Slashdot Mirror

While radon gas may kill many people each year, it is not due to Uranium mining, it is due to naturally occuring radon in the ground which accumulates in people's homes.

The reason is deliberate, CURRENT GENERATION NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE ENGINEERED TO PRODUCE PLUTONIUM FOR WEAPONS AS THIER MAIN PRODUCT and electricity as a by-product. Consequently they are heavily subsidised to make them appear economically viable.

This is entirely false. Light water reactors used in the west do not have this capability. In order to get weapons grade plutonium from a reactor, the fuel must be removed and the Pu-239 extracted before too much of it becomes Pu-240. This must be done every few weeks. A light water reactor would be shut down for refuelling more often then it was online. To say they were engineered in this manner is ludicrious.

There is an exception, the CANDU reactors. They do have the capability to be refuelled while online, however they were designed this way to be able to use natural (unenriched) uranium, not for producing weapons grade plutonium. The only power reactor specifically designed to make plutonium is the Soviet RBMK design.

The only realistic future for nuclear is the INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR, liquid metal cooled, uses 99% of the radioactive elements U238/U239 (vs less than 3% for cold war reactors)and current nuclear waste becomes a useable fuel. No need to mine uranium any more as there is enough spent fuel to use for many thousands of years, and no need to worry about those pesky terrorist spoiling your day because of the pyro-process closed loop feul re-processing. These are the types of reactors that we need to invest in around the world because they virtually eliminate waste transuranics, the volume of waste decreases and the remaining fissile radioactive material (the plutonium ash) is reduce to a half life of a mere 500 years.

You say you are worried about plutonium production, yet you want to build breeder reactors? Huh? What do you think breeders do? They intentionally turn uranium-238 into plutonium-239 to burn for power. They would still require uranium mining to operate, as they require uranium-235 to run and this must still be optained from the earth. They are no more closed-system then current U.S. reactors, which store all of the waste they produce on-site. They are just as suseptible to terrorism as current reactors as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of using breeder reactors, but not for the same reasons as you espouse.

While I commend your pro-nuclear attitude, you do need to get your facts straight.

Mining uranium releases heavy/highly soluble radon gas http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html which is highly radioactive and pollutes any nearby water table. Currently it kills more people than drunk driving per annum.

As for breeder reactors, put in 5 kg of plutonium waste to use as fuel and get 15kg of highly nuclear waste from the other 10kg of elements (pollonium and paladium i think). In other words - the tonnage of waste created by these reactors increases exponentially, why do you think they were banned?

The reason is deliberate, CURRENT GENERATION NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE ENGINEERED TO PRODUCE PLUTONIUM FOR WEAPONS AS THIER MAIN PRODUCT and electricity as a by-product. Consequently they are heavily subsidised to make them appear economically viable.

The only realistic future for nuclear is the INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR, liquid metal cooled, uses 99% of the radioactive elements U238/U239 (vs less than 3% for cold war reactors)and current nuclear waste becomes a useable fuel. No need to mine uranium any more as there is enough spent fuel to use for many thousands of years, and no need to worry about those pesky terrorist spoiling your day because of the pyro-process closed loop feul re-processing. These are the types of reactors that we need to invest in around the world because they virtually eliminate waste transuranics, the volume of waste decreases and the remaining fissile radioactive material (the plutonium ash) is reduce to a half life of a mere 500 years.

Cold War reactors, should all be left to run out thier remaining lifespan and decommisioned in favour of these new generation reactors, in every way Integral Fast Reactors are safer and are engineered to produce electricity as a main product.

Sure it's easy to accept the rhetoric about Cold-War nuclear power but it's all been said before (power to cheap to meter etc), however SAFER NUCLEAR ALTERNATIVES EXIST. This is a no-brainer and I'm suprised how many people get duped into thinking that we stopped being able to come up with any new methods for generating energy since the 1950's. You think patents are only used to stop software being developed? What do you think these industry's lobby groups are doing, influencing politicians to make introducing alternative enery sources easier? Do you think these industries care that they pollute the air, make greenhouse gasses or kill generations that aren't even here yet? Public opinion must FORCE goverments and corporations to invest in better technology or we face a bleak future.

The reality is our economies are heavily dependant on oil and coal and we have reached a point where it is obvious that this economic model is not sustainable. Cold War Nuclear (including pebble bed) power is no better than these because it to produces deadly wastes from the raw material stage to the spent feul stage, and lets not forget the millions of litres of radioactive water that is also produced.

There is no future in somthing that kills our kid's kids kids kids kids.... It's time for you 'Cold War'-nuke jocks AND anti-nuke types to take a pragmatic approach, look at the facts and evolve your thinking. A sustainable nuclear alternative exists and now is the time for people to get thier heads out of the sand and relegate coal, oil and cold-war-nuclear to where they belong - history.

IFR information is available here http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/ifr1.html

Radon though is a real risk, but this is from natural sources mostly:

EPA
in 1984 ... a nuclear plant worker in Pennsylvania discovered radioactivity on his clothing while exiting his place of work through the radiation detectors. The source of the radiation was determined to be radon decay products on his clothing originating from his home....

Most of the public's exposure to natural radiation comes from radon which can accumulate in homes, schools, and office buildings. EPA estimates that the national average indoor radon level in homes is about 1.3 pCi/l of air. We also estimate that about 1 in 15 homes nationwide have levels at or above the level of 4 pCi/l, the level at which EPA recommends taking action to reduce concentrations. Levels greater than 2,000 pCi/l of air have been measured in some homes.

The problem is iodine.

Radioactive iodine has a half-life measured in the millions of years, and the stuff can have nasty effects on the thyroid gland, where it gets concentrated once ingested. It is very difficult to find rock formations which will remain stable on that kind of time-frame.

Of course, there are still probably many places we could safely stick the radioactive waste, but the BANANA principle (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) will always make such sites a very difficult sell for politicians.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html
http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-9 7/FS-163-97.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nucleare nvissues.html
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/coal.htm

WTFUD?

According to one EPA study, Maryland alone could lose up to 1000 square miles as a result of ocean rise and related erosion in the next century. Things like seawalls and breakwaters are only temporary stopgaps.

I think unleaded engines couldn't use the leaded gas, but old engines could run on unleaded.

If my motorcycle didn't have a catalytic converter on it, it could run on leaded fuel alright. Apparently the lead can mess up the cat, causing it to overheat/melt/block the flow of exhaust gases (and, presumably, melt other things).

I'm pretty sure that older cars, designed to burn "leaded fuel" would just ADD lead afterwards, if needed. I've seen 'lead additive' used quite a bit in big, old boats. Leaded gas "paved the way for the development of the high-power, high-compression internal combustion engines that were to win World War II and dominate the U.S. automotive industry until the early 1970s."link

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/cont ent/index.html

Huge amounts of people don't exercise, and they stay inside for large amounts of time where the air quality is the worst, usually (and our news media constantly hits us with the message that sunlight causes cancer, anyway).

"Except for the fact that water vapor is SEVEN TIMES the green house gas that CO2 is."

I had thought that water vapor variance was accounted for, to one degree or another, in climate models, and the theory was to ignore that, because we can't control it. As I understood it, current warming is calculated to be about 33 C, (keeping earth from snowball status) and of that only 2-3 degrees has a non-water cause. That's the bit we can potentially have an impact on.

IANAC, I just read a bit. I could well be wrong.

But it seems to me that the 'heat island' effect in large cities would be much more noticeable (I'd guess many orders of magnitude) before waste heat could be a possible cause. Our cities and generated power aren't large (unless you're like me, and prefer rural life).

Let's see, Earth is 30% land. As of 2000, 39% [1] of that had been converted to agriculture and urban or built-up areas. Ag lands are warmer than forests, but all that ag land didn't come from forests. Let's be conservative, and throw it in there, anyway. That gives us 12% of Earth's area as ag, urban, or built up. AT least one city (Salt Lake City, UT, USA) just to Google up a random example, contributes as much as 4 degrees at night, and 3.6 during the afternoon[2]. Call it 4. I'm sure cities vary enormously. But I don't think that raising the temperature of 12% of the earth's surface by a few degrees (certainly under 10) is the root cause of the warming we've seen.

In addition, waste heat has been thought of before. There's a discussion on Wikipedia [3] that's pretty interesting, as it discusses whether or not heat islands corrupted data. It also refers to and summarizes "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found"; J climate; Peterson; 2003.

I dug out an abstract for this paper:
All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lightsderived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.

1 http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.p hp?theme=8&fid=34
2 http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/pilot/salt_lake.html
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Concentrations of long-lived gases like CH4, CO2, and N2O are fairly well-mixed globally - hemispheric mixing times are on the order of 1 to 2 months, global mixing times are on the order of 1 year (Seinfeld & Pandis, a standard atmospheric chemistry textbook). We measure them all over the place (from the peak of Mauna Loa to Antarctica) and come up with similar results. Google "Keeling" and "CO2" to see information on studies since 1955 in this area.

And yes, water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. But water vapor concentrations are a function of the state of the system, and most scientists agree that increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in water vapor too. But given that you don't even have basic comprehension of the carbon cycle and our ability to measure concentrations, I would suggest you consider whether your "lick of common sense" may be totally useless without some real scientific understanding to back it up.

This guy finishes with the same mod score as my original post? Yeah, that's some mighty fine groupthink there slashbots.

ruggedness of Diesel engines
Good.

and the VW quality
I happen to know a thing or two about VW's warranty numbers. Not good.

Diesel's one weakness is (non-CO2) emissions. They have become a lot cleaner over the years, esp. in Europe where the fuel is better (that is changing in the US), but they still, if memory serves, have higher particulate, NOx, and hydrocarbon emissions than gas engines. That said, I wouldn't mind owning a biodiesel-powered Jetta.

Saltwater intrusion. If the sea level rises fresh water resources will be overflown with salt. For most of the world's poor it will be too expensive to de-salinify water.

Nack when the Chernobyl accident happened, I had a girlfriend whom's dad is a farmer. Now, I live in western Europe, so quite a bit away from Chernobyl, but despite that, this farmer could throw away part of his products of that season due to contamination. He was nto alone in that.
A: Chernobyl was a flawed design
B: I was only listing reported deaths from the accident, which included estimated deaths attributed to increased cancer, primarily due to radioactive iodine release.
C: I'll fully admit that it was a widespread disaster.

You may have noticed (or heard) that there were quite a few people living in the vicinity of the power plant. They had to leave their houses, many of their belongings, and generally spoken, their livelyhood.
Yeah, like chemical spills and contamination haven't ever required relocation.
80% of black population of New Orleans may not return

You may have noticed (or heard) that there were quite a few people living in the vicinity of the power plant. They had to leave their houses, many of their belongings, and generally spoken, their livelyhood.
Like New Orleans? Heck, even like NO, some people stayed behind, and are still living there. The ones allowed to stay were older folks past child-bearing, but many are still around there, and they're dying at ages not much under residents outside the area.

If you believe that the consequences of Chernobyl were 56 dead and thats it then you are stupidly naive.
56 dead and billions of dollars worth of damage from lost crops, contaminated ground and equipment, relocation expenses, emergency measures to build the sarcophagus. Add some more millions for treatment for the treatment costs for the increase in thyroid cancer.

That is not to say that it was worse then Nohpal, it doesn't compare because it is an entirely different kind of accident. Comparing it to the death toll from coal mining makes as little sense because those deaths do not happen in a single accident usually.

People died. You can average it out over number of workers per year, per hours worked, per megawatt produced. While indeed, the big accident has more psychological impact, I care about rate and averages. For example, remember the whole 'air travel is safer than cars' thing? Any individual accident with a plane tends to kill more people than even the worst car wrecks, simply because you have hundreds of people on commercial planes.

Also, little of the fear for nuclear power is based on reason, and no amount of reason is going to 'fix' that fear.
Sadly true. Fortuantly, the two big disasters just keep getting older and older, so hopefully we'll be able to get some uncommon sense into policies soon.

One thing that is for sure is that human polution is not helping the enviroment any, and has other deletarious effects on human habitability as well. Global Warming is just one of several reasons why reducing carbon emmisions would be a good plan

fyi - CO2 is not 'pollution', it's plant food.

Believing in magic I was directed to tis ... EPA

In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.

As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10F (1.4-5.8C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate's response to changes in the atmosphere.

The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection "would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability."

Which also implicitely gives a hint to the average scientific "advancedness" of the average /.er.

CC.

If science can find a fish living in acid, then the possibility of life on other planets seems more real.

I thought that was pretty cool, too. Although it's not household cleaner-strength acid. According to the article, the pH is 3, which is very close to orange juice, vinegar, and cola. I can only imagine the joy of living in oxygenated cola. MMmm, cola. :-) -- Paul

Looks like the EPA might have to update their pH scale.

...because methane from cows wastes $millions. How can livestock methane emissions be reduced?"

Who can shut your plant down and haul your ass into jail.

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/about/offices/oceft. html

"The Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigates the most significant and egregious violators of environmental laws. CID refers cases that pose significant risks to human health and the environment for criminal prosecutions. CID Special Agents are sworn federal law enforcement officers with full law enforcement authorities. Today, EPA CID has offices located in 16 Area Offices and 25 Resident Offices across the country. CID participates nationwide in over 90 environmental crime task forces with federal, state and local law enforcement partners."

KFG

For those that still think that PCB stands for printed circuit board, or it may mean this, in this context it is "plasma kinetics of procarbazine" that appears to be an anti-cancer thing.

For me being a white boy, I wouldn't take something that was 100x more toxic in people over there. I'll stick to the stuff that isn't known to readily kill any human after determining that its OK (by the survival or death of others, right?!?).

No, I don't mean the stuff that they just put on TV ads like this. I'd take a risk of an STD (standard deviation) to get to know the author of this piece.

With that said, aspartame *can* break down into methanol, but usually only does so at extreme pH or temperature. Warm water alone very slowly hydrolyzes aspartame. I'm trying to find some good kinetics studies; this one indicates 90% hydrolysis after 53 days at 25 degrees C which is a good argument for only drinking refrigerated pop.

But the sheer amount you'd have to drink to produce blindness is astounding. I once calculated that with 100% hydrolysis, it would take 20 cans of pop per hour to build up and maintain harmful concentrations of methanol in the blood. EPA studies have indicated that 0.5g/kg/day doesn't result in observable health problems. There are (Google calculator r00lz) 0.014g of methanol per can of 100% hydrolyzed Coke. Hm, so that indicates that you probably don't want to drink more than 35 cans per day or you'll be above the no-observed-adverse effect level.

The official Materials Safety Data Sheet for methanol lists "Carcinogenicity: Methyl Alcohol - Not listed by ACGIH, IARC, NIOSH, NTP, or OSHA." That doesn't mean it's not carcinogenic, but it does mean that none of them has ever found any evidence for it being carcinogenic, as opposed to things like the nitrites in bacon, which have definite carcinogenic activity. The point being: we're eating things that are probably orders of magnitude more carcinogenic than the released methyl alcohol in aspartame; our bodies produce more methyl alcohol and its metabolites naturally than any but the most aggressive pop drinker will ever experience.

I'm not defending aspartame's use, but if you're going to attack what the FDA did when they certified it for use, attack it on other grounds, like your observed reaction to it, rather than because of methanol.

What if everyone with a computer wanted a particle accelerator???

(set sarcasm OFF)

PET scans used hot glucose if I recall,and the 1/2 life on that stuff is pathetic. I got more radiation for my money when I got my cardiac scan. Complete with a warning not to visit the White House for 1 week.

Now for the energetic photons and particle folks...Neon signs do a nice job of charged plasma photon emission (makes light) and anyone who's got a CRT is also looking at 15-30kv accellerated electrons slamming into the phosphor(light and some x-rays).

The electron gun in the CRT is a particle accelerator.

One of those(a pointed wire in the tube will do), a chunk of metal, a vac pump & some major glass blowing skills all hooked up with a HV source will get you a "crude" X-ray tube.

Backyard reactor? Research reactor? Those, I'd worry about a little. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/alpha.htm for the basic into for stuff that goes all atomic like.

Now, if this guy put a sign up that says synchrotron radiation research, I might not want to walk up to the front door when the lights are dimming.

BTW, I really, REALLY do not want to see this guy's electric bill. Nor do I want to find out if he find out what RF burns are.

EPA filters zip files, too. Makes it a pain to get things through, particularly when you're working with them. I just renamed all my zip files .piz and everyone was happy. You can even associate .piz files with WinZip on the other end and it works just like normal.

The USA has by far the largest emission of greenhouse gases in the world (yes, that is per person). One might think they might start reconsidering, but to the contrary.

Greenpeace should be asking instead "Why is Canada here?"

The most recent GHG inventories show that, during 1990-2003, Canada has increased its total GHG emissions by 24 percent.

Over the same period, the US increased its total GHG emissions by 13 percent.

In fact, during 2000-2003, the US actually decreased GHG emissions by 0.8 percent! During this time Canada increased its emissions by 2.9 percent.

Neither the US nor Canada has a chance in hell of meeting their Kyoto targets. But at last the US is vaguely moving in the right direction, even if only by accident!

A) Cars, Busses - if you're correct - move to a hydrogen economy - this doesn't refute my statement about cigarettes

parent: There has never been any study that remotely suggested that dilute second hand smoke has any appreciable effect on health.

Wow you're dead wrong. Incoming source citations.

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/123/1 _suppl/21S
http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/ets/pdfs/etsch8.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ets/pdfs/acknowl.pdf

Passive smokers inhale a complex mixture of smoke that is now widely referred to as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Passive smoking was first considered as a possible risk factor for lung cancer in 1981 when two studies were published that described increased lung cancer risk among never-smoking women who were married to smokers. Hirayama89 reported the findings from a cohort study in Japan, which showed that among nonsmoking women, those whose husbands smoked cigarettes were at higher risk for lung cancer than those whose husbands were nonsmokers. A case-control study in Athens reported by Trichopoulos and colleagues90 shortly thereafter replicated this finding. Additional evidence rapidly accrued so that by 1986 two important summary reports were published. The National Research Council reviewed the epidemiologic evidence and concluded that nonsmoking spouses who were married to cigarette smokers were about 30% more likely to develop lung cancer than nonsmoking spouses who were married to nonsmokers, and that this relationship was biologically plausible.91 Almost one fourth of lung cancer cases among never-smokers were estimated to be attributed to exposure to passive smoking.91 The 1986 report of the Surgeon General also judged passive smoking to be a cause of lung cancer,14 an inference corroborated by the 1992 review15 of the evidence and risk assessment by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which classified ETS as a known human (class A) carcinogen. Estimates indicate that passive smoking accounts for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States.15

Increases Severity of Asthma: http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/1 22/2/409
Harder to detect, nonthreshold exposure to lower levels of ETS could account for worsening more than 1 million cases of asthma in children. http://www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/passive-smokin g-and-lung-disease.htm

Pregnancy and smoking:
when adjusted for maternal smoking during pregnancy, the effects of current smoking on the children's lung function were markedly decreased and were no longer significant. Boys showed greater ETS-related deficits in all these measures of lung function than girls" [which translates to: ETS is bad, but smoking while pregnant dwarfs it]

parent: It's not going to hurt you. Just learn not to flip out over little things man.
It's scientifically proven that it IS going to hurt you -- and demeaning your opponant by calling them "little man" is pathetic.

I could go on and on and on with the evidence. You ahve fallen into the FUD marketing by the tobacco companies and their lap-dog politicians when you say there is no evidence.

The first doctor to ever discover the health effects of smoking (in 1950!) was a smoker. He quit on the spot. [he died recently - may he RIP]

A) Cars, Busses - if you're correct - move to a hydrogen economy - this doesn't refute my statement about cigarettes

parent: There has never been any study that remotely suggested that dilute second hand smoke has any appreciable effect on health.

Wow you're dead wrong. Incoming source citations.

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/123/1 _suppl/21S
http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/ets/pdfs/etsch8.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ets/pdfs/acknowl.pdf

Passive smokers inhale a complex mixture of smoke that is now widely referred to as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Passive smoking was first considered as a possible risk factor for lung cancer in 1981 when two studies were published that described increased lung cancer risk among never-smoking women who were married to smokers. Hirayama89 reported the findings from a cohort study in Japan, which showed that among nonsmoking women, those whose husbands smoked cigarettes were at higher risk for lung cancer than those whose husbands were nonsmokers. A case-control study in Athens reported by Trichopoulos and colleagues90 shortly thereafter replicated this finding. Additional evidence rapidly accrued so that by 1986 two important summary reports were published. The National Research Council reviewed the epidemiologic evidence and concluded that nonsmoking spouses who were married to cigarette smokers were about 30% more likely to develop lung cancer than nonsmoking spouses who were married to nonsmokers, and that this relationship was biologically plausible.91 Almost one fourth of lung cancer cases among never-smokers were estimated to be attributed to exposure to passive smoking.91 The 1986 report of the Surgeon General also judged passive smoking to be a cause of lung cancer,14 an inference corroborated by the 1992 review15 of the evidence and risk assessment by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which classified ETS as a known human (class A) carcinogen. Estimates indicate that passive smoking accounts for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States.15

Increases Severity of Asthma: http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/1 22/2/409
Harder to detect, nonthreshold exposure to lower levels of ETS could account for worsening more than 1 million cases of asthma in children. http://www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/passive-smokin g-and-lung-disease.htm

Pregnancy and smoking:
when adjusted for maternal smoking during pregnancy, the effects of current smoking on the children's lung function were markedly decreased and were no longer significant. Boys showed greater ETS-related deficits in all these measures of lung function than girls" [which translates to: ETS is bad, but smoking while pregnant dwarfs it]

parent: It's not going to hurt you. Just learn not to flip out over little things man.
It's scientifically proven that it IS going to hurt you -- and demeaning your opponant by calling them "little man" is pathetic.

I could go on and on and on with the evidence. You ahve fallen into the FUD marketing by the tobacco companies and their lap-dog politicians when you say there is no evidence.

The first doctor to ever discover the health effects of smoking (in 1950!) was a smoker. He quit on the spot. [he died recently - may he RIP]

OTOH if you had even Googled "biodiesel carcinogens" you would know that one of the benefits of BD is exhaust that is 90% less carcinogenic than exhaust from petro-diesel.

I'm already aware of the benefits of bio-fuels over petroleum diesel. I'm even aware of the CO2 benefits of bio-fueled diesel engines over gasoline engines. It would be difficult to read slashdot without being aware of the benefits, but that's not what I was commenting on. I was pointing out a negative that is seldom mentioned on slashdot; diesel engines, even when they run on biofuels, have more soot particles in their exhaust than gasoline engines. If you google "biodiesel particulate emissions" you will see that even biodiesel advocates admit this.

Gasoline produces 15 percent less Particulate Matter than B100 (Particulate matter from B100 is of a less toxic nature than that from petroleum products)

Those soot particles are the main reason why the EPA gives the 2006 Jetta diesel a horrible air pollution score even though it gets over 40 mpg. The difference in particulate (soot) emissions for diesel and gasoline engines is so great that it is very difficult - perhaps impossible - to get light duty diesel vehicles (i.e. cars) Tier II certified in California.

It is, therefore, believed that emission certification of light duty diesel vehicles in California will be possible only if advanced emission control technologies, such as particulate traps and NOx catalysts, are developed.

Right now, every gasoline burning car that is replaced by a biodiesel or SVO burning car causes us to have higher levels of soot in the air. From my original link:

Diesel-powered cars will always produce more particulate matter. The particulate matter, now a known carcinogen, will contribute to immediate health problems if breathed in.
[...]
Bad for lungs, better for the ozone layer
Granolas are split: some think the soot from diesels does more damage to people and animals here and now, while others want to minimize reliance on fuel resources and oil drilling, and to slow climatic change.

That was the problem I was commenting on, and you responded with something totally off topic (a comparison of biodiesel and petroleum diesel.) Now, it is actually possible to clean up the exhaust on diesels quite a bit. That same article goes on to mention a way to solve the sooty particulate emmissions:

Diesel engines can be clean, as clean as comparable gasoline engines if the right measures are taken to reduce particulate matter. Advanced engine controls, particulate-matter traps, and new-design catalysts have helped all but eliminate particulate matter.

Unfortunately, the article does NOT explain the drawbacks of this process; the extra emmissions control equipment costs a LOT, and it reduces the power and fuel efficiency of the diesel engine. That's a problem, since fuel efficiency is one of the main reasons we are considering diesels in the first place, which is probably why most of these methods are still not used on new diesel vehicles. Besides using oxidizing-type particulate filters to get rid of soot can even increase the levels of carbon monoxide:
http://www.fleetguard.com/fl

OTOH if you had even Googled "biodiesel carcinogens" you would know that one of the benefits of BD is exhaust that is 90% less carcinogenic than exhaust from petro-diesel.

I'm already aware of the benefits of bio-fuels over petroleum diesel. I'm even aware of the CO2 benefits of bio-fueled diesel engines over gasoline engines. It would be difficult to read slashdot without being aware of the benefits, but that's not what I was commenting on. I was pointing out a negative that is seldom mentioned on slashdot; diesel engines, even when they run on biofuels, have more soot particles in their exhaust than gasoline engines. If you google "biodiesel particulate emissions" you will see that even biodiesel advocates admit this.

Gasoline produces 15 percent less Particulate Matter than B100 (Particulate matter from B100 is of a less toxic nature than that from petroleum products)

Those soot particles are the main reason why the EPA gives the 2006 Jetta diesel a horrible air pollution score even though it gets over 40 mpg. The difference in particulate (soot) emissions for diesel and gasoline engines is so great that it is very difficult - perhaps impossible - to get light duty diesel vehicles (i.e. cars) Tier II certified in California.

It is, therefore, believed that emission certification of light duty diesel vehicles in California will be possible only if advanced emission control technologies, such as particulate traps and NOx catalysts, are developed.

Right now, every gasoline burning car that is replaced by a biodiesel or SVO burning car causes us to have higher levels of soot in the air. From my original link:

Diesel-powered cars will always produce more particulate matter. The particulate matter, now a known carcinogen, will contribute to immediate health problems if breathed in.
[...]
Bad for lungs, better for the ozone layer
Granolas are split: some think the soot from diesels does more damage to people and animals here and now, while others want to minimize reliance on fuel resources and oil drilling, and to slow climatic change.

That was the problem I was commenting on, and you responded with something totally off topic (a comparison of biodiesel and petroleum diesel.) Now, it is actually possible to clean up the exhaust on diesels quite a bit. That same article goes on to mention a way to solve the sooty particulate emmissions:

Diesel engines can be clean, as clean as comparable gasoline engines if the right measures are taken to reduce particulate matter. Advanced engine controls, particulate-matter traps, and new-design catalysts have helped all but eliminate particulate matter.

Unfortunately, the article does NOT explain the drawbacks of this process; the extra emmissions control equipment costs a LOT, and it reduces the power and fuel efficiency of the diesel engine. That's a problem, since fuel efficiency is one of the main reasons we are considering diesels in the first place, which is probably why most of these methods are still not used on new diesel vehicles. Besides using oxidizing-type particulate filters to get rid of soot can even increase the levels of carbon monoxide:
http://www.fleetguard.com/fl

Don't mod me into oblivion for pointing out a negative to biodiesel. I know about the benefits: http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Ma chines/Diesels_Clean_Green_Illegal.S196.A3569.html

America, and sadly my own country Australia are well documented the worst CO2 emitters per capita.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/cont ent/emissionsindividual.html, I'm sure you could find more up to date articles if you searched hard enough.

There are other countries where the governments don't give a crap about the environment as you mentioned, but the size of their industry is smaller compared to the size of the populace, and the populace are also poorer and can't spend as much on big cars.

Every country is a problem, but being labeled as the main leader of the world is a double edged sword for America. Until America starts becoming environmental, the rest of the world will just say, "If America gets to pollute so much, why can't we?"

The cancer rate in urban areas suddenly quadruples....

Yes, when the Cancer Fairy comes to punish us for horribly killing mosquitoes in little vacuum traps. Unless we can get cancer from being too near vacuum traps, carbon dioxide, moisture, heat, octenol, and WiFi access points.

I guess you were going for +1, Funny, but you didn't make it. Maybe you could try again, with more funny.

If you were serious, I'd sure like to hear your reasoning on this matter. If any.

Arsenic, though occuring naturally, is poisonous in large enough concentration. Pollution of groundwater with arsenic is an increasing problem in many countries.

Check out the link if you like...

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic.html

The woman appears to be quite the alarmist. For example, she falsely states that pressure treated wood is not safe since it is treated with, among other things, arsenic. Such wood is safe if handled properly.

On the other hand, she doesn't say anything on there that is immediately libelous as most of it is "i saw this happening the other day at the site."

I've always wondered what the internal culture is in companies that leads them to launch suits like this, as they almost always backfire even if they are won. The McDonald's lawsuit against a couple of people distributing anti-McDonald's pamphlets, for example, certainly led to much more anti-McDonald's media coverage than a couple of nutty activists could ever have managed on their own.

About containing known toxins and carcinogens, how does your opinion relate to standard tap water

Very similar. I expect both my air and water to be safe. Why not ban known toxins and carcinogens in the water?

Where have you been? The Safe Drinking Water Act passed in 1974. Our current drinking water standards strictly limit the concentrations of the chemicals you've mentioned.

Without giant blobs of fleshiness stuffing their faces two-fisted, public places would be nicer to look at and enjoy. Without smoking, they smell better too.

You've totally missed the point. "It smells bad" was nowhere in my post describing why I support smoking bans in public places. Stopping people from damaging my health is a bit different than passing a law against something you might find unpleasant to watch.

How on earth can you say the US Govt isn't doing "anything" about it? Pollution levels in the US (and many other western, first world countries) have been dropping for 30 years, all the while that GDP has gone up, energy consumption has gone up, vehicle usage is up, and population has gone up. In what reality-based world can you say the US doesn't do anything about pollution?

Is there still work to do? Of course! But the good news is that the trend is down in the US. In China, the trend is up and all indicators are that it is going to get *MUCH* worse before it gets better. That's the problem. They still use dirty coal for power, the majority of homes are heated by individual coal burning stoves. They have people delivering it door to door via bicycles for goodness sakes. Why do they use coal? Because China has a crapload of coal resources. Unfortunately, it's a particularly dirty type. China also adheres to a much lower vehicle emmission standard than the US and the EU. Now, while 600 million Chinese may be rural peasants riding bicycles, that still leaves 300 million people classified as middle class. And that middle class will want their cars. (unless China adopts social and tax policies that discourage it).

No one said it was going to be easy to fix the problem, but that is hardly relevant. Also, China is what, 4-5000 miles from the coast of North America? Detecting pollution at that distance is a bit more worrisome than the fact that Windsor Ontario has to put up with Detroit smog.

The following has a basis partly in the realm of 'intuition' as opposed to scientific and engineering credentials, but reflects a long-held opinion:

There is no long-term solution to the problem of nuclear waste, except sending it to the sun.

I believe we (humans) are not (yet) capable of damaging it.

I believe this very issue will determine the economic viability of both the nuclear industries and the space elevator.

There's serious money available (at least, during some (US) administrations) potentially available for the research and development of any solution to this problem.

Good Golly, humans walked on the moon 30 years ago. This is do-able.

Again I say: in the long term, there is no other solution.

Are you actually suggesting that a web-site called "friendsofscience.org" wouldn't actually be friendly to science? Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Clear Skies Initiative allows for increases in pollution...

You intake uranium every day in your food anyhow, and it's actually a very common element (just not the isotopes used to build nukes). It's in everyone's drinking water. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/uranium .htm has some info you'll want to read.

From a hazard standpoint, see the EPA's page on nickel. As metals go, it's not amazingly toxic, but it's not benign, either -- note that the RfD is 0.02mg/kg.

The Panasonic page was interesting; I'm not sure how they got the batteries classified as "safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream", but it probably wasn't on the merits.

I'm about a year from getting a BS in environmental sci, and here's my 2 cents on the topic of ionic breeze filtration systems.

mmmm...ozone. Can't live without it, but let's not live with it aroun us. When ozone is up in the stratosphere, it's blocking out the UV rays and saving our hides from skin cancer. But when it's "down here", it's harmful to us. These ionic filters create ozone. Long term /high concentration exposure to ozone is believed to cause cancer. Ozone in the air we breathe is important enough that there are standards on acceptable limits. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

I don't think ionic breeze can generate high concentrations of ozone, but you'll be exposed to it 24/7 which isn't good either.

And here's my personal experience with ionic breeze filters.
Well, My uncle bought a few of these to put around his house while he was remodeling. He commented to me how wonderful they were b/c they would "pull" dust out of the air and onto the collection plates.

He loved them so much that he even stuck one in my parent's bedroom. My dad complained of breating problems soon after it was put there. I told him to turn it off, and turning it off solved his problems.

So, as another posted, get something with a real filter.

Chlorine is cheap and easy to get just about anywhere (just buy the generic bleach w/o fabric softner/fragrance/etc) and keep a little bottle around. A little goes a long way depending on the concentration of the Chlorine you are using:

• 1% use 10 drops per Quart of Clear Water
• 4-6% use 2 drops per Quart of Clear Water
• 7-10% use 1 drop per Quart of Clear Water

If in doubt of the concentration of your Bleach/Chlorine solution, use the high 10 drop dose. The water should be mixed thoroughly and left standing for 30 minutes. If there is no chlorine odor, repeat your dose, mix and let stand for 15 minutes.

If you want to get rid of the chlorine odor, you can let it stand for a few hours or pour back and forth from one container to another to hasten the removal of excess Chlorine.
More info here: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/faq/emerg.html

I also have one of these: MSR Miox
It purifies by creating a creating a purification solution using electricity (Lithium Batteries w/ 10 year shelf life, and I have LOTS of spares lying around) and Rock Salt. This ones does Inactivates all viruses, bacteria, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium. No pumping required, just have to make sure you have clear water or know how to do coarse/crude filtering using materials at hand. The stand time is shorter and no bad taste either.

MSR also makes lots of great multi stage pump filters, but having used them in the past, I can assure you that pumping water is very energy/time intensive and using what non-stagnant/non-brackish/non-cloudy water at hand with the chlorine or the Miox is a much better way to go.

Still keep a bottle of Chlorine around in case the high tech solution goes tits up.

DaveC

There is at least 100 million more people paying taxes now than there was in 1968 and many new agencies. Taking those into account sounds like a task for a accounting major, is there one in the house?

That's wrong I think. From here: The U.S. presently emits more greenhouse gases per person than any other country.

Interestingly at the EPA they have a tool for calculating a rough estimate of household emission - the average total estimate they say is 60,000 pounds for two people.

A few things are a little odd, like when you plug in the avergae percentages on the left for a few things they do not equal the averge amount generated on the right - but still interesting and a good guide to show you how you can help reduce emissions. An interesting artifact is that this thing claims that by turning up the heat by fie degrees more in the summer than you would otherwise it only saves something like 100 pounds of C02. So from that standpoint you could just set the thermostat to whatever you like, if you didn't mind the cost.

Because, as we know, the Earth gets far less sunlight than it did in the 1960s? (it does change, but only a few tenths of a percent over the sun's cycle)

Here's a hint: ionizing radiation not allows for the formation of ozone, but also releases free chlorine radicals from CFCs which break down ozone catalytically. A single chlorine ion will on average destroy about a hundred thousand ozone molecules before it leaves the cycle. Chlorine from natural sources has historically been the largest reducer of the ozone layer in the stratosphere (OH, NO, and Br also play roles); however, present day, 84% of the chlorine in the stratosphere is man-made.

About 5% of the world's ozone layer has been destroyed between 1979 and 1990 - about three times the rate of decline during the 1970s, when it first began to be studied in depth. Naturally, there are huge seasonal variations, especially in polar regions - this is just an average. However, the seasonal variations, too, have become more extreme. This thus leads to the most pronounced effect on the ozone minimum in polar regions.

Studies in the 1980s concluded that without CFC reduction policy (which was enacted), 30-50% of the planet's ozone layer would be destroyed by 2050, based on the concentrations of stratospheric CFCs that we'd end up with.

And that dirty hippy Ronald Reagan gave into those scare mongers.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/montreal/01.htm

Global Warming should have something to do with it though. Take current sea level, add 30 feet, recalculate.

At that level, the coast will be dozens of miles inland of where New Orleans is now. The city will be in a hole out in the middle of the ocean with no surge protection at all. This can be expected before the end of the century.

Now is a pretty good time to take a deep breath and decide whether New Orleans needs to be saved or abandoned. If they do a half assed job of rebuilding, then they will only be doing this again every few years until they are just flat under water and nowhere to go. Even if they do it rght, New Orleans will be just a hole in the ocean with a city in it. Take this as a sign and get out while the getting is good. If they want to do a half assed job of rebuilding the walls, then do it and use the time you have left to salvage anything worth salvaging from the city.

BTW: New Orleans is not the only city within 30 feet of sea level.....

Honestly speaking, those environmental scientists did studies, they didn't qualitatively pull predictions out of their collective asses.

They do in fact mention effects like that, if you'd bother to read, and they also mention the drought and extreme weather weather effects, which just basic thought will also reveal.