Climate Change thread

[Guest sibon]

Just now, melthebell said:

where did i say that?

He’s thrashing about all over the place today. It seems that he’s now resorted to lying about people and inventing opinions for them

 

I’m really not impressed by being misrepresented. Let’s hope he corrects things

[trastrick]

2 hours ago, melthebell said:

and do they get a choice in climate change? do they get a choice in my fires and floods? do they get a choice in destroying their home planet? everybodys home planet?

Just off the bat I would advise you to stay out of the woods, build on higher ground, and learn to co-exist with the majority on the planet, who don't happen to agree with your views. It's their planet too!  

 

[Dromedary]

1 hour ago, ads36 said:

Insulate old houses.

I'm amazed that some still need insulating after the many, many past initiatives to insulate them. Eeven Sunak has put forward a new insulate older homes idea.

 

 

[ads36]

because all they do is talk, and announce the same spending 17 times.

 

Then the program gets binned before they even really start.

 

announce-hesitate-abandon-repeat

 

This is no way to run a country.

Edited August 23, 2022 by ads36

[ads36]

Yes, i accept that we need to move toward Net Zero.

 

but that's a long way off... there are some easy, cost-saving, life-improving , job-creating things to start with - like house insulation and improved public transport.

 

The idea of Net Zero is that we can consider those ways in Which Carbon can be captured, not emitted. This could buy us decades of adjustment time.

 

For example : peat bogs (see : Peak District) should be absolutely *massive* stores of carbon.  We should be protecting them, and restoring the majority that we've damaged. This is such an easy win.

But instead, we drain and burn the peatbogs, so that landowners can make a *few* more quid from Grouse shooting. 

 

I'm not advocating the end of Grouse shooting, just those land practices which maximise the number of grouse, at the expense of degrading the ecosystem of the peat-bogs.

 

(Grouse eat heather, not sphagnum moss)

Edited August 23, 2022 by ads36

[Annie Bynnol]

3 hours ago, ads36 said:

something that has a half-life of 24,000 years - by definition - isn't very radioactive, and is easily contained / shielded

 

I wouldn't recommend it, but plutonium is more or less safe to handle.

 

 

 

You have just proved in two sentences that you understand nothing of the physics and chemistry of the isotopes of plutonium.

Similarly you have failed to understand the concept of 'half-life', decay products, types of radioactivity and intensity.

 

This level of science fiction is matched only by some of the spouting's* of Greens. This ignorance of science plagues the whole debate surrounding 'environmental issues' making it very difficult for the public to make decisions. The Greens, Far-right, Big Business, Media and Government all have vested interests in environmental issues. They all select the data that favours their case.

 

* sprouting's?

 

 

 

[ads36]

every day's a school day

 

example : The half life of Uranium 238 is measured in *billions* of years.

 

it doesn't glow in the dark, it's not hot, it's just a dense grey metal that occasionally spits out a neutron.

 

Now, Cesium. That stuff's nasty : Half-life = 30 years.

Edited August 23, 2022 by ads36

[Annie Bynnol]

33 minutes ago, ads36 said:

every day's a school day

 

example : The half life of Uranium 238 is measured in *billions* of years.

 

it doesn't glow in the dark, it's not hot, it's just a dense grey metal that occasionally spits out a neutron.

 

Now, Cesium. That stuff's nasty : Half-life = 30 years.

Naturally occurring caesium (the ¹³³Cs isotope) is stable and non-radioactive. The ¹³⁷Cs produced by reactors is extremely hazardous . Its half-life of 30 years is irrelevant as it will still give a lethal dose in hundreds of years time. 

The isotopes of plutonium and uranium before processing into fuels can be relatively harmless but the the isotopes of the elements produced as decay products during the reaction not so.

The volume of radioactive material used in a reactor is way greater than the amount of 'spent fuel'. 

 

 

The half-life of an isotope is not the only variable that determines the potential harmful nature of the radiation emitted.

 

 

[hackey lad]

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Naturally occurring caesium (the ¹³³Cs isotope) is stable and non-radioactive. The ¹³⁷Cs produced by reactors is extremely hazardous . Its half-life of 30 years is irrelevant as it will still give a lethal dose in hundreds of years time. 

The isotopes of plutonium and uranium before processing into fuels can be relatively harmless but the the isotopes of the elements produced as decay products during the reaction not so.

The volume of radioactive material used in a reactor is way greater than the amount of 'spent fuel'. 

 

 

The half-life of an isotope is not the only variable that determines the potential harmful nature of the radiation emitted.

 

 

Is this the Star Trek thread ?  What planet are the Isotopes from ? Why do Isotopes only live half a life ?  Is Spock a Mr or a Doctor ?  Why is my brain hurting ? Is it due to the radiation  ?  Tune in next week to find out 

[Chekhov]

20 hours ago, ads36 said:

Insulate old houses.

more nuclear power

protect our wild spaces (restore the peat bogs, allow trees to grow)

better and cheaper public transport

don't fly too often

buy less plastic tat.

There. my carbon-reduction manifesto. I'm clearly some kind of zealot.

None of those are short term* , so, bearing in mind the eye watering power bills that people are expecting (which many simply cannot afford), plus the possibility of power cuts if the wind doesn't blow or the rain does not replenish Norwegian Hydro reservoirs (or whatever), would you support reopening (or keeping open) some of the UK's coal fired power stations ? :

 

1 - No

2 - Yes but only for a limited period (and if so how long)

3 - Yes

 

* Insulation is not the panacea many people seem to think. We have a very well insulated house with a 3kW Solar system, in fact there is nothing practical we can do to improve it. And we only have our CH on about 4 hrs a day, and at only 20 degrees, yet our bills (still pegged at 2020 rates.....) were £1500 a year. I hate to think what they will be from next year, £4000 ?

Edited August 24, 2022 by Chekhov