % man made particulates, gasses etc that cannot be formed in nature) there is a stunningly clear correspondence between the temperature rise and rise in man made gasses etc - there are no arguments on this, it is down the line and agreed by all sides.
So in the scientific world there is no doubt that man is changing things... its all just political spins being thrown around in the real world. The only thing they are using as a semi-scientific argument is rate of change, consequences and the most dubious one "could this all be natural". To answer the last one you need to know that we are actually in an ice age (the end of one) and are naturally in a warming up stage. Some politicians/industries are saying that this is the cause of the rapid change seen at the moment. The fact is that that is a bunch of furry marmot bottoms. A chap called Milankovitch worked out the timescales for natural ice age changes yonks ago, it is all down to Earths orbit (how far we are from the sun - it has also been refined more recently taking into account continental geography, albedo and ocean circulation) the eccentricity, obliquity and precession of the orbit... Ice forms and melts in a nice regular pattern in distinct timescales... Timescales that are nothing like the rate of changes seen at the moment (even if like some theorists you try and throw every variable of ocean circulation, continental location and solar activity at it).
Best option is to go nuclear, power ski stations by hydroelectricity like they do down here in the Pyrenees and burry the nuclear waste in the old nuclear mines in the states. This would actually be perfectly safe. The mines are in seismically inactive zones at incredible depth with no aquifers in the area... Or in salt Diapirs in some areas of the Middle East. Salt behaves plastically under pressure and self seals, it is only in non-aqueous areas and is widely recognised as a great place to put it (this is not an argument for burry and forget it - these geological conditions are widely regarded as perfectly suited very long term - as in geological millions of years time scale). So its just a case of asking the States or Arabic nations to accept a bit of nuclear waste for the world... Give that to the politicians to bean fight over!  (I'm persnally waiting for fusion to work, and it nearly is see the research at http://www.cern.ch they just need the money from all the oil companies and we would have safe nuclear power with only heavy water as a by product).
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
This isn't a rose garden.
What happened to the electric car? Ask the oil industry.
|
Where does the electricity for the electric car come from?
How efficient is the conversion from one energy form to electricity?
How efficient is the storage of electrical energy in vehicle batteries?
How efficient is the use of the stored electricity to forward motion?
What are the environmental consequences of lithium extraction and processing for the manufacture of vehicle batteries?
What are the energy requirements for extraction and processing of lithium?
How plentiful is the earth's supply of lithium?
What alternatives to lithium are there for relatively efficient and lightweight batteries?
If we consider the use of hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries, what are the energy requirements for production, storage and compression of hydrogen?
And what are the potential environmental impacts of the release of so much water vapour into the atmosphere from hydrogen fuel cells (bearing in mind that water vapour is the most abundant of all the greenhouse gases)?
We're doomed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| in garbure we trust wrote: |
A little review of what the scientific world is thinking about climate change...
Scientists studying climate change are something like 90% agreed that man has speeded up the warming of the planet (2-3 degrees more is likely over the next 50 years, according to friends working in climate research). This sounds a little woolly maybe but when it is compared to scientific opinion on other matters (i.e. number of corroborating published thesis in peer reviewed scientific journals) that is an outstanding margin. |
Peer review is a necessary part of the publication process, but it isn't all it is cracked up to be. Peer reviewed papers can be wrong. It's facts that matter and the formulation of testable theories. When a climate model is developed which (say) correctly predicts the yearly average global temperature over a decade (parameterised by CO2 concentration, and accurate to something like 0.1C) then much will be settled. As far as I know, it hasn't happened. For example, did anyone working in the field say after the hottest year (1998), that we wouldn't see anything like it for 9 years at least? Of course, I'm more than willing to have any such predictions pointed out.
| Quote: |
| have a look at Ice core sampling (giving a very clear record of global temperatures and atmospheric compositions at the time i.e. % man made particulates, gasses etc that cannot be formed in nature) there is a stunningly clear correspondence between the temperature rise and rise in man made gasses etc - there are no arguments on this, it is down the line and agreed by all sides. |
Not so. The earth went through a cool phase between 1940 and 1980, during a period of rapid increases in CO2 emissions.
| Quote: |
| So in the scientific world there is no doubt that man is changing things... its all just political spins being thrown around in the real world. The only thing they are using as a semi-scientific argument is rate of change, consequences and the most dubious one "could this all be natural". To answer the last one you need to know that we are actually in an ice age (the end of one) and are naturally in a warming up stage. Some politicians/industries are saying that this is the cause of the rapid change seen at the moment. The fact is that that is a bunch of furry marmot bottoms. A chap called Milankovitch worked out the timescales for natural ice age changes yonks ago, it is all down to Earths orbit (how far we are from the sun - it has also been refined more recently taking into account continental geography, albedo and ocean circulation) the eccentricity, obliquity and precession of the orbit... Ice forms and melts in a nice regular pattern in distinct timescales... Timescales that are nothing like the rate of changes seen at the moment (even if like some theorists you try and throw every variable of ocean circulation, continental location and solar activity at it). |
The Milankovitch cycle is a possible explanation of the 100,000 year ice-age cycle. There are also higher frequency cycles in the interglacial periods. In the current such period (since about 10,000 BC), the extent of glaciation has been several times more and less than it is now.
| Quote: |
| Best option is to go nuclear, power ski stations by hydroelectricity like they do down here in the Pyrenees and burry the nuclear waste in the old nuclear mines in the states. This would actually be perfectly safe. The mines are in seismically inactive zones at incredible depth with no aquifers in the area... Or in salt Diapirs in some areas of the Middle East. Salt behaves plastically under pressure and self seals, it is only in non-aqueous areas and is widely recognised as a great place to put it (this is not an argument for burry and forget it - these geological conditions are widely regarded as perfectly suited very long term - as in geological millions of years time scale). So its just a case of asking the States or Arabic nations to accept a bit of nuclear waste for the world... Give that to the politicians to bean fight over! (I'm persnally waiting for fusion to work, and it nearly is see the research at http://www.cern.ch they just need the money from all the oil companies and we would have safe nuclear power with only heavy water as a by product). |
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
petemillis,
Won't you be, if you don't get back to that thesis?! Not long till Tuesday. (I don't want to seem presumptuous, but in a previous post somewhere on this addictive forum, you implied you needed some encouragement.) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Hurtle, Cheers Hurtle - you're right, a helpful boot up the back bottom is exactly what I need. I had good intentions for today and it all went to pot. Went for walk with MrsPeteMillis and kids number 3 and 4 and 2 dogs late this morning, then had some lunch and have just got back from a cycle ride with kids 1 and 2. Now all I want to do is sit down, glass of wine, bit of TV, then maybe finish my "experimental" chapters off later on tonight. Then tomorrow I can polish up the final bits of lit review and conclusions chapters, leaivng Monday to sort out my formatting and appendices and Tuesday to print it. Sound feasible? I'm not too sure - as I really don't feel like doing any of it this evening. Wonder if I ought to rest tonight and get a good start tomorrow.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Milankovitch cycles are not just 100,000 years, there are many cycles 17,000 25,000 75,000 130,000.... & a 40 year hiatus in a core sample that records going back 25,000 years is only enough to give clumsy statasticians something to play with - there is also another very obvious natural reason for the cooling and C02 levels in that time frame - a volcanoe emits VAST amounts of C02 (amongst others) and also ejects a shed load of particulates - these cause a greater degree of solar radiation to be reflected back out into space, so cooling the planet. The KT extinction event of the dinosaurs was for example not down to a hollywood commet it looks far more likely that it was due to the massive basaltic outpoorings (the traps and snake river basalts) going on at the time.
So for the 1940 - 1980 I give you some of the greatest erruption reccorded: Santa Maria, Guatemala. Ksudach, Kamchatka, Russia. Novarupta [Katmai], Alaska, United States. Agung, Bali, Indonesia. Mount St. Helens, Washington, United States. El Chicho ´n, Chiapas, Mexico Volcanism has long been implicated as a possible
cause of weather and climate variations. Even 2000 years ago, Plutarch and others [Forsyth, 1988] pointed out that the eruption of Mount Etna in 44 B.C. dimmed the Sun and suggested that the resulting cooling caused crops to shrivel and produced famine in Rome and Egypt. Ben-jamin Franklin suggested that the Lakagigar eruption in Iceland in 1783 might have been responsible for the abnormally cold summer of 1783 in Europe and the cold winter of 1783–1784 [Franklin, 1784]. Humphreys [1913,1940] associated cooling events after large volcanic erup-tionswith the radiative effects of the stratospheric aero-sols...
Several previous reviews of theeffects of volcanoes on climate include Lamb [1970],Toon and Pollack [1980], Toon [1982], Ellsaesser [1983],Asaturov et al. [1986], Kondratyev [1988], Robock [1989,1991], and Kondratyev and Galindo [1997]. Past theoret-icalstudies of the radiative effects include Pollack et al.
[1976], Harshvardhan [1979], Hansen et al. [1992], andStenchikov et al. [1998]. The work of H. H. Lamb, in fact,
was extremely influential in the modern study of the impact of volcanic eruptions on climate [Kelly et al.,1998].
Forget little arguments claiming it is all balls due to a warm spell for a couple of years - that is not climate change. The shortest possible timescale would be from the start of the industrial revolution until today - The last galscial period has lasted 35,000 years....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
| .......a volcanoe emits VAST amounts of C02 (amongst others) and also ejects a shed load of particulates - these cause a greater degree of solar radiation to be reflected back out into space, so cooling the planet......... |
It has occurred to me that when Yellowstone blows discussion about global warming will seem rather academic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Poor Yogi 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
petemillis, KEEP AT IT!!!!I'm off to Paris for a couple of days, back on Monday evening. Hope to hear that, by the time I return, you've got it cracked. Good luck! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
| and with modern technologies then containment and transport of the waste is less hazardous to human health than the anthropogenic pollution we currently live with day in, day out, in towns and villages |
This be the same UKAEA that transported fuel rods and waste to Dunreay on low loaders in containers that could withstand only a 10m fall or impact at 50mph, by road driving them at over 80mph on the A9 (UKAEA Police and Northern Constabulary had a stand-off on the Kessock Bridge in the 90s when Northern Police blocked the A9 to stop the UKAEA trucks as they were speeding and driving with no insurance). Also the deck of the Kessock Bridge in Inverness is 30m high - what might have happened if the unthinkable happened? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
Chernobyl, or a creeping paranoia
Similar conclusions have been formulated earlier. In March 1996 weekly magazine The Economist has published an article under a meaningful title "Chernobyl, cancer and creeping paranoia" indicating that the direct health impact of the radiation was quite small. "Much worse are the consequences of fear and ignorance - people did not know, and still do not know, what was the real danger - and this is the largest health related problem caused by the Chernobyl disaster" - writes The Economist.
Immediately after the disaster, thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian pregnant women decided, or were persuaded by the physicians, to undergo abortion. The number of abortions in those two Soviet republics during 1986-1987 was equal to one third of the number of children born in Eastern Europe as a whole. In some regions the number of natural miscarriages jumped up by 25%. Why? Women were afraid that they will give birth to mutants. Meanwhile, after the disaster, the number of children born with serious defects in Ukraine has not risen - maintains Dr. Herwig Paretzke from the Institute of Radiation Protection in Munich.
20th CENTURY, A CENTURY OF DISASTERS
Year Type of disaster Location Number of fatalities
1921 Explosion in chemical plant Oppau (Germany) 561
1942 Coal dust explosion Honkeiko mine (China) 1572
1947 Fertilizer explosion Texas City (USA) 562
1956 Dynamite explosion Cali (Columbia) 1100
1957 Reactor fire Windscale (United Kingdom) 0
1959 River dam failure Frejus (France) 421
1963 Water dam overflow (108 m3) Vaiont (Italy) 2600
1975 Explosion in a mine Chasnala (India) 431
1976 Chemical leakage Seveso (Italy) 0
1979 Accident in biological-chemical weapons plant Novosibirsk (Russia) 300
1979 Nuclear reactor meltdown Three Mile Island (USA) 0
1984 Natural gas explosion Mexico City (Mexico) 452
1984 Toxic gas leakage Bhopal (India) app. 15 000
1986 Nuclear reactor meltdown Chernobyl (Ukraine) 30
.........
Average ionizing radiation doses mSv/a
Caused by the Chernobyl disaster
Chernobyl (1992) 4.9
Prypiat(1992) 25
From natural sources (soil, rocks) mSv/a
Average in Poland 2.4
Grand Central Railway Station in New York City 5.4
Kerala (India) 9
A region in Norway 10
A region in Sweden 35
Guarapari (Brazil) 37
Tamil Nadu (India) 53
A house in Ramsar (Iran) build over 100 years ago 89-132
Source: UNSCEAR, Jovanovich, Sohrabi.
Data from 1993
|
http://www.wonuc.org/xfiles/chern_01.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land is contaminated with fall-out from all types of industry. Certain heavy metals, such as cadmium, are taken up by food crops and readilly absorbed in the gadtro-intestinal tract of human, leading potentially to cancer of the kidneys and numerous other illnesses. Although cadmium levels in food for sale to humans would be monitored, this is not the case where one grows their own vegetables in a garden, allotment or smallholding. There are some areas of the UK where cadmium levels are approaching 100 times higher than the average background level, yet people here are permitted to grow their own veg. Cadmium is closely associated in the soil with zinc and is a problem where zinc smelting activities have taken place. Also it is a problem in area where battery manufacture has been a big industry.
One big issue with radio-caesium is that is is very easy to monitor levels by simply sweeping with a scintilliation counter. Thus, it is easy for a "scientist" or government advisor to say that an area is still contaminated with radiocaesium. But they seem to imply that there was no radiactivity there before. The implication is that radioactivity has only been present since Chernobyl, with no mention of pre-existing background levels.
Obviously, it's better to take the precautionary approach, but what mention is there of the relative risks of a slight elevation in background radioactivity compared with, say, the effects of pesticides that are sprayed all over your cornflake crops, or the cadmium or arsenic levels that are present in many food, or the fallout from a coal fired power station that is smoking all the time....
Winterhighland - fair points on the previous transport issue with UKAEA. But this is a different issue to nuclear power itself, surely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
