The Pollution Deficit or Equation
Hmmmmm
When the "rate" of pollution, for whatever reason
or from whatever source "exceeds" the planets or a systems
natural and logical ability to process and deal with it,
then it creates a deficit or "health concern" or error
in the overall system and for that
which is causing or responsible for the excess of the planet or system.
This thus creates a pollution deficit for which
a "direct" onus exists on that causing the concern or error
to assist or assume responsibility in the treatment and processing of
any and all perhaps "excessive pollutants" causing and related to such.
Earth Citizen
Earth
November 2005
Ps. A glaring example of this is the radioacitive wastes created by nuclear energy
which have no adequate and "timely" means of disposal and have hence resulted in the overall
rise in the radioacitvity of the planet.
Radioactivity. Military activities and the testing of nuclear weapons have been a major source of radioactive contamination of the Arctic. Most atmospheric testing was carried out before 1962, with the Russian island of Novaya Zemlya being the major Arctic testing site. Fallout levels peaked in the 1960s and testing stopped in 1980.
Radionuclides on moss and lichen can reach humans through a simple three-member food chain with caribou in the middle. Radionuclides can also concentrate in mushrooms and berries. All these foods are part of the traditional diet. Their contamination not only affects people's nutrition but also their cultural identity. Radionuclide doses are generally higher for Arctic indigenous peoples living on traditional foods than for people further south. AMAP has calculated that radionuclide contamination from nuclear weapons testing has resulted in approximately 750 additional fatal cases of cancer in the Arctic (AMAP 1997).
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986 particularly affected Fennoscandia and northwestern Russia. The initial threat was through the contamination of milk by iodine 131. This was quickly replaced by the threat from caesium 137 with its longer-term contamination of berries, mushrooms and animals grazing on lichen and moss. After the accident, indigenous people in some parts of the Arctic had significantly increased radioactive levels (AMAP 1998).
Significant levels of the naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes polonium 210 and lead 210 exist in northern Canada and Alaska. These isotopes settle on vegetation, such as lichens, which are consumed by caribou. Levels in caribou are higher than in other mammals in the northern Canadian environment (Indian and Northern Affairs 1997a).
Man-made radiation sources
The radiation from natural and man-made radiation sources are identical in their nature and their effects. These materials are distributed in the environment, and in our bodies, according to the chemical properties of the elements. The NRC, the EPA, and other US and international agencies, require that licensees limit radiation exposure to individual members of the public to 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year, and limit occupational radiation exposure to adults working with radioactive material to 5,000 mrem (50 mSv) per year, and 10,000 mrem (100 mSv) in 5 years.
The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results from exposure to man-made radiation sources, such as medical X-rays.
Exceptions:
It may just be though, that some people or peoples are more sensitve to increased global radiation levels, than others.
For instance, traditional peoples may be less genetically prepared or disposed to accomadate such as well as
people or peoples who may be geosensitive or such. Generally though most cannot tolerate radiation naturally beyond
a certain level.
Now that's odd, there seems to be no or little information available on planetary or global radioactive levels, when one would think
that such, would be quite important or significant to monitor and manage.
I was looking for a site or a group
or agengy that monitors or has monitored
the total global or planetary radiation level
for a while. I would think with the satellites
we have that this would not be that difficult
ie: to give a "count" or so for any particular
year. This would be useful I think because
it could then correlate to cancer rates and risks
perhaps or notify us of any excessive radiation
or perhaps even "gamma rays" for space.
Hmmmm I wonder if the sun spots give off radiation?
Anyway for what I been able to gather thus far is
that the man made portion of the total global amount
is anywhere from 1% to 20% which is quite a variation
I agree and not that useful. If one averages it out
though and makes room for error then one could probably
say that for the last hundred years the total manmade
radiation of the total global radiation is about
7 or 10% or so per anum, which is a far chunk.
But again as stated above the radiation "tolerance" is probably different for different people so maybe some
ie: the canaries (canaries in a coal mine) might be overly
suseptible to the effects.
I've had some interesting comments from other sites....ie:
one suggesting that if one factored in the cost of proper
disposal of spent rods nuclear energy would not be terribly
"cost effective" another gave a site where you could caluculate your total yearly exposure to radiation and another saying that nuclear energy as such is a nonsustainable solution to an energy concern.
I would say the anomily and sensitivity by some to radiation or increased radiation levels is due to the fact perhaps that the newest radiation exposure ie: man made radiation has only been around for say about 150 to 200 years , hence exposure to this new 8 % per annum is relatively unprecidented whereas the exposure to "natural radiation" has been evolving for perhaps some 100,000 to 1 million years by
various mammals so there has been a long period of time to adapt. This relativly short 175 adaptive period then of late does present then
as a possible concern. Now I suppose one could argue that exposure to man made radiation has been occuring since the advent of the invention of fire and well then that's pickin nits isn't it.
I suppose my concern is based on the "news" that the emerging giant of China, is set to embark in a massive effort to supply its desparate energy needs by building very many nuclear plants. This does not seem "logical" or "natural" to me and for the Chinese to begin this, is out of keeping and charactor with what I percieved was there "wise" and "natural" nature. The reasoning for this is that nuclear technologies while "impressive" are not particularilly "sustainable". To be a sustainable technology suggests a more primative or simple or basic and natural ontology? When one starts dependending thus on unsustainable technologies, one creates a senario of tension, conflict and war. The reason I say again that nuclear technologies are unsustainable is due to the realization that they aren't cost effective due to the dangerous and undisposable waste and residue they produce. If the costs of disposable are factored in at present means, then they consitute a pollution or perhaps "energy" deficit means of energy or power.
ENERGY DEFICIT
I WONDER IF THAT'S IT THEN, THAT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY NEEDED TO "CONTAIN" OR DISPOSE OF NUCLEAR GENERATED ENERGY IS MORE THAN OR EQUAL TOO OR MINISUALLY LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY PRODUCED, GENERATED, OR GAINED, HENCE THE REALIZATION IT IS AN UNSUSTAINABLE AND INEPT TECHNOLOGY.
MATHEMATICAL HYPOTHESIS
IF A NUCLEAR REACTION PRODUCES 100 WATTS OF POWER BUT IT TAKES 120 OR 100 OR 98 WATTS OF POWER TO PROCESS
DISPOSE OF AND OR CLEAN UP THE MESS OR WASTE FROM THE NUCLEAR REACTION THEN THE NET GAIN IS BETWEEN 2 TO -20 WATTS.
100 - 120 = - 20 OR 100 - 98 = 2 OR 100 - 100 = 0.
I REST.....
SIR SWAN
PS Proposal
I suppose an "objective" or proposal in such if anyone should want to further this, would be to see what were the inputs and outputs if a reaction took place that would leave residue or waste that was benign or in a "radioactive neutral or safe (is there such a thing) state" and if this would result in a "net" gain, loss or stasis of energy, over the life of the process.
Sir
IN CONCLUSION
In conclusion then, if one has to use much or to much of the energy generated by a nuclear reaction, to treat or process the waste produced by the nuclear reaction then it isn't a particularly efficient or sustainable technology or source of energy, is it!
Most efficiency ratings of the various energy and power sources whether water, solar, methane, ethtane, oil, wind, nuclear, etc., come it at or below 5 or 10 % efficiency rate at any rate over the life of the source. Nuclear waste though having a life of many thousands of years though, if factored in, makes it probably the least efficient and likely source of sustainable energy or technology for us and our grandchildren.
Something to consider in this "fly now, pay later" society of ours.
Swanny
Canada
November 4, 2005
Hmmmmm
When the "rate" of pollution, for whatever reason
or from whatever source "exceeds" the planets or a systems
natural and logical ability to process and deal with it,
then it creates a deficit or "health concern" or error
in the overall system and for that
which is causing or responsible for the excess of the planet or system.
This thus creates a pollution deficit for which
a "direct" onus exists on that causing the concern or error
to assist or assume responsibility in the treatment and processing of
any and all perhaps "excessive pollutants" causing and related to such.
Earth Citizen
Earth
November 2005
Ps. A glaring example of this is the radioacitive wastes created by nuclear energy
which have no adequate and "timely" means of disposal and have hence resulted in the overall
rise in the radioacitvity of the planet.
Radioactivity. Military activities and the testing of nuclear weapons have been a major source of radioactive contamination of the Arctic. Most atmospheric testing was carried out before 1962, with the Russian island of Novaya Zemlya being the major Arctic testing site. Fallout levels peaked in the 1960s and testing stopped in 1980.
Radionuclides on moss and lichen can reach humans through a simple three-member food chain with caribou in the middle. Radionuclides can also concentrate in mushrooms and berries. All these foods are part of the traditional diet. Their contamination not only affects people's nutrition but also their cultural identity. Radionuclide doses are generally higher for Arctic indigenous peoples living on traditional foods than for people further south. AMAP has calculated that radionuclide contamination from nuclear weapons testing has resulted in approximately 750 additional fatal cases of cancer in the Arctic (AMAP 1997).
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986 particularly affected Fennoscandia and northwestern Russia. The initial threat was through the contamination of milk by iodine 131. This was quickly replaced by the threat from caesium 137 with its longer-term contamination of berries, mushrooms and animals grazing on lichen and moss. After the accident, indigenous people in some parts of the Arctic had significantly increased radioactive levels (AMAP 1998).
Significant levels of the naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes polonium 210 and lead 210 exist in northern Canada and Alaska. These isotopes settle on vegetation, such as lichens, which are consumed by caribou. Levels in caribou are higher than in other mammals in the northern Canadian environment (Indian and Northern Affairs 1997a).
Man-made radiation sources
The radiation from natural and man-made radiation sources are identical in their nature and their effects. These materials are distributed in the environment, and in our bodies, according to the chemical properties of the elements. The NRC, the EPA, and other US and international agencies, require that licensees limit radiation exposure to individual members of the public to 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year, and limit occupational radiation exposure to adults working with radioactive material to 5,000 mrem (50 mSv) per year, and 10,000 mrem (100 mSv) in 5 years.
The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results from exposure to man-made radiation sources, such as medical X-rays.
Exceptions:
It may just be though, that some people or peoples are more sensitve to increased global radiation levels, than others.
For instance, traditional peoples may be less genetically prepared or disposed to accomadate such as well as
people or peoples who may be geosensitive or such. Generally though most cannot tolerate radiation naturally beyond
a certain level.
Now that's odd, there seems to be no or little information available on planetary or global radioactive levels, when one would think
that such, would be quite important or significant to monitor and manage.
I was looking for a site or a group
or agengy that monitors or has monitored
the total global or planetary radiation level
for a while. I would think with the satellites
we have that this would not be that difficult
ie: to give a "count" or so for any particular
year. This would be useful I think because
it could then correlate to cancer rates and risks
perhaps or notify us of any excessive radiation
or perhaps even "gamma rays" for space.
Hmmmm I wonder if the sun spots give off radiation?
Anyway for what I been able to gather thus far is
that the man made portion of the total global amount
is anywhere from 1% to 20% which is quite a variation
I agree and not that useful. If one averages it out
though and makes room for error then one could probably
say that for the last hundred years the total manmade
radiation of the total global radiation is about
7 or 10% or so per anum, which is a far chunk.
But again as stated above the radiation "tolerance" is probably different for different people so maybe some
ie: the canaries (canaries in a coal mine) might be overly
suseptible to the effects.
I've had some interesting comments from other sites....ie:
one suggesting that if one factored in the cost of proper
disposal of spent rods nuclear energy would not be terribly
"cost effective" another gave a site where you could caluculate your total yearly exposure to radiation and another saying that nuclear energy as such is a nonsustainable solution to an energy concern.
I would say the anomily and sensitivity by some to radiation or increased radiation levels is due to the fact perhaps that the newest radiation exposure ie: man made radiation has only been around for say about 150 to 200 years , hence exposure to this new 8 % per annum is relatively unprecidented whereas the exposure to "natural radiation" has been evolving for perhaps some 100,000 to 1 million years by
various mammals so there has been a long period of time to adapt. This relativly short 175 adaptive period then of late does present then
as a possible concern. Now I suppose one could argue that exposure to man made radiation has been occuring since the advent of the invention of fire and well then that's pickin nits isn't it.
I suppose my concern is based on the "news" that the emerging giant of China, is set to embark in a massive effort to supply its desparate energy needs by building very many nuclear plants. This does not seem "logical" or "natural" to me and for the Chinese to begin this, is out of keeping and charactor with what I percieved was there "wise" and "natural" nature. The reasoning for this is that nuclear technologies while "impressive" are not particularilly "sustainable". To be a sustainable technology suggests a more primative or simple or basic and natural ontology? When one starts dependending thus on unsustainable technologies, one creates a senario of tension, conflict and war. The reason I say again that nuclear technologies are unsustainable is due to the realization that they aren't cost effective due to the dangerous and undisposable waste and residue they produce. If the costs of disposable are factored in at present means, then they consitute a pollution or perhaps "energy" deficit means of energy or power.
ENERGY DEFICIT
I WONDER IF THAT'S IT THEN, THAT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY NEEDED TO "CONTAIN" OR DISPOSE OF NUCLEAR GENERATED ENERGY IS MORE THAN OR EQUAL TOO OR MINISUALLY LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY PRODUCED, GENERATED, OR GAINED, HENCE THE REALIZATION IT IS AN UNSUSTAINABLE AND INEPT TECHNOLOGY.
MATHEMATICAL HYPOTHESIS
IF A NUCLEAR REACTION PRODUCES 100 WATTS OF POWER BUT IT TAKES 120 OR 100 OR 98 WATTS OF POWER TO PROCESS
DISPOSE OF AND OR CLEAN UP THE MESS OR WASTE FROM THE NUCLEAR REACTION THEN THE NET GAIN IS BETWEEN 2 TO -20 WATTS.
100 - 120 = - 20 OR 100 - 98 = 2 OR 100 - 100 = 0.
I REST.....
SIR SWAN
PS Proposal
I suppose an "objective" or proposal in such if anyone should want to further this, would be to see what were the inputs and outputs if a reaction took place that would leave residue or waste that was benign or in a "radioactive neutral or safe (is there such a thing) state" and if this would result in a "net" gain, loss or stasis of energy, over the life of the process.
Sir
IN CONCLUSION
In conclusion then, if one has to use much or to much of the energy generated by a nuclear reaction, to treat or process the waste produced by the nuclear reaction then it isn't a particularly efficient or sustainable technology or source of energy, is it!
Most efficiency ratings of the various energy and power sources whether water, solar, methane, ethtane, oil, wind, nuclear, etc., come it at or below 5 or 10 % efficiency rate at any rate over the life of the source. Nuclear waste though having a life of many thousands of years though, if factored in, makes it probably the least efficient and likely source of sustainable energy or technology for us and our grandchildren.
Something to consider in this "fly now, pay later" society of ours.
Swanny
Canada
November 4, 2005
