PDA

View Full Version : macheads and environmentalism


jefhatfield
May 30, 2002, 11:46 PM
i recycle but that is about all i do

i found out that my guitar was partially made with rainforest woods and that bummed me out

if i ever get another guitar, it will be a gibson smartwood guitar made with environmentally friendly woods

i have thought about using paper that is ecologically freindly (if there is such a thing) as a next step in my life...i already do not get the news from newpapers...i go online and i have saved many trees for not getting the newspaper and when i compute on my machine, i rarely print unless i have a reason

some people think computing has made them use more paper, but for me, i have used way less paper!

jelloshotsrule
May 30, 2002, 11:50 PM
what type of car do you drive?

i drive a hummer that gets 8 miles a gallon. and i try to throw as much trash out the window... cigarette butts, mcdonald's wrappers, etc... as i can.


well basically i think i'm someone of an environmentalist. i am all for new forms of energy. renewable energy and whatnot.

driving small, efficient cars.

recylcing. not wasting. protecting animals (ie, not eating factory farmed meats).

stellar.

jefhatfield
May 30, 2002, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
what type of car do you drive?

i drive a hummer that gets 8 miles a gallon. and i try to throw as much trash out the window... cigarette butts, mcdonald's wrappers, etc... as i can.


well basically i think i'm someone of an environmentalist. i am all for new forms of energy. renewable energy and whatnot.

driving small, efficient cars.

recylcing. not wasting. protecting animals (ie, not eating factory farmed meats).

stellar.

my 1984 volvo sw is heavy and gets bad gas mileage even though the car lasts forever

i don't like big suv's but my car probably wastes more fuel

there is a new class of suv's coming out that are supposed to get much better mileage and not tip over so easily endangering the drivers, passengers, and all on the roadway...it is amazing how easily most models now tip over...the roads were not designed for such tall and unsteady vehicles and the banks and curves are deathtraps for them

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 12:03 AM
well, the gov't could do a whole lot to help things if they required car makers to up the gas mileage by even just a few miles per gallon... but being owned by oil companies, it won't happen any time soon.


suvs are poop.

i love seeing one person driving in them. especially on a road that's clearly a commute road... one person. suv. commuting a ways day in and day out. that's just smart.

Macette
May 31, 2002, 12:10 AM
i'm pretty green...

in fact, having the computer on most of the time is probably my big environmental disaster/extravagance.

i ride my bike to work (6k each way). the motion of the wheels charges my light batteries - so i don't use horrible throwaway batteries. still working on a way of getting it to charge my ipod...!

i buy only organic froot and vegies (and i know this is not a totally sustainable way of doing it - we'd need fifty earths to farm enough organic food for everyone to eat.. but it's a start).

i don't print much stuff out, and when i do i use recycled paper. i refill my own ink cartridges rather than chucking them.

i try to only eat meat once a week.

i can drive, but choose not to. (though when hydogen-run cars come out properly and are cheap, i'll probably drive one of those!)

i have a worm-farm and compost for my food scraps. i recycle all paper and bottles and as much plastic as they will take.

i also designed and helped produce an environmental sustainability kit for office workers, which is still being developed - but you can check it out online at http://www.ethicalbusiness.com.au/kit

green is good.

xx

3rdpath
May 31, 2002, 12:20 AM
i recycle and try to buy goods in recycleable containers.

i buy all of my produce from local organic farmers. next year i plan on growing much of my own produce.

i when i do go to the store, much of the time i push my daughter's stroller and use it as a grocery cart( of course, she is in it...)

my daughter is almost a vegetarian, she does eat some free range turkey and chicken. she loves brocolli, soy cheese, tomatos, cucumbers, gardenburgers, hummus..you name it...so thats one less mcdonalds customer on the planet.

i have a water friendly yard...some local draught tolerant plants and what grass i have isn't all that green. i never understood the concept of the thick green water consuming, yet unused, yard.

i rarely drive- 2047 miles on my car last year. my wife drives a honda.

i pick up trash( usually power-bar wrappers:mad: ) when i hike.

i make what i have last as long as possible-heck i still use a 233g3....my tv's almost 10 years old.

and i don't vote republican--hell, that alone helps the environment more than anything else i do.:D

3rdpath
May 31, 2002, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i love seeing one person driving in them. especially on a road that's clearly a commute road... one person. suv. commuting a ways day in and day out. that's just smart.

have you ever noticed how fat most suv drivers are?

gluttony is a state of mind.:eek:

eyelikeart
May 31, 2002, 12:23 AM
I recycle cans whenever possible...

I try to find use for empty glass jars...they are always good for something to someone...

and when I go to the grocery...all they have is plastic bags...but I find as many uses for them as possible...usually toting my lunches to work everyday...;)

eyelikeart
May 31, 2002, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by 3rdpath


have you ever noticed how fat most suv drivers are?

gluttony is a state of mind.:eek:

on the contrary...I've seen more mothers driving the damned things around here...:rolleyes:

whatever happened to station wagons?! mini-vans??

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
my daughter is almost a vegetarian, she does eat some free range turkey and chicken...planet.

that's cool... how did that come about? how old is she? i want to do that.... but fear the whole healthy eating issue (not that i have a kid yet)....

Originally posted by 3rdpath
and i don't vote republican--hell, that alone helps the environment more than anything else i do.:D

well i hope you don't truly believe that gore would've been much better.... eh?

Originally posted by 3rdpath
have you ever noticed how fat most suv drivers are?
gluttony is a state of mind.

yeah, most are. the others are moms. usually by themselves. wanting to feel "safe" (ha!) and powerful (high up)...

my bros made some shirts that said "consume" (ironic of course)... and not sure if you're familiar but... the toad the wet sprocket song.... "throw it all away".... has a message that is quite along your/our lines of thinking...

word

3rdpath
May 31, 2002, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
that's cool... how did that come about? how old is she? i want to do that.... but fear the whole healthy eating issue (not that i have a kid yet)....

well i hope you don't truly believe that gore would've been much better.... eh?

yeah, most are. the others are moms. usually by themselves. wanting to feel "safe" (ha!) and powerful (high up)...


the republican remark was a joke...i don't trust any of them to do whats right without a lot of coercion...

toad...gotta love em. great songs. glen and i were with the same publisher back in the early 90's.

as for the kid...my wife and i did a lot of research on how we wanted to birth and raise the baby. she's now 20 months old and is one healthy eater. she was breast fed for 14 months( yes, by my wife you smart-a's) and we slowly introduced the foods we ate( some in organic baby form). she loves veggies-tomatos are her favorite( ok, technically a fruit-let it go....), especially if they have a little balsamic vinegar on them. steamed brocolli and squash. spicy stuff like tzatziki and salsa. apples, bananas, pears and watermellon. she drinks organic milk because kids need it but she won't drink any juices. she drinks a lot of water and she loves the fruit smoothies my wife makes. so basically, she mimics what we eat which motivates us to eat well. its pretty cool knowing she's never had a french-fry but its tough when she's around our relatives and their kids-they eat nothing but crap. she's very healthy, happy and quite smart( spoken like a true dad...) we taught her sign language when she was very young because kid's verbal skills don't develope as quickly as their brains. she knew probably 20 signs in no time and had a blast communicating with us. who really knows for sure but we're very happy with the way she's developing.

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
the republican remark was a joke...i don't trust any of them to do whats right without a lot of coercion...

toad...gotta love em. great songs. glen and i were with the same publisher back in the early 90's.

as for the kid...

i figured you to be smarter than that.... just wanted to make sure.

you heard glen's new album? he and my bro kinda struck up a friendship at a show and ended up keeping in touch and whatnot... so at one show in va (solo) it was a 21+ place. and i was 19 or so... anyhoo, we were talking to him and whatnot and he asked if i wanted to sell t shirts for him so he tried to get me in that way.. no dice. but i was allowed to sit in the lobby area (with windows into the stage) and sell shirts.... and the bouncer type guys actually let me go in when i felt like it, so it was cool...

that's really cool about your daughter. so do you and your wife eat meat at all? just free range? or what? i am less about it for health (not that you necessarily are) than for other reasons... i hope my girlfriend (and possibly future wife) goes for at least trying to raise kids as total/partial veggies. my girlfriend is, but i could see her being less gung ho with the kid, due to health concerns (with some good reason)...

so if we're both still around here in a few years if/when i get married, i'll come to you for some tips! haha.

alex_ant
May 31, 2002, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Macette
i can drive, but choose not to. (though when hydogen-run cars come out properly and are cheap, i'll probably drive one of those!)
You did already know that electrolysis is required to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen, and so a hydrogen-powered car would do more damage to the environment than a gasoline-powered car provided the electrolysis facility is powered by fossil fuels, right? :)

Alex

iGav
May 31, 2002, 04:15 AM
Recycling is only really just picking up here in the UK, I recycle newspapers as and when I buy them....... I used to buy 7 to 8 broadsheet newspapers at the weekend....... so with that amount I figured it'd be worth recycling....... although my old borough council used to collect newspapers, cans and glass......

I don't own a car at the moment...... pretty much walk everywhere or atleast tube it.......

I'm a relatively green person interms of attitude, when the french were testing nuclear weapons, I boycotted French produce and I do the same if other countries do something that isn't in the environments best interests, it's a small gesture........... but I feel that it is right for me.

Think Global, Act Local...... :)

alex_ant
May 31, 2002, 04:38 AM
I want to know what you Mac-heads think about nuclear energy. I'm very pro-environment, although admittedly I am not the best at practicing what I preach, and nevertheless, despite the cries of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, I'm FOR nuclear energy (on several conditions), and I'd like to explain why:

Whenever the word "nuclear" is spoken to an environmentalist, their ears perk up and their mind conjures up images of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, a radioactive wasteland, glowing nuclear waste seeping through rivers everywhere, etc... when in fact the Chernobyl reactor meltdown was the only seriously disastrous nuclear incident in the history of atomic energy. It ultimately killed or harmed many thousands of people throughout Eastern Europe. It was awful, it was terrible - nobody will deny this. But the Chernobyl plants (including the one that melted down) were obsolete, '50s-era Soviet technology being forced by a cash-strapped and crumbling government to run at maximum capacity with only the bare minimum of safety measures in place. Their operators were untrained, underpaid and incompetent. Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen, to be sure, but no other nuclear plant in the world is allowed to operate anywhere near these standards. (And never has been.)

Modern nuclear power plants are heavily regulated. They are very safe, controlled, do not harm the environment (*), and produce massive amounts of power. Obviously there is no perfect energy source, so let's take a look at the alternatives:

Coal: Environmentally terrible.

Natural gas: Better for the environment than coal, but also more expensive and produces much less power.

Wind: Not viable for many geographical regions, requires huge land area and environmental devastation in order to be competitive with the major energy sources.

Solar: Ditto.

Hydroelectric: Has the potential to produce lots of power, but also causes substantial environmental destruction. Not viable for regions situated away from major rivers.

In my opinion, the opposition to nuclear power is environmentalist groupthink and closed-mindedness. "Why do we need deadly nucular energy when we can get all we need from the outlet in the wall?!" (I think I saw that quote on Macrumors a while ago but can't remember who from, sorry.) Looking at the big picture, not only is it GOOD for the environment, it is ultimately BETTER for the environment than ANY OTHER energy source.

I'd like to hear what you all think about this.

Alex

(*) The only problem is the radioactive waste. Nasty and terrible stuff, but very well localized. The mass of nuclear waste produced each year also is only a TINY fraction of the mass of coal smog spewed into the atmosphere each year. Solutions are already being devised to handle this stuff (e.g. Yucca Mountain - another issue entirely), with mostly successful results. Nuclear waste, contained either inside highly secure facilities or within concrete casks several feet thick, currently harms no one, and burying it / whatever will lessen the risk of environmental damage even further.

iGav
May 31, 2002, 05:36 AM
You know, I was only in a debate about this the other day........ I personally agree with Nuclear power, but not with the existing plants that produce it...... most of the Nuclear plants in the UK, were built in the 60's, and thus technology wise are not as safe as what can be constructed now....... the main plant in the uk Sellafield isn't perhaps the best advertisement for Nuclear power, as there are countless scares, and leaks and stuff, but power stations that could be built now would, and could be supremely safe in comparison...... As for Nuclear waste........ well the UK pretty much imports the worlds waste for reprocessing....... and then we store it all up...... cos we're nice like that...... :rolleyes:

As for Chernobyl, they're still operating the power station........ which completely defies belief and all logic....... and as I understand, the concrete cast that they created over the blown reactor, is beginning to crack up......

Macmaniac
May 31, 2002, 06:36 AM
Our minivan get 25mpg and so does our Volvo 240DL 1988 it has over 250000. I recycle and I try to conserve energy.

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 07:45 AM
Didn't we already have a thread like this - how do you make a difference?

Anyway, Nuclear power is a very nasty business, we need the plants, but the potential dissaters are what botherr me the most. Chernobyl was the worst, but the Russian reactors work a little differently than the American ones, so that sort of thing is much less likely to happen here.

You know alex_ant, you say that the radioactive waste is localized, the problem with that is getting it to the site for storage - for 500,000 years or more. We're leaving a hell of a legacy when we have all that nasty stuff burried in the Nevada desert, or where ever it ends up.

I'm just hoping we can get fusion up and going in my life time, that and viable fuelcells will make a huge impact on the amount of pollution. I'm just worried about what it going to be like once we get there.....

iGav
May 31, 2002, 09:52 AM
What would certainly contribute to help the energy crisis that we all face would be to build more ecologically sound housing........ there are many examples of innovative uses and applications of technology to make the house as efficient as possibly, such as recycling rain water for toilet flushes, to washing clothes, to showering, solar panel technology is well developed now, so that they can run a house (as long as the house is filled with more energy efficient technology) indeed some of the experimental housing developments in the uk generate enough power for the residents, and then some, that is sold back to the national grid so it actually makes the residents money.....

There are so many natural resources that we can harness, without destroying our environment, that maybe we need to address building these style homes, as opposed to continuing with our current power consumption and causing further pollution and destruction........

just a thought.

DavidOS
May 31, 2002, 10:20 AM
I try to eat low on the foodchain - I am not a strict vegitarian, but I eat very little meat.

I bike around town a good bit

When going out with friends, we always take 1 car and pick eachother up rather than all driving to meet somwhere.

I spread the Green Party Gospel - Somone said Gore would not have been much better. Amen! He would have been a bit better, but . . . not much. VOTE GREEN!

I recycle tons - no one on our street has less trash than us (we see it when we put out trash for the Garbage man - normally just 1 1/2 full bag here!)

Compost pile in the back yard!

As much as I like SETI @ HOME, computer goes OFF at night.

Lights go off when I go out of a room.

Two cars in the family - both get over 30 mpg average - Hondas - an accord - about 30 even or a bit less, and a civic clean model I think the letters are ex or somthing . . .

air/heat don't go on very high! we put on the heat just a bit and wear a sweatshirt! air doesn't go on until temp hits over 85 or so.

efficient shower head, shorter showers.

turn of tap when brushing teeth.

I buy hemp clothing - as much of it as I can afford. (it is expensive)

I buy more clothing at good will. the second R - REUSE

We buy recycled computer paper - the RRR for recycle only works if you create demand for reycled products.

hmmm . . . I am sure there is somthing more but . . . That is enough for now.

DavidOS
May 31, 2002, 10:30 AM
Igav! great point! I read a book - THE STRAW BALE HOUSE - about well . . . that. GREAT BOOK!!! and great idea - straw is a waste product - farmers often burn it - that makes CO2 etc. etc. so use it in homes! the homes are really beutiful - they can look very similar to regular homes, but the really nice ones take advantage of Straws natural grace. plus the R value of straw is around 50 !!! combine that with a rubble trench foundation, fuel efficiant appliances, passive solar design, etc. etc. and you have a darn ecologicly friendly house. (if I ever buy a hous I am going to build it . . . out of straw!)

good ideas too about rain h20 for toilits etc.

please no big bad wolf jokes, ok?

Nuclear energy makes me a bit worried, but I agree, it is not NECCICARALY horrible . . . however, I think that wind power, solar power are better ideas. WIND is a great idea! ofshore arrays have been used recently too - good idea! some people think they are an eyesore . . . well, that is a matter of opinion - I think they are rather nice looking.

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 10:34 AM
Well, I have to say that I am all for taking care of the environment, but not to the extreme. I eat meat, probably too much. I don't recycle, mainly because the city I live in doesn't have any way to do so. My wife drives a Mini-van, and I drive a honda, but if I could I would drive a car that was less than gas friendly.

Look, the point is that the earth, when it is tired of us, will get rid of us. I cannot believe that we are so full of ourselves to think that we are changing the climate of the planet. And don't give me the myth of global warming, it doesn't exist. There are normal climate shifts that occur. The last thirty years have been a lower temp, than the turn of the 19th to 20th century.

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by iGAV
What would certainly contribute to help the energy crisis that we all face would be to build more ecologically sound housing........ there are many examples of innovative uses and applications of technology to make the house as efficient as possibly, such as recycling rain water for toilet flushes, to washing clothes, to showering, solar panel technology is well developed now, so that they can run a house (as long as the house is filled with more energy efficient technology) indeed some of the experimental housing developments in the uk generate enough power for the residents, and then some, that is sold back to the national grid so it actually makes the residents money.....

There are so many natural resources that we can harness, without destroying our environment, that maybe we need to address building these style homes, as opposed to continuing with our current power consumption and causing further pollution and destruction........

just a thought.

word to all that. my older bro is an engineer and very environmentally conscious... he's in law school with the hopes of becoming environmental lawyer and such.... he wants to build an ecologically advanced house... ie, recycling whatever he can to create energy and whatnot in the house.... build it in the side of the hill and whatnot...

unfortunately, even if a few people do this, and are able to... it's not hitting the masses yet. that's what needs to happen. who knows when...

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, I have to say that I am all for taking care of the environment, but not to the extreme. I eat meat, probably too much. I don't recycle, mainly because the city I live in doesn't have any way to do so. My wife drives a Mini-van, and I drive a honda, but if I could I would drive a car that was less than gas friendly.

Look, the point is that the earth, when it is tired of us, will get rid of us. I cannot believe that we are so full of ourselves to think that we are changing the climate of the planet. And don't give me the myth of global warming, it doesn't exist. There are normal climate shifts that occur. The last thirty years have been a lower temp, than the turn of the 19th to 20th century.

global warming has become politicized, but recycling is an issue that is believed by both sides and it certainly can't hurt...plus recycling and garbage in general is great business...where i live, a company is making huge bucks digging up landfills and reclycling old spent ammo from a closed down army base

people find the strangest things that have been discarded...butcher covers, '04 subway token nyc, pre cbs decals, and other things...if sold...can easily give you enough cash to buy one a new shiny ibook

my brother in law found a butcher cover at a junk/dump store (beatles controversial album cover which is worth a mint these days)

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


global warming has become politicized, but recycling is an issue that is believed by both sides and it certainly can't hurt...plus recycling and garbage in general is great business...where i live, a company is making huge bucks digging up landfills and reclycling old spent ammo from a closed down army base

people find the strangest things that have been discarded...butcher covers, '04 subway token nyc, pre cbs decals, and other things...if sold...can easily give you enough cash to buy one a new shiny ibook

my brother in law found a butcher cover at a junk/dump store (beatles controversial album cover which is worth a mint these days)

Totally agree with you there. Recycling is just common sense really. I wish that our city had the ability to do so. Now in Ft. Walton where I was raised we started recycling there in the 80's. It was really cool actually.

iGav
May 31, 2002, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by DavidOS
Igav! great point! I read a book - THE STRAW BALE HOUSE - about well . . . that. GREAT BOOK!!! and great idea - straw is a waste product - farmers often burn it - that makes CO2 etc. etc. so use it in homes! the homes are really beutiful - they can look very similar to regular homes, but the really nice ones take advantage of Straws natural grace. plus the R value of straw is around 50 !!! combine that with a rubble trench foundation, fuel efficiant appliances, passive solar design, etc. etc. and you have a darn ecologicly friendly house. (if I ever buy a hous I am going to build it . . . out of straw!)

good ideas too about rain h20 for toilits etc.


There's a really cool book about advanced eco houses, called Experimental Houses by Nicolas Pople (Laurence King Publishing) that demonstrates what some people have done in the creation of eco friendly houses..... it really is amazing what some people have created.

I know in Scandanavia, that eco houses are very popular because of the extremities of the weather, they have thick insulated walls, tripple or even quad glazed windows....... techniques such as this can reduce you're average heating bill by 3/4........... because the house retains heat in the winter, and is cooler in the summer.......thus they may not be making a huge contribution to the global environment, but, they are improving there own life, by having a better lifestyle and saving money..... you don't have to be a eco warrior nutcase to see that even small contributions can make a difference.......

With regards to rain water, wll I think this is an area that will have to be developed, I know of a couple of new housing developments in the uk that store rain water and can filter it for personal needs, for use on washing, to flushing... etc etc.... surely it makes sense to use this natural resource rather than waste perfectly good quality water from the taps to wash cars, water the garden, flush the toilet etc...... makes perfect sense and is extremely cost effective......

I'd love to design my own eco friendly house, as jellshot pointed out though, this kind of thing is still no where near mainstream...... but doesn't mean that it can't began to be implemented on a large scale........

But the idea of having almost zero bills to run my house is very appealing to me....... :)

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Totally agree with you there. Recycling is just common sense really. I wish that our city had the ability to do so. Now in Ft. Walton where I was raised we started recycling there in the 80's. It was really cool actually.

you should see what the rich people in pebble beach (golf course city) toss in the trash...full sets of ansel adams prints...designer clothes...and yes, the crazy ones, who nobody there wants to talk about...toss money

one guy with a metal detector found either 1) drug money or 2) money buried or discarded by a mentally ill person in a metal box totaling 17,000+ dollars

i met this man at a party many years after his find...the origin of the money is still a mystery, but it is the single biggest metal detector find in the the history of the hobby

much of the money was molded beyond recognition, but the mint has a way of determining one bill from another and were able to salvage the 17 grand from it...there was actually more money in that box

i heard about the ansel adams prints from a friend of mine who is a hauler and finds tons of stuff at the dump and his grarage is full of cool stuff

another man i know near the dump gets all types of motors and rebuilds just about anything

from the pure commerce point of view, dumps are just amazing money and today's technology makes it pay off

also near ford ord, ca is a huge hill of glass near del monte beach where there are tons of cobalt blue bottles from yesteryear and now that stuff is collectible

give it enough time and everything that is in the dump now will be worth a lot to someone one day

a perfect example is botulism a, which if purified and diluted...then injected into the skin near the eyes and brows...can reduce wrinkles...and the most dangerous natural substance known to man is repackaged and called "botox" and sells for up to 1000 dollars an injection as administered by a physician

now talk about reclycling...man how i wish i was the doctor who discovered that

another potentially dangerous waste product, of nature, is bat guano, and that stuff is big money these days and even though it could spread ebola, there are subastances derived from guano that can cure some forms of cancer

everything in the world, no matter what it is, has its uses

mischief
May 31, 2002, 11:22 AM
No better insulator than dirt. No more eco friendly material too. Simple to build:

1. Dig BIG hole.

2. Assemble house out of steel and concrete. Windows, doors and skylights punch out the hillside.

3. Landscape over top of structure.

4. move in.

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by mischief
No better insulator than dirt. No more eco friendly material too. Simple to build:

1. Dig BIG hole.

2. Assemble house out of steel and concrete. Windows, doors and skylights punch out the hillside.

3. Landscape over top of structure.

4. move in.

i have seen a lawn on top of a house once...the house kind of looks like a mini apple inc headquarters

the dirt insulator idea may be a great idea for a sound studio...it is so hard for us rock musicians with 50 and 100 watt amps to practice without getting busted by the cops for making noise

the studio we had used had carpeting on a false wall with dead airspace between the false wall and the actual wall of the grarage...one step better than the common egg carton concept for shielding a garage band...but i wonder if dirt would insulate that damn bass guitar and bass drum...almost nothing can block out those booming frequencies!

mischief
May 31, 2002, 12:21 PM
Just landscape around the doors and windows or you'll funnell all that noise into a beam of auditory chaos.

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


i have seen a lawn on top of a house once...the house kind of looks like a mini apple inc headquarters

It actually a great way of reducing heat in cities. There have been numerous studies showing how buildings, roads and cleared land have greatly increased the local temperatures. By planting grass and shrubs on the roofs of buildings you can reverse this. Atlanta should start doing it, they have a huge heat signature. I'll try and did up the links if I can find them.

3rdpath
May 31, 2002, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
but i wonder if dirt would insulate that damn bass guitar and bass drum...almost nothing can block out those booming frequencies!

i think sound is a huge environmental polluter( so we're still on thread...)

dead airspace is your best bet for controlling low frequencies. bass traps will tune the bass IN your room but to eliminate those sounds from the outside world you really need a room within a room. i wonder about an underground room-depending on the soil compostion it might just reflect all the sound back into the room...ouch! carpet won't work because it really just effects hi freq's ( which makes the room sound even muddier...). so above ground or under, you still would probably need a tight room and dead air around it. and doors and windows are the main culprits of sound transmission.

and the sad truth is, if you want to isolate a rockin drummer-you're gonna have to spend a fortune to properly isolate the room. it would be cheaper to look for a house in a remote area:D or pay $20/hr for a rehearsal space.

i had my studio built last year and really had to weigh the costs of building a "drummable" room verses how frequently i would actually have drums in there....i found it was much, much, much cheaper to go to my buddy's studio and rent it for a few hours a month. its gonna be a long time before he recoups his building expenses...

my 24 bits:D

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath


i think sound is a huge environmental polluter( so we're still on thread...)

dead airspace is your best bet for controlling low frequencies. bass traps will tune the bass IN your room but to eliminate those sounds from the outside world you really need a room within a room. i wonder about an underground room-depending on the soil compostion it might just reflect all the sound back into the room...ouch! carpet won't work because it really just effects hi freq's ( which makes the room sound even muddier...). so above ground or under, you still would probably need a tight room and dead air around it. and doors and windows are the main culprits of sound transmission.

and the sad truth is, if you want to isolate a rockin drummer-you're gonna have to spend a fortune to properly isolate the room. it would be cheaper to look for a house in a remote area:D or pay $20/hr for a rehearsal space.

i had my studio built last year and really had to weigh the costs of building a "drummable" room verses how frequently i would actually have drums in there....i found it was much, much, much cheaper to go to my buddy's studio and rent it for a few hours a month. its gonna be a long time before he recoups his building expenses...

my 24 bits:D

thanks for the tips...the band is not that rich

at first the bassist had this 50 dollar p-bass copy with a 50w keyboard amp...then he moved up to an american standard p-bass...then he got a 250 watt gallien krueger head on a 12" speaker...then he got a cheap bass but with a dimarzio humbucker bass pickup in it...it just keeps getting louder

the drummer has a 7 piece pearl set with one standard bass drum and he uses medium sticks

the guitarist, with emg laden pickups and his 100 watt marshall half stack, is dead quiet on the outside

the room does sound muddy though inside and there is no echo so we have nowhere to hide our mistakes...no one uses digital signal processing or reverb so we have all learned how to play extremely tight which lends to a sterile sound live i think

i have left the band behind four years ago but i am the type of guy who likes to play inside of halls and reverberated places with reverb and a loose sound with passive pickups and generally lower volumes...i like vintage equipment and some newer dsp stuff...best of both worlds

mischief
May 31, 2002, 01:14 PM
I can walk you through some structural techniques if you like (it's what I do after all).:D

http://www.infinitysystems.com/home_audio/technology.asp

alex_ant
May 31, 2002, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
Anyway, Nuclear power is a very nasty business, we need the plants, but the potential dissaters are what botherr me the most. Chernobyl was the worst, but the Russian reactors work a little differently than the American ones, so that sort of thing is much less likely to happen here.
What I'm saying is that this is a complete misconception. Re-read what I wrote about the Chernobyl reactor and keep in mind that current designs the world over are light-years ahead of that in every way. The chances of a Chernobyl-like accident happening are basically nil. Yet it's been beaten into the public by propagandists that nuclear power = environmental devastation.
You know alex_ant, you say that the radioactive waste is localized, the problem with that is getting it to the site for storage - for 500,000 years or more. We're leaving a hell of a legacy when we have all that nasty stuff burried in the Nevada desert, or where ever it ends up.
The thing about burying it DEEP within a desert mountain is that 1) nobody is around in the desert, 2) if anyone ever finds it, only the handful of people that do find it will be killed, sending a message to the rest to stay away, vs. the MILLIONS that are currently suffering from degraded health and ultimately untimely death due to fossil fuel combustion every year.

Not to mention that this lengthy storage requirement has the potential to be DRAMATICALLY reduced thanks to modern breeder reactors, which convert highly toxic waste into more innocuous substances with shorter half-lives. Such reactors are not being widely used today because it's not mandatory, but I would be in favor of them.

What do you think about nuclear power now? (Not trying to be a smart-ass - just wondering.)

Alex

mischief
May 31, 2002, 02:13 PM
No matter how deep you bury it, it's an issue. Even well designed facilities have to deal with the fact that Nuclear waste has a nasty tendency to pop it's containers.

There's also ground water to deal with (it may be a desert now but what about 800,000 years from now?).

Halflife is just that: Half it's dangerously radioactive lifespan so a 500k halflife is a million years of radiation hazard.

As for finding it: If world civilization took a dive and we all forgot how to read
"Danger Radioactive Materials" signs, how do you say keep out? There's only one way: Bury it deep and blast the entry so it's indistinguishable.


The only safe Nuclear power is Solar.

alex_ant
May 31, 2002, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by DavidOS
Nuclear energy makes me a bit worried, but I agree, it is not NECCICARALY horrible . . . however, I think that wind power, solar power are better ideas. WIND is a great idea! ofshore arrays have been used recently too - good idea! some people think they are an eyesore . . . well, that is a matter of opinion - I think they are rather nice looking.
Why does nuclear energy worry you, considering the safety level of modern technology? You must be deathly afraid of flying then, because the odds of a 767 crashing are about 100,000 times greater than a modern nuclear power plant melting down, if not more.

How are wind and solar better ideas? Wind requires the clear-cutting of a wide swath of land. The generators individually do not generate much power, so huge numbers of them are required in order to rival existing coal plants. Wind can be a good energy source in some (few) situations, but it is small beans, and nowhere near replacing the brunt of our power generation (fossil fuels & nuclear). Also, although you don't find the generators an eyesore, keep in mind that many other people do.

Solar panels 1) are inefficient, 2) are very expensive, and 3) don't work when it's not sunny, thus requiring battery storage, which ups the cost and environmental degradation even more. They are even less efficient than wind power, requiring more surface area to produce less power. I would be all for people replacing their roof shingles with solar panels, but most couldn't afford that, and it would barely make a dent in the power grid anyway.

Alex

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 02:22 PM
You can't rely on 'modern technology' to solve all the problems. Mischief is right, and its what I was getting at that burying it isn't a solution. The planet is geologically active, I'm not talking about the ground water here, but the is no way we can be sure that in 1000 years a volcano pops up right in Yucca mountain or where ever the waste gets stored.

The only true way to get rid of the waste would be to launch it right at the sun. Obviously, we're not able to do that safely, effectively or easily. Maybe if fusion comes along we might be able to process the waste a little differently to neutralize it, but again, that's a long way off.

And the inefficiencies of alternative energy sources will be over come eventually. Right now Nuclear Power is a necessary evil (I'm not totally against it, I'm just worried about the legacy).

alex_ant
May 31, 2002, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by mischief
No matter how deep you bury it, it's an issue. Even well designed facilities have to deal with the fact that Nuclear waste has a nasty tendency to pop it's containers.

There's also ground water to deal with (it may be a desert now but what about 800,000 years from now?).

Halflife is just that: Half it's dangerously radioactive lifespan so a 500k halflife is a million years of radiation hazard.
Nuclear waste will not pop a well-designed container, but I agree with the rest of what you say here completely. I never said I was in favor of Yucca Mountain - only that it was one of the solutions being devised to the problem of nuclear waste buildup. As long as the containers are intact, ground water is not an issue. I would be in favor of:

1) Breeder reactors. A practical solution in existence today but not being used due to cost (which is not astronomical, but merely higher).
2) Researching depth-drilling techniques and shooting the waste deep into a well-researched area of the mantle, where currents will suck it down even further.
3) The use of ocean subduction faults, similar to the above.
As for finding it: If world civilization took a dive and we all forgot how to read "Danger Radioactive Materials" signs, how do you say keep out? There's only one way: Bury it deep and blast the entry so it's indistinguishable.
Let's do that then.

Alex

mischief
May 31, 2002, 03:41 PM
Sahara Desert. Dig down to bedrock, retain sand. Drill into bedrock as deep as possible. Drop it down the hole. Seal hole with concrete to within 100' of surface, using seismic "thumpers" to pole out voids. Collapse and vitrify the last 100'. Pull the walls out and let the sand cover the site.

The deepest mines in the world. There is a Molybdenum mine in the Sierra Nevadas that goes, quite literally UNDER the whole width of the range. Any mine would have to be completely collapsed to be secure.

The digging into the mantle Idea is not wise: The mantle is under enormous pressure and would give you an instant volcano anywhere you drill deep enough.

Really the best solution is to get out of Nukes entirely. Ever been to Mexicali? The northern Mexican State of Baja California would be PERFECT for huge solar arrays. The issue in the US with Solar is that nobody wants to give up the space. If existing Barren land was used Hundreds of Terawatts could come north from the deserts with little or no ecological impact.

alex_ant
May 31, 2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by mischief
Sahara Desert. Dig down to bedrock, retain sand. Drill into bedrock as deep as possible. Drop it down the hole. Seal hole with concrete to within 100' of surface, using seismic "thumpers" to pole out voids. Collapse and vitrify the last 100'. Pull the walls out and let the sand cover the site.

The deepest mines in the world. There is a Molybdenum mine in the Sierra Nevadas that goes, quite literally UNDER the whole width of the range. Any mine would have to be completely collapsed to be secure.

The digging into the mantle Idea is not wise: The mantle is under enormous pressure and would give you an instant volcano anywhere you drill deep enough.
So you agree that dealing with nuclear waste is within our means. Obviously it would require much local, state, federal and international cooperation, and perhaps some high-level strongarming to overcome the NIMBY factor, but I think it's both possible and plausible.

Another solution would be to drop the casks into ocean subduction faults where, over time, geological forces will push them into the mantle, disintegrating the casks and allowing the waste to flow throughout earth's innards, reducing its concentrations to negligible levels and rendering it harmless. This is definitely not outside the realm of plausibility either.
Really the best solution is to get out of Nukes entirely. Ever been to Mexicali? The northern Mexican State of Baja California would be PERFECT for huge solar arrays. The issue in the US with Solar is that nobody wants to give up the space. If existing Barren land was used Hundreds of Terawatts could come north from the deserts with little or no ecological impact.
There are reasons our deserts are not being covered with solar arrays. Covering northern Baja California with solar arrays would have a significant impact on the climate of northern Mexico and the southwestern US. It would be an ecological disaster. It would also cost hundreds of billions of dollars to deploy an array of that size, not to mention the billions of dollars per year it would require in upkeep. Solar power is not cost-effective on any but the smallest scale.

Alex

mischief
May 31, 2002, 05:02 PM
As it stands Baja is already dying from water strangulation due to American water policies. Farmers in Baja would be much better off keeping up solar arrays than trying to grow ANYTHING out there.

Solar Arrays aren't as high a maintenance as you would guess and with no significant waste it's hard to call it innefficient. As to Environmental impact: The salt marsh and desert at the head of the Gulf of Baja is close to totally dead anyway. Putting up Arrays would only add shade to the mix, which i can't imagine would hurt anything.

BTW: If you're going to get into "macrobiotic soil" and environmental protectionism over DESERT that, I might add is about as scenic as a strip mine I'll have to pull out the whoopass cuz protecting naturally barren wasteland is not particularly productive when re-forrestation could really use some help.

alex_ant
May 31, 2002, 07:28 PM
I agree that Baja is well-suited for solar arrays. But the fact remains that current solar cell technology is inefficient - it requires too much surface area to generate too little power. I'm NOT anti-solar energy - I think it's a great idea on a small scale (a panel on every roof, for example). But a large, centralized solar generation facility is simply unfeasible. Even in the barren desert.

I agree that solar arrays are not high-maintenance at all, but the sheer size of the one you speak of would negate this. "Hey, Steve, panel A6835 is out..." followed by a 30-minute truck drive to actually reach the panel. A multi-terawatt solar array would be on the order of the Egyptian pyramids and the Three Gorges Dam as one of the most massive construction projects in the history of civilization. The economic benefits for Mexico would be huge, but Mexico lacks the capital.

Who is going to pay for this array? The cost of an array capable of replacing existing energy sources, supplying the terawatts of power you mentioned, would probably wind up somewhere in the trillions. (I would imagine.)

As I mentioned, if a massive solar array in the desert were such a great idea, it probably would have been built already. I believe nuclear energy is much more practical, although solar does have the potential to help out.

Alex

mischief
Jun 3, 2002, 11:51 AM
Remember how I was raving about saving the world?

http://www.ifc.org/

PM me if you want to know what other thoughts I've had.:D

sturm375
Jun 5, 2002, 03:17 PM
Although I agree that Global Warming has become too politicallized, I feel that we have to push it. Along with everything else. OPEC, and Detroit have us "trained" to accept fossile and non-replunshible fuels, we need to push back. Forget about more supply, lets use less period. Not from the Middle-East, AND not from North America. Now lets take a look at the alternitives:

Wind: Not great, but (thinking non-nationally) look at all the land in northern Canada, Russia. Lots of land, very little impact, conclusion: Why Not!

Hydro-Electric: While past versions have meant daming up a river, that isn't so any more. They have made new turbines that do not require a dam of any kind. So lets do it!

Tidal: Possible the highest potential for producing energy. Tapping into the power of gravity, plus the enviromental impact is extreamly minimal. Makes a bit of an eyesore on the shoreline, but can create new reefs for sea life. Beach front property is expensive, but I think we can sacrifice some, especially in the northern (colder) climates. That is where the larger waves are anyway.

Solar: How much of the surface of the earth is habitable? Why not put solar panals up, especially in the desert climates. Plus newer solar panals are very energy dense.

Nuclear (Fission): Very dirty, but very powerful. I say continue to use/develop it. More things will come, both safer and more powerful. Nothing happens if it is not used. Having trouble with the wast, well as much as I hate litering, there is a reason it is called Space! Or launch it toward the Sun!

Nuclear (Fusion): Not available yet, and if we continue our fear of all things nuclear, we will never get there.

Not any single one of these is the solution. We must advocate ALL of them. Start small, use/build a house with solar and/or wind power. Don't be afraid to support new power stations, especially nuclear. They need to be built somewhere, and I for one am sick of the N.I.M.B. (Not In My Backyard) mentality.

sturm375
Jun 5, 2002, 03:37 PM
A 500k half life does not mean that the whole thing will be gone in 1 mill. This is an introductory Calculus:eek: problem. At the end of the half life cycle, you will indeed have half of the stuff you started with. However in another cycle, you will have another half, so you have 1/4 of the origional. This keeps going forever.

Among the radioactive elements commonly found in nuclear reactor "low-level" waste are: Tritium, with a half-life of 12 years and a hazardous life of 120-240 years; Iodine-131, half-life of 8 days, hazardous life of 80-160 days; Strontium-90, half life of 28 years, hazardous life of 280-560 years; Nickel-59, half life of 76,000 years, hazardous life of 760,000-1,520,000 years, and Iodine-129, half-life of sixteen million years, hazardous life of160-320 million years.

From: www.nirs.org/factsheets/llwfct.htm


The half-life of a radioactive element is the amount of time it takes for one-half of the quantity of that element to decay-either to a stable form, or to another radioactive element in a "decay chain." After ten half-lives, one thousandth of the original concentration is left; after 20 half lives, one millionth. Generally 10--20 half lives is called the hazardous life of the waste. Example: Plutonium-239 which is in irradiated fuel, has a half-life of 24,400 years. It is dangerous for a quarter million years, or 12,000 human generations. As it decays, uranium-235 is generated; half-life: 710,000 years. Thus the hazard of irradiated fuel will continue for millions of years. This material must be isolated from contaminating or irradiating living things for this long.

From: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfcst.htm

Mr. Anderson
Jun 5, 2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
and Iodine-129, half-life of sixteen million years, hazardous life of160-320 million years.


This is why just burrying the stuff in a mountain is not a viable option. With the geologic activity continuing for many more millions of years, nothing we recognize today will be obvious in 200 million years. Scary thought, actually.

alex_ant
Jun 5, 2002, 09:40 PM
First of all, it's not necessarily a scary thought, because although geological forces will re-shape the landscape dramatically after 200 million years, those forces are hardly dynamic, and, based upon our observations of the past, we are able to predict with a great degree of accuracy the outcome of these forces millions of years into the future. We can actually make plate shifting work in our favor.

Secondly, it's not strictly the half-life of the spent reactor fuel that is important - it is the amount of radioactive particles emitted by the uranium over time, which falls off much faster than the spent fuel decays. Let's say a bundle of spent fuel emits 6000 rem/h of radiation a year after it is out of commission. A very deadly amount. After 50 years, though, it will be emitting 1000 rem/h; after 100 years, 300 rem/h; after 500 years, 100 millirem/h. 100 millirem/h is 1/4 average background radiation exposure, or thousands of times less than is known to cause physical harm. Now, breathing it in, or eating it, would be a different story - but surely, since all this nasty stuff will be buried hundreds of meters underneath a mountain anyway, that shouldn't be much of a concern.

This is why nuclear energy looks so appealing to me. If there were a better solution, I'd be all for it. I hope to see fusion come to fruition in the coming decades, but as it stands, no other energy source can provide the amount of power we need, with an equal or lesser environmental impact, at the price we are willing to pay.

Alex

P.S. Talk about obtaining information from highly biased sources, sturm375...

sturm375
Jun 6, 2002, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

P.S. Talk about obtaining information from highly biased sources, sturm375...

What makes my last post biased? Those are just FACTS! The post I made before I clearly stated that I am in favor of Nuclear energy.

jefhatfield
Jun 6, 2002, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
First of all, it's not necessarily a scary thought, because although geological forces will re-shape the landscape dramatically after 200 million years, those forces are hardly dynamic, and, based upon our observations of the past, we are able to predict with a great degree of accuracy the outcome of these forces millions of years into the future. We can actually make plate shifting work in our favor.

Secondly, it's not strictly the half-life of the spent reactor fuel that is important - it is the amount of radioactive particles emitted by the uranium over time, which falls off much faster than the spent fuel decays. Let's say a bundle of spent fuel emits 6000 rem/h of radiation a year after it is out of commission. A very deadly amount. After 50 years, though, it will be emitting 1000 rem/h; after 100 years, 300 rem/h; after 500 years, 100 millirem/h. 100 millirem/h is 1/4 average background radiation exposure, or thousands of times less than is known to cause physical harm. Now, breathing it in, or eating it, would be a different story - but surely, since all this nasty stuff will be buried hundreds of meters underneath a mountain anyway, that shouldn't be much of a concern.

This is why nuclear energy looks so appealing to me. If there were a better solution, I'd be all for it. I hope to see fusion come to fruition in the coming decades, but as it stands, no other energy source can provide the amount of power we need, with an equal or lesser environmental impact, at the price we are willing to pay.

Alex

P.S. Talk about obtaining information from highly biased sources, sturm375...

interesting points

i think nuclear power is a short term solution until we find that better solution you mention

fusion does not seem bad with no dangerous by-products...we have been so close and yet so far but we will crack that egg one day

at first i thought nuclear power was way too dangerous and not even an option...but now my views have changed somewhat but being human, we will make errors as we already have, and i would not be surprised if there was a big goof up here like chernobyl...assuming we stick with nuclear power for the rest of this century or more

but i hope for the safest run with this type of power source

it is hard to talk about this topic because so many become emotional over it...nuclear power is a not too perfect source of energy...but it was designed as a weapon in the same way as an icbm

alex_ant
Jun 6, 2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by sturm375


What makes my last post biased? Those are just FACTS! The post I made before I clearly stated that I am in favor of Nuclear energy.
From the NIRS about page: Increasingly, we find ourselves working to build a truly international anti-nuclear/safe energy movement, while striving to meet an ever-increasing demand for our services in the United States.

Alex

Judo
Jun 7, 2002, 10:14 PM
Although this site isn't totally devoted to enviromental causes it does have a lot of articles in regards to the cause www.alternet.org

Also I know it's a bit of an urban legend but a couple of years ago I was watching a programme on Discovery channel about backyard tinkerers, and ther was this one guy who had developed a way to seperate H2O to hydrogen and oxygen cheap and fast. Not only that but he had also made an engine that could run on tap water! and also a way of converting your everyday car so it could run on tap water!!!!

Im not really into the conspiracy theory thing but if this was a real technology and a government knew about it do you think they would let it be released, and if no what lengths would they goto to stop it from being released??

alex_ant
Jun 7, 2002, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Judo
Also I know it's a bit of an urban legend but a couple of years ago I was watching a programme on Discovery channel about backyard tinkerers, and ther was this one guy who had developed a way to seperate H2O to hydrogen and oxygen cheap and fast. Not only that but he had also made an engine that could run on tap water! and also a way of converting your everyday car so it could run on tap water!!!!

Im not really into the conspiracy theory thing but if this was a real technology and a government knew about it do you think they would let it be released, and if no what lengths would they goto to stop it from being released??
Didn't the Discovery Channel also show an hour-long program about some anonymous guy who lived in a tiny house and worked as a bouncer, but who had a 200 IQ or something and was going to revolutionize our knowledge of spacetime physics? :) Maybe that was 20/20, and not the Discovery Channel...

There were also these two guys, Fleischman and Pons I believe, who were going to prove cold fusion is possible and make it commercially viable. If cars could run on tap water without any MAJOR caveats, rest assured that they would. As it stands, I've got a lightbulb that runs on potatoes, no joke... :)

Alex

Judo
Jun 8, 2002, 12:03 AM
Heh the old potato battery trick aye:p
I remember that from me schoolin days.

I am a sceptic of both the conspiracy theory and the validity of this backyard tinkerer/Discovery, and although I pretty much know nothing of the science of trying to sepertate water into it's parts, it does seem like something that might be possible to do cheaply, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think I heard that they already can, but not with out using hugh amounts of energy and machinary.

But deep down I guess I am a bit of a dreamer who does want to believe that this technology is possible and that governments are controlled buy an underground society of money hungry trolls who breath CO2.

So what was Georgey poos reason for not signing the kyoto protocol????

Economic I'm guessing

I was so gutted when I heard he wasn't going to sign :(