Slashdot Mirror

As I recalled, there have been reports that switching to hydrogen economy can lead to quicker depletion of ozone layer. Unlike the good old CFC, hydrogen is lighter than air, so the result is a lot more immediate. Furthermore, hydrogen is an extremely leaky substance, so leak can occur very easily, to the point that any massive deployment of hydrogen can quickly destroy ozone layer.

In order for hydrogen economy to work, the risk of hydrogen leak must be greatly reduced. First of all, hydrogen must NOT be stored in raw form, but in the form of chemical compound. This prevents accidental hydrogen leak when the compound is exposed to the environment. Extraction of hydrogen should include some form of heating element and catalyst. The containment chemical should only release hydrogen at high heat (above 200 degree C), and the heating element should use laser or plasma to minimize energy cost for extraction.

However, wind still has some catching up to do

this article is based solely on europe - its projections are vague at best: mainly, one would deduce, due to the fact that it only seems to cite data from 2003. perhaps it's intended to be alarmist by citing the human death factor, for the average joe who doesnt keep at all abreast of such issues - but other recent data, namely, the mauna loa anomaly and the international arctic science committee's report, appear to harbor much more catastrophic potentiality.

mauna loa is the big one to watch - with 2 years (some would argue even 1), we should know whether or not the major 2 year co2 increase is a fluke - or if it's a sign of runaway global warming (which many say we're technically in now, but accelerated to varying degrees depending on the source). this could trigger methane hydrate deposits to break free from river and seabeds by warming said bodies of water - and then, we're in anything from some really hot water (har) to aworld of shit. (note: latter link is distant future, but theoretically possible)

this article is based solely on europe - its projections are vague at best: mainly, one would deduce, due to the fact that it only seems to cite data from 2003. perhaps it's intended to be alarmist by citing the human death factor, for the average joe who doesnt keep at all abreast of such issues - but other recent data, namely, the mauna loa anomaly and the international arctic science committee's report, appear to harbor much more catastrophic potentiality.

mauna loa is the big one to watch - with 2 years (some would argue even 1), we should know whether or not the major 2 year co2 increase is a fluke - or if it's a sign of runaway global warming (which many say we're technically in now, but accelerated to varying degrees depending on the source). this could trigger methane hydrate deposits to break free from river and seabeds by warming said bodies of water - and then, we're in anything from some really hot water (har) to aworld of shit. (note: latter link is distant future, but theoretically possible)

http://eces.org/articles/000149.php

United Nations assessments [at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro environmental summit, 12 years ago!] found a continuing loss of topsoil and productive farmland and a growing scarcity of fresh water. In the late nineties a third of the world's people had inadequate fresh water, and this is expected to double to two-thirds by 2020.

Many future wars will be fought over water.

Like you, I was always somewhat contemptuous of "save the environment" activists, until I read about the numerous deserts created by man throughout prehistory, the Near East, in Americas (as by the Anasazi Indians), in the Pacific on Easter Island. Jared Diamond writes movingly -- even shockingly -- about this in several of his books, and in this article (emphasis orthogonal's)

The fifteenth century marked the end not only for Easter's palm but for the forest itself. Its doom had been approaching as people cleared land to plant gardens; as they felled trees to build canoes, to transport and erect statues, and to burn; as rats devoured seeds; and probably as the native birds died out that had pollinated the trees' flowers and dispersed their fruit. The overall picture is among the most extreme examples of forest destruction anywhere in the world: the whole forest gone, and most of its tree species extinct.

The destruction of the island's animals was as extreme as that of the forest: without exception, every species of native land bird became extinct. Even shellfish were overexploited, until people had to settle for small sea snails instead of larger cowries. Porpoise bones disappeared abru

I believe he is talking about the early days of xrays as we are just now in the early days of lasik and pervasive wireless radio devices in everything that surrounds us.

I know people who were treated for relatively minor facial acne with xrays (by a licensed doctor in the US) in the early days of radiation and have skin cancer now. Medicine/government doesn't like to talk about these types of massive failures because it is same learned and parental organizations who tell people that SRRIs are safe now were telling people that xrays were safe for treating all kinds of crap 50 years ago.

Come on, these SSRIs are probably responsible for the most spectacular killings of the last 10+ years (outside 911) and they are still selling them like nothing is wrong with a cartoon egg who lives in a cave and ladybug on TV. And school districts are forcing parents to put kids on the drugs or threatening to sic the child protective service departemnt on them - all the while the FDA is saying exxxcellent.

What about the recent (last month?) results that show AM radio waves appear to cause cancer, etc?

Re Lasik: Although Cofer's case is extreme, new research suggests that a large percentage of people who have LASIK procedures develop vision problems related to the surgery.
Come on down to Original Joe's Lasik and get better than 20/20 vision, yeah! Oh, please sign here and, uh, here...

Where there is incredible potential for good... it might be worth examining the potential drawbacks as well.

Look at this.

or simply read the qoute below:

"In the past, people have been puzzled by the significant variations in sea levels in different parts of the world," says Jerry Mitrovica, a professor of geophysics at the University of Toronto and lead author of the study. "Like throwing water in a bathtub, many scientists assumed that if polar ice melting were contributing to sea level rise, it would present itself evenly and uniformly across the Earth's oceans."

But that assumption, he says, is simply wrong. Mitrovica uses Greenland as an example. It was assumed that if the ice caps on Greenland were melting, all coastal locations would flood evenly. "In fact," Mitrovica says, "if the entire Greenland ice cap melted, then places relatively close by, like Britain and Newfoundland, would actually see sea levels fall. The reason is fairly simple: despite its small size, the Greenland ice sheet exerts a strong gravitational pull on the seas. As the polar sheet melts, it will exert less pull, resulting in lower - not higher - sea levels around Greenland. Of course, sea levels will rise on average, and as the meltwater moves away from Greenland it will create problems for countries in the Southern Hemisphere. In the same way, melting from the Antarctic will raise sea levels in the Northern Hemisphere, but not in places like Australia."

or this. Quote:

"Re-applying a 19th century idea, Dr. Mitrovica and his colleagues showed that each ice sheet has a distinct 'sea level fingerprint.' In general sea levels rise in the opposite hemisphere to the melting ice due to the reduction in the gravitational pull of the ice mass.

"The very idea that sea levels should rise uniformly if the ice sheets are melting is wrong. It's dramatically non-uniform," he says. "If the Greenland ice sheet melted tomorrow there'd be flooding in the southern hemisphere but a sea-level fall in Scotland and Newfoundland.""

"anyhoo. maybe there is still a chance for me to visit mars before I die eh?"

I too dream of love slaves from the planet B3k.

I find the tech fascinating but it seems like weapons manufacturers are really the ones who benefit from it.

Just a thought.

Dairy farmers have been giving hormones to dairy cows to produce more milk, and beef farmers have been giving to shorten the time to market for poultry. What we see as a result, are more and more children reaching puberty at younger ages and appearing older than they are...yes there is some creedence to the old joke "Your Honor, she looked eighteen!" Will a tearless onion mean we will eventually loose the ability to tear ourselves? I doubt it, but what ever change they make in the onion will eventually make a change in us.