Slashdot Mirror

Surely this is a troll, but I'll go anyway.

I'm always amazed by the sheer hubris that people display in assuming that their choice of car can affect anything so massive as a planet. Really, you are not that important.

Let's change that statement a bit to say "I'm always amazed by the sheer hubris that people display in assuming that their choice of candidate can affect anything so massive as a country. Really, you are not that important." That sounds pretty retarded, doesn't it.

Perhaps singly, you or I may not make much of a difference to the world. Between 1996 and 2001, there were an average of ~8.5 million new cars sold each year. And that is just in the US and only includes passenger cars! That means people made that inconsequential decision on low emission car or high consumption SUV about 42.5 million times over those five years, and once again that's just the US.

Assuming that because *I* am a single person I have no responsibility to the environment whatsoever because my choices couldn't possibly make a difference is selfish, delusional and part of the reason we have the problem we have now. Would you tell someone that their vote doesn't matter (carping about parties and electoral colleges aside), and therefore they might as well just skip it all together? It's about more than you, it's about everybody making responsible choices.

Despite a great deal of outlandish claims from many people, there's no particular evidence to suggest that humanity is having a significant impact on the planet. Claiming that we have the capability to make any kind of significant impression on something so huge and ancient is self-delusion in extremes. At most, we could wipe *ourselves* out, but the planet wouldn't care; extinction of a species is quite normal for it.

Well, to that I might remind you that homo sapiens are the only species that sets things on fire, on purpose. That fact alone should demonstrate that people have a slightly different impact in their environment than most other animals. If you don't want to listen to the "outlandish claims" of the majority of environmental scientists that the environment is changing due to our actions, let's reflect on some of the things we know we do. The fact is that we DO have signifigant impressions on the world. When it is a positive certainty that our SO2 and NOx emissions cause acid rain locally and regionally that can disrupt ecosystems and destroy forests, how much of a stretch is it to be concerned with the effects of other human sourced gas emissions.

Changing the environment, that's what we do, it's how we live. Since 1600, there have been 584 species presummed extinct just in the US, suggesting a 7,000 fold increasein the rate of extinctions since the industrial revolution. It's pretty hard to deny a connection to human activity with numbers like that, and I'd say that's a pretty signifigant impression on the world. I, for one, don't particularly care to join the other animals we have already pushed out of existence.

At present, only really careful archaeology would be able to find any trace of us in a few million years time; that's barely noticable on geological timescales. The dinosaurs were more obvious. The assumption in the past few years that humanity is responsible for any changes it doesn't understand is quite pathetic.

I'm not really concerned with a few million years down the road right now. I'm more concerned with the immediate (next 100-1000 years) well being of our species. While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, at some point you have to begin to wonder. I think it's pretty irresponsbile to write off our activity here on the planet as benign when we already have evidence that we

Hmm. So something you saw, but can't provide any information about. Lets stop the world.

While at the same time, Myself and many people are actually USING Biodiesel, and I can show you my emissions test results.... I could probably record you video of my car's tailpipe with Dino compared to Bio. But why bother?

Do you work for Exxon or something?

Here is a summary of a study(pdf) (google html) that the EPA did, which shows that Bio does in fact produce less emissions that regular diesel. Here is another summary of the study.

PCBs are bad shit, but dioxin only has a half life on the order of 50 years under the worst conditions (and 6 weeks or so under better ones). God help the archaeologists who explore the Chernobyl plant. Not to mention a much larger amount and variety of material was released at Chernobyl.

You are very quick to openly dismiss the potential for sources other than industrial pollution causing an increase in CO2. Even if you assume that the global increase is due to industrial pollution, most environmentalist are quick to point straight to 1st World countries, and most specifically the United States of America.

If you assume that the United States of America is directly responsible for the massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere on a global scale (a bunch of ifs so far I don't support), you are also presuming that giant wastful SUVs are the largest component of the production of CO2 in the USA. Truth be told, all of the SUVs in the entire USA amount to less than 1% of the total CO2 production in the USA. OK, I'll try to back that up with some hard figures, but this is somewhat hard to come by.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics does have some interesting numbers to compare, that can give some hard values. Basically, all categories of SUVs combined account for about 49% of all trucks sold. Trucks only account for 42% of all new vehicles sold, giving you about 20% of all new vehicles sold by dealerships in the USA are SUVs. OK, a major portion of vehicles, and certainly you can see them driven around near you, but not the #1 source of pollution. I'll also tell you that a light pickup will put out just as much if nor more pollution than an SUV, so are you trying to get them banned as well? If you look at this page, car & truck pollution is hardly even the single source of air pollution either. I feel very confident that if you take into account mass transit systems, bulk goods shipment, energy production systems (like coal fired power plants), agriculture production equipment (tractors, harvesters, irrigation pumps, etc.), industrial production equipment, and even other personal transportation equipment, you would find SUVs to be well less than 1% of all CO2 production in the USA. Statistically it is insignificant even if all SUVs were made illegal to use or own tomorrow.

Also, going back to the stats pages, The USA isn't even a majority of auto production It is barely even #1, with many interesting countries that are making significant gains for presumably domestic production, including China and Brazil.

The fact is that if the USA were to suddenly cease to exist (we all got in our rockets and went to Mars, or nuked ourselves in a Civil War when Bush and Kerry deadlock in the Presidential election), CO2 production will continue to grow, and grow substantially for the next century, and even make up for everything the USA is currently producing.

This is not even to mention that there may be other causes for global warming besides just CO2 production. Please think before you start throwing stats around, even if you think you are promoting a proper philosophy. I would agree that as individuals we can try to avoid messing up our environment. Just don't tell me to become a hunter/gatherer again like my ancestors were many years ago and force me to choose which of my neighbors are going to get killed in the coming genocide, if your philosophies prevail.

Yes, lemme check.

http://www.geo-exchange.ca/fr/whatisgeoexchange.ht ml

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/renew.htm#geotherma l

That's what I had in some .txt file.. But just do a google search for the keywords on those pages and you should find good information.

The Earth is fairly resillient, much more so than we humans are. The Earth will survive just about anything we do to it, but we are at risk. The argument that there are no (or minimal) dangers ignores the fact that skin cancer exists. It ignores the fact that there is a hole in the ozone. The Montreal Protocol has been a major step forward to eliminating/minimizing those chemicals that we know deplete the Ozone layer.

The other thing that may contribute to the Ozone layer growing back would be global warming, as the ozone depletion effect requires very cold temperatures to do the spectacular damage it has done to the pole. (see Univeristy of Cambridge.)

Some interesting facts:

• 1 person dies of melanoma every hour.
• One in five people will develop skin cancer.
• UV exposure increases your risk of going blind, causing cateracts and macular degeneration.

InnerWeb

Ignoring the quip grouping water with methane (trolling? - who knows), the rest isn't too far off. NOx emissions, for example, are in fact lowering. Just about across the board harmful emissions have been cut over time in the U.S.

"...combined with the prase 'pollutants like NO2'"
NOx is a greenhouse gas, more harmful than CO2 (by GWP rating).

Also, he is right that Kyoto will shift polluting to countries not under the treaty or somehow exempt from stringent standards (like China). This could be viewed positively, in a twisted economic sense, as a redistribution of comparative advantage. In such light, Kyoto provides artificial comparative advantage to developing countries.

There are a lot of questions about global warming because 1) there is no simulation we can lay too much faith in and 2) observations are hard to aggregate and reconcile. From an economic cost/analysis, Kyoto is challenging to justify as worthy of primary international investment over things like HIV/AIDS.

BTW, I'm not against decreases in CO2 emissions, but scientific fact, policy, and global implementation are all very different things. I'm not sure we have anything that can hit all three, on any issue.

Ignoring the quip grouping water with methane (trolling? - who knows), the rest isn't too far off. NOx emissions, for example, are in fact lowering. Just about across the board harmful emissions have been cut over time in the U.S.

"...combined with the prase 'pollutants like NO2'"
NOx is a greenhouse gas, more harmful than CO2 (by GWP rating).

Also, he is right that Kyoto will shift polluting to countries not under the treaty or somehow exempt from stringent standards (like China). This could be viewed positively, in a twisted economic sense, as a redistribution of comparative advantage. In such light, Kyoto provides artificial comparative advantage to developing countries.

There are a lot of questions about global warming because 1) there is no simulation we can lay too much faith in and 2) observations are hard to aggregate and reconcile. From an economic cost/analysis, Kyoto is challenging to justify as worthy of primary international investment over things like HIV/AIDS.

BTW, I'm not against decreases in CO2 emissions, but scientific fact, policy, and global implementation are all very different things. I'm not sure we have anything that can hit all three, on any issue.

"...learn how not to underestimate your opponent. "

"...you're the one with a problem, since I was asking questions.."

"For your information, Toxic Mixing Zones had been COMPLETELY closed for about 20 years."

Unfortunately, even the cleanest Diesels still emit more particulate matter and ozone than even 'mostly clean' gasoline cars. (ULEV) I can't find the link right now (Sorry, my Google-fu sucks) but a few months ago (before buying my Prius) I founds info on the EPA's website showing that the Diesels are about even with the Prius on 'greenouse gasses' (CO2,) but MUCH worse than even gasoline-powered SUVs in 'air pollution' measures (ozone, particulates) (Aha, found it!) The Jetta TDI scores a '4' for air pollution, and 7 or 8 (auto or manual) on greenhouse gasses. The Prius scores a 10 on both. By comparison, a Ford Explorer scores a 6 in the 'air pollution' category.

I'm not trying to knock Diesels, the Jetta TDI wagon was our second choice (partly knocked out of the running because I'm a big guy, and it had less room for me, although the larger cargo area would have been nice. In fact, we may get a Jetta TDI wagon to replace our aging Ford Explorer as a second vehicle.) Just trying to dispel myths.

And I'm sure the people of Seoul would thank you when their hair starts falling out... and they're going to love the EMP surge as well.

Funny how that site gives you a definition for the noun and a definition for the adjective and you decided to quote the wrong one, eh? Creative quoting, I guess.

Here's the other one (for the noun, from the very same page):

"A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration" (fits Fahrenheit 9/11 like a glove, more so than any of Moore's previous documentaries, in fact).

But let's see what specialised sites have to say about it:

[1] "an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view"

[2] "a nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme"

[3] "a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter"

[4] "an eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects"

[5] "factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view"

I've been working on (and watching) documentaries for a couple of decades, and these are the definitions employed and accepted by the authors, the industry, the critics, the festivals and the viewers. If you think a documentary is something else, you can either a) correct yourself or b) try to convice every filmmaker, film institute, film festival, cinema historian, etc., that they are wrong.

Either way, good luck, it's not going to be easy.

RMN
~~~

This to my understanding has nothing to do with radiation, but the dust left behind after impact with a target.

Depleted Uranium is a heavy metal and the human body does not react to well when exposed to heavy metals.
Lead exposure, especially to lead dust, can cause various forms of health conditions. Here's an EPA example of lead used in older paints:

http://www.epa.gov/lead/leadinfo.htm

Now, here's an article which seems to discuss the DU dust that I've read about in the past.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cancer_epide mic_.html

and another:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/180333p-156 685c.html

How true any of these articles are, I don't know ... I'm just pointing out what I've read before.

Plus, Master of Transhuman pointed out another interesting fact in case his post gets missed.

No, the greater mass of alpha particles (2 protons and 2 neutrons, basically a Helium nucleus) makes them more difficult to deflect, not less. However, other factors have an impact on the scattering cross section, including particle charge and energy.

Pssst! I think you mean Strontium-90, not 75. Sr-90 acts a lot like Calcium and thus gets deposited in people's bones.

years until the surrounding areas become habitable
I have news for you, chemical pollution is just as bad if not worse. Chemicals are often stable. Meaning they'll stay dangerous forever, at least until they get diluted or are broken down through chemical means. Many poisons can remain deadly for thousands of years in a contained enviroment.

Air pollution from coal-fired power plants accounts for about 30,000 premature deaths in the USA each year
Times Beach became a superfund site, relocated 2,000 people, and 265 kilotons of soil incinerated
Don't forget oil spills!
Polluted Sand isn't going anywhere
200 homes rendered uninhabitable due to wood preservative

• New furniture made of
  • plywood,
  • particleboard,
  • or waferboard
• New carpets, which may trap formaldehyde emitted from other sources and release it when temperature and humidity change
• Gas stoves and kerosene heaters
• Urea Formaldehyde Foam Isulation, UFFI, was used as an effective insulation product in many homes until the 1980's, when the presence of high levels of formaldehyde gas was determined to be a health hazard.
• Embalmed biological specimens or deceased friends :-)

The reaction is reversible: too much heat hydrolyses the UF resin into urea and formaldehyde thereby degrading the bond and releasing even more formaldehyde. It is therefore of critical importance to precisely control pressing time and immediately cool the finished panels after completion of the pressing.

NOTE: Although treatment of a surface with strong ammonia can temporarily reduce formaldehyde levels, ammonia can be toxic and is very dangerous. This procedure is strongly discouraged, since ammonia presents its own serious hazards.

When checking into a hotel room with new furniture, a sniff would detect formaldehyde fumes. Then, he would find the maid and ask her for a few ashtrays and some ammonia. He would then explain his plan to the maid. He would pour ammonia into the ashtrays he placed around his room and leave the room. The maids were asked to not make the room up (or at least not empty the ashtrays). When he returned, the room was now free of formaldehyde fumes, to his own benefit and all subsequent quests.

Yes but would a Beowulf cluster of CFCs harm the environment? Yes, the Compact Flash Computer has the unlikely acronym CFC. I move that we change that acronym to CFCC [Compact Flash Card Computer] in hopes the ozone doesn't sue.

From link (which is a 3 year old article): "See that," Berry says, pointing to the seeming nothingness pouring out of Polk's stack. "Someone can be sitting near a coal gasification plant and see nothing coming out of it. That's the goal." (In actuality, the clouds pouring from traditional plants are water vapor.

While most clouds you see coming from stacks are simply water vapor, a coal fired boiler emits a lot of particulate matter, which is harsh on the lungs, especially to those with asthma or other respiratory problems. The EPA has been focusing more on PM in the past few years. Facilities are now required to report PM emissions at 3 levels: Total PM, PM10 (PM 10 microns or smaller), and PM2.5 (PM 2.5 microns or smaller). PM2.5 emission reporting was added just this year, as it has been learned over the past 5-10 years that PM2.5 is much more harmful than less fine particulates. Current control measures for PM are in the 99% removal range, assuming the equipment is properly maintained.

Also, coal emits a lot more crap than oil or natural gas. By crap I mean trace amounts of nasty chemicals. Hydrochloric acid, hydroflouric acid, arsenic, mercury, lead, dioxins, etc. EPA's emission manual for coal combustion can be found here.

"Clean coal" may be a temporary measure as we begin to run out of natural gas and oil, but it is by no means a solution, as the CO2 problem is not solved.

It's the old ones (especially in places like China) that are the problem.

Yes, but the real problem is our reluctance to fund new energy initiatives and promote smart usage of energy. We waste outrageous amounts of energy in the USA. Research must not only be focused on new energy sources, but improved efficency in the transmission and use of that energy.

I'm in the process of buying an old house (built in 1905!), so I've done quite a bit of research recently on Asbestos (and lead paint).

The epa has a pretty good section devoted to it. I also found The Asbestos Tragedy to be enlightening and more than a bit disturbing.

Asbestos, the state rock of California, is a mineral fiber. It's a rock that can be woven into fabric. It's very strong, chemically resistant, and fireproof. Being a natural substance, it's around us all the time and is part of the environment - as the rocks erode, the dust containing asbestos fibers are picked up by wind. (When an asbestos containing product is releasing fibers, it's termed friable).

It was used in a wide variety of household materials for decades. Things like heating system insulaton, vinyl/asphalt/rubber tiles, vinyl floor backing and adhesives, joint compounds, texturized paint, stove-top pads, oven mits, etc.. It was even used as stage curtains in theaters because of it's resistance to flame.

If it's in good condition (non-friable), meaning not cracking, crumbling, on an impact surface or otherwise releasing dust, then it's usually harmless if left alone. If it's friable though there are two methods for taking care of it - encapsulation (which is a temporary solution and must be maintained) and removal. Most states specify that only a licensed contractor or homeowner (friends and relatives can help, but cannot be paid, and all regulations must be followed) can deal with it.

When exposed to asbestos it will usually be caught by the mucus in the lining of your nose, mouth, and throat. This eventually gets swallowed (or hacked up I suppose). What's swallowed passes through you and winds up passing through and out of your digestive tract.

All it takes however is a single asbestos fiber to get past that defense system and get trapped in your lungs to potentially cause cancer. But like most cancers it's hit or miss who will be affected.

Oh, remember that part about it being a naturally occuring substance? It is quite possible that you could be exposed just by breathing fresh clean air.

The worst part is that it takes 20-40 years for any signs to show up, there's no way to test for it besides using x-rays to see if there's visibly damaged lung tissue, and there's no treatment. Our house inspector has had 3 friends die in the past 5 years or so due to asbestos.

Which brings me back to the house I'm buying - we found obvious asbestos insulation on the old radiator heating system under the house. The seller is going to have professionally removed (licensed asbestos contractor).

But there may still be asbestos lurking in other places. The texturized ceilings in a few rooms will have to have tested (the current owners have had the place ~10 years, and don't know exactly when it was painted) for both asbestos and lead before we do anything with them. Testing runs about $25-50 per sample.

Lead paint is much much easier to deal with. Blood levels can be monitored, encapsulation products are easy to apply (special paint,kinda pricey but much cheaper than abatement), and for wood surfaces the newer soy gel paint strippers make it much safer for do-it-yourselfers.

Basically we're going to have to be very careful and meticulus about any work we decide to do or have done to make sure our home is safe.

gasoline has energy content of 114,000 btu/gallon

With a Carnot engine, that means you get half of that, max, assuming perfect cooling (which doesn't really exist).

By the way, 114,000 btu == 33.41 kWh

I applaud Office Depot and HP for their efforts. Perhaps it will stir other vendors into action.

According to this press release, HP already has 2 pretty large facilities for recycling electronic equipement. They already have a pretty decent recycling program for their equipment and are currently offering a coupon when you recycle and then purchase new hardware from them. [Nope, I'm not affiliated with HP!]

I personally wouldn't mind paying an additional few dollars for each piece of computer hardware or electronics if I knew that I could easily recycle it at the end of its life. The recyle option should also be transferrable to anyone that I sold it to. After all, what's $5 more on a $500 product?

_KJH

"Hydrocarbons - NOx emissions from biodiesel increase or decrease depending on the engine family and testing procedures. NOx emissions (a contributing factor in the localized formation of smog and ozone) from pure (100%) biodiesel increased in this test by 13 percent. However, biodiesel's lack of sulfur allows the use of NOx control technologies that cannot be used with conventional diesel. So, biodiesel NOx emissions can be effectively managed and efficiently eliminated as a concern of the fuel's use." soypower.net

The US EPA and NOAA have a free (as in beer) computer program called MARPLOT.

It was initially meant to be used by emergency responders as part of the "Computer Aided-Management of Emergency Operations" or CAMEO. It was so popular that the US Census Bureau made it part of the Landview software program.

It's not as nice as a professional program, but there are lots of basic features and the price is right.

In addition to the type of radiation, I imagine chemical reactions with the substances themselves must also be taken into account, as you indicate with the use of Sr-90 for Ca and I isotopes for stable I.

From what I know (which is admittedly not as much as a full nuclear physicist or a doctor trained in nuclear medicine), the actual chemical properties of most radioisotopes are not a major concern. It's certainly possible to get heavy metal poisoning from plutonium or uranium, but in practice the radiological consequences would kill you long before you saw any chemical effects. The EPA has fact sheets on all radioisotopes. Not to mention that MSDS should be available for those same materials.

One thing to keep in mind is that most isotopes do not have significantly different chemical properties than their non-isotope forms.

I thought an alpha particle was a helium nucleus (2p,2n)... though maybe you meant that it simply behaves somewhat similarly to a single proton? I don't thinks so, but I don't really know.

I'm sorry, I misspoke. You are correct. Alpha radiation consists of ionized helium particles. I'm still trying to evacuate some of high school "physics" that exists in my brain. (Did you know that force != mv2? Grr... Stupid high school physics.)

As I understand it, the thyroid absorbs Iodine, so ingesting stable Iodine will take the place of the radioactive Iodine in the thyroid, and when the thyroid is at capacity, the excess Iodine can be excreted.

Correct. That's why many of the Chernobyl victims were children who hadn't yet built up enough iodine in their system. The dangers from radioactive iodine would be far lower for the American (and European?) population due to our practice of fortifying salt with Iodine.

It's interesting that continued treatment is required, perhaps to further dilute any remaining bad Iodine? It's also interesting since I thought Iodine isotopes had a relatively short lifetime?

The treatment (AFAIK) is for the cancer. There's a certain hormone that must be taken in order to replace the Thyroid's function. As usual, Wikipedia has more info.

Someone once told me that radioactive Iodine could be created by striking stable Iodine (within the human body) with x-ray radiation, but I thought a neutron was required to strike the nucleus for such a modification; unless the x-ray can trigger the release of a neutron from some other molecules in the body? Any thoughts?

There's something called "nuclear remediation" which uses X-Ray pulses to knock a neutron free from a nucleus. The purpose of this process is to make a radioisotope less stable, and therefore reduce its half-life. If the half-life can be reduced to seconds, hours, or even a few months, it can simply be stored until a more stable element emerges.

I don't think we really understand why it works, but I think the theory is that when the massive amount of energy is absorbed from the X-Ray "photon", the nucleus becomes less stable. The protons and electrons are held in place by electromagnetic charges, so the energy is transferred to a neutron instead. Obviously, the loss of the neutron results in a weaker overall structure for the nucleus, and it begins to convert its excess matter into radiation.

Actually, the intent of my previous post was to question whether more subtle chronic problems could arise from smaller quantities of these heavy metals or radioisotopes, whether that be a lowered immunity, reduced nutrient absorption (Sr-90 in place of Ca?), or even general symptoms such as lethargy, depression, chronic pain, nerve damage, or other neurological deficiencies.

As I said, the chemical properties of these elements does not change much, and in practice the radiological effects are far more pronounced than any chemical issues.

Thanks again for your excellent posts.

You're most welcome. :-)

It goes back further than that. President Clinton issued an exemption in 1998. So much for Democrats being environmentalist heroes.

The environmental impact of nitrogen oxides goes beyond smog.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for biodiesel. Read upwards in the thread if you want the full context. I was replying to a +5 Insightful comment which sought to dismiss any concerns about harmful chemicals by saying that there is a "closed loop" in the CO2 cycle. My point was simply that there is more to biodiesel emissions than CO2, which is rather pointless to deny.

The toothpaste on my shelf contains 0.24% sodium fluoride; that's about one part in a thousand that's fluoride, by mass. If we assume that I go through 250 g of toothpaste per year--about half a pound--that's 0.25 g of fluoride I consume each year. Over a quarter billion or so Americans, that would be sixty or seventy tons of fluoride.

The average per capita water use in the United States is (rounded up) about two hundred gallons per day. (Ref.) Assuming that all of that water gets fluoridated at 1 part per million, that's another 200 tons per year fluoride.

If we assume that the fluoride was originally sourced from calcium fluoride (fluorspar), that's a total of about 900 tons of fluorspar to meet the entire nation's dental fluride requirements.

Current U.S. use of fluorspar is on the order of six hundred thousand tons per year. (Ref.) Nearly all is imported, and two-thirds (66%) of those imports are from China.

To conclude, fluoride use for public health purposes makes a negligible contribution to total domestic fluorine demand--less than a fifth of one percent of the total fluorine consumed. Also, domestic leaders haven't got anything to gain by selling more fluorides--the U.S. imports most of its supply from a country it doesn't particularly like, and where it definitely doesn't own any of the local natural resources.

Let's look at what the real implications of cheap solar power are:

• demand for tech to turn electrical power plus (whatever) ingredients into natural gas (cars powered by methane emit only CO2, not other nasty stuff, plus infrastructure there - existing cars can run on natural gas for $300 conversion kit)

Even though burning a perfect mixture of pure methane and pure oxygen do produce only CO2, a car running on pure methane would also produce nitrogen dioxide (NO2), simply because we would use air instead of pure oxygen for costs and safety. And if, or when, the oxygen/methane mix isn't perfect, the car ends up putting out some carbon monoxide (CO). In addition, emitting just CO2 isn't without problems either - it's really far from pollution free. We'd really want to burn pure oxygen and hydrogen, which would emit only water, but that still isn't practical.

Let's look at what the real implications of cheap solar power are:

• demand for tech to turn electrical power plus (whatever) ingredients into natural gas (cars powered by methane emit only CO2, not other nasty stuff, plus infrastructure there - existing cars can run on natural gas for $300 conversion kit)

Even though burning a perfect mixture of pure methane and pure oxygen do produce only CO2, a car running on pure methane would also produce nitrogen dioxide (NO2), simply because we would use air instead of pure oxygen for costs and safety. And if, or when, the oxygen/methane mix isn't perfect, the car ends up putting out some carbon monoxide (CO). In addition, emitting just CO2 isn't without problems either - it's really far from pollution free. We'd really want to burn pure oxygen and hydrogen, which would emit only water, but that still isn't practical.

You're right, you are wrong.

B100 = 100% Biodiesel

Let's do the numbers - according to the EPA (it's a PDF):

- B100 = 50% lower carbon monoxide emissions.

- B100 = 70% reduction in particulate emissions. Particulate emissions is a fancy way of saying "the stuff that causes respitory ailments, IE asthma and lung cancer."

- B100 = 40% reduction in Total HydroCarbon emissions. THC (not the good kind) is one of the causes global warming. Keep in mind that this carbon was NOT pulled out from deep in the ground and re-introduced into the carbon cycle. It came from plants that were recently living. Net addition to the carbon cycle = zero. Can't say that with regular diesel, created from oil/carbon that has been out of the cycle for millions of years.

- B100 = 100% reduction in sulfate emissions. Sulfate is used to lubricate parts. Biodiesel is naturally lubricating.

So what's the drawback? Here it is:

- B100 = 9% increase in nitrous oxide emissions. This is not a good one.

NOx is one of the three nasties that make up smog. The other two are carbon monoxide and THC. You can read up more about NOx emissions here: http://www.serconline.org/biodiesel/fact.html

Basically, while NOx increases are bad it's offset by the drastic decreases of carbon monoxide and THC. And, good news, they're working on methods to reduce NOx emissions. We may see some reductions in 2005-2007 when new equipment will start showing up on diesel in order to comply with a law set to take effect in 2007. That law basically says that regular diesel needs to be much, much cleaner - same goes for the new vehicles that will run diesel.

Other drawbacks? Well, commercially available biodiesel is VERY hard to find. Portland, OR is a fairly progressive city. We have only a few B20 pumps and only one or two major suppliers of B100. Co-ops will help make up the short-term unavailability to those in the know - but it would be better if many stations carried it right at the pump.

To make matters worse, most B100 suppliers charge more for B100 than for diesel. There's no reason to, especially when you consider that a co-op like the one I'm involved in can make B100 for as little as $1.00-1.50/gal. We leave it up to our buyers to acquire PUC cards - which means they're sort of like truckers, paying road taxes quarterly. Makes it easier on the co-op to sell to people who won't be using the fuel in on-road vehicles. Road taxes account for about another .50/gallon. Still cheaper than regular diesel which is currently at $2.20-2.25/gal around here.

Another drawback: can you tell me how many car (not truck) manufacturers currently produce a diesel that's sold in the US? I can: VW and Mercedes. The cheapest new diesel from VW will set you back approximately $17,775 according to the Kelly Blue Book site.

- The VW Golf TDI (diesel) manual is $17,775.
- The VW Golf TDI (diesel) auto is $18,850.
- The VW Golf GL 4-cyl (gas) manual is $15,183.
- The VW Golf GL 4-cyl (gas) auto is $16,702.

So, you're going to pay about $2,500 or more for your brand spankin' new diesel car. Since the gas milage rocks so much, however, you'll make that back if you keep the car for 6-7 years according to the EPA: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

That's about it for the drawbacks. So why isn't it more popular, you ask? Well, who drives a diesel car - how many diesel owners do you know, for that matter? Can you count them all on one hand? Now, are *any* of them environmentally aware? To the point where they'd consider running a "new" fuel that they're uneducated or unsure about?

Yes, you save money on gas and insurance, while at the same time risking becoming a peel-off hood ornament for some cellphone toting asshole's SUV penis extension and, incidentally, spewing out 20 times the amount of pollution of an automobile per mile. I see people reading the newspaper while eating breakfast on their way to work in their SUVs. Drive a motorcycle in rush hour traffic? No thank you, I'll take the bus as long as the driver doesn't smell of alcohol.

"Emissions from gasoline-burning cars are partly responsible for acid rain"

Automobiles are not big contributers to acid rain. Coal burning power plants without flue gas scrubbers were the main culprit, and now that many plants have been upgraded the acid rain problem (at least in the US) is diminishing. Also, given that the main acid rain problems were in the northeast, and most agriculture takes place in the midwest and great plains, acid rain did not have much influence an agricultural productivity.

The EPA has a large site concerning acid rain, it's rather technical, but there are also some good maps.

IMHO any way we can reuse material rather than dumping it is a good thing.

"Emissions from gasoline-burning cars are partly responsible for acid rain"

Automobiles are not big contributers to acid rain. Coal burning power plants without flue gas scrubbers were the main culprit, and now that many plants have been upgraded the acid rain problem (at least in the US) is diminishing. Also, given that the main acid rain problems were in the northeast, and most agriculture takes place in the midwest and great plains, acid rain did not have much influence an agricultural productivity.

The EPA has a large site concerning acid rain, it's rather technical, but there are also some good maps.

IMHO any way we can reuse material rather than dumping it is a good thing.

since we started measuring (~100 years)

last thousand years (p.4)

On geological timescales

420,000 years BP
Particularly interesting is perhaps this bit:

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial-interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable bounds. Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

Nature has published a lot of interesting reports on the subject over the years and they have an excellent search engine. Give it a shot.

Bonus info on the recession of the world's glaciers. Just because you asked nicely. :-)

And I leave you with this:

These ice cores show a 20th century isotopic enrichment that suggests a large scale warming is underway at low latitudes. The rate of this isotopically inferred warming is amplified at higher elevations over the Tibetan Plateau while amplification in the Andes is latitude dependent with enrichment (warming) increasing equatorward. In concert with this apparent warming, in situ observations reveal that tropical glaciers are currently disappearing.
Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of climate change on annual to millennial time scales..

They are talking about the Global Warming Potential of the gas. Global Warming Potential is based on infrared adsorption spectra of the gas in question. What that statement means, is that methane adsorbs 21 times as much energy in the infrared spectrum as CO2. The amount of thermal energy trapped in the atmosphere by methane is 21 times that of CO2.

As for the ozone layer part, I have to agree that that seems to be a confused writer.

They are talking about the Global Warming Potential of the gas. Global Warming Potential is based on infrared adsorption spectra of the gas in question. What that statement means, is that methane adsorbs 21 times as much energy in the infrared spectrum as CO2. The amount of thermal energy trapped in the atmosphere by methane is 21 times that of CO2.

As for the ozone layer part, I have to agree that that seems to be a confused writer.

The city of Fargo, ND set up a system to collect the methane from their landfill and send it to an oil seed processing plant a couple of miles away. They run one of their boilers on this methane instead of natural gas. They used an EPA grant for it and it went online in 2002.

See the Green-E website. Many landfills already extract their methane emissions. This is good even from a global-warming perspective, as methane is also a greenhouse gas. Finally, the EPA has tips on reducing methane emissions from livestock themselves, as opposed to their turds.

See the Green-E website. Many landfills already extract their methane emissions. This is good even from a global-warming perspective, as methane is also a greenhouse gas. Finally, the EPA has tips on reducing methane emissions from livestock themselves, as opposed to their turds.

See the Green-E website. Many landfills already extract their methane emissions. This is good even from a global-warming perspective, as methane is also a greenhouse gas. Finally, the EPA has tips on reducing methane emissions from livestock themselves, as opposed to their turds.

See the Green-E website. Many landfills already extract their methane emissions. This is good even from a global-warming perspective, as methane is also a greenhouse gas. Finally, the EPA has tips on reducing methane emissions from livestock themselves, as opposed to their turds.

I hate to spoil a joke, but I'm going to use this opportunity to inject some radiation education:

1. Pu-238 is an Alpha Emitter.
2. Alpha particles can't penetrate your skin (or even a sheet of paper) and are only dangerous if they are inhaled.
3. From the EPA: "The isotope, plutonium-238, is not useful for nuclear weapons. However it generates significant heat through its decay process, which make it useful as a power source. Using a thermocouple, a device that converts heat into electric power, satellites rely on plutonium as a power source. Tiny amounts also provide power to heart pacemakers."

Know anyone who's got a pacemaker?

Right now diesel is a pretty questionable choice in the US due to the high sulfur content of US diesel fuel - means that you put out high rates of lung-destroying fine particulates.

Once US diesel gets cleaned up (a few years from now) it'll be a better choice.

Your diesel engine is also dirtier than most SUVs. Beetle TDI Prius SUVs

Your diesel engine is also dirtier than most SUVs. Beetle TDI Prius SUVs

Your diesel engine is also dirtier than most SUVs. Beetle TDI Prius SUVs

I don't have much time but I'd like to make a quick point. I'll get to the other points later this weekend. Thanks for the conversation.

As for useful garbage, or Municipal Solid Waste as the government likes to call it, we make about 220 million tons (Good to get some governmnent facts in there! *grin*) Even if it returned double the efficiency of animal parts, it is only 5% or less solution. And we have become better with recycling so less of this will be around to turn into oil... (or it may replace recycling entirely, it seems likely)

Talk to you soon.

I haven't seen anyone credible suggest that we turn back the clock. What I've seen, primarily, is suggestions that we find ways to reduce our impact on our environment. The "global warming skeptics" tend to use language similar to yours, about simple black-vs.-white worldviews... and then go on to paint everyone arguing for restrictions, changes or even just more careful planning as anti-technology neanderthals. This is just as much of an excluded middle fallacy as what the skeptics are accusing the scientists of. (And please notice how frequently we're asked to accept that reports produced by environmental NGOs are tainted because they have an "agenda," but reports produced by industry groups with an unquestionable interest in the specific outcome they always find are good science.)

According to the EPA (which you'll recall is routinely attacked by the "alarmist environmentalists" for being far too conservative), "There is certainty that human activities are rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that these gases tend to warm our planet"; the IGCC concluded in 2001 that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be natural in origin." Slashdottians keep fighting a battle which is already over. There are many legitimate questions as to how much we are contributing to the warming trend, but the question of whether human activity is contributing is a done deal. You're right -- there's no point in "wasting energy trying to decide who's to blame," but it does not follow that there is no point in moderating our contributions to that warming trend whether or not we are a primary cause (or even a major contributor).

The other point that tends to get lost on Slashdot discussions of this topic is that technologists and scientists are providing solutions to these problems, not merely bemoaning them. It is sadly ironic that those promoting new developments in renewable energy, low-impact building techniques and resource conservation practices are, apparently, being so successfully painted as the luddites. This is not about "the evils of technology," this is about keeping up with it.

If you want us to "prepare for the worst and try our best to ride out the storm," then you should be in agreement with most of those tree-huggin' Nobel Prize winners and "green capitalists" like Amory Lovins. What's blocking us from those preparations aren't the environmentalists and climatologists -- it's the people who have a vested interest in current, higher-pollution methods and products.

And it doesn't have to be that way. BP Energy's power plants have actually been lower than what the supposedly industry-destroying Kyoto Protocol would have required for over two years now, and they did at no net cost to the company.

[BP CEO] Browne calls the net economic benefit "a positive surprise -- because it begins to answer the fears expressed by those who believed that the costs of taking precautionary action would be huge and unsustainable." In the United States, these false fears have been fed to the public by the coal industry lobby and by many electric power and oil companies. They back their claims by using the work of economists whose climate policy models assume that only a large energy tax -- the "magic bullet" that Browne decries -- will cut emissions. Not surprisingly, these abstract models project high costs, but they are diametrically opposed to BP's empirical evidence of what works and how much it will cost.

Look. Could human-affected global warming be a repeat of the Y2K Bug scare, in which, after nothing happened, people derided all the Chicken Littles for believing in impending doom? I certainly hope so! The thing is, we'll never be able to "prove" whether the reason nothing serious happened is because people listened to those Chicken Littles and scrambled like hell to fix problems that could be identified and addressed.

"Lead Poisoning is the most common environmentally caused disease in the United States, affecting 4-5% of children nationwide."
link

"Lead poisoning is the leading environmentally induced illness in children. At greatest risk are children under the age of six because they are undergoing rapid neurological and physical development."
link

"New research suggests that millions more children than previously thought might have lead-linked mental impairment, while another study supports a strong link between lead exposure and juvenile delinquency."
link

"Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used for many years in products found in and around our homes. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death."
link

... and these are just some quotes from google results.