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

Quote:

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?

I agree about in the long and medium run, but its the short run we should be concerned about.

I 100% agree that solar, nuclear, wind and other alternative fuels are required, the problem I have is that until those are developed AND made economically feasible we still need oil.

The best analogy I can come up is a bathtub.
We need to find other ways to fill it besides a faucet, but until we do find and develop those ways we still need to use the faucet.
We are emptying the bathtub, and no matter how slowly you empty it, unless you fill it up it will eventually be empty.

For the short term, we need to develop AND exploit domestic sources of oil, in ANWR, oil shale, offshore, or anyplace else in US territory we can find oil.

I would be in favor of capping every well in the US, once alternative sources become economically viable.
I dont see that happening in the next few years though.

Well, we need the oil for a lot of reasons which have nothing to do with energy production.

If you started developing domestic solar plants, instead of drilling new oil wells, you would see a huge amount of innovation and increase in the utility of solar technology. ANWR or places like that take what, a decade to get up to speed? Solar technology today is way ahead of where it was a decade ago, with much greater focus being put on it and much more money spent on it; it's sort of crazy not to think that in another decade or two, it won't be far, far more efficient then oil.

Well, no conclusions have been drawn so far. However, this is the third in a series of studies that rendered similar results. It's also conclusive with British studies from 1987 and 1989 that showed a statistically significant increased risk for children of developing leukemia if they were living within a 10 miles radius of nuclear power plants in England and Wales.

The current study covers a period of 23 years (1980-2003). The study included all 16 counties where the 22 German nuclear power plants are located. All cases of children up to 5 years who were living in the regions around the nuclear power plants and who were diagnosed with cancer within that time period were included (1,592 cases in total), as well as 4,735 controls.

For each case of cancer, controls (children of same sex and age as those diagnosed with cancer) were randomly chosen via registration offices. Distance of residence relative to the nuclear power plant was then determined with an accuracy of 25 meters for all 6,327 children.

The study was tested by computing the results, dropping one of the 16 locations each round to check against increased risk for only one specific location. No influence on the results was noticed, though. In a follow-up test, the inner 5km perimeter was omitted. However, it still rendered an increasing trend of leukemia cases relative to the distance from a nuclear power plants.

old europe wrote:

Well, no conclusions have been drawn so far. However, this is the third in a series of studies that rendered similar results. It's also conclusive with British studies from 1987 and 1989 that showed a statistically significant increased risk for children of developing leukemia if they were living within a 10 miles radius of nuclear power plants in England and Wales.

The current study covers a period of 23 years (1980-2003). The study included all 16 counties where the 22 German nuclear power plants are located. All cases of children up to 5 years who were living in the regions around the nuclear power plants and who were diagnosed with cancer within that time period were included (1,592 cases in total), as well as 4,735 controls.

For each case of cancer, controls (children of same sex and age as those diagnosed with cancer) were randomly chosen via registration offices. Distance of residence relative to the nuclear power plant was then determined with an accuracy of 25 meters for all 6,327 children.

The study was tested by computing the results, dropping one of the 16 locations each round to check against increased risk for only one specific location. No influence on the results was noticed, though. In a follow-up test, the inner 5km perimeter was omitted. However, it still rendered an increasing trend of leukemia cases relative to the distance from a nuclear power plants.

Radiation is easily and cheaply measured. Though I haven't read the reports, I believe the summary above indicated that no abnormal radiation exposures were discovered. If so that more or less eliminates radiation as the cause. (Note that there is no known correlation of higher incidences of leukemia among children in regions of high altitude (say above 1,500m) where natural radiation levels are far higher than the levels within the nuclear plants themselves.)

I don't know how many plant sites are involved or what other factors might be present at them. It seems to me that, if the results are indeed statistically meaningful as you claim, then there should be other identifiable factors that are available for analysis.

Frankly I suspect the science here.

I would be interested in knowing what the leukemia rates are for members of the USN that live and work within 100 to 400 feet of nuclear power plants.
As far as I know, the rate is low enough to be almost nonexistent.
I spent 2 years within 100 feet of a nuclear power plant onboard a nuclear submarine, and I know I got less radiation from that then I did from a typical day at the beach.

I was CO of a CVN

georgeob1 wrote:

I was CO of a CVN

Thats what we called a LGT...Large Grey Target LOL
Which birdfarm were you CO on?

mysteryman wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

I was CO of a CVN

Thats what we called a LGT...Large Grey Target LOL
Which birdfarm were you CO on?

I never met a submariner that I really Liked.

Carl Vinson

Waddya mean ! It's the sub pukes who had no sense of humor -- all VERY serious. Aviators were all light hearted, cool and good-looking.

When they retired the F-14, the last of the aircraft I flew departed the scene. Soon the ships will go too. I am a triple centurion (300+ carrier landings) on Kennedy, which I believe has been decommissioned, and on Constellation; and a double centurion on Nimitz. Carl Vinson will be around for another 20 years or so. Tempis fugit.

Waddya mean ! It's the sub pukes who had no sense of humor -- all VERY serious. Aviators were all light hearted, cool and good-looking.

Waddya mean ! It's the sub pukes who had no sense of humor -- all VERY serious. Aviators were all light hearted, cool and good-looking.

When they retired the F-14, the last of the aircraft I flew departed the scene. Soon the ships will go too. I am a triple centurion (300+ carrier landings) on Kennedy, which I believe has been decommissioned, and on Constellation; and a double centurion on Nimitz. Carl Vinson will be around for another 20 years or so. Tempis fugit.

Kennedy held her decommissioning ceremony on March 23, 2007 at Mayport, FL. 18 months short of 40 years service in the United States Navy. She was officially decommissioned on August 1, 2007 [1] leaving the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) as the only conventionally-powered carrier left in the US Navy.

[
I klnow...Tom Cruise in "Top Gun" was the epitome of fighter pilots, right?

Frankly I suspect the science here.

Carmakers that fail to meet carbon dioxide (CO2) emission limits by 2012 will face fines, the European Commission has proposed.
Penalties will start in 2012 at 20 euros ($28.80; £14.35) per gram of carbon dioxide over a target, and will grow to 95 euros in 2015.

... ... ...

The plan, which needs the backing of EU governments, would put the burden on producers of larger and heavier cars to meet new binding emission limits.

All carmakers that sell vehicles in the 27-nation bloc would face fines if they exceed targets.