400 ppm

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22634
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jennifer » 14 Jun 2017, 21:36

Though, come to think of it, even the "long term" potential damage form nukes is far worse than even fossil fuel-global warming. I recall reading that, even if ALL carbon emissions were to stop right now, it would still take a century for natural forces to bring atmospheric CO2 levels back down to pre-Industrial Revolution levels. Which is a long time from the perspective of a single human being, but is practically nothing compared to the half-life of plutonium -- stop all nuclear production right now, and the time required for all that radioactive crap to become inert is several times longer than the time since humanity first started giving up the nomad life and settling down into permanent communities.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14498
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Aresen » 14 Jun 2017, 21:52

The really dangerous isotopes are the short lived ones like Cesium 131 and Strontium 90. They decay more quickly, making their ionizing radiation more intense.

Plutonium 237 and Uranium 235 have vastly longer half-lives and release alpha particles much more slowly. You practically have to ingest Plutonium to kill yourself with it.

Thunderf00t did an excellent video explaining the relationship between half-life and the relative danger of nuclear waste.

If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13432
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Kolohe » 14 Jun 2017, 23:02

That was a good video.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Sandy » 14 Jun 2017, 23:05

Jennifer wrote:Though, come to think of it, even the "long term" potential damage form nukes is far worse than even fossil fuel-global warming. I recall reading that, even if ALL carbon emissions were to stop right now, it would still take a century for natural forces to bring atmospheric CO2 levels back down to pre-Industrial Revolution levels.
According to The World Without Us, it would take 100,000 years, not a century.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 159
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 02:17
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jason » 15 Jun 2017, 12:13

Just found this: "Fukushima residents exposed to far less radiation than thought"
Citizen science usually isn’t this personal. In 2011, roughly 65,000 Japanese citizens living near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant started measuring their own radiation exposure in the wake of the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. That’s because no one, not even experts, knew how accurate the traditional method of estimating dosage—taking readings from aircraft hundreds of meters above the ground—really was. Now, in a first-of-its-kind study, scientists analyzing the thousands of citizen readings have come to a surprising conclusion: The airborne observations in this region of Japan overestimated the true radiation level by a factor of four.
This message should not be used for any purposes in the development, design, manufacture, or production of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3677
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Painboy » 15 Jun 2017, 13:49

Jason wrote:Just found this: "Fukushima residents exposed to far less radiation than thought"
Citizen science usually isn’t this personal. In 2011, roughly 65,000 Japanese citizens living near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant started measuring their own radiation exposure in the wake of the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. That’s because no one, not even experts, knew how accurate the traditional method of estimating dosage—taking readings from aircraft hundreds of meters above the ground—really was. Now, in a first-of-its-kind study, scientists analyzing the thousands of citizen readings have come to a surprising conclusion: The airborne observations in this region of Japan overestimated the true radiation level by a factor of four.
This was similar to what was found with the Chernobyl residents who were evacuated. There was this firmly held belief by all that it was just a matter time before everyone got cancer and died prematurely. Except that didn't happen. IIRC other than some thyroid issues (brought on by drinking radioactive milk in the days following the accident) few residents had any additional problems. So much so that the doctors had to advise the affected to stop stressing about it as the anxiety that the reaper was right around the corner was causing more ailments than anything from the radiation exposure.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22529
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: 400 ppm

Post by JasonL » 15 Jun 2017, 13:59

But Stalker.

Dangerman
Posts: 6239
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Dangerman » 15 Jun 2017, 19:36

I'm pretty sure there are some places in W. Virginia that are worse for residents than Chernobyl because of coal byproducts and general environmental destruction.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22991
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Mo » 15 Jun 2017, 20:21

Dangerman wrote:I'm pretty sure there are some places in W. Virginia that are worse for residents than Chernobyl because of coal byproducts and general environmental destruction.
I would also suspect living near a uranium mine has far more deleterious effects than living in Chernobyl. Part of this is because a big disaster site will get cleared out, while a slow moving killer will fade into the background.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14498
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Aresen » 15 Jun 2017, 20:53

Mo wrote:
Dangerman wrote:I'm pretty sure there are some places in W. Virginia that are worse for residents than Chernobyl because of coal byproducts and general environmental destruction.
I would also suspect living near a uranium mine has far more deleterious effects than living in Chernobyl. Part of this is because a big disaster site will get cleared out, while a slow moving killer will fade into the background.
There were stories that aboriginal workers in Saskatchewan uranium mines had high cancer rates because they used to carry pitchblende ore out of the mines on their backs.

TBS: Since the radioactive minerals were already in the rock to begin with and much of it is removed from the ore - that is the goal of mining it, after all - why would the mine be more dangerous after the ore has been extracted than before?
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22634
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jennifer » 15 Jun 2017, 23:59

Aresen wrote: TBS: Since the radioactive minerals were already in the rock to begin with and much of it is removed from the ore - that is the goal of mining it, after all - why would the mine be more dangerous after the ore has been extracted than before?
I'd guess being in a mine with low-grade radioactivity in the walls is far more dangerous than being in the open air with radioactivity in the ground. Kind of like how radon is only a problem inside certain buildings and basements, not a problem for anybody walking around places with granite bedrock close underfoot.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22991
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Mo » 16 Jun 2017, 07:34

Aresen wrote:
Mo wrote:
Dangerman wrote:I'm pretty sure there are some places in W. Virginia that are worse for residents than Chernobyl because of coal byproducts and general environmental destruction.
I would also suspect living near a uranium mine has far more deleterious effects than living in Chernobyl. Part of this is because a big disaster site will get cleared out, while a slow moving killer will fade into the background.
There were stories that aboriginal workers in Saskatchewan uranium mines had high cancer rates because they used to carry pitchblende ore out of the mines on their backs.

TBS: Since the radioactive minerals were already in the rock to begin with and much of it is removed from the ore - that is the goal of mining it, after all - why would the mine be more dangerous after the ore has been extracted than before?
A big part of it is converting radioactive rock from underground to radioactive dust in the air for people to inhale. Mining in general tends to be an environmental shitshow for people that live nearby.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 20 Jun 2017, 14:21

Evidently it is too hot today in Phoenix for planes to fly.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22529
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: 400 ppm

Post by JasonL » 20 Jun 2017, 14:25

Fin Fang Foom wrote:Evidently it is too hot today in Phoenix for planes to fly.
Tell the engineers it's a dry heat and that makes everything okay.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22634
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jennifer » 24 Jun 2017, 18:20

Arizona photo essay:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/terripous/its- ... .vegjqP4Bk

(Highlights: plastic mailboxes melting, paint melting off of street signs, and of course multiple variations of "frying eggs in a pan on the sidewalk" or "baking cookies on the dashboard of one's car.)

Much as I dislike the heat and especially the humidity of the Atlanta suburbs ... holy shit, this is far better than what Arizona's got.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18007
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: 400 ppm

Post by dbcooper » 03 Jul 2017, 19:01

As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.

The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14498
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Aresen » 03 Jul 2017, 20:24

dbcooper wrote:As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.

The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
I have to note that for the next time some greenhole tells me "Trump pulled the US out of the Paris accord, but China is sticking with it."
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12931
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Highway » 03 Jul 2017, 21:37

I think that 'Planning to build' is a rather loose definition, and the fact that the Chinese government can say to the next 100 plants "Nope, you can't build it" just like they did to the 100 planned to be built this year means it's even more dubious. We'll see how many actually get built.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

Dangerman
Posts: 6239
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Dangerman » 04 Jul 2017, 13:44

As I drove by the Pratt Whitney plant I was thinking about parking lots with living or solar roofs, and then I realized how much impermeable parking we can reclaim once we automate the passenger fleet.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24407
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Warren » 04 Jul 2017, 13:53

Dangerman wrote:As I drove by the Pratt Whitney plant I was thinking about parking lots with living or solar roofs, and then I realized how much impermeable parking we can reclaim once we automate the passenger fleet.
Passenger fleet? Flying cars, or self driving Uber?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14498
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Aresen » 04 Jul 2017, 14:07

Warren wrote:
Dangerman wrote:As I drove by the Pratt Whitney plant I was thinking about parking lots with living or solar roofs, and then I realized how much impermeable parking we can reclaim once we automate the passenger fleet.
Passenger fleet? Flying cars, or self driving Uber?
Transporters or gtfo.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12931
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Highway » 04 Jul 2017, 16:42

To be honest, it wouldn't be only parking that could be reclaimed. When autonomous vehicles get good enough, there is a lot of roadway that could probably be removed. Roadways are built around human drivers using them. Most cars, even mid-size SUVs, are less than 7 feet wide. People start feeling uncomfortable with 11 foot lanes, and 10 is only used for very slow speed maintenance of traffic. But if cars were better at consistently tracking within lanes, then maybe even going down to 9 feet would be fine. Parking spaces could be smaller, maybe in addition to smaller access lanes. If roadways and intersections get more efficient, many multi-lane collector roads could lose a lane, or even two. Storage bays for turns could go down.

On top of all of that, if we had a situation where vehicles and owners would be willing to drop off at the door, and then go park somewhere else, we could relocate a lot of parking to places that are shared-use *and* less environmentally impactful. Because we can concentrate parking better, we can concentrate stormwater treatment better.

This is pretty much what I think about at work all day, every day. Where are we putting pavement, do we need that much, and how do we mitigate the impacts of it.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13432
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Kolohe » 04 Jul 2017, 17:30

The road network around Naples and the Amalfi coast I think would be your worse nightmare.

Or maybe your dream job, as you wouldn't actually have to do anything.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Sandy » 05 Jul 2017, 02:50

How would parking spaces be reduced? Do all self driving cars come with gull wing doors? Because I'm already struggling not to ding the car next to me in newer parking lots.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8974
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: 400 ppm

Post by nicole » 05 Jul 2017, 06:50

Sandy wrote:How would parking spaces be reduced? Do all self driving cars come with gull wing doors? Because I'm already struggling not to ding the car next to me in newer parking lots.
Forget it Sandy, it's burbtown.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests