HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
Andrew, Trainor, ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield
1325 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
Members1,325
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
asygo 29
Rick H 26
kland 16
November
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Member Spotlight
Rick H
Rick H
Florida, USA
Posts: 3,244
Joined: January 2008
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
9 registered members (TheophilusOne, dedication, daylily, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible), 2,639 guests, and 5 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 14 of 55 1 2 12 13 14 15 16 54 55
Re: Global Warming Farce [Re: kland] #167227
08/04/14 04:02 PM
08/04/14 04:02 PM
K
kland  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
I forgot where I got this link from. I thought it was from APL, but I couldn't find it here.

How the Global Warming Scare Began - John Coleman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SyUDGfCNC-k

James, could you comment on the video?

Re: Global Warming Farce [Re: kland] #167247
08/05/14 09:09 PM
08/05/14 09:09 PM
APL  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2020

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
Plastic - do we even know what is happening to the plastic in the ocean? NO. 99% of the plastic is MISSING.

June, 2014 - Science Magazine:
http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/06/ninety-nine-percent-oceans-plastic-missing

Best-case scenario for the fate of the missing plastic? It’s sinking from the weight of organisms sticking to it or in animal feces and getting buried on the ocean floor, Law says. “I don’t think we can conceive of the worst-case scenario, quite frankly. We really don’t know what this plastic is doing.”


Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
Re: Global Warming Farce [Re: jamesonofthunder] #167278
08/07/14 12:14 PM
08/07/14 12:14 PM
K
kland  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
Originally Posted By: jamesonofthunder
WAYYYY BIGGER PROBLEM THAN FUKUSHIMA!!!!!!
Radiation continuing spewing into the air and ocean and you think plastic is a bigger problem?

No one knows what to do about it, how to stop it, no way to clean it up and you think plastic is a bigger problem?

Kids in Japan getting cancer, animals getting deformed, people dying, our west coast becoming contaminated and you think plastic is a bigger problem?

The radiation is killing the oceans, contaminating the soils, people seeing it as the end of the world and you think plastic is a bigger problem?



Well, I suppose you could always change your light bulbs and pat yourself on the back. Or use paper bags....


Quote:
And in this quote you used about the dead fish, while it was a result of the tsunami that hit Japan it was not because of the radiation. You should read the articles better if you are going to use them to prove anything.
James dear, what do you think was enenews.com's purpose of listing it on their website? Why do you think people commenting on the articles think it has something to do with radiation? Do you think they are all wrong?



Official: “Unfortunately, the fuel itself is exposed” at Fukushima — Scientist: Our tests show contamination isn’t going away… reactors are leaking out into ocean… there’s still a problem — PBS: Plume of water tainted with radiation is reaching to other side of Pacific

TV: “Mysterious die off of young salmon” in Pacific Northwest — “Healthy… and then they die” heading out to sea — “Far less plankton than normal… There are too many questions” — Researchers now testing for plankton and Fukushima contamination off West Coast

Alaska: “Scientists alarmed by new mystery disease” — Pacific Northwest: “Alarming changes” — “Couldn’t believe my eyes” — “Scientists really stumped… It’s kind of an alien thing” — “Gotten much, much worse… a horror show… could wreak havoc on entire ecosystems from Mexico to Alaska”

TV: Huge increase in dead and sick sea mammals on California coast — Unprecedented numbers, annual record broken in 7 months — Starving, drooling, brain damaged, suffering seizures — Sea lions ‘mysteriously’ vanishing on other side of Pacific — Experts: We don’t know what’s happening


James, why don't you go to them and say there is no mystery, no need to be stumped, that you know what is happening and try to say with a straight face that the reason animals are dying is because of...... plastic.....

(Think they would believe you?)
By the way, why do you suppose they are stopping to post death rates of sea lions, stopping from measuring radiation counts, etc.?



How the Global Warming Scare Began - John Coleman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SyUDGfCNC-k

James, could you comment on the video?

Re: Global Warming Farce [Re: kland] #167332
08/08/14 05:15 AM
08/08/14 05:15 AM
jamesonofthunder  Offline
Banned
SDA
Active Member 2015

3500+ Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,613
USA
Are you seriously going to blame everything happening in the oceans worldwide on Fukushima? How long have you been an conservationist? Have you even visited any site? I have traveled the world going to hot spots when I can and you have no clue what you are talking about.

Do you know how much toxic waste Russia has dumped into the Arcticic ocean? Have you heard of Stepovogo bay? You think Fukushima is bad, look into that place and see the real horrors that lead to starfish dismembering themselves.

Russia dumped 19 radioactive ships Plus 14 Nuclear Reactors into ocean

The catalogue of waste dumped at sea by the Soviets, according to documents seen by Bellona, and which were today released by the Norwegian daily Aftenposten, includes some 17,000 containers of radioactive waste, 19 ships loaded with an unlisted amount radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radioactively contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded with nuclear fuel.

From 1946 through 1993, thirteen countries used ocean disposal or ocean dumping as a method to dispose of nuclear/radioactive waste DIRECTLY INTO THE OCEAN BY THE TONNAGE!!!!. The waste materials included both liquids and solids housed in various containers, as well as reactor vessels, with and without spent or damaged nuclear fuel. Since 1993, ocean disposal has been banned by international treaties. (London Convention (1972), Basel Convention, MARPOL 73/78) But do you think they really stopped? If Russia thinks so much about land treaties where they are in open rebellion against the United Nations and taking over Crimea and trying to take the Ukraine with sights set on Belarus and the Baltic states you think some treaty will stop them from disposing waste any way they want?

This is what we can prove!!!

Ocean dumping of radioactive waste 1946-93
Country dumped

USSR 38,369 0 874 39,243 1959-92[10] Arctic ; 20 sites, 222x103m3 and reactor w or w/o spent fuel,
Pacific Ocean (mainly sea of Japan); 12 sites, 145x103m3
Russia 0.7 0 2.1 2.8 1992-93 Arctic ; 3,066m3,
Pacific Ocean 6,327m3
Belgium 0 2,120 0 2,120 1960-82 NE Atlantic 6 sites, 55,324 containers, 23.1x103tons
France 0 354 0 354 1967-69 NE Atlantic 2 sites, 46,396 containers, 14.3x103tons
Germany 0 0.2 0 0.2 1967 NE Atlantic 1 site once, 480 containers, 185tons
Italy 0 0.2 0 0.2 1969 NE Atlantic 1 site, 100 containers, 45tons
Netherlands 0 336 0 336 1967-82 NE Atlantic 4 sites, 28,428 containers, 19.2x103tons
Sweden 0 3.2 0 3.2 1959,61,69 Baltic sea 1 site, 230 containers, 64 tons, NE Atlantic 1 site, 289.5 containers, 1,080 tons,
Switzerland 0 4,419 0 4,419 1969-82 NE Atlantic, 3 sites, 7,420 containers, 5,321 tons
UK 0 35,088 0 35,088 1948-82 NE Atlantic 15 sites, ?? containers, 74,052 tons
and 18 sites off coast of British isles more than 9.4 TBq
USA 0 2,942 554 3,496 1946-70 Mid/NW of Atlantic (9), Gulf of Mexico (2) total 11 sites, 34,282 containers, ? tones,
Mid/NE of Pacific Ocean, total of 18 sites, 56,261 containers, ? tones
Japan 0 0 15.08 15.08 1955-69 South of main island, 6 sites 15 times, 3,031 containers, 606x103m3
New Zealand 0 0 1.04 1.04 1954-76 East coast of New Zealand, 4 sites, 9 containers, 0.62m3
South Korea 0 0 no data 1968-72 Sea of Japan, 1 site 5 times?, 115 container, 45 tons
Total 38,369 45,262 1,446 85,077 Subtotal of all volume reported is 982,394m3.
*Some countries report the mass and volume of disposed waste and some just tonnage. The US did not report tonnage or volume of 90,543 containers.



Arctic ocean dump sites of radioactive waste. SU: Soviet Union (38,369TBq), RU: Russia (0.7TBq), SE: Sweden.



We're talking about millions of tons of radioactive waste directly into the oceans that we know for a fact. And you worry about runoff at Fukushima? Notice the United States in there? We refused to give the amount we dumped!

Hazardous waste water treatment and hazardous waste landfills in Russia

Industrial hazardous waste generated in the areas of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast is currently transported to the Krasnyi Bor hazardous waste landfill located at the border of St. Petersburg and LO, approximately 45 km southeast of St. Petersburg. Krasny Bor is located by the River Izhora, which discharges to the River Neva and further directly to the Baltic Sea. The landfill is operated by the City of St. Petersburg. Krasnyi Bor has been identified by HELCOM as one of the worlds “hot spots” posing a severe risk of detrimental impacts on the Baltic Sea because of hazardous substances emissions with a need for prompt remedial action. Illegal dumping of hazardous waste has been and still is common in Russia regardless of any treaty! No hazardous waste treatment plant that would meet the requirements for proper hazardous waste treatment currently exists in the entire Russia.

According to the United Nations, some companies have been dumping thousands of TONS of radioactive waste and other hazardous materials into the coastal waters of Somalia, taking advantage of the fact that the country had no functioning government since the early 1990s so everyone is using there coast as a dumping ground.

We're not talking about leakage of radioactive water or a little air pollution here, we're talking about spend fuel rods encased in barrels that are 50 years old that are just now starting to leak! It gets me so mad to read stuff from people like you focusing on the little itty bitty scraps that the media feeds you and blame everything on our planet on that event.

But I am supportive of your indignation against what you see. I'm just saying that the plastic in the oceans IS MUCH greater a problem than Fukushima by ten thousand times. The direct dumping of active radioactive waste is BILLIONS of times worse!!! For a thousand years worse!!!

As far as the plastic problem Do you know what eating polymers does to living creatures? It's as bad as drinking crude oil.

Do you remember the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico? You want to know how many billions of times worse that was to our planets oceans than Fukushima?


Search me oh God and know my heart, test me and know my anxious thoughts, see if there is any offensive way in me and lead me to the way everlasting. Amen
Re: Global Warming Farce [Re: kland] #167388
08/09/14 07:23 PM
08/09/14 07:23 PM
jamesonofthunder  Offline
Banned
SDA
Active Member 2015

3500+ Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,613
USA
Some of the lakes and even parts of the arctic ocean in northern Russia and China are so polluted with toxic radioactive waste that they do not even freeze in -20F weather!!!



China is coming on strong, and has surpassed Russia for pollutants within the last ten years.

Made in China: Our Toxic, Imported Air Pollution
Mercury, sulfates, ozone, black carbon, flu-laced desert dust. Even as America tightens emission standards, the fast-growing economies of Asia are filling the air with hazardous components that circumnavigate the globe.

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/18-made-in-china-our-toxic-imported-air-pollution

“There is no place called away.” It is a statement worthy of Gertrude Stein, but University of Washington atmospheric chemist Dan Jaffe says it with conviction: None of the contamination we pump into the air just disappears. It might get diluted, blended, or chemically transformed, but it has to go somewhere. And when it comes to pollutants produced by the booming economies of East Asia, that somewhere often means right here, the mainland of the United States.

Jaffe and a new breed of global air detectives are delivering a sobering message to policy makers everywhere: Carbon dioxide, the predominant driver of global warming, is not the only industrial by-product whose effects can be felt around the world. Prevailing winds across the Pacific are pushing thousands of tons of other contaminants—including mercury, sulfates, ozone, black carbon, and desert dust—over the ocean each year. Some of this atmospheric junk settles into the cold waters of the North Pacific, but much of it eventually merges with the global air pollution pool that circumnavigates the planet.

These contaminants are implicated in a long list of health problems, including neurodegenerative disease, cancer, emphysema, and perhaps even pandemics like avian flu. And when wind and weather conditions are right, they reach North America within days. Dust, ozone, and carbon can accumulate in valleys and basins, and mercury can be pulled to earth through atmospheric sinks that deposit it across large swaths of land.

Pollution and production have gone hand in hand at least since the Industrial Revolution, and it is not unusual for a developing nation to value economic growth over environmental regulation. “Pollute first, clean up later” can be the general attitude, says Jennifer Turner, director of the China Environment Forum at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The intensity of the current change is truly new, however.

China in particular stands out because of its sudden role as the world’s factory, its enormous population, and the mass migration of that population to urban centers; 350 million people, equivalent to the entire U.S. population, will be moving to its cities over the next 10 years. China now emits more mercury than the United States, India, and Europe combined. “What’s different about China is the scale and speed of pollution and environmental degradation,” Turner says. “It’s like nothing the world has ever seen.”

Development there is racing far ahead of environmental regulation. “Standards in the United States have gotten tighter because we’ve learned that ever-lower levels of air pollution affect health, especially in babies and the elderly,” Jaffe says. As pollutants coming from Asia increase, though, it becomes harder to meet the stricter standards that our new laws impose.

The incoming pollution has sparked a fractious international debate. Officials in the United States and Europe have embraced the warnings of the soft-spoken Jaffe, who, with flecks of red and gray in his trim beard, looks every bit the part of a sober environmental watchdog. In China, where economic expansion has run at 8 to 14 percent a year since 2001, the same facts are seen through a different lens.




China’s smog-filled cities are ringed with heavy industry, metal smelters, and coal-fired power plants, all crucial to that fast-growing economy even as they spew tons of carbon, metals, gases, and soot into the air. China’s highways are crawling with the newly acquired cars of a burgeoning middle class. Still, “it’s unfair to put all the blame on China or Asia,” says Xinbin Feng of the Institute of Geochemistry at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a government-associated research facility. All regions of the world contribute pollutants, he notes. And much of the emissions are generated from making products consumed by the West.

Our economic link with China makes all the headlines, but Jaffe’s work shows that we are environmentally bound to the world’s fastest-rising nation as well.

Dan Jaffe has been worrying about air pollution since childhood. Growing up near Boston, he liked to fish in local wetlands, where he first learned about acid rain. “I had a great science teacher, and we did a project in the Blue Hills area. We found that the acidity of the lake was rising,” he recalls. The fledgling environmental investigator began chatting with fishermen around New England. “All these old-timers kept telling me the lakes had been full of fish that were now gone. That mobilized me to think about when we burn fossil fuels or dump garbage, there is no way it just goes somewhere else.”

By 1997 Jaffe was living in Seattle, and his interest had taken a slant: Could pollution reaching his city be blowing in from somewhere else? “We had a hunch that pollutants could be carried across the ocean, and we had satellite imagery to show that,” Jaffe says. “And we noticed our upstream neighbors in Asia were developing very rapidly. I asked the question: Could we see those pollutants coming over to the United States?”

Jaffe’s colleagues considered it improbable that a concentration of pollutants high enough to significantly impact American air quality could travel thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean; they expected he would find just insignificant traces. Despite their skepticism, Jaffe set out to find the proof. First he gathered the necessary equipment. Devices to measure carbon monoxide, aerosols, sulfur dioxide, and hydrocarbons could all be bought off the shelf. He loaded the equipment into some university trucks and set out for the school’s weather observatory at Cheeka Peak. The little mountain was an arduous five-hour drive northwest of Seattle, but it was also known for the cleanest air in the Northern Hemisphere. He reckoned that if he tested this reputedly pristine air when a westerly wind was blowing in from the Pacific, the Asian pollutants might show up.

Jaffe’s monitors quickly captured evidence of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, hydrocarbons, radon, and particulates. Since air from North America could not have contaminated Cheeka Peak with winds blowing from the west, the next step was identifying the true source of the pollutants. Jaffe found his answer in atmospheric circulation models, created with the help of data from Earth-imaging satellites, that allowed him to trace the pollutants’ path backward in time. A paper he published two years later summarized his conclusions succinctly. The pollutants “were all statistically elevated when the trajectory originated over Asia.”



Officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took note, and by 1999 they were calling Jaffe to talk. They were not calling about aerosols or hydrocarbons, however, as concerning as those pollutants might be. Instead, they were interested in a pollutant that Jaffe had not looked for in his air samples: mercury.

Mercury is a common heavy metal, ubiquitous in solid material on the earth’s surface. While it is trapped it is of little consequence to human health. But whenever metal is smelted or coal is burned, some mercury is released. It gets into the food chain and diffuses deep into the ocean. It eventually finds its way into fish, rice, vegetables, and fruit.

[img]https://d13uygpm1enfng.cloudfront.net/article-imgs/en/2013/02/01/AJ201302010087/AJ201302010088M.jpg[/img]

When inorganic mercury (whether from industry or nature) gets into wet soil or a waterway, sulfate-reducing bacteria begin incorporating it into an organic and far more absorbable compound called methylmercury. As microorganisms consume the methylmercury, the metal accumulates and migrates up the food chain; that is why the largest predator fish (sharks and swordfish, for example) typically have the highest concentrations. Nine-tenths of the mercury found in Americans’ blood is the methyl form, and most comes from fish, especially Pacific fish. About 40 percent of all mercury exposure in the United States comes from Pacific tuna that has been touched by pollution.

In pregnant women, methylmercury can cross the placenta and negatively affect fetal brain development. Other pollutants that the fetus is exposed to can also cause toxic effects, “potentially leading to neurological, immunological, and other disorders,” says Harvard epidemiologist Philippe Grandjean, a leading authority on the risks associated with chemical exposure during early development. Prenatal exposure to mercury and other pollutants can lead to lower iq in children—even at today’s lower levels, achieved in the United States after lead paint and leaded gasoline were banned.

Among adults, University of California, Los Angeles, neuroscience researcher Dan Laks has identified an alarming rise in mercury exposure. He analyzed data on 6,000 American women collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and found that concentrations of mercury in the human population had increased over time. Especially notable, Laks detected inorganic mercury (the kind that doesn’t come from seafood) in the blood of 30 percent of the women tested in 2005–2006, up from just 2 percent of women tested six years earlier. “Mercury’s neurotoxicity is irrefutable, and there is strong evidence for an association with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,” Laks adds.

Circumstantial evidence strongly pointed to China as the primary origin of the mercury; the industrial processes that produce the kinds of pollutants Jaffe was seeing on Cheeka Peak should release mercury as well. Still, he could not prove it from his data. To confirm the China connection, and to understand the exact sources of the pollution, researchers had to get snapshots of what was happening inside that country.

One of the first scientists with feet on the ground in China was David Streets, a senior energy and environmental policy scientist at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. In the 1980s he was at the forefront of the study of acid rain, and in the 1990s he turned his attention to carbon dioxide and global warming as part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Streets began focusing on emissions from China about 15 years ago and has since become such a noted expert that he helped the Chinese government clean up the smoke-clogged skies over Beijing before the Olympics in 2008.

Nevertheless, Streets considered the endeavor important because China is full of the two biggest contributors to human-generated mercury, metal smelting and coal combustion. Smelting facilities heat metal ores to eliminate contaminants and extract the desired metal, such as zinc, lead, copper, or gold. Unfortunately, one of the consistent contaminants is mercury, and the heating process allows it to escape into the atmosphere in gaseous form. Similarly, coal contains trace amounts of mercury, which is set free during combustion at power plants.

Streets began by studying reports from China’s National Bureau of Statistics. China’s provinces provide the central government with detailed data on industrial production: how much coal they burn, how much zinc they produce, and so on. “China is very good at producing statistical data. It’s not always 100 percent reliable, but at least it’s a start,” he says. Those statistics help the Chinese government monitor the economy, but for Streets they also quantified China’s mercury-laden raw materials.

The numbers from the statistics bureau told Streets the total amount of mercury that might be emitted, but he also needed to know how much actually made it into the air. To obtain that information, he turned to pollution detectives—a group of professional contacts he had met at conferences, along with graduate students who spent time in his lab. Most of the time, Chinese factories turned these “spies” away. “Factory owners had nothing to gain and a lot to lose,” Streets says. “They were nervous that the results would get leaked to the government.”

Yet some of Streets’s moles got through by guaranteeing that the data would stay anonymous. Once inside, they took samples of raw materials—zinc ore in a smelting facility, for example—and installed chemical detectors in smokestacks. After a few days of data collection, they passed the information to Streets.

The statistics Streets collected were hardly airtight. Factory foremen and provincial officials were not above providing inflated data to make themselves look more productive, and the managers who were willing to let his inspectors take measurements were often the very ones with nothing to hide. “There’s still a lot of uncertainty,” Streets concedes, “but we know more than we did before.”

In 2005 Streets and his team reported their first tally of human-generated mercury emissions in China, for the year 1999. The scientists estimated the amount at 590 tons (the United States emitted 117 tons). Almost half resulted from the smelting of metals—especially zinc, because its ores contain a high concentration of mercury. Coal-burning power plants accounted for another 38 percent of Chinese mercury emissions, and that percentage may be going up. As recently as 2007, China was building two new power plants a week, according to John Ashton, a climate official in the United Kingdom.

Streets’s team published a subsequent inventory estimating that China’s mercury emissions had jumped to 767 tons in 2003. “Mercury emissions in China have grown at about 5 to 6 percent a year,” he says. “It’s pretty much undeniable.”

Streets had shown that China was churning out mercury, but he was left with a big uncertainty: What happened to it on its journey aloft? Finding the answer fell to Hans Friedli, a chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) who had spent 33 years working for Dow Chemical. Friedli had found his own path into the esoteric world of pollution forensics. Back in the early 1990s, a conversation with his neighbor, an NCAR scientist, sparked an interest in wildfires, a major source of mercury emissions. By 1998 he had a full-time job tracking the toxin for NCAR.

With its copious mercury emissions (not only from industry but also from volcanoes, wildfires, and dust storms), Asia drew Friedli’s interest. China would never allow him to do aerial studies in its airspace, but in 2001 he heard about research flights off the coasts of Japan, Korea, and China designed to track dust particles emanating from the mainland. Friedli convinced the research team to take him along to measure mercury concentrations in the atmosphere. Throughout April 2001, 19 researchers, professors, and grad students took 16 flights aboard a cavernous retired Navy C-130 plane custom fit with 19 instruments for measuring pollutants like carbon monoxide, sulfur, and ozone.

During each flight, Friedli sat at his station awaiting readouts from his mercury sensor: an intake valve that sucked in air and guided it over a gold cartridge within the plane. Any mercury in the air would be absorbed by the gold. Every five minutes the instrument rapidly heated the gold, releasing any trapped mercury.

Plumes of mercury-laced air near the earth’s surface are mixed with other pollutants, but at 20,000 feet Friedli discovered concentrated mercury plumes soaring eastward toward North America. He concluded those plumes must have circled the entire globe at least once, releasing more ephemeral pollutants like carbon monoxide so that the mercury stood out even more.

Eager to follow the trail of Asian mercury plumes, Friedli set his sights across the Pacific, off the West Coast of the United States. In a series of 11 research flights in 2002, he identified a plume that looked very much like the ones he’d found near China the year before. Specifically, the plume had a carbon monoxide-to-mercury ratio that served as a fingerprint for gases from the same source.

What Friedli detected was just one detail of a much larger picture. Mercury plumes can wobble in latitude and altitude or park themselves in one spot for days on end. Emissions from 
China—and from the United States, and indeed from every industrial country—feed a network of air currents that, as equal-opportunity polluters, serve up toxic mercury around the world.

Drawing insights from research by Friedli and Streets, Jaffe looked at his data anew. If mercury were arriving from China, he should be able to detect it, yet his operation on Cheeka Peak showed no such signal. Conducting reconnaissance from a plane, he realized why. The peak, at 1,500 feet, hovered below the mercury plume line. Seeking a higher perch, he chose Mount Bachelor, a ski resort in central Oregon with an altitude of 9,000 feet.

In late winter 2004, Jaffe and his students huddled deep in their down jackets, bracing against a bitter gale that buffeted the chairlift ferrying them and their costly equipment to the summit. Inside the mountaintop lodge they installed a small computer lab and extended tubes outside to vacuum up the air. Later that year they conducted a similar experiment in Okinawa, Japan.

Back in Washington, they plotted their analysis of mercury in the air against satellite data showing wind currents. “My hypothesis was that we would see the same chemicals, including the same ratio of mercury to carbon monoxide, from Mount Bachelor and Japan,” Jaffe says. The numbers showed exactly the expected similarity. “This was a real ‘aha’ moment for us, because the two regions were phenomenally close.”

It was the first time anyone had decisively identified Asian mercury in American air, and the quantities were stunning. The levels Jaffe measured suggested that Asia was churning out 1,400 tons a year. The results were a shock to many scientists, Jaffe says, because “they still couldn’t wrap their heads around the magnitude of the pollution and how dirty China’s industry was.” They were only starting to understand the global nature of the mercury problem.

Over the years, Jaffe’s Mount Bachelor Observatory has also monitored many other noxious pollutants wafting across the Pacific. One major category is sulfates, associated with lung and heart disease. When sulfur dioxide exits China’s coal and oil smokestacks, it converts into sulfates in the air. “Sulfates are water-soluble and get removed from the atmosphere relatively quickly, creating acid rain that falls in China, Korea, and Japan,” Jaffe says. Yet some of the sulfates stay aloft, finding their way here and contributing to smog along the West Coast.

The biggest pollutant coming out of Asia, at least in terms of sheer mass, could be dust from the region’s swelling deserts. “It’s not a new phenomenon,” Jaffe says, but it has gotten worse with deforestation and desertification caused by poorly managed agriculture. About every three years, a huge dust storm over China sends enormous clouds across the Pacific. “We can visually see it,” Jaffe says. “It usually hangs around for about a week. We’ve tried to quantify how much it contributes to the particulate loading here, and it’s a little under 10 percent of the U.S. standard on average each year. It’s a significant amount.”

[img]http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/83000/83554/China_tmo_2014113.jpg[/img]

Chinese dust has obscured vistas in U.S. national parks, even on the East Coast. The amount of dust is widely variable and can hit rare extreme peaks. The highest level recorded was from a 2001 dust event. “It reached approximately two-thirds of the U.S. air quality standard at several sites along the West Coast,” he reports. One study from Taiwan tracked avian flu outbreaks downwind of Asian dust storms and found that the flu virus might be transported long-distance by air spiked with the dust.

Perhaps the most counterintuitive traveling contaminant is ozone, commonly associated with ground-level pollution in cities. Volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides from Asian cars and industry mix in the atmosphere as they cross the Pacific Ocean and convert in sunlight into ozone, a main ingredient in smog, Jaffe explains. When air with high ozone concentrations touches down in North America, it can pose the classic dangers of urban smog: heart disease, lung disease, and death.

Jaffe recently coauthored a paper on Asian ozone coming to America. It found that ozone levels above western North America creep upward every spring. “When air was coming from Asia, the trend was strongest. That was the nail in the coffin,” Jaffe says. “The increase was estimated at 0.5 part per billion [ppb] per year. But that’s huge. In 10 years that’s another 5 ppb. Let’s say the epa orders a 5 ppb reduction and we achieve that, and yet, because of the growing global pool, in 10 years that gets wiped out. We’ll have to keep reducing our emissions just to stay even.”



The underlying message of Jaffe’s detective work should not be all that surprising: All of the world’s atmosphere is interconnected. People have accepted this notion when it comes to carbon dioxide or the chemicals that eat away at the ozone layer, but Jaffe is finding that they are still coming to terms with the reality that it applies to industrial pollutants in general.

The fact is, those pollutants are everybody’s responsibility, not just China’s. The epa has estimated that just one-quarter of U.S. mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants are deposited within the contiguous U.S. The remainder enters the global cycle. Conversely, current estimates are that less than half of all mercury deposition within the United States comes from American sources.

Then again, the United States has spent considerable effort over the past half-century trying to clean up its act. China is still much more focused on production. To fuel its boom, China has become a pioneer in wind power but has also begun buying up huge inventories of coal from markets around the world. Streets recently estimated that China’s use of coal for electricity generation will rise nearly 40 percent over the next decade, from 1.29 billion tons last year to 1.77 billion tons in 2020. That is a lot more pollution to come.

“It’s a classic example of a tragedy of the commons” Jaffe says, referring to a dilemma in which individuals act in their own self-interest and deplete a shared resource. “If 20 people are fishing in the same pond, with no fishing limit, then you catch as many as you can because it will be empty in weeks. Nobody has an incentive to conserve, and the same goes for pollution.”

The discovery of the global mercury cycle underscores the need for an international treaty to address such pollutants. Under the auspices of the United Nations, negotiations have at least begun. Jaffe, Streets, and China’s Xinbin Feng are now consultants to the U.N. Environment Programme’s Global Partnership on Mercury Atmospheric Transport and Fate Research, which helped contribute data that led to a proposed U.N. mercury treaty in 2009.

When it comes to some pollutants, China has taken important steps. For instance, recent policies encourage desulfurization and other filtering technology in power plants. But convincing developing nations to move aggressively on mercury may be at least as tough as mobilizing them against carbon emissions. “This is not considered a pollutant that urgently needs to be controlled on the national level,” Feng says. “It’s not fair that you emitted so much mercury and other pollutants when you had the chance to industrialize. You had 200 years, and now you want to stop other countries from developing too.”

“We need to be concerned,” Jaffe counters in his low-key way. “There is no Planet B. We all live downwind.”

[img]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/beijing_smog_21.jpg[/img]

This NASA satellite photo of East Asia documents a common path for industrial pollutants once they enter the atmosphere; along the way, South Korea and Japan can receive acid rain resulting from China’s sulfate emissions. Satellite images and atmospheric models such as these have helped Jaffe demonstrate how mercury and other emissions from China feed into a complex network of air currents that distribute pollutants across the globe.


Search me oh God and know my heart, test me and know my anxious thoughts, see if there is any offensive way in me and lead me to the way everlasting. Amen
Re: Global Warming Farce [Re: kland] #167436
08/11/14 06:12 PM
08/11/14 06:12 PM
K
kland  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
James, you make an excellent case that there are many worse hazards to worry about than supposed global warming or plastic! I had been aware that up along the northern Europe/Russian coasts that radioactive wastes were dumped, but were in "contained" in containers. Except those "containers" are starting to corrode and leak. All this in addition to Fukushima could be contributing to the unusual deaths.

Is there something specific about radiation presented on the enenews.com site you wish to dispute? There's some there that speak about that Fukushima and U.S. uses different types of nuclear

Re: Global Warming Farce [Re: kland] #167437
08/11/14 06:26 PM
08/11/14 06:26 PM
K
kland  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
(It only posted part)

[uses different types of nuclear] power fuel than over in Europe and Russia. A type that is much worse than theirs. What do you know about that? Also, you seem to be saying that 200 trillion bq/kg or 4 peta-becquerel per kilogram range is nothing compared to what has been going on. So, would you say there should be no problems for anyone who wish to move to the pacific northwest? No problems for those who eat seafood since it is minor compared to before? That is, we shouldn't panic and be all worried, move to the west coast if we desire, go about life as if Fukushima didn't happen?

If so, perhaps you should inform all the posters at enenews.com that they needn't be worried because a lot there think the end of the world has come. Oh, and also inform the make that, "some" of the authorities in Japan who's all worried about the coincidental thyroid cancer increase.

Last edited by kland; 08/11/14 06:40 PM.
Re: Global Warming Farce [Re: kland] #167439
08/11/14 10:34 PM
08/11/14 10:34 PM
jamesonofthunder  Offline
Banned
SDA
Active Member 2015

3500+ Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,613
USA
Originally Posted By: kland
(It only posted part)

[uses different types of nuclear] power fuel than over in Europe and Russia. A type that is much worse than theirs. What do you know about that? Also, you seem to be saying that 200 trillion bq/kg or 4 peta-becquerel per kilogram range is nothing compared to what has been going on. So, would you say there should be no problems for anyone who wish to move to the pacific northwest? No problems for those who eat seafood since it is minor compared to before? That is, we shouldn't panic and be all worried, move to the west coast if we desire, go about life as if Fukushima didn't happen?

If so, perhaps you should inform all the posters at enenews.com that they needn't be worried because a lot there think the end of the world has come. Oh, and also inform the make that, "some" of the authorities in Japan who's all worried about the coincidental thyroid cancer increase.


The radiation that comes from the Fukushima nuclear reactors is exactly the same as every other reactor, so I assume you are talking about reactor #3 which had been fueled by a small fraction (6%) of plutonium containing mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, rather than the low enriched uranium (LEU) used in the other 5 reactors? Plutonium-239 is one of the three main isotopes demonstrated usable as fuel in nuclear reactors, along with uranium-235 and uranium-233. The resulting air contamination from the plutonium is no worse than using Uranium, and the Uranium would be at much worse doses by volume.

Plutonium is the main isotope used in Nuclear powered weapons, but the resulting contamination from Fukushima would be a lot less from the reactor meltdown using 6% Plutonium than the contamination from even 1 100% plutonium powered nuclear weapon. Over 500 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests were conducted at various sites around the world from 1945 to 1980. As public awareness and concern mounted over the possible health hazards associated with exposure to the nuclear fallout, various studies were done to assess the extent of the hazard. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/ National Cancer Institute study claims that nuclear fallout might have led to approximately 11,000 excess deaths, most caused by thyroid cancer linked to exposure to iodine-131. You want to talk about contamination? Those things were designed to spread destruction, but we used them like they were toys. Fukushima looks like a play toy for a play toy compared to the atmospheric tests that America has done.


Baker Shot", part of Operation Crossroads, a nuclear test by the United States at Bikini Atoll in 1946





Above are the per capita thyroid doses (in rads) in the continental United States resulting from all exposure routes from all atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site from 1951–1962 and only 50 tests were conducted there during that time frame. Imagine what the concentration has been in the air since then when over 500 tests have been conducted world wide!!! Notice how far the thyroid contamination spread just for 50 tests. Now imagine the whole world doing tests above ground for over 500 atmospheric tests.

The 6 Fukushima reactors where built during immense political pressure to build safely, so they tried to design it to pack the most punch in the smallest design. They made six smaller reactors instead of one big one for fail-safe purposes, but they then fired all six of them up and didn't expect a tsunami to wipe four of them out.

(How stupid to assume that for a country that is built where tsunami's and earthquakes are common)

This new discovery is very concerning for Tokyo today from Energy News. I have had several friends report that the situation is way worse than initial reports have said, and I have told you before that I am very concerned about this situation. And I will say it again that I am not trying to say Fukushima is not a major disaster. Like I reported to you before I am very concerned about the effects of Fukushima. I was on several Google+ threads trying to drum up concern about it because of the reports that do not make it into mainstream media. The issue is way worse than TEPCO is reporting.

I am also concerned about why the Governments of the world had allowed the perpetrators of the crime to be allowed to police their own crime scene, which is the best way to sweep an issue under the carpet. Especially since they were already sited by the Nuclear regulatory commission for falsifying documents before the incident. That is like letting Herman Goering investigate himself in the Nuremberg trials.

But I am only trying to say here that the plastic in the oceans is WAY worse than effects of Fukushima on the fish and wildlife in the ocean and to the world in general. The one does not negate the other. If you only knew how bad the oceanic plastic problem really is you would not even question this statement.



And the meltdown at Chernobyl was 10,000 times worse than what happened in Fukushima because of the size of the reactor. Those winds head east to us also. They didn't even come close to doing as much investigation as they have for Fukushima, and everyone just assumed that the particulates would dilute into the atmosphere and no one would be hurt. That was the biggest lie ever perpetrated.

The new report from Japan is terrible news for the residents of Japan. The major debris field from the explosion went in a straight line south right to Tokyo, while the radioactive plume went right into the prevailing North-easterly winds which hit Alaska first. Then the Oceanic currents went to the Pacific Northwest of the United states.

And as for your question about moving to the Pacific Northwest... I wouldn't... these issues from China are only going to get worse so it would be something to worry about even more in the future. And I am officially done with eating salmon which live in the pacific. All of this information should cause us to question the consumption of fish from the sea. All of that terrible information leads us to know how bad it really is out there. I would never let kids swim in the ocean now and that is a terrible thing to have to say.

Just to show you my past concern about this exact issue here are some G+ articles I posted last year on the 'Nuclear Energy' community on this subject. Everyone in that community are pro-nuclear and they take offense to anyone claiming nuclear is bad and they laugh at the damage caused by Fukushima. You can tell the dialogue gets quite heated but I can say that several of those people were effected by what I posted and we continue to be corresponding with me as friends on these subjects a year later although they blacklisted me on the Pro-Nuclear community.

https://plus.google.com/105336100538645819591/posts/5UJ8JufUtPD

https://plus.google.com/105336100538645819591/posts/LEz6n7jVkMf

https://plus.google.com/105336100538645819591/posts/4R7qRnqXs7z

https://plus.google.com/105336100538645819591/posts/ThZVnVZjueh


Search me oh God and know my heart, test me and know my anxious thoughts, see if there is any offensive way in me and lead me to the way everlasting. Amen
Re: Global Warming Farce [Re: kland] #167441
08/12/14 12:56 AM
08/12/14 12:56 AM
APL  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2020

5500+ Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
Huh - your character in your G+ posts are just like they are here and your "friends" call you out on it.

quote: Wow, James can't take what he gives: "Daniel, How dare you criticise me."

We only criticize your words, James, because you're so uninformed and downright nasty. In other words, you're not an honest broker of information. So, keep it up. We'll continue with facts that underscore your lack of concern for truth.

This from one of your "friends". And there are more.


Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
Re: Global Warming Farce [Re: kland] #167458
08/12/14 03:11 PM
08/12/14 03:11 PM
K
kland  Offline OP
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
Hate to suggest additional un-information, but:

Originally Posted By: jamesonofthunder
And the meltdown at Chernobyl was 10,000 times worse than what happened in Fukushima because of the size of the reactor.


Fukushima has released up to 120 Quadrillion becquerels of radioactive cesium into North Pacific Ocean — Does not include amounts that fell on land — Exceeds Chernobyl total, which accounts for releases deposited on land AND ocean

The total amount of decay-corrected 134Cs in the [subtropical] mode water was an estimated about 6 PBq [petabecquerels, i.e. 6 quadrillion becquerels] corresponding to 10–60% of the total inventory of Fukushima-derived 134Cs in the North Pacific Ocean. […]
The study also states the releases of 134Cs and 137Cs were equivalent, resulting in a total of 120 PBq into the N. Pacific. This total does not include releases deposited on land or in other bodies of water.

Chernobyl Comparison: A report by the Nuclear Enrgy Agency states that when more detailed deposition data eventually became available, the United Nations estimated the total Chernobyl release of 137Cs at 70 PBq. 134Cs is estimated to have been 53.7% of the 137Cs — approximately 38 PBq of 134Cs — resulting in a total of 108 PBq. Unlike the Fukushima total reported above, this does include all 134Cs and 137Cs releases from Chernobyl — not just what was deposited in the ocean.


Nuclear Consultant: Fukushima reactors released about 3 times more radioactivity than Chernobyl — Japan crisis is unprecedented in size, complexity, and consequences — Yet disaster is not over and can become much worse — Very far from being stabilized

The amount of radioactivity that has gone into water that was leaked into the basements is estimated to be roughly three times the amount of radioactivity released during the Chernobyl accident. This issue is vastly underestimated.


Plutonium from Fukushima went further than Chernobyl — Researchers ‘surprised’ their most plutonium-contaminated sample was from site farthest from Fukushima plant — Concern material is flowing into Pacific Ocean from land

Transport of Pu to longer distances in Fukushima than in Chernobyl may be explained by the different accidental conditions that prevailed at both sites. In Chernobyl, the Pu bearing particles were larger because of the graphite fires, which likely explains that they deposited at a shorter distance from the power plant.



James, were you citing something about the "10,000 times worse", or was that a personal measurement you made?
Or?

Page 14 of 55 1 2 12 13 14 15 16 54 55

Moderator  Rick H 

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
What are the seven kings of Rev. 17:10?
by Rick H. 11/23/24 07:31 AM
No mail in Canada?
by Rick H. 11/22/24 06:45 PM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 11/21/24 11:03 AM
Fourth quarter, 2024, The Gospel of John
by asygo. 11/20/24 02:31 AM
The 2024 Election, the Hegelian Dialectic
by ProdigalOne. 11/15/24 08:26 PM
"The Lord's Day" and Ignatius
by dedication. 11/15/24 02:19 AM
The Doctrine of the Nicolaitans
by dedication. 11/14/24 04:00 PM
Will Trump be able to lead..
by dedication. 11/13/24 07:13 PM
Is Lying Ever Permitted?
by kland. 11/13/24 05:04 PM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 11/13/24 04:06 PM
Profiles Of Jesus In Zecharia
by dedication. 11/13/24 02:23 AM
Good and Evil of Higher Critical Bible Study
by dedication. 11/12/24 07:31 PM
The Great White Throne
by dedication. 11/12/24 06:39 PM
A god whom his fathers knew not..
by TruthinTypes. 11/05/24 12:19 AM
Understanding the Battle of Armageddon
by Rick H. 10/25/24 07:25 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
Dr Ben Carson: Church and State
by Rick H. 11/22/24 07:12 PM
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by dedication. 11/22/24 04:02 PM
Will Trump Pass The Sunday Law?
by dedication. 11/22/24 12:51 PM
Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy
by dedication. 11/22/24 12:35 PM
Private Schools
by Rick H. 11/22/24 07:54 AM
The Church is Suing the State of Maryland
by Rick H. 11/16/24 04:43 PM
Has the Catholic Church Changed?
by TheophilusOne. 11/16/24 08:53 AM
Dr Conrad Vine Banned
by Rick H. 11/15/24 06:11 AM
Understanding the 1290 & 1335 of Daniel 12?
by dedication. 11/05/24 03:16 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1