@NoelFuller

I found this blog very interesting and the video isn't bad.

Link

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

I watched the video, thanks. It is a sad place.

Noel

@NoelFuller

Quote:

NoelFuller wrote: @Dandy Quote: Would you be glad about a job where you have to risk your health or even your life by being exposed to radioactivity? Strangely there are people who do just that in the radioactive area around Chenobyle voluntarily and for scientific reasons, ...

For me it sounded as if he was talking about a full time job for years - not for gathering data within a few hours.

Quote:

NoelFuller wrote: ... I don't recall the overall conlusion.

chapter2:

"...
Radiation will stay in the Chernobyl area for the next 48.000 years, but humans may begin repopulating the area in about 600 years - give or take three centuries. The experts predict that, by then, the most dangerous elements will have disappeared - or been sufficiently diluted into the rest of the world's air, soil and water. If our government can somehow find the money and political will power to finance the necessary scientific research, perhaps a way will be discovered to neutralize or clean up the contamination sooner. Otherwise, our distant ancestors will have to wait untill the radiation diminishes to a tolerable level. If we use the lowest scientific estimate, that will be 300 years from now......some scientists say it may be as long as 900 years.
..."


What irritates me here is the "48.000 years"-figure - I think it referres to the radioactive half life of plutonium, which is 24.000 years.

The "48.000 years"-figure seems to imply that the author thaught along the lines "24.000 years to reduce the radioactive radiation by 50% - so after 48.000 years the radiation is gone.", which is plainly wrong.

After the second 24.000-year-period those 50% radioactivity remaining from the first 24.000 years are just reduced by 50% - so 25% of the initial radiation is left.
Annother 24.000 years later (already 72.000 years altogether after the incident) those 25% have been reduced by 50% another time and 12.5% are left - and so on...

Bottom line is that radioactivity from this accident will never fully disappear - it will come infinitely close to zero (provided enough time passes), but it will never reach zero.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@NoelFuller

Quote:

What you cite as facts are fabrications of the denialists in their campaigns of deception.

With the fact that it's been 10, almost 11, years since we had a peak of global temperatures despite the fact CO2 has increased yields to some rather good belly laugh for me. We have yet to get back to the Medieval Warm Period even though we average 1.0C to 1.2C increase ever century since the LIA even with all this extra CO2. So where is this massive AGW trend at that we told as a fact that isn't a fact at all?

I listened with terror about Global Cooling in the 1970s and it failed to happen. I've listen to the great Ozone hoax with concern. And now the fraudulent AGW has failed to happen. BTW, with the US no longer the largest CO2 producer, where is the froathing at the mouth to return China to it's 1990s level CO2 production? Oh that's right, China isn't interested, neither is India. Guess they too see the illogic and failed models of AGW as well.

_________________
Dammy

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Dandy Quote: B.T.W. - contaminated areas have been evacuated. Cities have been given up and are ghost towns now: yes I know thats why i said "the victims are living in contaminated areas so they need the help. "

Sorry - but if contaminated areas have been evacuated, then they have been evacuated and no "victims are living in contaminated areas" - except those few that refused to go...

Quote:

Interesting wrote: Quote: Would you be glad about a job where you have to risk your health or even your life by being exposed to radioactivity? that's why I asked you the question? "Would you support cleaning up Chernobyl if some technology exists?" You replyed: Quote: Of course. But would that also help the victims? so in your own words: Quote: Now that's what I call hypocrite! You are afraid of a little Radiation when the long term health of the entire area is at risk? Talk is cheap, besides you work with Radiation protection equipment.

Stop - wait a moment!
First of all - today there is no such thing as "long term health of the entire area" - the health of that area has been killed on 26 April 1986 01:23:45 a.m. (UTC+3).

Secondly - "a little Radiation" is relative.
You wrote: "there are many jobs that could be available for years for this remediation." and furthermore its a fact that the "the radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building have been estimated to be 5.6 röntgen per second (R/s) (0.056 Grays per second, or Gy/s), which is equivalent to 20,000 röntgen per hour (R/hr) (200 Gy per hour, or Gy/hr). A lethal dose is around 500 röntgen (5 Gy) over 5 hours, so in some areas, unprotected workers received fatal doses within several minutes." [quoted from wikipedia: Chernobyl disaster]
So its a matter of time and distance (to the radiation's source) how long one can work in the contaminated areas.

Quote:

Interesting wrote: Quote: I'd rather say those bacteria should be researched in depth and scrutinised first. yet you buy into the GW "quick fixes" for a problem that might not exist.

The problem exists and needs to be fixed. I doubt that its possible to fix it "quick".
You know - "quick and dirty"? Here rather a "slow and clean" solution is required...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Sorry - but if contaminated areas have been evacuated, then they have been evacuated and no "victims are living in contaminated areas" - except those few that refused to go...

Sorry your not getting the point. Nuke plants have “containment” domes so that the toxins never reach the environment. As we know Chernobyl broke the rules and the environment is contaminated. Putting up fences and closing the area doesn’t fix the problems at hand.

umisef said the conditions real well “Think of Chernobyl right now as 8 week old Chinese takeaway in your fridge, in its original (and by now thoroughly soaked through) paper takeaway box” The only difference the paper takeaway box is the environment in your backyard. It’s not “contained” because the area is closed, sorry that doesn’t cut it. Every time it rains or snows in that area the problems grow. Be very worried if the rains come and a flood happens.

Map 1
Map 2

I for one would not wish to live and drink the water from Kiev. Further the waters of the Black sea to the Med should be addressed. Want to eat fish from the Med that are contaminated?

See Dandy you need to think of the bigger picture.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Dandy

Thanks for the link. I went right through that acount. It has a lot more impact than the video though lacking the sound of a geiger counter running flat out! On the 30th anniversary I saw a very long TV programme on the event, live footage plus subsequent analysis - riveting stuff. As well I went through a record of survivor statements and opinions, also compelling. I recall being impressed with the number of hits one could get on Google.

Its all way off topic but it grabs one. Or maybe it is a foretaste of desolation to come.

I recently watched a lengthy series on hurricane Katrina. Sometimes I could hardly look at the screen. All the time the thought ran through my head as it has ever since that event, "If the most powerful, best equipped nation on the planet cannot cope with the needs of a small portion of its citizens, demonstrating a horrifying level of intelletual and administrative incompetence, even indifference, what belief can other parts of humanity place in their pledges of assistance in bad times?

One part that got to me was a scene where a new general arrived. Observing everywhere he looked, soldiers standing round looking deadly with weapons at the ready, he walked out into the street shouting "Weapons down! Weapons down!" When the weapons disappeared he started in on the officers about help for the citizens in place of menacing them. Even though I had been feeling totally sickened I had to cheer him on. A woman in New Orleans commented along this line: "When I saw how our soldiers behaved toward the citizens in this their own country, I could understand why they are so unsuccessful in other countries."

I wonder, in emergencies, how many administrators and leaders have sat down to think about principles by which people can be engaged to think through their own parts and then work together, yet take initiative to deal with the issues to hand so the job gets done with imagination and allacracy and without the heavy hand of bureacratic incompetance bringing everything to a stop.

Several times in my life I have been called in, or have intruded, to handle on an emergency basis, something wherein committees and administrators have utterly failed. First I gather essential information, then I sit and think for a few hours, build a vision of what to do, who to call on - the details usually fall into place. A key part in gaining cooperation is to tell all concerned what the issues are, the good and the bad, what the goals are, then invite their help, person to person. It always works.

If you need to ask for money and resources say so in the first sentence then explain it, not the other way around. The people who fail keep everything in-house, don't tell people what they need to know for fear of criticism, beat about the bush, conceal their agendas, get little or no cooperation, however many orders they issue, mercilessly criticise anyone with different ideas, but tend to make big losses. They avoid bold and big initiatives, arguing they cost too much, demonstrating they have neither the vision or the know-how, though they never admit it.

A good administartor can run a project with minimal resources, get cooperation, keep everyone honest yet never make a loss. Of such a person one might say, as i have heard it said, "I do not see eye to eye with you on many things, yet I find I can work with you." It may sound cack-handed but from a sometime opponent that is one hell of a compliment; if true it is reciprocated.

Whatever happens with climate change, the difference between good and bad administrators will become sharply known. I have observed that quite often, apparently successful businessmen turn out to be appalling civilian administrators. Being very good at being very selfish does not qualify people for running a service, where goodwill and inclusiveness are essential, the goal not sacrificed for "the bottom line".

Noel

Audi e-Tron ev concept car

At the Frankfurt auto show, Audi has presented a concept electric sports car, to rival the Tesla Roadster, with torque exceeding that of an Abrams tank, a great acceleration, and very advanced internal systems. It is manifestly not a production vehicle but the company press release below is rather more interesting than the journalistic writeups I've seen so far with rather less hype - Ed

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/4269/Audi-e-tron.html

Noel

@NoelFuller

4500Nm? Oh my holy poop.

But I really wish the car companies would stop bringing out electric concepts and make electric production cars instead. If Tesla can do it, Audi can do it. The only thing stopping them is a lack of will.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

I really wish the car companies would stop bringing out electric concepts and make electric production cars instead.

I'm with you there. All except the Chinese seem to be vying to flash the ultimate in peripherals though the use of a heat pump is such an obvious measure I have wondered why everyone else has not gone down that road, after all it needs only the same device to warm as is used to cool the interior. Refering to the Chinese car, the Hafei Saibao, promoted in a flashier version in USA as the Miles EV, the main problem is simply the battery pack for a 160 mile range doubles the price. They expected to be in production sometime this year but nothing is showing yet as far as I can tell.

Noel

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @NoelFuller 4500Nm? Oh my holy poop. But I really wish the car companies would stop bringing out electric concepts and make electric production cars instead. If Tesla can do it, Audi can do it. The only thing stopping them is a lack of will.

So it is here:
Already back in 2001 I test drove the Ford fuel cell vehicle and a while later the Ford hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle.

Too sad that they were concept cars only and that the (political) will to establish an hydrogen market is missing...


EDIT:
Just received a mail from our European top management telling that the Frankfurt Motor Show 2009 is going to open today and that Ford shows its new Focus BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle) prototype on the Ford stand.

Last edited by Dandy on 17-Sep-2009 at 12:44 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 17-Sep-2009 at 12:43 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Dandy Quote: Sorry - but if contaminated areas have been evacuated, then they have been evacuated and no "victims are living in contaminated areas" - except those few that refused to go... Sorry your not getting the point. Nuke plants have “containment” domes

New Nuclear Power Plants SHOULD have “containment” domes - fully agreed.
But how about all the old ones, that don't have?
For example in mid and east Europe soviet reactors of the first generation like the RBMK-Reactors (Chernobyl type) or the WWER 440-230-Reactors are still in operation.

Quote:

Interesting wrote: so that the toxins never reach the environment.

In theory - yes.
But practise tell us otherwise: Three Miles Island, Windscale/Sellafield, Chernobyl, La Hague, ... (just to name a few)

In theory a "maximum credible accident" should only happen once in 500.000 years - but in practise it already happened 25 years after the launch of the first civil nuclear power plant in Obninsk in 1954: 1979 in Three Miles Island, Harrisburg and just 7 years later (!) 1986 in Chernobyl.

Quote:

Interesting wrote: As we know Chernobyl broke the rules and the environment is contaminated.

What "rules" are you t alking about?
Are you talking about structural safety standards or the way of operation?

Quote:

Interesting wrote: Putting up fences and closing the area doesn’t fix the problems at hand.

Yeah - and building new NPSs won't exclude such problems.
All technique can have deadly failures and every human being can make fatal errors...

Quote:

Interesting wrote: ... Want to eat fish from the Med that are contaminated?

Most likely you neither know where the fish you're just going to have comes from, nor if it is contaminated...

Quote:

Interesting wrote: See Dandy you need to think of the bigger picture.

Hmmmmm - this makes me think:
You are looking at one pixel and ask me to think of the bigger picture?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

New Nuclear Power Plants SHOULD have “containment” domes - fully agreed. But how about all the old ones, that don't have? For example in mid and east Europe soviet reactors of the first generation like the RBMK-Reactors (Chernobyl type) or the WWER 440-230-Reactors are still in operation.

What do you think? This is your backyard and Germany has many dealings with Russia. Pressure should be applied to your political leaders. Member countries in the EU should make sure the standard “containment domes” are used within EU members, or shut down. Do you agree?


Quote:

Yeah - and building new NPSs won't exclude such problems. All technique can have deadly failures and every human being can make fatal errors...

You’re dismissing the Chernobyl problem in your own backyard and this is very poor.

Quote:

What "rules" are you t alking about? Are you talking about structural safety standards or the way of operation?

Both. Soviet design understood western “containment” design and ignored it. The Soviet Chernobyl operators ignored the safety protocols. History records that in Chernobyl they turned off the safety equipment and even alarms to conduct an experiment. The world lives with the results of the poor experiment.

Quote:

Most likely you neither know where the fish you're just going to have comes from, nor if it is contaminated...

Well if you look at my Avatar and some of my comments, I might be a heartless beast. Understand this…….The article linked in post 562:

Quote:

The Lost Orphan Mine below the Grand Canyon hasn't produced uranium since the 1960s, but radioactive residue still contaminates the area.

Understand this contamination gets into the Colorado river, and that travels downstream into Lake Mead, the source of my drinking water. Each year our local water utility notes the contamination and dismisses it because it is so low under government EPA rules.

Quote:

You are looking at one pixel and ask me to think of the bigger picture?

Europe and Asia contamination are very large pixels.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Dandy Quote: New Nuclear Power Plants SHOULD have “containment” domes - fully agreed. But how about all the old ones, that don't have? For example in mid and east Europe soviet reactors of the first generation like the RBMK-Reactors (Chernobyl type) or the WWER 440-230-Reactors are still in operation. What do you think? This is your backyard and Germany has many dealings with Russia. Pressure should be applied to your political leaders. Member countries in the EU should make sure the standard “containment domes” are used within EU members, or shut down. Do you agree?

As far as I know they're working on something like that - dunno how far they proceeded.

Quote:

Interesting wrote: Quote: Yeah - and building new NPSs won't exclude such problems. All technique can have deadly failures and every human being can make fatal errors... You’re dismissing the Chernobyl problem in your own backyard and this is very poor.

???
Huh?
It was Chenobyl that I had in mind when I wrote the above.
What makes you think I dismissed "the Chernobyl problem"?

Quote:

Interesting wrote: Quote: What "rules" are you t alking about? Are you talking about structural safety standards or the way of operation? Both. Soviet design understood western “containment” design and ignored it. The Soviet Chernobyl operators ignored the safety protocols. History records that in Chernobyl they turned off the safety equipment and even alarms to conduct an experiment. The world lives with the results of the poor experiment.

Sad, but true.

Quote:

Interesting wrote: Quote: Most likely you neither know where the fish you're just going to have comes from, nor if it is contaminated... Well if you look at my Avatar and some of my comments, I might be a heartless beast. Understand this…….The article linked in post 562: Quote: The Lost Orphan Mine below the Grand Canyon hasn't produced uranium since the 1960s, but radioactive residue still contaminates the area. Understand this contamination gets into the Colorado river, and that travels downstream into Lake Mead, the source of my drinking water. Each year our local water utility notes the contamination and dismisses it because it is so low under government EPA rules.

high levels of uranium in the water supplies in several German regions:

Quote:

"the local" wrote: ... Consumer protection group Foodwatch recently reported that the water supplies in several German regions contained high levels of uranium, which is naturally radioactive and is used for both nuclear power and weapons. However, in contrast to dangerous heavy metals, such as lead, there are no government limits for amounts of uranium in German drinking water. Foodwatch said a recent survey of 8,200 water samples showed 950 cases of water containing more than two microgrammes of uranium per litre. Around 150 of the samples had more than the Germany’s Environmental Protection Agency (UBA) recommended limit of 10 microgrammes per litre. Foodwatch said the southern German states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg had the highest readings of uranium, which can cause cancer in higher concentrations.

Quote:

Interesting wrote: Quote: You are looking at one pixel and ask me to think of the bigger picture? Europe and Asia contamination are very large pixels.

O.K. - youre yooking at two pixels - I'm looking at the entire globe...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

Chinese wind power potential

Not long ago China reported that if all measures go to plan, emissions will peak about 2030 then diminish. I've also read that the per capita emissions in advanced areas matches that in USA. But on the ground it appears that in spite of the rate of construction of new coal fired power stations, China is proceeding at an impressive pace toward alternative power sources with installed capacity next year matching their announced goal for 2020. Their chief diffiulty is bringing the grid up to cope with the capacity being rapidly installed. Even there they are at work on a system that has not got beyond the planning stage in USA or Europe. A couple of days back a report was released on Chinese wind power potential that makes encouraging reading:

Quote:

China has doubled its installed wind power capacity every year for the past five, and is on pace this year to supplant the United States as the world's largest market for new installations. But researchers from Harvard University and Beijing's Tsinghua University suggest that the Chinese wind power industry has hardly begun to tap its potential. According to their meteorological and financial modeling, reported in the journal Science last week, there is enough strong wind in China to profitably satisfy all of the country's electricity demand until at least 2030.

MIT Technology Review

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 18-Sep-2009 at 10:58 AM.
Last edited by NoelFuller on 18-Sep-2009 at 10:55 AM.

August Temperatures

I've previously mentioned that in NZ, August this year was the warmest August on record (since 1860).
Noaa's world report describes southern hemisphere ocean and land temperatures, and worldwide ocean temperatures for August as the warmest on record while for the world as a whole that month was the second warmest after 1998. There is more at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

Noel

@NoelFuller

Quote:

I've previously mentioned that in NZ, August this year was the warmest August on record (since 1860). Noaa's world report describes southern hemisphere ocean and land temperatures, and worldwide ocean temperatures for August as the warmest on record while for the world as a whole that month was the second warmest after 1998. There is more at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

Problem is NOAA only used one data set. If we look at UAH, the troposphere, we see a different number. What brings a question to my mind, if the sea surface temperature is truly rising, why are we seeing an increase in sea ice?

Let me quote AMS Fellow and CCM, Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP has this to say about it on wattsupwiththat.com site:

Quote:

Icecap Note: to enable them to make the case the oceans are warming, NOAA chose to remove satellite input into their global ocean estimation and not make any attempt to operationally use Argo data in the process. This resulted in a jump of 0.2C or more and ‘a new ocean warmth record’ in July. ARGO tells us this is another example of NOAA’s inexplicable decision to corrupt data to support political agendas. http://www.icecap.us/

Cherry picking anyone?

Last edited by damocles on 18-Sep-2009 at 12:44 PM.

_________________
Dammy

Birth control could help combat climate change

LONDON – Giving contraceptives to people in developing countries could help fight climate change by slowing population growth, experts said Friday.

"There is now an emerging debate and interest about the links between population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and climate change," the commentary says.

In countries with access to condoms and other contraceptives, average family sizes tend to fall significantly within a generation. Until recently, many U.S.-funded health programs did not pay for or encourage condom use in poor countries, even to fight diseases such as AIDS.

The world's population is projected to jump to 9 billion by 2050, with more than 90 percent of that growth coming from developing countries.

It's not the first time lifestyle issues have been tied to the battle against global warming. Climate change experts have previously recommended that people cut their meat intake to slow global warming by reducing the numbers of animals using the world's resources.

The Lancet editorial cited a British report which says family planning is five times cheaper than usual technologies used to fight climate change. According to the report, each $7 spent on basic family planning would slash global carbon dioxide emissions by more than 1 ton.

Experts believe that while normal population growth is unlikely to significantly increase global warming that overpopulation in developing countries could lead to increased demand for food and shelter, which could jeopardize the environment as it struggles with global warming.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Can you explain the puking emoticon in context to what you posted please? Whether or not you believe in global warming you cannot possibly believe that slowing the world population growth would not be better for the environment and overall human quality of life in the long term.

_________________

@damocles

Quote:

Let me quote AMS Fellow and CCM, Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP has this to say about it on wattsupwiththat.com site: [...] Cherry picking anyone?

Funnily enough, it only takes three clicks from www.icecap.us (where it says that the satellite data disagrees with NOAA) to get to the actual satellite data, at
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps.

Looking at those graphs, I can certainly see August 2009 being right up there. This is especially clear on the 3300ft graphs, but is also quite evident on the surface temperature graphs.