Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

However, I am already seeing the escalation of wind farms across Eastern New Mexico and West Texas and this escalation is producing some definite eyesores blocking once magnificent views.

Chalk River reactor returns to service
TheStar.com - Canada - Chalk River reactor returns to service


TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
A nuclear reactor, owned and operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. at its Chalk River laboratory (above), was shut down on Nov. 18 for scheduled maintenance. Will begin producing medical isotopes within four days, says AECL

December 17, 2007
OTTAWA - The Chalk River nuclear reactor, offline since mid-November, started back in service yesterday morning and is expected to begin producing medical isotopes within four days, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd said.

The reactor makes more than two-thirds of global supply of the radioisotopes used in cancer tests. Shortages were quickly triggered last month when the reactor was shut down.

The reactor was supposed to be closed from Nov. 18 to Nov. 23 for planned maintenance, but the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission refused to let it be restarted without an upgrade on the cooling pumps that prevent the reactor core from melting down.

The commission had discovered that AECL had been operating the reactor for 17 months without a battery-operated starter on the pumps, which the commission said was a condition of renewing the 50-year-old reactor's licence.

AECL spokesperson Dale Coffin said the Crown corporation voluntarily extended the maintenance shutdown to address the safety commission's concerns.

"We're still operating very safely and the reactor with the new upgrade in place already is even safer," said David Torgerson, the president of Atomic Energy of Canada's research and technology division.

Parliament pushed through legislation Wednesday to bypass the commission's objections and get the reactor back online.

Meanwhile, the Conservative government says it's just a coincidence the AECL chairman quit last week following a furor over the shutdown of the reactor.

Health Minister Tony Clement said Michael Burns thought the chairman's post was a part-time one when he took it a year ago.

"As it turns out, there's a lot of work to be done," Clement said yesterday on CTV's Question Period. "So I think there were some indications this (resignation) might be coming up."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the departure of Burns, a former Tory party fundraiser, in a terse news release late Friday.

The Tories appointed former Ontario bureaucrat Glenna Carr as the new chairman and named business executive Hugh MacDiarmid as chief executive officer.

With competent design and management, it could virtually eliminate the need for fossil fuels and all those allergies too.

Quote:

With competent design and management, it could virtually eliminate the need for fossil fuels and all those allergies too.

that does not sound unreasonable to me . it seems , however , that some of the safety issues have not been resolved yet , not even for some of the nuclear scientists responsble for the oversight .

certainly makes me just a little uneasy !

considering the possible damage that could result from a malfunction , i'm not all all convinced of the safety - and neither are the insurance companies !
hbg

that does not sound unreasonable to me . it seems , however , that some of the safety issues have not been resolved yet , not even for some of the nuclear scientists responsble for the oversight .

certainly makes me just a little uneasy !

considering the possible damage that could result from a malfunction , i'm not all all convinced of the safety - and neither are the insurance companies !
hbg

Study Finds More Childhood Cancer Near Nuclear Power Plants

Children living near nuclear power stations are more likely to suffer leukemia than those living farther away, a report funded by the German government has found, according to German media.

"Our study confirmed that in Germany a connection has been observed between the distance of a domicile to the nearest nuclear power plant ... and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before the fifth birthday," the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung quoted the report as saying.

Government radiation specialists said they could not explain the finding, since there was no direct radiation from the 16 German plants, which are all scheduled for closure in the early 2020s.

The study was paid for by the German Federal Radiation Protection Agency [BfS] the government's main adviser on nuclear health.

It was conducted by the German Register of Child Cancer, an office in Mainz which is funded by the 16 German states and the federal Health Ministry.

The study found that 37 children had come down with leukemia in the period between 1980 and 2003 while having home addresses within 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) of nuclear power plants. The statistical average for Germany would have predicted just 17 cases in that group.

Statistically, the 20 extra cases could be associated with living close to the plants, but the BfS said more research was needed to discover if the presence of reactors was actually the cause of the cancers.

Then we're back to the lower cost alternative of petroleum generated energy and development of domestic reserves. That only threatens more CO2 in the atmosphere, which may prove a blessing if the earth turns cool again.

According to:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Back in 1909, the average annual global temperature was at a low of 14.436C or (32+25.98) = 57.98F.

In 1998, the average annual global temperature was at a high of 15.546C or (32+27.98) = 59.98F, a 2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 98 years.

For the 11 month period January 2007 to November 2007, the average global temperature was 15.414C or (32+27.75) = 59.75F, a 0.23 degree Fahrenheit decrease over the first 11 months of 2007.

Anyone want to make any bets for what the average global temperature will turn out to be for the 12 month period January 2007 to December 2007?

More importantly, anyone want to make any bets for what the average global temperature will turn out to be for the year 2017?

ican711nm wrote:

Then we're back to the lower cost alternative of petroleum generated energy and development of domestic reserves. That only threatens more CO2 in the atmosphere, which may prove a blessing if the earth turns cool again.

According to:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Back in 1909, the average annual global temperature was at a low of 14.436C or (32+25.98) = 57.98F.

In 1998, the average annual global temperature was at a high of 15.546C or (32+27.98) = 59.98F, a 2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 98 years.

For the 11 month period January 2007 to November 2007, the average global temperature was 15.414C or (32+27.75) = 59.75F, a 0.23 degree Fahrenheit decrease over the first 11 months of 2007.

Anyone want to make any bets for what the average global temperature will turn out to be for the 12 month period January 2007 to December 2007?

More importantly, anyone want to make any bets for what the average global temperature will turn out to be for the year 2017?

Petroleum-generated energy also contributes a significant amount of waste products other then CO2 into our ecosystem, often toxic in nature; there are many reasons to oppose the widespread usage of fossil fuels to generate energy independent of any GW concerns.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Then we're back to the lower cost alternative of petroleum generated energy and development of domestic reserves. That only threatens more CO2 in the atmosphere, which may prove a blessing if the earth turns cool again.

According to:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Back in 1909, the average annual global temperature was at a low of 14.436C or (32+25.98) = 57.98F.

In 1998, the average annual global temperature was at a high of 15.546C or (32+27.98) = 59.98F, a 2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 98 years.

For the 11 month period January 2007 to November 2007, the average global temperature was 15.414C or (32+27.75) = 59.75F, a 0.23 degree Fahrenheit decrease over the first 11 months of 2007.

Anyone want to make any bets for what the average global temperature will turn out to be for the 12 month period January 2007 to December 2007?

More importantly, anyone want to make any bets for what the average global temperature will turn out to be for the year 2017?

Petroleum-generated energy also contributes a significant amount of waste products other then CO2 into our ecosystem, often toxic in nature; there are many reasons to oppose the widespread usage of fossil fuels to generate energy independent of any GW concerns.

Cycloptichorn

Human life expectancies have increased significantly over the last 100 years inspite of those alleged toxic waste products from Petroleum-generated energy.

I admittedly haven't kept up with nuclear waste disposal technology. But back in the 1960s, nuclear waste was highly toxic and very difficult and expensive to dispose of safely.

I'll check into it.

When the basic rates in question are very small the likelihod of uncontrolled variables significantly altering the data is very high. In addition, given the relative disparity in the sample sizes (total children and those living near nuclear plants) it would be interesting to know the statistical confidence interval in the results.

But don't you think the public will demand competent design, regulation, and management of nuclear facilities sufficient to calm the fears of even the insurance companies? Given the advantages, why aren't we putting our time, energy, money, and other resources into that given the proven assurance of a positive payoff for our efforts rather than focusing on energy sources that may be ecologically friendly, but which realistically will not feasiably solve our energy needs?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

As Temperatures Rise, Health Could Decline

I think it was MM posted a link (a few pages back) to somebodys report on over 600 things reportedly caused by global warming, Walter, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous, and many of them contradictory. It wouldn't surprise me to see a report one of these days that will assert that global warming will cause better health, leading to over population and pending disaster from that.

Much of this is due to an obsession by people that need to justify their research dollars and jobs, in my opinion.

I find it humorous as well that the title says "could decline" rather than "will decline." My response is -- well, do tell. Health could decline, stay the same, or increase? Great research there. Temperatures could decline, stay the same, or increase, a scientific paper is surely needed to report such startling news.

I found a website that really makes it hard to take global warming seriously.
It lists about 600 things that have been blamed on global warming, including several that contradict each other.

Such as this one...

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html

Quote:
Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say.


That article is directly contradicted by this one...

http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12528&feedId=online-news_rss20

Quote:
This is because saltier waters in the upper levels of the North Atlantic ocean may mean that the global ocean conveyor belt - the vital piece of planetary plumbing which some scientists fear may slow down because of global warming - will remain stable.


So, is the Atlantic getting saltier or not?

Of course, GW is getting blamed for everything now, including the fact that circumcisions are on the decline in part of Africa...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/02/circumcision-rates-africa-decline-because-global-warming#comments

Now here...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1816860.stm

It says that the earth is slowing down its spin due to global warming.

But here...

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11555-global-warming-will-make-earth-spin-faster.html

It says that the earth is spinning FASTER due to global warming.

So tell me, which is true?
Is the earth spinning faster or slower?

For your education and amusement, here is a list of about 600 different things that global warming is being blamed for...

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

If you read the list, you will see that many of them contradict each other.
With all of these things being blamed on global warming, it really makes it tough to take the GW crowd seriously.

...

ican711nm wrote:

Human life expectancies have increased significantly over the last 100 years inspite of those alleged toxic waste products from Petroleum-generated energy.

I admittedly haven't kept up with nuclear waste disposal technology. But back in the 1960s, nuclear waste was highly toxic and very difficult and expensive to dispose of safely.

I'll check into it.

Imagine what the life expectancies could be without the waste? Somewhat higher, I have no doubt.

Nuclear waste is difficult to dispose of, but conveniently, there's much less of it.

Cycloptichorn

Start-Up Sells Solar Panels at Lower-Than-Usual CostNanosolar's founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.

"With a $1-per-watt panel," he said, "it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems."

According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said.

The first Nanosolar panels are destined for a one-megawatt solar plant to be installed in Germany on a former landfill owned by a waste management company. The plant, being developed by Beck Energy, is expected to initially supply electrical power for about 400 homes.

The company chose to build its plant in southern San Jose, news that was cheered by local development officials. Much of the microelectronics industry created here has moved to Asia and new factories are a rare commodity in Silicon Valley.

That seems pretty competitive to me. And this is merely the beginning. Why drill for more oil, when we know that solar is going to be a better, less pollutive, and more stable technology, not just in the long run but in the medium run?