Forests and Environmental Damage

[Jos Elkink]

Savanik, since you're so careful in being relatively academic in your posts, can you also keep up the academic standards of including the full name in a text when you first encounter a new abbreviation?

i.e. What's DDT? What's CFC?

[Savanik]

Savanik, since you're so careful in being relatively academic in your posts, can you also keep up the academic standards of including the full name in a text when you first encounter a new abbreviation?

i.e. What's DDT? What's CFC?

Oh, sorry. I thought those were common knowledge.

DDT: dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane.
CFC: Chlorofluorocarbons. A family of chemicals derived from haloalkanes with both chlorine and fluorine.

Sav

[Jos Elkink]

I'm not sure that helps a lot, actually ... I guess if I want to know more, I'll have to look them up ...

I mean, I've had enough chemistry to figure what it means, but I have no idea what kind of materials they are, what they have to do with the discussion, etc.

[Jimbob]

CFC's gained wide use in applications such as refridgeration, because they happen to combine alot of useful properties: they are inert (do not react easily), non-toxic, do not burn easily, etc.

The widely accepted line that Savanik refers to is that these chemicals, when they reach upper parts of the atmosphere, can release chlorine radicals into the atmosphere. Chlorine radicals act as a catalyst that destroys ozone (ie. destroys ozone without getting used up). Unfortunately the ozone layer is what prevents harmful UV from the sun from reaching ground level... hence use of CFC's is banned.

Or, to put it another way, the widely accepted line is:
more CFC's = much less Ozone = more cancer = CFC's are bad

Sadly, the quest for a cheap alternative hasn't always been too successful as CFC's combine alot of very useful properties. Some applications have not found an alternative at all, and many of those that have cost more money to use than CFC's would.

So, if the research linking CFC's to ozone depletion is in error, then we're needlessly preventing the use of a versatile, safe, cheap product... and it'll be very tough to persuade people that CFC's are safe when we've been telling them that CFC's are dangerous for 30 years. I hasten to add that I don't personally know if the research is flawed or not - you'd need to ask an atmospheric chemist for that...

Wikipedia has a decent introduction on CFC/ozone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

PS Really interesting thread

[Nick]

DDT was a comonly used insecticide around the time of World War 2, until researchers learned it was harmful to humans. It was used especially in malaria prone areas, because of course insects spread malaria, so less insects equals, obviously, less malaria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

[Talapus]

CFC's certainly react catalytically to destroy ozone, in fact I think I could draw you the mechanism for the reaction, and if you were interested, you could easily recreate this in a lab. In fact, I am currently designing and building a chemiluminescent ozone sonde (a device for measuring an ozone column) for use on high altitude weather balloons (I launch these balloons and design packages for them as my job). If anyone is interested, I would be happy to go into more detail about the reactions involved in the destruction of the ozone (ozone is very fragile, and actually reacts with just about anything). .

[formerly known as hf]

I think my point has been shown over the past few posts

Savanik can come up with research that shows the safety of CFCs, the safety of DDT, the safety of nuclear energy, the possible benifits of GM crops.

If I really wanted to, I could pull out research claiming the safety of cigarettes.

The point I hinge on is that scientific research does not often reach a consensus. One study may show no ill effects, one study may show horrendous effects.

On the discussion about nuclear energy. I have no problems in accepting that it is a safe form of power - the problem lies in waste disposal, a point you seemed to gloss over, or not even mention Sav? What do you do with thousands of kilos of highly dangerous radioactive waste?

In the UK, the radioactive waste from a few decades ago is still haunting us - the comapnies involved in its disposal have gone bust, there have been numerous leakages, small and large. I would argue that nuclear energy is far from safe.

In terms of GM foods. The problem here lies in what we don't know. Even the monsanto research is 'inconclusive' about possible long term effects. What's also bad about GM crops - and the problems are numerous, and not necessarily linked to the genetics - but the attitudes of the producers.

The possibility of global monoculture- one species of soya in hundreds of countries - what'd happen if a disease evolved that could attack that species? Biodiversity needs to be preserved - small genetic differences between plants are a natural coping mechanism.

What about the deeply unfair 'terminator gene'? This means that all GM crops are infertile - meaning farmers have to buy new bags of seeds each crop cycle - how does that beifit poor farmers?

Also, GM crops are created that are very resistant to herb-and-pest-icides. This means that very powerful chemicals can be, and are, used. Which have know adverse effects - and, whatsmore, the resistance is usually to a certain form of that 'cide - sold by the company that produces the crop - I see a distinct lack of fairness there too.

As for CFCs - new research shows they're safe?

Title: The role of halocarbons in the climate change of the troposphere and stratosphere
Author(s): Forster PMD, Joshi M
Source: CLIMATIC CHANGE 71 (1): 249-266 JUL 2005

Lists that CFCs have been responsible for much warming

Title: Low-energy electron-induced chemistry of CF2Cl2: Implications for the ozone hole?
Author(s): Nakayama N, Wilson SC, Stadelmann LE, Lee HLD, Cable CA, Arumainayagam CR
Source: JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B 108 (23): 7950-7954 JUN 10 2004

Lists again the damage from CFCs
- Both published in the past year

To get into the chemistry of it all:
From http://web1.umkc.edu/sites/env-sci/module2/weblab2.htm

How do CFCs destroy the Ozone layer?
Gases produced in high quantities by humans on earth can cause the ozone to be destroyed in the stratosphere. CFCs are the most problematic ozone-depleting compound.
Diagram:


Step 1: CFC accumulate in stratosphere

Step 2: Sunlight breaks chlorine (Cl) atom from the CFC; Cl attacks Ozone (O3) breaking it into to O and O2 .

Step 3: Chlorine atom combines with free oxygen (O) to form Chlorine monoxide. Chlorine monoxide breaks down into Cl and O. Cl is free to attack more ozone molecules.

Repetition of the step 2 and 3 chemical reaction allows one chlorine atom to destroy millions of ozone molecules.

It seems the research you described denies some very fundamental basics of chemistry and chemical reactions? I used to do chemistry, and I doubt that the above process, easily observable, heavily reserached, and conforming to known chemical rules of reaction, is really unture?

On DDT:

Title: DDE-induced changes in aromatase activity in endometrial strornal cells in culture
Author(s): Holloway AC, Stys KA, Foster WG
Source: ENDOCRINE 27 (1): 45-50 JUN 2005

Says that DDT affects 'aromatose' levels in human tissue, causes excess production of oestrogen

Title: Persistent organochlorine compounds in human breast milk from mothers living in Penang and Kedah, Malaysia
Author(s): Sudaryanto A, Kunisue T, Tanabe S, Niida M, Hashim H
Source: ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY 49 (3): 429-437 OCT 2005

Shows that use of DDT and other pesticides can be found in breast milk - there are at least three other eserach papares this year also showing levels of DDT in breast milk from across the globe - no matter what the levels - how can feeding a baby pesticides be safe? They can'#t go by the 'acceptavble daily intake' - considering the just the size of new born, breast feeding babies - the daily intake should be a fraction of that for an adult - consdiering the fragility of a newborn - how can any contamination be 'safe'?

Title: HCH and DDT residues in human fat in the population of Murcia (Spain)
Author(s): Molina C, Falcon M, Barba A, Camara MA, Oliva J, Luna A
Source: ANNALS OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE 12 (1): 133-136 2005

Shows that past use of DDT, having been banned in Spain for some years, has left detectable traces still in human tissue.

Risks posed by trace organic contaminants in coastal sediments in the Pearl River Delta, China
C.N. Fung, G.J. Zheng, D.W. Connell, X. Zhang, H.L. Wong, c, J.P. Giesy, c, Z. Fang and P.K.S. Lam
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Volume 50, Issue 10 , October 2005, Pages 1036-1049

wrote

The results showed that OC pesticide contamination in the PRD was particularly serious and might pose a threat to the health of the marine inhabitants.

Organochlorine pesticide contamination of ground water in the city of Hyderabad
Gangesh Shuka, Anoop Kumar, Mayank Bhanti, P.E. Joseph and Ajay Taneja
Article in Press, Corrected Proof

If you want recent, this is just off the press - and indicates that ground water is contaminated with DDT -

These concentrations of pesticides in the water samples were found to be above their respective Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) values for Humans.

Human health risk assessment of organochlorines associated with fish consumption in a coastal city in China
Q.T. Jiang, T.K.M. Lee, K. Chen, H.L. Wong, J.S. Zheng, J.P. Giesy, c, K.K.W. Loa, , N. Yamashitad and P.K.S. Lam
Environmental Pollution
Volume 136, Issue 1 , July 2005, Pages 155-165

they write:

Health risk assessment of organochlorines associated with fish consumption reveals potential cancer risks for some contaminants in a coastal population in China

DDT is a know estrogenic compund - with possible carcenogenic properties.

Then again, amongst the [i[many[/i] papers indicating the dangers - there was one that showed that mice embryos injected with DDT showed no signs of ill effect.

So - like I said - research shows both sides of the story. Which is why this is an ideological matter - I would stick to the side of caution - Savanik seemingly doesn't. Both of us can produce scientific reserach to back up our claims - but McDonald's have produced reserach showing that 'regular conspumption' of their food will not make you put on weight - and we all know that tobacco companies funded reserach that indicated the safety of smoking.

[Jos Elkink]

hallucinatingfarmer, aren't you kind of ignoring Savanik's argument about how developing countries could be helped a lot when environmentalists got a little bit less their way? I mean, in those cases where it is highly doubtful whether there is actually any serious damage done, but where developing countries could really be helped a lot if we were slightly less strict, shouldn't we take this into more consideration? I think he was talking about refrigerators in this context ... I thought that was quite an interesting point.

Savanik, sorry for summarizing your point so briefly - it doesn't take the right nuances into account this way ...

[Savanik]

On the discussion about nuclear energy. I have no problems in accepting that it is a safe form of power - the problem lies in waste disposal, a point you seemed to gloss over, or not even mention Sav? What do you do with thousands of kilos of highly dangerous radioactive waste?

Nuclear power is just as safe in waste disposal as it is in the generation of the electricity. There are two kinds of waste produced by a nuclear plant, low level waste and high level waste.

Low level waste typically consists of protective clothing, wiping rags, mops, filters, reactor water treatment residues, equipments and tools, luminous dials, medical tubes, swabs, and other ordinary materials that have had breif exposure to radiation. Hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers and research facilities produce low-level waste, as well as nuclear power plants. This sort of waste is not particularly dangerous or radioactive, but needs to be stored in a more tightly regulated landfill to ensure the safety of the public.

High level waste is the stuff that everyone's really worried about. A typical 1000 Megawatt nuclear facility generates about 12 tonnes of spent fuel a year. When the spent fuel is reprocessed, about 97% of it can be recycled into usable forms leaving only 3% as high-level waste. The 3% of the spent fuel which is separated amounts to 325 kg per year. (1)

Our current strategy is to first take this waste and mix it into 400kg of glass. Glass is insoluable and immobilizes the waste nicely when it cools and hardens. (Another method is being experimented with that would actually chemically bind the material into a crystalline matrix - a synthetic rock - immobilizing it at the atomic level rather than the molecular level our current method allows.)

Then we temporarily store this at the nuclear reactor for about 40 years, allowing its radioactivity to decrease by one thousand times. The more radiation something emits, the shorter its half-life. The shorter something's half-life is, the faster it becomes non-radioactive.

After fourty years, the favored method is to store it in a dry, stable geological formation some 500 meters deep. Yucca Mountain, Nevada is our current planned site, and is being tailored to be able to safely and securely store the waste for well over 10,000 years. After only 1000 years, the amount of radioactivity remaining is similar to that of the naturally occurring uranium ore it was mined from.

The theory behind the storage of this waste is 'Defense in Depth', with multiple layers of protection between the waste and the environment. First, it's immobilized in either the glass or rock form. Second, its sealed inside a corrosion resistant container such as stainless steel. Then, the containers are surrounded with high-grade clay to further inhibit any possibility of the material contacting groundwater. They're located deep underground in a stable rock structure, and the repository itself is in a remote location. For any of the radioactivity to reach the environment, all of these protective barriers would need to be breached. (2)

For perspective, a 1000 MW plant generates about 6.6 billion MWh of energy a year, which is enough to supply roughly 400,000 homes with electricity. The U.S. generates a total of 763 billion MWh of energy a year with nuclear power, from about 105 nuclear power plants, which is just 20% of our total energy production. Coal power plants generate 51% of our energy (1974 billion MWh), using roughly 1.0 billion short tons of coal and producing over 2.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide - consuming 1.4 billion tons of oxygen in the process. (3)

Radioactive waste can represent a serious hazard if it is not properly maintained, but its small volume allows very high expenditures and great care per unit volume. Or to put it as one person noted, 'Nuclear power is safer than peanut butter.'

In terms of GM foods... What about the deeply unfair 'terminator gene'? This means that all GM crops are infertile - meaning farmers have to buy new bags of seeds each crop cycle - how does that beifit poor farmers?

That's an interesting point, but bears more on the economics of food supply and distribution than the environmental concerns. We have already shipped thousands of tons of GM food to third world countries for free, where it has sat in silos and rotted because groups such as Greenpeace told them that the food was poisonous. How does that benefit poor farmers?

Also, GM crops are created that are very resistant to herb-and-pest-icides. This means that very powerful chemicals can be, and are, used. Which have know adverse effects - and, whatsmore, the resistance is usually to a certain form of that 'cide - sold by the company that produces the crop - I see a distinct lack of fairness there too.

Some GM crops are also being created that create enhanced amounts of natural pesticides in their stems and leaves, requiring no artificial pesticides be used to protect the crops. The benefits and drawbacks of each particular GM crop are something that the free market will take care of in fairly short order, as long as we prevent monopolies on the technology from forming.

The fact of the matter is, until third-world farmers' short-term survival is assured by their prosperity, they're not going to worry about long-term consequences to the environment. The best way to get them to start thinking about the environment is get them to an economic level where they can worry about more than having food on the table in winter.

It seems the [CFC] research you described denies some very fundamental basics of chemistry and chemical reactions?

I agree, in the lab, ozone is readily destroyed by free chlorine radicals. Whether or not this exact laboratory process occurs in the stratosphere is an entirely different matter.

The research I was referring to is from S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. in physics, specializing in atmospheric physics. Singer has received numerous awards for his research, including a Special Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites, a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program, and the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society. He has served on state and federal advisory panels, including five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.

A collection of papers on the subject by Dr. Singer can be found at http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozone.html.

Here is a quote.

My comments have pointed to the lack--so far--of convincing observational evidence for long-term ozone depletion:

* The data from ground-based observing stations are reported to be contaminated by UV absorption from atmospheric sulfur dioxide.
* The statistical treatment is inadequate, with the derived "trend" strongly dependent on the time interval selected for analysis.
* There is also the problem of disentangling any CFC effects from long-term ozone trends of natural origin, correlated with well-recorded trends in sunspot numbers.

Obviously, one cannot exclude the possibility of a long-term depletion of ozone due to anthropogenic causes, and specifically due to CFCs. But with each cause producing its characteristic "finger prints," proof must rely on a longer time series of more detailed observations (of CFC-specific altitude, latitude, and seasonal dependence).

(4)

I invite you to read through his reports and research.

... no matter what the levels - how can feeding a baby pesticides be safe? They can'#t go by the 'acceptavble daily intake' - considering the just the size of new born, breast feeding babies - the daily intake should be a fraction of that for an adult - consdiering the fragility of a newborn - how can any contamination be 'safe'?

I am afraid that your comment there is demonstrating a basic lack of understanding about toxicology. I also find I am repeating myself, which I find rather tiresome.

The dose makes the poison.

But allow me to clarify further. When a substance is referred to as parts per million, billion, or trillion, they are listing a concentration, not an amount. It is a ratio. One part per billion is the equivalent of one drop of impurity in 500 barrels of pure water. But why measure things this way? Let's look at an example.

A grown human might weigh 60kg. A baby, on the other hand, might weigh 4kg. If you introduce a contamination of 5 ppm to the human and the baby, then the amount of contamination in the person is 0.3 grams. Similarly, the amount of contamination in the baby is 0.02 grams. Though they both received the same concentration, the baby has a much lower dose, measured in grams, due to its lower body weight. This is why we measure contaminants in ppm, ppb, or ppt, instead of measuring them by gross weight.

Therefore, when the EPA sets standards for environmental contaminants, they use an acceptable level of concentration, not an amount. Even then, they set the acceptable concentration of chemicals full magnitudes lower than any level that can show an effect.

I suggest that you read up on toxicology. The Dose Makes The Poison by M. Alice Ottoboni is an excellent starting point.

Sav


1. Energy Information Administration (EIA). "Energy Information Administration Spent Nuclear Fuel Data, Detailed United States."
2. EPA. "Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, NV; Final Rule". June 31, 2001.
3. EIA. "Electric Power Annual 2003." Dec 2004.
4. S. Fred Singer. "Ozone Depletion and CFC Theory." Science, Sep 1993.

[ephiroll]

Speaking of environmental disasters, this was just posted on CNN.

MANAQUIRI, Brazil (Reuters) -- The worst drought in more than 40 years is damaging the world's biggest rainforest, plaguing the Amazon basin with wildfires, sickening river dwellers with tainted drinking water, and killing fish by the millions as streams dry up.

"What's awful for us is that all these fish have died and when the water returns there will be barely any more," Donisvaldo Mendonca da Silva, a 33-year-old fisherman, said.

Nearby, scores of piranhas shook in spasms in two inches of water -- what was left of the once flowing Parana de Manaquiri river, an Amazon tributary. Thousands of rotting fish lined the its dry banks.

The governor of Amazonas, a state the size of Alaska, has declared 16 municipalities in crisis as the two-month-long drought strands river dwellers who cannot find food or sell crops.

Some scientists blame higher ocean temperatures stemming from global warming, which have also been linked to a recent string of unusually deadly hurricanes in the United States and Central America.

Rising air in the north Atlantic, which fuels storms, may have caused air above the Amazon to descend and prevented cloud formations and rainfall, according to some scientists.

"If the warming of the north Atlantic is the smoking gun, it really shows how the world is changing," said Dan Nepstadt, an ecologist from the Massachusetts-based Woods Hole Research Institute, funded by the U.S. government and private grants.

"The Amazon is a canary in a coal mine for the Earth. As we enter a warming trend we are in uncertain territory," he said.

Deforestation may also have contributed to the drought because cutting down trees cuts moisture in the air, increasing sunlight penetration onto land.

Other scientists say severe droughts were normal and occurred in cycles before global warming started.

In the main river port of Manaus, dozens of boats lay stranded in the cracked dirt of the riverbank after the water level receded. Pontoons of floating docks sit exposed on dry land. People drive cars where only months ago they swam.

An hour from where it joins the Rio Negro to form the Amazon River, the Rio Solimoes is so low that kilometers (miles) of exposed riverbank have turned into dunes as winds whip up thick sandstorms. Vultures feed on carrion.

Another major Amazon tributary, Rio Madeira, is so dry that cargo ships carrying diesel from Manaus cannot reach the capital of Rondonia state without scraping the bottom. Instead, fuel used to run power plants has to be hauled in by truck thousands of kilometers (miles) from southern Brazil.

Dry winds and low rainfall have left the rainforest more susceptible to fires that farmers routinely start to clear their pastures.

In normal dry seasons, rains arrive often enough to put out blazes that escape from farms and spread to the forest. This year, the forest is catching fire and staying aflame.

In Acre state, some 100,000 hectares (250,000 acres) of forest have burned since the drought started and thick black smoke has on occasion shut down airports.

"It's illegal to burn but everyone around here does it. I do it to get rid of insects and cobras and to create fresh grass for my cows," a man who would only identify himself as Calixto said while using bundles of green leaves to smother flames and control fires near a highway.

The drought has also upset daily life in communities scattered throughout the basin's labyrinth of waterways.

"We closed 40 schools and canceled the school year because there's a lack of food, transport and potable water," said Gilberto Barbosa, secretary of public administration in Manaquiri. People whose wells have dried up risk drinking river water contaminated by sewage and dead animals.

Sinking water levels have severed connections in the lattice of creeks, lakes and rivers that make up the Amazons motorboat transportation network.

Many people in Manaquiri's 25 riverine communities are now forced to walk kilometers (miles) to buy rice or medicines.

Cases of diarrhea, one of the biggest killers in the developing world, are rising in the region. Many fear stagnant water will breed malaria. In response, the state government has flown five tons of basic medicines out to distant villages.

It will be two more months before the river fills again during the rainy season. Even then, residents fear polluted water will float to the top, causing sickness and economic plight.

"I've never seen anything like this," said Manuel Tavares Silva, 39, who farms melons and corn near Manaquiri, a town 149 km (93 miles) from Manaus, the capital of Amazonas state.

[formerly known as hf]

aren't you kind of ignoring Savanik's argument about how developing countries could be helped a lot when environmentalists got a little bit less their way?

I has missed that point I guess - i was focusing more on the specific areas Savanik had brought up. Environmentalists rarely target the 'little farmers' - if anything these are the people they want to help.
There's a misconception that the farmers in the global south have great freedom in the practices they employ - this is just not true. Whereas, not that long ago, much farming was small scale and subsistence, the case now is that agro-food systems are becoming globalised - which has many negative impacts on the farmers. They are no longer growing food for themselves, and often, in order to keep their land, forced, sometimes with violence, to use their land to grow crops for larger agrobusinesses. Businesses usually based in richer countries. The result is the reliance of many people, often whole countries, on a single crop. Whole economies virtually hinge on the price of a banana.
The move from subsistence to intensive farming requires the introduction of new practices - and chemicals. We can't believe that just because a company is based in the US it will abide by US restrictions. If the restrictions are lax, or they can buy their way around them, in the country it uses farmers to grow the crops it sells, it'll relax the safety levels it enforces. As a result, many farming communities in poorer countries get exposed to high levels of dangerous chemicals.
If anything, by wanting to reduce and stop that, environmentalists have the welfare of the 'poor farmer' at heart.

I do agree, however, that it is very hypocritical to swanny about the world telling poorer countries to be so environmentally sound when our own, western, development is shrouded in horrendous environmental damage. We need to stop assuming that 'development' is a straight, one track route - that poorer countries need to follow in the footsteps of the west. We also need to be prepared to share out knowledge and experience - and money - to ensure that development can be reached without resorting to the heavily damaging practices the western world has in the past (and still does)

In terms of nuclear waste - what right do we have to produce tonnes of radioactive waste, that will be active for generations to come?
And what about the cost? In the UK - the cost of claening up nuclear waste - from over the past 50 years - was originally priced at £8bn. This has risen now to £56bn. There is also the problem of decommisioning - something no Britain who reads a newspaper will have avoided over the past few months. An out of use nuclear power plant - which have life spans of little over half a century - can be expected to take between 80 and 100 years to 'clean up'.
In the UK, British Energy - involved in the running and cleaning of many nuclear power stations - went bust. The cost of this is now being borne by the tax payer.
I'm sure the methods you explained make nuclear waste safe - and for many years. It is still not a legacy I would like to hand over to future generations. Simply because of the huge costs and issues involved in desommisioning old plants - if not for the waste itself.

GM foods have been handed out for free simply because no one else will take them.
Also - and this is indicative of the US 'Aid' programme - it's been handed out as part of the millions of US$ they supposedly give in 'Aid'. Don't forget that the next time George W Bush stands up and proclaims more aid for poorer countries - the last thing he means when he mentions the millions of $ that he'll hand over as aid is actually $ - it'll be in the form of crops, and services, often very unsuited to the receiving country - and with more strings attached than pinocchio.
Mexico - the home of the 'golden crop' - is now a net importer of maize - which constitues a good part of the 'money' the US hands over as 'Aid'. Egypt is a huge importer of a certain cereal crop (i forget which) which can not be eaten by humans - it's cow fodder - what use is that for a country with virtually no pasture land?
How does that benifit poor farmers. How can that even be called 'Aid'?

Poor farmers will never reach prosperity - not as long as less than 2% of the price of the food goes to them. You want to help poor farmers prosper? Forget about giving them GM crops, scientific advances etc. Stop handing money over to the large corporations and make sure the money actually goes to the guy who did the work and grew it - buy fair trade.

I read that research about CFCs you suggested.
It seems the focus was on the lack of research - which was my point earlier about how lack of, or conflicting reserach, means that science can't always be a firm basis for value judgements. Research in the lab has shown the effects - there is limited reserach in the stratosphere. There may be reasons to believe the chemical reaction may be different (although lab tets have taken into account the major temperature difference) - but without adequate research - isn't it safer to assume the adverse effects proven with the little research there is?

As for the 'dose makes the poison' - you can repeat yourself until you are hoarse I'm afraid. I have seen the reserach that suggests 'safe limits' - and I do agree with them. What I find very lacking is adequate research into long term effects - and multiple contamination. An average European or American has traces of over 100 man made chemcials in their blood. Often much below 'safe' levels - but what isn't known is how they may react with each other - and if, even in low doses, they may have long term effects.

[Savanik]

Please excuse my lack of academic rigour today. I'm laid up with allergies.

In terms of nuclear waste - what right do we have to produce tonnes of radioactive waste, that will be active for generations to come?

We're already producing that waste, and it's not from Uranium plants. It's from coal. Uranium and Thorium are both found in coal in trace amounts. Roughly 1.3 ppm for Uranium, 3 ppm for Thorium.

We burn 1,014,058 thousand short tons of coal a year. 1 short ton = 907.18474 kg, or 0.907 tonnes. Working through the math, you can see that the coal industry generates 1196 tonnes of Uranium a year, and 2760 tonnes of Thorium a year. Nuclear plants currently produce about 34.125 tonnes of nuclear waste a year. If we eliminated coal entirely in favor of nuclear power, we would produce 119.4 tonnes of nuclear waste.

When you burn coal, most of the solid particulate matter is captured by a variety of collection mechanisms. The resulting solid waste of coal burning is called 'fly ash'. Coal Power plants are required to capture 99% of the fly ash emitted from their stacks with collectors. That leaves a potential 1% that escapes directly into the atmosphere. That's 12 tonnes of Uranium, 27.6 tonnes of Thorium, directly into the air you breathe.

As much of the coal is burned away, the levels of Uranium and Thorium remaining is more concentrated by about a factor of ten. Fly ash is used in a variety of industries. In Portland, they use it as part of cement. In many states it is used as part of 'flowable fill', often used in highway construction. About 65% of it is still disposed of in ordinary landfills around the country.

In summary:
Coal: 3956 tonnes radioactive waste, in ordinary landfills and construction material.
Nuclear: 119.4 tonnes radioactive waste, stored in highly controlled areas away from the environment.

Want to go green? Go nuclear.

I do agree, however, that it is very hypocritical to swanny about the world telling poorer countries to be so environmentally sound when our own, western, development is shrouded in horrendous environmental damage.

Actually, I think it's pretty hypocritical to talk to the world about protecting the environment when we have food on the table and they don't.

In the UK - the cost of claening up nuclear waste - from over the past 50 years - was originally priced at £8bn. This has risen now to £56bn.

In a normal economy, this is usually called 'inflation'. It may also be that the UK is producing more nuclear waste now than it was 50 years ago.

In the U.S., we have a 0.1 cent per kWh subsidy added to the price of all nuclear generated power that goes into a fund for the disposal of nuclear waste. This is enough to pay for the cost of disposing it, decommissioning reactors - and then some. Despite all this, nuclear power is still cheaper than coal per kWh because it's so much more efficient.

...science can't always be a firm basis for value judgements.

What I find very lacking is adequate research into long term effects - and multiple contamination.

When environmentalists can show that there is measurable long-term effects from these chemicals, then I will happily join them in their concerns. The fact of the matter is that our lifespan is greater than it ever has been in history. If these chemicals were as toxic as they are claiming, we would be dying off like flies. There is no proof of any long-term effects other than their unfounded claims. They have no evidence, they have no basis for their claims of toxicity, and I categorically refuse to make decisions based off of an unproven fear!

Sav

Sources taken from the USGS coal quality database and EIA's power summaries.

[formerly known as hf]

I'm not going to argue against the levels of poluuiton created by coal fired powerstations. I don;t think, however, that nuclear energy can be said to be 'green' - that's absurd - 'green' energy should mean it has no long term effect on the environment, preferably no environmental damage at all - that's hardly the case with nuclear ebergy?

Actually, I think it's pretty hypocritical to talk to the world about protecting the environment when we have food on the table and they don't.

One of the biggest myths about food poverty is that there's not enough food available - one that is strung out by monsanto and other GM crop producers.
In the UK, an average citizen wastes 30% of all the food the purchase. The figure is higher in the US.
The amount of energy imput involved and space required in feeding and rearing a cow, which will feed ten people, is enough to feed fifty people with crops- with more than a one-off yield.
Lack of food is due to very unequal global distribution. Often those people who are hungry are the farmers who have worked so hard for that cheeseburger to be sold for 99p with chips (fries).
Reducing environmental limits won't suddenly give them massive yields and feed them all by allowing them to use 'new methods' - it'll mean cheaper food to be exported away from the hungry people, and more dangerous conditions for the farmers to work in.

In a normal economy, this is usually called 'inflation'. It may also be that the UK is producing more nuclear waste now than it was 50 years ago.

I doubt inflation over two years made £8bn rise to £56bn?
EDIT: I guess my original quote was mis-read - I meant the cost of cleaning waste that has been generated over the past fifty years was estimated to cost £8bn two years ago - now it is £56bn

If these chemicals were as toxic as they are claiming, we would be dying off like flies.

I've not suggested the reult of this long term, albeit it, low level of contamination is death. A recent report by the US National Cancer institue has described how cancer rates are rising - without any definitive explanation. (Deaths have fallen overall - because they have fallen for white men - which indiactes the lack of equal access to health - as many ethnic minorities are amongst the US poor).
Could it not be our increasing and constant contact with man-made chemicals that our bodies have no natural defense against? It's a possibility - and one that is being increasingly entertained by a number of scientists. It may be theoretical, speculative - but, to me at least, it is a reason to be at least cautious.
So many man-made problems in the past have resulted from the practicing of 'safe' technology - the use of 'safe' chemicals - how can we so arrogant to assume that what we define as 'safe' now will really turn out to be safe years down the line - when the past has shown it can often be otherwise?

[Savanik]

I'm not going to argue against the levels of poluuiton created by coal fired powerstations. I don;t think, however, that nuclear energy can be said to be 'green' - that's absurd - 'green' energy should mean it has no long term effect on the environment, preferably no environmental damage at all - that's hardly the case with nuclear ebergy?

There are no power sources - period - with no long term effect on the environment.

Wind power: Birds collide with the turbine blades and die. They also have a huge footprint on the landscape relative to power generation. A prototype wind turbine in Germany is 200 meters tall, with 60 meter carbon-fiber blades. It can generate 5 MW at peak efficiency. You would need two hundred of these to equal one typical power plant - more if you take account that much of the time they don't run at peak. Comparison: The Statue of Liberty is only 46.5 meters tall.

Hydro power: Requires the construction of massive dams, submerging large areas of wilderness. They can cause major changes in the ecosystem both upstream and downstream.

Solar power (Photovoltic based): Inefficient. This leads to high land use per watt. This means covering large sections of the landscape with solar cells. Also, the chemicals used to produce the solar cells cause pollution, as well as cleaning chemicals used to keep the solar cells at as high efficiency as they can muster.

Geothermal power: Still largely experimental, with few plants built. It's too early to tell. Hypothetized consequences: Increased salinity of local streams, localized atmospheric heating, or possibly even induced seismic activity.

Solar power (Solarthermal based): Background: Instead of using photovoltic cells, solar energy is concentrated by mirrors onto a heat engine, producing power from the thermal differential. These are even more experimental than Geothermal, but show great promise compared to photovoltic cells. They will have the same problems with keeping the reflective surfaces clean for decent efficiency, and still use fairly large areas of land.

My argument is not that nuclear power is 'green'. It's that it's 'more green' than coal. A large portion of our energy still comes from coal. We could substantially help the environment by replacing coal-fired power plants with nuclear power.

My personal preference, by the way, is for Hydro power. Hoover Dam, booyah! I much prefer hydro power to nuclear. Unfortunately, the number of viable sites for hydroelectric power is somewhat limited. Nuclear power can be built just about darn near anywhere.

One of the biggest myths about food poverty is that there's not enough food available... The amount of energy imput involved and space required in feeding and rearing a cow, which will feed ten people, is enough to feed fifty people with crops- with more than a one-off yield.

Totally with you on that point. It's not that we can't feed the world. It's about getting the food to the right people. Of course, Greenpeace isn't helping the matter by telling the poor that the food we send them is poisonous. Ultimately, though, if we produce more food, then that means cheaper food for everyone - from the rich to the poor.

I'm not familiar with the term 'one-off yield'. It sounds like you're saying that when the cow is dead, you have no more cow - a one time benefit - which makes absolutely no sense since you can breed more cows. My interpretation must be in error. Could you explain that in more detail?

A recent report by the US National Cancer institue has described how cancer rates are rising - without any definitive explanation. (Deaths have fallen overall - because they have fallen for white men - which indiactes the lack of equal access to health - as many ethnic minorities are amongst the US poor).

Oooh, ooh! I know this one!

Cancer rates are rising because people are living longer.

Cells in the body are programmed to self-destruct after a certain number of replications. At the ends of our DNA are little knots of repetitive DNA sequences that are never used. These are called 'telomeres'. During mitosis, a cell splits and copies its DNA sequence exactly - except for a little segment of the telomeres. Each time the cell duplicates itself, its telomeres become slightly shorter. Eventually, the telomeres are completely gone and the cell's divison starts eating into its own DNA sequences. This eventually leads to cancer.

Eventually, everyone dies of something. These days, people aren't dying of polio, the measles, or tuberculosis. They're dying of heart disease and cancer, which are primarily diseases of old age.

My favorites in this category: smoking and cancer. Here's an amusing anecdote. John McMorran of Lakeland, Florida, died in February of 2003. He smoked cigars, drank beer, and ate greasy food. He was born in 1889, making him 114 years old at the time of his death. Because of the way smoking statistics are collected, he is listed as 'a premature death due to smoking.' I'm not for smoking, mind - I'm against bad statistics.

You are also somewhat correct. The greatest single predicter of lifespan is not race, but socioeconomic class, almost certainly due to the far greater access to health care. I will also agree that socioeconomic class is skewed with regards to race. And I could go all kinds of places with this - but I'm not going to, because its not an environmental issue.

I guess my original quote was mis-read - I meant the cost of cleaning waste that has been generated over the past fifty years was estimated to cost £8bn two years ago - now it is £56bn

Ah. My apologies. That is much more of a dramatic increase. *pauses to do currency converstions and math*

By my (admittedly, rather primitive) calculations, based on historical data for UK reactor operations (1), that works out to roughly 0.05p per KWh. That's about $0.09 per KWh - or around ninety times as expensive as the U.S. rate that's paying for the disposal of our waste.

I'd seriously look into how this was being budgeted. And possibly do a feasability assessment on shipping the waste over to our facility. It really should not be that expensive.

Sav


(1) World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom." July 2005

[Cookie]

The indirect processes needed to sustain a nuclear power source produces equivellent pollution and cost to any fossil fuel.

And there are far more birds killed by cars than the ones flying through wind turbines. (not that i suggest wind power as a suitable power source though)