What Do We Think About Climate Change

we did some things with uranium and mice,when i worked at the Jackson Lab,,,,was skeery,,,then they injected that other mouse with something radioactive (was before i worked there) and it glowed pretty good,,,hehe,,,but he was also pretty sick,,,,they kept the "string" going for many generations,,,,always had the same ending,,poor mouse but we used to have to always have the warning badges,,,and a geiger counter was on 24/7,,,used to have all the stupid "shower" drills and crap,,,what a bunch of hoopla,,hehe

 

Then you run into something like this...

http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

and think hmmmm..... wouldn't it be great if, I wonder if there's a gotya?

 

hehe,,,do they run props or water jets on that car?,,hehe

 

Water again?

Water is a waste product of a reaction of hydrogen and oxygen, not a fuel. That car has the same system I built into the picnic baot I built. It is a Hydride-fueled car that uses water in the reaction. It is what is called a "hydrogen on demand" system. In boats it is nifty. The system we used (in conjunction with a fuel cell stack and an asymetrical wound motor, controller etc) takes borax, uses it in a reaction to create hydrogen as it is needed. Later you can (guess what) plug the system in, reverse the process and create boarax again, re-cycling it. Basically, all it is is another battery. The cool part is that your range is only limited as to how much borax you can carry. In a car, that stuff gets heavy, but a boat can carry all the gear neccessary for the system. You don't need a humoungumugigantic super frigidare cryotank full of highly dangerous liquid hydrogen. Just a little bitty one, and a whole bunch of TIDE laundry detergent (well pure powdered borax). Yep, that is the catch. It doesn't run on water anymore than a car that uses water in the coolant system does. They are full of poo and should be shot for screwing with peoples minds when they are so full of mis-information anyway.

 

Coal plant radiation...Yes, I have seen that cited in a hundred places. A typical coal plant does apparently emit 100 (I have seen 100 stated too) times more radiation than a nuke plant...which is to say just about nothing. Coal is not exatly pure stuff. All the stuff in the Cretaceous peat bogs had heavy metals in it when it died, and it still has that stuff now.
Radium, BTW, which is the most abundant surface radioactinide, is many times more toxic to humans than plutonium. We used to use it in paint....

 

Hmmm yes... they say in the video all you need is the water! Sounds to good... don't it?

 

I'm never sure if they are comparing leakage or waste.... thats never made clear. Is it possible that over time a coal station does out do a nuclear station in the waste department?

 

i wonder if you could do your laundry in ya gas tank?,,,,hehe
niterz Beanzy, Mas., everyone else ,,,,,imma go to sleep and dream of my new venture,,,"suds stations" ,,hehe

 

You do that Jim... sleep well.

 

That biker chick was cute! Did you read what she wrote about the protective cover?!

 

I think her father is a nuclear tech/scientist or some such thing. She is quite possibly well placed to know. Thank goodness Russia is make a $ these days and can afford to fix it up

 

Hydrogen on Demand

Hydrogen on Demand
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=211523&postcount=3
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10622

 

Thx Brian...

 

Coal plants, clean coal plants and the mining associated with them is far far more toxic and much more higher volume than the same industry as it supports the production of electricity from nuclear power. Citing reported statistics: "Waste created by a typical 500-megawatt coal plant includes more than 125000 tons of ash and 193000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year."

Nuclear plants release no (measurable) radioactive material into the environment. The whole idea is to keep it in. Here are the stats for what we have released from coal plants into the atmosphere as ash that settled onto the surrounding countryside:

U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):
Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 357,491 tons

Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

This it taken from a government study that is researching the best ways to refine uranium and other metals (mercury, aluminum, lead, and lots of others) that are present in coal ash.
Mind you, coal scrubbers now remove 95%+ percent of the ash from the exhaust, but it is placed into ponds at the plant, not contained as radioactive material. You WILL get a good reading at the average coal power plant, and if coal plants had to folow the same guidelines for radioactive material release that nukes do, they could not operate, and everyone there would need to wear dosimeters. Imagine taking a mountain of coal and reducing it to ash. Think about what you will find in that pile of ash after it is reduced in that manner.
I'm not even going to start on bituminous coal.

 

Yeah, good links Brian. I had not seen these guys before, but I think a customer of mine has.