Scientists are Declaring a Climate Emergency

OldMedUser

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
The media can no longer hide the truth about Fukushima; the entire world is in danger

You don't need bombs to destroy the world with radiation. General Electric is doing it with the faulty reactors they built in Japan and all over the world.

COVER-UP: GE handled Fukushima’s nuclear reactor design, knew it was faulty … “so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident”

Almost 100 nuclear power plants in the US now and the majority are almost 40 years old and most of those leak. More planned to combat "climate change".

:peace:
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Pinatubo and St Helens were both big enough to have a global impact on climate, that lasted for a couple of years.

Not sure what you mean by 'sulfuric'?
Click to expand...
i have researched the idea and other proposed solutions to global warming pollution as well as energy production and other things. i am by no means an expert but experts have speculated you would need several volcanoes or introduction of synthesized reproductions of ow they work (sulphuric) to fight global warming. that's before concidering the other pollution it would add.
they only produce rain locally. that pretty much leaves
here from the web

The effects on the climate haven’t been completely figured out. It seems to depend on the size of the particles (again mostly droplets of sulfuric acid). If they are big then they let sunlight in but don’t let heat radiated from the Earth’s surface out, and the net result is a warmer Earth (the famous Greenhouse effect). If the particles are smaller than about 2 microns then they block some of the incoming energy from the Sun and the Earth cools off a little. That seems to have been the effect of the Pinatubo eruption where about a 1/2 degree of cooling was noticed around the world. Of course that doesn’t just mean that things are cooler, but there are all kinds of effects on the wind circulation and where storms occur.
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
OldMedUser said:
The media can no longer hide the truth about Fukushima; the entire world is in danger

You don't need bombs to destroy the world with radiation. General Electric is doing it with the faulty reactors they built in Japan and all over the world.

COVER-UP: GE handled Fukushima’s nuclear reactor design, knew it was faulty … “so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident”

Almost 100 nuclear power plants in the US now and the majority are almost 40 years old and most of those leak. More planned to combat "climate change".

:peace:
Click to expand...
they tout clean air. there are modern safety methods that aren't being applied. the old plants need to be redone but they plan new ones instead. it is not perfected and is still a matter of when more then if they fail. fukashima is still leaking. Chernobyl will be uninhabitable or 500 years. there is enough reusable nuke material to run on For centurys yet they produce use then dispose of new stuff to this day. there is no sure fire safe why to store it. it always leaks over time. even if it could be contained who will control the stock piles of waste 250 years from now?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
vostok said:
I agree with your intent to post this climate change stuff

one time years back
I had to do some met exams very heavy stuff

at the time was the consideration that if there was a nuke war in the northern hemisphere

what is the possibility of the radiation working its way to the south

at the time 70/80's the deal was it was rare and usual

but with recent changes we see that it is indeed possible

as the jet stream does ride the equator Both Sides

often overlapping each other

thanks for the link
Click to expand...
It turns out that such mixing is much more common than we were originally led to believe. So yes, I did get suckered into this particular red herring.

It is important when pursuing knowledge to understand when one has their facts wrong- and by extension, when they're correct.

I believe 2017 is going to erase any remaining *rational* doubt about the existence and nature of goal climate change due to anthropological causes, mainly the burning of fossil fuels.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
esh dov ets said:
i have researched the idea and other proposed solutions to global warming pollution as well as energy production and other things. i am by no means an expert but experts have speculated you would need several volcanoes or introduction of synthesized reproductions of ow they work (sulphuric) to fight global warming. that's before concidering the other pollution it would add.
they only produce rain locally. that pretty much leaves
here from the web

The effects on the climate haven’t been completely figured out. It seems to depend on the size of the particles (again mostly droplets of sulfuric acid). If they are big then they let sunlight in but don’t let heat radiated from the Earth’s surface out, and the net result is a warmer Earth (the famous Greenhouse effect). If the particles are smaller than about 2 microns then they block some of the incoming energy from the Sun and the Earth cools off a little. That seems to have been the effect of the Pinatubo eruption where about a 1/2 degree of cooling was noticed around the world. Of course that doesn’t just mean that things are cooler, but there are all kinds of effects on the wind circulation and where storms occur.
Click to expand...
We'd need a Pinatubo every year or two on an ongoing basis. It's also true that volcanoes expel lots of nasty pollutants, including but certainly not limited to sulfur, that would undoubtedly make the overall global pollution situation much worse.

Converting from coal to natural gas for electricity production and industrial power, electrifying cars and trains and even pushing the adoption of fuel cells for cogenerated power and heat will all help.

We humans have proven ourselves to be incapable of either operating nuclear power facilities safely or living near the consequences of our failures. If the rationale for building them is environmental protection, I think it's clear they cause far more serious and lasting problems than they purportedly solve.
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
We'd need a Pinatubo every year or two on an ongoing basis. It's also true that volcanoes expel lots of nasty pollutants, including but certainly not limited to sulfur, that would undoubtedly make the overall global pollution situation much worse.

Converting from coal to natural gas for electricity production and industrial power, electrifying cars and trains and even pushing the adoption of fuel cells for cogenerated power and heat will all help.

We humans have proven ourselves to be incapable of either operating nuclear power facilities safely or living near the consequences of our failures. If the rationale for building them is environmental protection, I think it's clear they cause far more serious and lasting problems than they purportedly solve.
Click to expand...
i'm mostly with you.
Converting from coal to natural gas for power burns cleaner then coal but people and wild life exposed to the production and in the industry of it experience just as bad health problems and it is at leat as damageing and taxing to the earth and the ecosystem
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
esh dov ets said:
i'm mostly with you.
Converting from coal to natural gas for power burns cleaner then coal but people and wild life exposed to the production and in the industry of it experience just as bad health problems and it is at leat as damageing and taxing to the earth and the ecosystem
Click to expand...
This is NOT TRUE; no heavy metals in natural gas, no soot, no particulates and dramatically less CO2 emissions per BTu of heat generated.

The mining of coal is also far more damaging to the environment than natural gas production. It is true that neither comes risk free.

In addition, natural gas is the same thing as biogas, aka methane, and can be manufactured from biological sources, creating the potential for a fully closed energy and food production carbon cycle.
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
This is NOT TRUE; no heavy metals in natural gas, no soot, no particulates and dramatically less CO2 emissions per BTu of heat generated.

The mining of coal is also far more damaging to the environment than natural gas production. It is true that neither comes risk free.

In addition, natural gas is the same thing as biogas, aka methane, and can be manufactured from biological sources, creating the potential for a fully closed energy and food production carbon cycle.
Click to expand...
People who live on or near properties with gas wells say they have experienced an array of health effects from exposure to high concentrations of these chemicals. The known immediate effects of exposure to high concentrations of benzene, according to the Centers for Disease Control, include headache and drowsiness. Long-term exposure can cause cancer, as well as fertility problems in women.

tanks emit toxic substances into the air or leak their contents into the ground, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene and toluene.

and they use chemical fracking not just the old explosive on a hole
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
esh dov ets said:
People who live on or near properties with gas wells say they have experienced an array of health effects from exposure to high concentrations of these chemicals. The known immediate effects of exposure to high concentrations of benzene, according to the Centers for Disease Control, include headache and drowsiness. Long-term exposure can cause cancer, as well as fertility problems in women.

tanks emit toxic substances into the air or leak their contents into the ground, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene and toluene.

and they use chemical fracking not just the old explosive on a hole
Click to expand...
Still less nasty than coal mining, not that I'm discounting the fact that there are health effects from natural gas production and fracking.

... And by the way, fracking IS throwing an explosive down the hole.
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Fracking is the only Federally sanctioned exemption from the Clean Water Act.

Still doesn't make it worse than coal mining.
Click to expand...
didn't say worse said but not a hell of a lot better. also it is sold as being a better option but there are cleaner better options hat need to be implemented gas is being pushed as bridge fuel but being used to extend our dependence on fossil fuel. as for government allowing it as an exception well.. well, wells make money. so does dapl . sometimes anti- x initiatives are contain trojan legislation. we think we voted to close the issue while there are loop holes built in.

In Case You Were Wondering, Donald Trump Has Multiple Ties to the Dakota Access Pipeline
by Jesse Coleman

October 4, 2016
 
OldMedUser

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
Fracking is when they pump a slurry of various chemicals under extremely high pressure to fracture the rock structures deep underground to allow gas and oil to flow into pools where they can be pumped out. No explosives used but the process can and does cause earthquakes. It's often used on old, dried up oil wells to get them flowing again. More greenhouse gases are released than all the activity at the oil sands projects in Ft. McMurray combined tho Ft. Mac looks like hell on the surface while fracking destruction is hidden deep underground. Many cases of surface water contamination are quietly swept under the rug of non-disclosure agreements with the aggrieved plaintiffs.

The explosives are used during the search for oil deposits by drilling shallow holes in a grid pattern over many square miles. Then shoving an explosive known as GeoGel down the holes as they are drilled. All the holes are wired together along with microphones pressed into the ground to record the seismic waves when all the charges are fired at once.

I first worked in a seismic exploration camp in '77 and have been involved in a few dozen oil crews since both seismic and drilling for what they found. Mostly hauling fluids but have worked as a drillers helper stuffing the explosives down the holes and numerous other jobs.

:peace:
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
esh dov ets said:
didn't say worse said but not a hell of a lot better. also it is sold as being a better option but there are cleaner better options hat need to be implemented gas is being pushed as bridge fuel but being used to extend our dependence on fossil fuel. as for government allowing it as an exception well.. well, wells make money. so does dapl . sometimes anti- x initiatives are contain trojan legislation. we think we voted to close the issue while there are loop holes built in.

In Case You Were Wondering, Donald Trump Has Multiple Ties to the Dakota Access Pipeline
by Jesse Coleman

October 4, 2016
Click to expand...
I'm glad you brought up the DAPL. It's a carbon monster from start to finish, which would inject many times more carbon into the atmosphere for its extraction, refinement and transportation than the equivalent BTu- heat value- of natural gas. The natural gas is already available and on steam; it's just not economical.
 
mauricem00

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
we don't need to worry about global cooling or global warming or climate change. E.L.E is coming so grab your aluminum foil hats :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top