Expert: We must act fast on warming

There are 20 comments on the Sep 24, 2008, Kansas.com story titled Expert: We must act fast on warming. In it, Kansas.com reports that:

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Kansas.com.

SoE

Rozet, WY

#26751 Apr 6, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text> No one asked you for your liquor review non published work but you keep on keeping on posting it. Why the spacedoutblues, well the spacedoutblues insist it is correct in every post it puts out there so it would be prudent for it to show its peer reviewed published work to save face. To date all it has is cut and paste scientific science fiction useless babble. Let me know if this explanation is some what complicated for you and I will do my best to tone it down.
You may wish to pick up a copy of the book..The Demon Haunted World..
You might find the first chapters clarifying.
I'm sure it would give a more exacting definition to some of the terms you often use...

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#26752 Apr 6, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, I do mean the hormetic effect, also known as the "J" curve. That the effect is real is widely accepted. The exact MODEL of the effect (i.e., the exact shape of the curve) is still, and will probably always be, a question in SOMEONE's mind. Some of the factors in the model include the gender, age, extent of other chemical assault (smoker, drinker), tissue assaulted, etc. Young females seem most susceptible.
The differing effects of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma are taken into account (at least in gross effects) by using Seiverts rather than Greys as your unit of measurement.
"Epidemiological studies, backed by animal experiments, have established beyond doubt that exposure to radiation levels above 100 millisieverts increases the risk of cancer in a predictable, dose-dependent way. But the risk to health at lower exposure levels is harder to pin down. In Germany, for example, the dose limit for occupational exposure is 20 millisieverts per year. But even when this limit is respected, there are more than 70,000 reports of suspected health damage among exposed workers each year, more than double the number in 1960. Some epidemiological studies suggest that low doses of radiation — as few as 10 millisieverts in children — may increase cancer risk in susceptible individuals, and may be associated with other conditions, such as heart disease and stroke. People living close to Fukushima are anticipated to receive around 10 millisieverts of accumulated radiation exposure each over the next decade."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n73...

While the effects of very low level ionizing radiation may have been over estimated, I doubt that they are "good" for you. There are too many unknowns in the science. This kinda reeks of the same logic used by the DDT proponents. Would this simply be a program to lessen public fear of nuclear reactors? Or an attempt to minimize the possible threat of low level radiation released from coal fired generators? I suppose one could argue that cadmium released from burning coal increases the human immune system and makes them more healthy.

Since: Mar 13

Washington, DC

#26753 Apr 6, 2013
The radiation released by an apartment building in Taiwan rendered the inhabitants virtually immune to cancer. The building had been built with steel that had Co-60 mistakenly alloyed into it.

Indeed, look at the survivors oh the Hiroshima bomb. The people who had recieved less than 200mSv (IIRC) had lower cancer rates than folks who had no exposure.

Nuclear shipyard workers have lowercancer rates than they non-nuclear workers from the same shipyards. Study after study after study. Low dose, low dose rate radiation proves beneficial time after time.

Check out the BELLE newsletter.

http://www.belleonline.com/newsletters.htm
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#26754 Apr 6, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
look at the survivors oh the Hiroshima bomb. The people who had recieved less than 200mSv (IIRC) had lower cancer rates than folks who had no exposure.
Take George Carlin's medical advice, given out at the local comedy club & watering hole. If you get one cancer, get another cancer & they'll eat each other.
SoE

United States

#26755 Apr 6, 2013
The radiation released by an apartment building in Taiwan rendered the inhabitants virtually immune to cancer. The building had been built with steel that had Co-60 mistakenly alloyed into it.
..........
Really..?
I'd like to see more regarding that...
I believe there may be a medical break thru here ?
SoE

United States

#26756 Apr 6, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
BF:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
My point was that some isotopes like Cs137 get taken up into the body, typically by substituting for an element in the same group. In the Cesium case, it typically substitutes for potassium. After a while, Cs137 will beta decay to Barium137 which has a different chemical nature. Having the WRONG element in an important biological compound MAY be more of a detriment than the energy imparted by the decay itself. I think this issue deserves some immediate study, even if the hormesis effect says that irradiation at that level is not a problem.
..........

My point was that some isotopes like Cs137 get taken up into the body, typically by substituting for an element in the same group. In the Cesium case, it typically substitutes for potassium. After a while, Cs137 will beta decay to Barium137 which has a different chemical nature. Having the WRONG element in an important biological compound MAY be more of a detriment than the energy imparted by the decay itself...
....
The negative effects would not be additive....?
..........
I think this issue deserves some immediate study, even if the hormesis effect says that irradiation at that level is not a problem.
..........
Yes, a clear understanding may promote a higher level of confidence

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#26757 Apr 7, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
The radiation released by an apartment building in Taiwan rendered the inhabitants virtually immune to cancer. The building had been built with steel that had Co-60 mistakenly alloyed into it.
This is what is commonly called "blog science": bold claims that don't really stand up to analysis of the complexities involved.

The same sort of thing is common in the global warming phoney debate: just look at wattsupwithtwat.

Effects of Cobalt-60 Exposure

The health of the inhabitants of radioactive apartment buildings in Taiwan has received prominent attention in popular treatments of radiation hormesis. In 1982, more than 20,000 tons of steel was accidentally contaminated with Cobalt-60, much of this radioactive steel was used to build apartments and exposed thousands of Taiwanese to gamma radiation levels of up to >1000 times background (ave. 47.7 mSv, max. 2360 mSv excess cumulative dose); it was not until 1992 that the radioactive contamination was discovered. Subsequently, a medical study published in 2004 claimed the cancer mortality rates in the exposed population were more than 20 times lower than expected.[45] However, this initial study failed to control for age, comparing a much younger exposed population (mean age 17.2 years at initial exposure) with the much older general population of Taiwan (mean age approx. 34 years in 2004), a serious flaw.[46][47] Older people have much higher cancer rate even in the absence of excess radiation exposure.

A subsequent study by Hwang et al.(2006) found the incidence of "all cancers" in the irradiated population was 40% lower than expected (95 vs. 160.3 cases expected), except for leukaemia in men (6 vs. 1.8 cases expected) and thyroid cancer in women (6 vs. 2.8 cases expected), an increase only detected amongst those exposed before the age of 30. Hwang et al. proposed that the lower rate of "all cancers" might due to the exposed populations higher socioeconomic status and thus overall healthier lifestyle, but this was difficult to prove. Additionally, they cautioned that leukaemia was the first cancer type found to be elevated amongst the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, so it may be decades before any increase in more common cancer types are seen.[46]

Besides the excess risks of leukaemia and thyroid cancer, a later publication notes various DNA anomalies and other health effects among the exposed population:[48]

There have been several reports concerning the radiation effects on the exposed population, including cytogenetic analysis that showed increased micronucleus frequencies in peripheral lymphocytes in the exposed population, increases in acentromeric and single or multiple centromeric cytogenetic damages, and higher frequencies of chromosomal translocations, rings and dicentrics. Other analyses have shown persistent depression of peripheral leucocytes and neutrophils, increased eosinophils, altered distributions of lymphocyte subpopulations, increased frequencies of lens opacities, delays in physical development among exposed children, increased risk of thyroid abnormalities, and late consequences in hematopoietic adaptation in children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormes...
Earthling

Hondón De Las Nieves, Spain

#26758 Apr 7, 2013
Almost 5 years since this thread started, but no one's acting fast on Glowbull warming and FugYou's sunk to quoting Wiki.
PHD

Montalba, TX

#26759 Apr 7, 2013
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
You may wish to pick up a copy of the book..The Demon Haunted World..
You might find the first chapters clarifying.
I'm sure it would give a more exacting definition to some of the terms you often use...
Weel than now we know why you are what you are.Is your world haunted daily? This makes a good ack for your stand up comic job SoE AKA Son of Entertainment.
SoE

Rozet, WY

#26760 Apr 7, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Weel than now we know why you are what you are.Is your world haunted daily? This makes a good ack for your stand up comic job SoE AKA Son of Entertainment.
WEEL,..ack... I guess that would indicate you haven't read many of the late noted astronomer Dr.Carl Sagan's books...
Unlike you he posessed billions and billions of interests related
to science...
He and his wife Ann Druyan wrote many science related books...
The cosmos series,pale blue dot etc.
He was also Prof. Em.@ Cornell....
I would strongly recommend you read the book i've suggested...
SoE

Rozet, WY

#26761 Apr 7, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Weel than now we know why you are what you are.
Read the book and give your thoughts regarding the content...
SoE

Montpelier, ND

#26762 Apr 7, 2013
Earthling wrote:
Almost 5 years since this thread started, but no one's acting fast on Glowbull warming and FugYou's sunk to quoting Wiki.
Almost 5 years since this thread started, but no one's acting fast on Glowbull warming
..........
Probably because the world is wasting scientific time trying to straighten out Spain's economy. We wouldn't want y'all to starve before the problem is corrected....
Most world inhabitants are compassionate enough they can't stand by and watch trolls starve
..........
While Wiki may not be the definative research repository the key
is to have enough science background to use it selectively...

Since: Mar 09

United States

#26763 Apr 7, 2013
Earthling wrote:
Almost 5 years since this thread started, but no one's acting fast on Glowbull warming and FugYou's sunk to quoting Wiki.
Gosh, are you back? We really have missed you......
SoE

Rozet, WY

#26764 Apr 7, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, are you back? We really have missed you......
OH,...golly....was he on this thread before ?
I usually remember The scientifically gifted...
PHD

Montalba, TX

#26765 Apr 12, 2013
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the book and give your thoughts regarding the content...
More scientific science fiction . Got real science? Here you go somthing you do best is correct spellin. Can you find the incorrect words misspelled? See why your the Son of Entertainment.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#26766 Apr 12, 2013
No more experimental tests? There's never been a test of climate change mitigation, published in a peer reviewed journal. The science just doesn't live up to the hype.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#26767 Apr 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No more experimental tests? There's never been a test of climate change mitigation, published in a peer reviewed journal. The science just doesn't live up to the hype.
Not true.

What's your evidence?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#26768 Apr 12, 2013
Climate change mitigation is a hoax; the lack of experimental tests prove this.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#26769 Apr 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Climate change mitigation is a hoax; the lack of experimental tests prove this.
Listen, I asked you for evidence. You concede!

Once more, you mentioned "a hoax." Therefore, you should reply to the following post.
gcaveman1 wrote:
Deniers, please answer these questions so that we can all get to the bottom of of this "global warming hoax".
How many people are part of this conspiracy? Are there enough of them to carry out the plan? What infrastructure and resources does it need? How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?(For instance, the idea that the Nazi themselves set the Reichstag fire would only require handful of men and minimal amount of money to pull off while something like the moon landing hoax would require tens of thousands if not more to carry out; the rock samples alone might require a decade to falsify and filming would take an airtight soundstage orders of magnitude larger than any known vacuum chamber).
Explicitly who gains what from the conspiracy and for what price? Is this the easiest way of gaining it? If not, why was it chosen over the easiest way? If it is an old conspiracy — who gains what from maintaining it?
How large is the supposed conspiracy and how likely is it to be covered up if has gone on a long time? If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none been defected? Why have none of them leaked the story? If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?(It should be noted that with government-based conspiracy theories one can have issues with the fact there are things about WWI, nearly 100 years ago, that are still classified and therefore unknown to the general public, nullifying these types of questions even with a skeptic - however, these involve what might be termed "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" and usually there is significant supporting evidence from other sources).
If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized? Where are the secret conferences held? How do they keep track of membership? If they are organised through known channels or entities, how do they keep non-members who work there from uncovering the conspiracy?
There are many intelligence agencies associated with rival nations, with the ability to expose secrets. If, say, the US government is running a global conspiracy, why have the French, Russian, or Chinese intelligence agencies never revealed it, to cause a major scandal in the United States (If all intelligence agencies are involved, see #2)? If they have, when and where did they do so?
Does belief in this theory require accepting that the conspiring entities are incredibly competent, bone stupid, organized and clever, and hopelessly incompetent -- all at the same time?[31]
More generally, what if any implausible contradictions does this theory depend upon? A secret well and carefully kept by extremely powerful and aggressive entities, that one or (especially) more "bozos on the bus" happens to know all about, and talk about openly, including on the Web, without being disappeared? A highly organized and thoroughly secret system of concentration camps operated by FEMA, which is famous for its amazingly chaotic, clumsy, and ineffective handling of rescue and recovery after Katrina? An intensely secret program that could be easily discovered and verified by anyone with a common piece of scientific equipment?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#26770 Apr 12, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Listen, I asked you for evidence. You concede! Once more, you mentioned "a hoax." Therefore, you should reply to the following post.
Reply to a conspiracy nut? All hoaxes aren't conspiracies, some are mass delusions, specifically man made global warming and climate change mitigation are popular media fantasies. Business as usual.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Renewable Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA) Success Could Benefit P... Sun Solarman 1
News Reid touts Nevada's advances as renewable energ... Sun Local 5
News Water Shortage Problem Solved With Solar Power?... Sat Solarman 1
News Wind energy is cheaper, but interest in buildin... Sat Sneaky Pete 11
News World's largest wind farm opens in West Texas (Oct '09) Apr 24 Timray 23
News Can Australians Give Up Coal? Apr 24 Aussie Bob 1
News XsunX to Install Solar Project for Wireless Ser... Apr 23 Heinz 7
More from around the web