Fukushima, No Cause for Alarm
- Thread starter Doer
- Start date
rustyshaclkferd
Well-Known Member
Dude you have been arguing with posted a debri field that took , I think over a year to reach pacific coast
But you say 2 months, must have been some aerodynamic debri
heckler73
Well-Known Member
ERROR: Checksum Fail
Run FindAnswer.!poot /wtf
loading...
Return: http://web.mit.edu/hml/ncfmf.html Oh yeah, hardening nipples...
Nothing says "winner" like some weed and Fluid Mechanics videos on a Wednesday night, am I right?
...
I am right, aren't I? I heard all the cool people are doing it now...Unless they lied to me... and by they I mean them...
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
If you grow loads of new Ganga plants to absorb CO2, but then burn the Ganga for energy (releasing back the CO2) then you're having absolutely zero net reduction in CO2 levels due to a growing population and ever more CO2 being produced.
And technically speaking, the hydrocarbons in the ground was once in the air too
Doer
Well-Known Member
No, there was a big whirlwind and a Japanese house fell in my back yard. Then a puff of smoke and a green hag stood up....I tell ya, it was weird.
And she said, (in English!???!!) "If you think we are arguing about this shit, you have not been listening. What difference could it possibly make at this point."
Two years after a deadly tsunami swept ashore in Japan, killing more than 15,000 people, solemn reminders of the disaster are still washing ashore in Hawaii and along the Pacific coast of North America. The tsunami debris, sometimes identifiable by serial numbers, includes boats, docks, appliance parts and fishing buoys.
Vast expanses of floating debris have slowly been making their way across the Pacific since the powerful tsunami swept inland across swathes of eastern Japan in March. More than nine months after the disaster, oceonographers have located what is believed to be the first debris washed up onto the shores of the West Coast of the US.
Floating rubbish islands stretching dozens of miles in length have been spotted slowly edging away from Japan and towards the West Coast since the immediate aftermath of the March 11 disaster. From entire segments of wooden homes, furniture and appliances to cars and boats, the rubbish islands are creating growing concern due to environmental pollution as well as shipping hazards. The possibility of human bodies being included in the debris is also high, bearing in mind the thousands of victims of the disaster who are still missing, believed to have been swept out to sea. The main body of floating tsunami debris is expected to hit US shores in around a year, stretching the length of the coastline from California to Alaska, according to experts
So, I will correct my typo from 2 to a few, OK? Or not. Who cares?
You can argue with yourself.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
CO2 is not a pollutant. This argument to me is based solely on the fact that they can distinguish via carbon dating the Man made particles. Lucky for their politics. They could not do that with Methane so they had to switch to a human marker. They found Carbon13 or 12 or something to differentiate between volcanic carbon, for example.If you grow loads of new Ganga plants to absorb CO2, but then burn the Ganga for energy (releasing back the CO2) then you're having absolutely zero net reduction in CO2 levels due to a growing population and ever more CO2 being produced.
And technically speaking, the hydrocarbons in the ground was once in the air too
So, for most non-thinks it is hard to see the leap. It is hard to see the bad science.
When we burn ganja we make "bad" CO2 and that makes us "bad" people.
Bad science says.....blame Big Oil. How can we do that? And if a bunch of people already hate big oil, it is much easier.
You take a problem and search not for reasons, but for Blame. You find two unrelated trends and relate them using bad logic.
If the earth is warming what can cause that? OK best to pick CO2 for a lot of reasons, but it was not the first choice, that was cow gas.
OK, When you find the human maker and show that is increasing then just close you eyes and link that to the warming trend.
Simple. No thought or science is required.
VTMi'kmaq
Well-Known Member
the WHOLE damn coastline?No, there was a big whirlwind and a Japanese house fell in my back yard. Then a puff of smoke and a green hag stood up....I tell ya, it was weird.
And she said, (in English!???!!) "If you think we are arguing about this shit, you have not been listening. What difference could it possibly make at this point."
Two years after a deadly tsunami swept ashore in Japan, killing more than 15,000 people, solemn reminders of the disaster are still washing ashore in Hawaii and along the Pacific coast of North America. The tsunami debris, sometimes identifiable by serial numbers, includes boats, docks, appliance parts and fishing buoys.
Vast expanses of floating debris have slowly been making their way across the Pacific since the powerful tsunami swept inland across swathes of eastern Japan in March. More than nine months after the disaster, oceonographers have located what is believed to be the first debris washed up onto the shores of the West Coast of the US.
Floating rubbish islands stretching dozens of miles in length have been spotted slowly edging away from Japan and towards the West Coast since the immediate aftermath of the March 11 disaster. From entire segments of wooden homes, furniture and appliances to cars and boats, the rubbish islands are creating growing concern due to environmental pollution as well as shipping hazards. The possibility of human bodies being included in the debris is also high, bearing in mind the thousands of victims of the disaster who are still missing, believed to have been swept out to sea. The main body of floating tsunami debris is expected to hit US shores in around a year, stretching the length of the coastline from California to Alaska, according to experts
So, I will correct my typo from 2 to a few, OK? Or not. Who cares?
You can argue with yourself.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
methane isn't being ignored
[h=1]Overview of Greenhouse Gases[/h]
- You are here: EPA Home
- Climate Change
- Emissions
- Overview
- Methane
[h=2]Methane Emissions[/h]
[h=5]ON THIS PAGE[/h]
[h=5]U.S. Methane Emissions, By Source[/h]
Chemical Formula CH[SUB]4[/SUB] Lifetime in Atmosphere 12 years Global Warming Potential (100-year) 21
Properties of MethaneNote: All emission estimates from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011.
Methane (CH[SUB]4[/SUB]) is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities. In 2011, CH[SUB]4[/SUB] accounted for about 9% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Methane is emitted by natural sources such as wetlands, as well as human activities such as leakage from natural gas systems and the raising of livestock. Natural processes in soil and chemical reactions in the atmosphere help remove CH[SUB]4[/SUB] from the atmosphere. Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]), but CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO[SUB]2[/SUB] over a 100-year period.
Globally, over 60% of total CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions come from human activities.[SUP] [1] [/SUP]Methane is emitted from industry, agriculture, and waste management activities, described below.
Methane is also emitted from a number of natural sources. Wetlands are the largest source, emitting CH[SUB]4[/SUB] from bacteria that decompose organic materials in the absence of oxygen. Smaller sources include termites, oceans, sediments, volcanoes, and wildfires.
- Industry. Natural gas and petroleum systems are the largest source of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions from industry in the United States. Methane is the primary component of natural gas. Some CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is emitted to the atmosphere during the production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas. Because gas is often found alongside petroleum, the production, refinement, transportation, and storage of crude oil is also a source of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions. For more information, see theInventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks sections on Natural Gas Systems and Petroleum Systems.
- Agriculture. Domestic livestock such as cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels produce large amounts of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] as part of their normal digestive process. Also, when animals' manure is stored or managed in lagoons or holding tanks, CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is produced. Because humans raise these animals for food, the emissions are considered human-related. Globally, the Agriculture sector is the primary source of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions. For more information, see the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Agriculture chapter.
- Waste from Homes and Businesses. Methane is generated in landfills as waste decomposes and in the treatment of wastewater. Landfills are the third largest source of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions in the United States. For more information see the U.S. Inventory's Waste chapter.
To find out more about the role of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] in warming the atmosphere, and its sources, visit the Causes of Climate Change page and the Greenhouse Gas Indicators page in the Science section.
Top of page
[h=3]Emissions and Trends[/h]Methane (CH[SUB]4[/SUB]) emissions in the United States decreased by 8% between 1990 and 2011. During this time period, emissions increased from sources associated with agricultural activities, while emissions decreased from sources associated with the exploration and production of natural gas and petroleum products.
[h=5]U.S. Methane Emissions, 1990-2011[/h]Note: All emission estimates from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011.
Top of page
[h=3]Reducing Methane Emissions[/h]There are a number of ways to reduce methane (CH[SUB]4[/SUB]) emissions. EPA has a series of voluntary programs for reducing CH[SUB]4[/SUB]emissions. Some examples are discussed below.
Top of page
Emissions Source How Emissions Can be Reduced Industry
Upgrading the equipment used to produce, store, and transport oil and gas can reduce many of the leaks that contribute to CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions. Methane from coal mines can also be captured and used for energy. Learn more about the EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program and Coalbed Methane Outreach Program.
Agriculture
Methane can be reduced and captured by altering manure management strategies at livestock operations or animal feeding practices. Learn more about these strategiesand EPA's AgSTAR Program.
Waste from Homes and Businesses
Because CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions from landfill gas are a major source of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] emissions in the United States, emission controls that capture landfill CH[SUB]4[/SUB] are an effective reduction strategy. Learn more about these opportunities and the EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program.
Examples of Reduction Opportunities for Methane
[h=3]References[/h]1. EPA (2010). Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Natural Sources . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
2. U.S. Department of State (2007). Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In: Fourth Climate Action Report to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change . U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, USA.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
Doer
Well-Known Member
If it is a serious question, what do you even mean?
Here it is from Earth First. It is a big problem. Earth First is against GMO, totally AGW and raising the FUK alarm.
http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2013/03/19/the-truth-about-radiation-and-the-fukushima-meltdowns/
Ya'll should listen.
“A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data supports a “linear-no-threshold” (LNT) risk model—that the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.”
And it ALL ADDS UP.
VTMi'kmaq
Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware that the current could possibly blanket the entire coastline from mexico to Alaska so I apologize for not sounding more in tune with the previous discussion I was just amazed by the info you guys threw in the last 2 pages. So it was a question and an exclamation, for anyone I upset or offended I apologize now!
Doer
Well-Known Member
I just want to know who is up for the discussions, that's all. The ocean currents are the most important system on earth for humans. The deep ocean ones are the least understood. It is very 3D environment just like air. And air moves in currents and layers, pockets and streams, just like the ocean currents.
Here on the West Coast of America the water is killer cold because it comes from the North and that has come from the West and it is called the Japan current from Japan.
BTW, this map turned sideways for some reason. North is left.
VTMi'kmaq
Well-Known Member
seeing that displayed the way you have makes my understanding of tidal and current changes a lot more easy. That and I can truly understand why certain species of fish frequent certain areas more than others, for example where two or three currents can meet like Hawaii, I thought I saw a oceans special on an area there where the currents meet and its a smorgasboard of sealife not unlike galapogos. Or am I confused ad its the galapogos? lol?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, that is it. Galapagos and other chains like Hawaii can lift the bottom edge of the surface currents and bring up nutes for sea life.
BTW, here is a treatment on the wonder of nuke power from 1990. And it attempts to equate, oil and coal pollution to the nuke waste question. And I do agree except I cannot ignore the black heart of man, like the Thinkers do. And I agree it has a very simple solution.
But, a simple solution that cannot be accomplished for whatever reason, is sort of meaningless to me. And, true glass will dissolve in sea water, but, it is 400 years at least, before we see even surface pitting.
So, if we did lock up these particles in glass, whereas the glass will last until the radio-material is inert, why are are we not even thinking about that? Melt the sand and spent fuel from heat you get from a molten sodium loop on the reactor's power. Easy peazy. I used to be all for this, back when this paper was written.
Transportation and dumping in the ocean is legal. As a sailor I know I can dump glass just about anywhere but a harbor. Why don't we? We can't agree to do it. The black heart of man.
-----------------------
For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be to convert the waste into a glass — a technology that is well in hand — and simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.[SUP]5[/SUP] No one can claim that we don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the waste produced by one power plant in one year would eventually cause an average total of 0.6 fatalities, spread out over many millions of years, by contaminating seafood. Incidentally, this disposal technique would do no harm to ocean ecology. In fact, if all the world's electricity were produced by nuclear power and all the waste generated for the next hundred years were dumped in the ocean, the radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as much as 1% above its present level from natural radioactivity.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Do you have a more detailed map with vector fields on it, by any chance?
I need a decent one for something I'm thinking about (re:ODEs)...
DutchKillsRambo
Well-Known Member
If you're really worried about radioactive releases into the ocean, why don't you start with couple hundred thousand barrels the US military dumped into several dumping sites across the world. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of chemical weapons dumped along with them.
Radiophobia is what's really behind it all. Nuclear power isn't going anywhere. There are environmental impacts in any type of power production, and there are viable plans to contain the waste. Yucca Mt. has been ready for years, but politics has kept it shut down all while billions were spent letting Congress argue about it ineffectually.
Granted I work in the field so my opinion is hardly objective, but I really think that nuclear power is a viable stop gap solution to meet increasing energy demands until fusion reactors become useful.
Radiophobia is what's really behind it all. Nuclear power isn't going anywhere. There are environmental impacts in any type of power production, and there are viable plans to contain the waste. Yucca Mt. has been ready for years, but politics has kept it shut down all while billions were spent letting Congress argue about it ineffectually.
Granted I work in the field so my opinion is hardly objective, but I really think that nuclear power is a viable stop gap solution to meet increasing energy demands until fusion reactors become useful.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Surface vectors
Conveyor vectors
Space observation tracking
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/perpetual-ocean.html#.UkSUElKrTIU
BarnBuster
Virtually Unknown Member
How Fukushima’s radioactive fallout in Tokyo was concealed from the public
How a study on Fukushima’s radioactive fallout in Tokyo was concealed from the public for years, despite its implications for public health.
thebulletin.org