Science and Technology news... :: View topic - September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s gl

John M. · Guest

On Oct 12, 1:15 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]Still waiting for
all this CO2 to cause the temperatures to exceed 1934, 1998, 1926 etc.
[/quote]
What are you blathering about, you idiot. Temperatures in 1998
exceeded those of 1934, 1926, etc. already. What you are waiting for
is personal sanity, and it doesn>t look as though it>s coming your way
anytime soon.

john fernbach · Guest

On Oct 11, 10:55 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

[/quote]
I>m so glad that we don>t have to live in fear of nuclear power,
Peter.

The information below is from a web site on the causes and long-term
effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine:

*****************

What effects did the accident have on human health?

The full extent of the effects of the Chernobyl accident on human
health cannot be grasped. Twenty years after the disaster, The number
of casualties remains controversial.

There is a consensus that at least 1800 children and adolescents in
the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus have contracted cancer
of the thyroid because of the reactor disaster. It is feared that the
number of thyroid cancer cases among people who were children and
adolescents when the accident happened will reach 8000 in the coming
decades. This figure is given in the UNDP-Report 2002.

The German specialist in radiation medicine and Chernobyl expert,
Professor Edmund Lengfelder of the Otto Hug Strahleninstitut in
Munich, which has been running a thyroid centre in Belarus since 1991,
warns of up to 100 000 additional cases of thyroid cancer in all age
groups.

In September 2005 the Chernobyl Forum published a report (the
Chernobyl Forum Report 2005), written by specialists from seven UN
organisations including the WHO, the IAEA and the World Bank, as well
as from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. The report concludes that, all in
all, the Chernobyl disaster will claim roughly 4000 lives.

By mid 2005, it says, just over 50 persons will have died as a direct
consequence of nuclear exposure. The report, which acknowledges only
hard-and-fast scientific findings, has been severely criticised by
independent Chernobyl experts, environmental organisations and
Chernobyl relief organisations, who claim that it plays down the
impact of the disaster and goes in the face of earlier studies. Some
of its statements, moreover, are provably false.

Some of the contradictions can be explained by the fact that certain
parts of the research into the consequences of Chernobyl have, for
financial, political or legal reasons, been conducted in an
inconclusive and unsystematic fashion. Nevertheless, there are
convincing studies and data available on the far-reaching health
impairments resulting from the disaster (154.1).

Breast cancer and other tumours are increasing

An increased incidence of breast cancer as a direct consequence of the
accident has also been recognised internationally (39.1). The number
of cases has doubled in the area around Gomel in Belarus - one of the
most severely contaminated territories.

Belorussian and Ukrainian scientists also predict an increase in
urogenital tumours and lung and stomach cancer, both among the
liquidators and in the general male population of the severely
contaminated areas (16.6). This prediction is supported by cancer
specialists in other countries (40.1).

There is no doubt among national and international experts that the
state of health of the people in the contaminated territories is
extremely poor. The latest report by UNDP and UNICEF cites a number of
different causes: poverty, poor diet and living conditions.

According to the UNDP/UNICEF report, these factors may be reinforced
by the psychosocial effects of the accident (2.4). The conclusions of
this report have however been challenged.

"After the Chernobyl disaster, a massive increase in non-malignant
diseases was also observed in the population," wrote the German
specialist in radiation medicine Edmund Lengfelder 15 years after the
accident (38.2).

The Ukrainian government agency Chernobyl Interinform in Kiev reported
in March 2002 that 84 per cent of the three million people in Ukraine
who had been exposed to radiation were registered as sick. These
include one million children (8.2). According to the latest data from
the Belorussian governmental Chernobyl Committee in Minsk, the average
rate of illness among the inhabitants of the contaminated territories
is higher than in the uncontaminated areas.

The people in the uncontaminated areas are not, however, subject to
any special monitoring, and there have been calls for additional
comparative studies (16.6).

The international debate on other diseases (in addition to cancer)
resulting from the reactor accident is dealt with in Section "Other
diseases in children and adults". Subsections "Genetic defects" and
"Low-dose radiation" describe the effects of radiation on pregnancy
and genetic effects.

For related articles on the Chernobyl accident and its aftermath and
effects, as well as expert debates on the significance of the
accident, click here:

http://www.chernobyl.info/

obozn · Guest

"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:76ddedd9-44f8-4ee4-b970-cde6d14886f3@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 10, 5:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global
land
record. ...

Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.

Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.

Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!
IMVHO,[/quote]
there is no one single 'magic bullet' solution to
the global warming crisis;
***********************************

No silver bullet required for an imaginary crisis!

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a
25-year Rise" New York Times, March 27, 1933

obozn · Guest

"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:76ddedd9-44f8-4ee4-b970-cde6d14886f3@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 10, 5:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global
land
record. ...

Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.

Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.

Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!
IMVHO,[/quote]
there is no one single 'magic bullet' solution to
the global warming crisis;
***********************************

ROTFLMAO
No silver bullet required for an imaginary crisis!

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a
25-year Rise" New York Times, March 27, 1933

James · Guest

http://chernobylfarms.com/

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0ec7e4b7-737a-45e8-922d-a0ff6bc740c4@v56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 11, 10:55 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

[/quote]
I>m so glad that we don>t have to live in fear of nuclear power,
Peter.

The information below is from a web site on the causes and long-term
effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine:

*****************

What effects did the accident have on human health?

The full extent of the effects of the Chernobyl accident on human
health cannot be grasped. Twenty years after the disaster, The number
of casualties remains controversial.

There is a consensus that at least 1800 children and adolescents in
the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus have contracted cancer
of the thyroid because of the reactor disaster. It is feared that the
number of thyroid cancer cases among people who were children and
adolescents when the accident happened will reach 8000 in the coming
decades. This figure is given in the UNDP-Report 2002.

The German specialist in radiation medicine and Chernobyl expert,
Professor Edmund Lengfelder of the Otto Hug Strahleninstitut in
Munich, which has been running a thyroid centre in Belarus since 1991,
warns of up to 100 000 additional cases of thyroid cancer in all age
groups.

In September 2005 the Chernobyl Forum published a report (the
Chernobyl Forum Report 2005), written by specialists from seven UN
organisations including the WHO, the IAEA and the World Bank, as well
as from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. The report concludes that, all in
all, the Chernobyl disaster will claim roughly 4000 lives.

By mid 2005, it says, just over 50 persons will have died as a direct
consequence of nuclear exposure. The report, which acknowledges only
hard-and-fast scientific findings, has been severely criticised by
independent Chernobyl experts, environmental organisations and
Chernobyl relief organisations, who claim that it plays down the
impact of the disaster and goes in the face of earlier studies. Some
of its statements, moreover, are provably false.

Some of the contradictions can be explained by the fact that certain
parts of the research into the consequences of Chernobyl have, for
financial, political or legal reasons, been conducted in an
inconclusive and unsystematic fashion. Nevertheless, there are
convincing studies and data available on the far-reaching health
impairments resulting from the disaster (154.1).

Breast cancer and other tumours are increasing

An increased incidence of breast cancer as a direct consequence of the
accident has also been recognised internationally (39.1). The number
of cases has doubled in the area around Gomel in Belarus - one of the
most severely contaminated territories.

Belorussian and Ukrainian scientists also predict an increase in
urogenital tumours and lung and stomach cancer, both among the
liquidators and in the general male population of the severely
contaminated areas (16.6). This prediction is supported by cancer
specialists in other countries (40.1).

There is no doubt among national and international experts that the
state of health of the people in the contaminated territories is
extremely poor. The latest report by UNDP and UNICEF cites a number of
different causes: poverty, poor diet and living conditions.

According to the UNDP/UNICEF report, these factors may be reinforced
by the psychosocial effects of the accident (2.4). The conclusions of
this report have however been challenged.

"After the Chernobyl disaster, a massive increase in non-malignant
diseases was also observed in the population," wrote the German
specialist in radiation medicine Edmund Lengfelder 15 years after the
accident (38.2).

The Ukrainian government agency Chernobyl Interinform in Kiev reported
in March 2002 that 84 per cent of the three million people in Ukraine
who had been exposed to radiation were registered as sick. These
include one million children (8.2). According to the latest data from
the Belorussian governmental Chernobyl Committee in Minsk, the average
rate of illness among the inhabitants of the contaminated territories
is higher than in the uncontaminated areas.

The people in the uncontaminated areas are not, however, subject to
any special monitoring, and there have been calls for additional
comparative studies (16.6).

The international debate on other diseases (in addition to cancer)
resulting from the reactor accident is dealt with in Section "Other
diseases in children and adults". Subsections "Genetic defects" and
"Low-dose radiation" describe the effects of radiation on pregnancy
and genetic effects.

For related articles on the Chernobyl accident and its aftermath and
effects, as well as expert debates on the significance of the
accident, click here:

http://www.chernobyl.info/

*Poetic Justice* · Guest

James wrote:
[quote]http://chernobylfarms.com/

"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0ec7e4b7-737a-45e8-922d-a0ff6bc740c4@v56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 11, 10:55 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

I>m so glad that we don>t have to live in fear of nuclear power,
Peter.

[/quote]

I>ve lived near them for about 25 years, I never lost a nights sleep.

columbiaaccidentinvestiga · Guest

On Oct 14, 12:45 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote: I also don>t
mention building codes, how close outlets should be, and myriad other
issues. Nuclear is messy, and carries a lot of baggage to be sure. A
lot of the issues have work-arounds or solutions, some don>t. As an
overall solution, it is the best option that we have. You, on the
other hand, have added nothing to this conversation. You have an
alternative?-

actually i have contributed to this conversation, as you have just
started to scratch the surface, but instead of trying to marginalize
the problem with your use of syntax, you should try addressing the
issues i.e. go little bit further as reality requires it. Now the
problem of nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and
transportation to sites from the energy production site is a little
bit bigger problem than you characterize as "work arounds", but that
is your choice, just like you said it is the solution, but then when
challenged you place the caveat of work arounds on such a statement.
(hint maybe you need to do a little more research before you make such
a declaration)

as nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and
transportation of nuclear waste to such sites from the energy
production site.

Guest

On Oct 12, 6:54 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 1:15 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

Still waiting for
all this CO2 to cause the temperatures to exceed 1934, 1998, 1926 etc.

What are you blathering about, you idiot. Temperatures in 1998
exceeded those of 1934, 1926, etc. already. What you are waiting for
is personal sanity, and it doesn>t look as though it>s coming your way
anytime soon.
[/quote]
Nice of a disciple of the fraud of the high priest Dancin Hansen to
chime in. US statistics which were much more accurately compiled
before WWII than world statistics do not show this. 1934 was much
warmer and 1926 is third behind 1998.

So what about the fact that in the terrible climate crisis of Algore
and his devoted fanatics, the temperature of 1998 has not been reached
again. When CO2 output is reaching 26 billion tons a year, and China
alone increasing CO2 at 11% a year relative to the US?

Man that is some climate crisis, failing crops, people dying cause
their AIR CONDITIONERS just can>t keep up with the heat waves.
Evaporating oceans, New York CIty swamped by the estimated 1mm or so
of ocean rise in the last decade, which is mostly only from thermal
expansion???

You are right. I will begin to mindlessly repeat all the stupid things
you idiots repeat and believe and ignore the manipulation of the GISS
statistics by Hansen in search of my sanity. Thanks for the hint.

KD

Guest

On Oct 13, 2:50 pm, *Poetic Justice* <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
[quote]James wrote:
http://chernobylfarms.com/

"john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:0ec7e4b7-737a-45e8-922d-a0ff6bc740c4@v56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 11, 10:55 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

I>m so glad that we don>t have to live in fear of nuclear power,
Peter.

I>ve lived near them for about 25 years, I never lost a nights sleep.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Glad you sleep well, PJ. Being able to sleep when you need to, no
matter what else is going on, is a great gift.

Unless you keep sleeping when the house catches fire.

Peter Franks · Guest

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 3:53 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:55 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...
Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.
Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.
Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!
You are insane. Nuclear power is so expensive that it is never paid
off by the selling of electricity and must be government subsidized.
CO2 is a normal chemical in the environment and causes absolutely no
warming, despite the psychotic beliefs of the fanatics who enjoy the
doomsday prophecies of our use of fuel.
Brilliant greenie weenie enviromentalists that would exchange
completely harmless CO2 for plutonium and nuclear waste and the
inevitable accidents with prolific nuclear power.
Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.
Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.
Yes, I may be insane, but that doesn>t change the fact that nuclear is
THE transitory solution.
If you were to look into official statistics concerning how much
energy could be saved at the various, putative, ranked, levels of
expenditure on conservation, and then compare them with the costs
involving nuclear generation of the same quantity of energy, you would
find your claim about THE solution to be exceedingly thin.
Governments prefer generation to conservation because rich people
benefit from generation, while only poor people benefit from
conservation.
Conservation is to conserve; there is NO progression from conservation.

We need a solution for new energy sources. Conservation will not get us
there in any way, shape or form.

Nuclear IS the answer. It WAS the answer 30+ years ago, but because of
idiotic policy and fear, we currently have nothing.

Enlightened people prefer generation because it is an active source.
Ignorant people prefer conservation because it is NON ACTION.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

na, that is a bit of a myopic point of view, as you never mention
nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and you also avoid
transportation of nuclear waste to such sites from the energy
production site.
[/quote]
I also don>t mention building codes, how close outlets should be, and
myriad other issues.

Nuclear is messy, and carries a lot of baggage to be sure. A lot of the
issues have work-arounds or solutions, some don>t. As an overall
solution, it is the best option that we have.

You, on the other hand, have added nothing to this conversation. You
have an alternative?

Peter Franks · Guest

kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 8:12 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 3:53 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

Nuclear IS the answer. It WAS the answer 30+ years ago, but because of
idiotic policy and fear, we currently have nothing.
Enlightened people prefer generation because it is an active source.
Ignorant people prefer conservation because it is NON ACTION.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
na, that is a bit of a myopic point of view, as you never mention
nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and you also avoid
transportation of nuclear waste to such sites from the energy
production site. Now somebody like you who thinks one thing "is" a
solution, but does not offer up solutions to problems associated with
the byproducts of nuclear power, has nothing to offer on this issue
except capital letters REPEATING the same idiotic opinions

Then the greenie weenies better look around to see who they are in bed
with. The right wingers who buy the bullshit science of climate
scaremongering are all for nuclear power. If McCain gets into office,
these 'liberals' better watch out as the enforcement and programs of
the right wing are ruthlessly imposed upon the lower and middle
classes.

The cost of building nuclear plants is prohibitive. The only means to
pay for them is government subsidy and deficit spending. So what sense
does this make?
The cost of electricity must be increased beyond imagination, or the
'private' companies must be supported by the government which is a
fiasco. Maybe the rich people will offer to pay much higher taxes so
that the average person will not have to pay 10 times or greater
electricity bills.

I guess Franks will be the one that allows the reactor to built at the
end of his street while he donates at least 3/4 of his income to
support it. It is always nice to see such interest and pledges of
support for the solution to the non-problem of AGW. Still waiting for
all this CO2 to cause the temperatures to exceed 1934, 1998, 1926 etc.
[/quote]
I have no problem living near nuclear, nor paying for it. It makes a
lot more sense than the 'alternative' nonsense sources being discussed
elsewhere.

Either propose a workable alternative, or accept the reality of nuclear.

Peter Franks · Guest

john fernbach wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 10:55 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

I>m so glad that we don>t have to live in fear of nuclear power,
Peter.
[/quote]
I don>t live in fear.

[quote]The information below is from a web site on the causes and long-term
effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine:
[/quote]
Chernobyl was and is a nightmare to be sure. Lots of mistakes were
made, and a lot of lessons have been learned. What are we doing w/ that
knowledge? Living in fear seems to be the answer to that question.

I prefer progress.

Peter Franks · Guest

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
[quote]On Oct 14, 12:45 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote: I also don>t
mention building codes, how close outlets should be, and myriad other
issues. Nuclear is messy, and carries a lot of baggage to be sure. A
lot of the issues have work-arounds or solutions, some don>t. As an
overall solution, it is the best option that we have. You, on the
other hand, have added nothing to this conversation. You have an
alternative?-

actually i have contributed to this conversation, as you have just
started to scratch the surface, but instead of trying to marginalize
the problem with your use of syntax, you should try addressing the
issues i.e. go little bit further as reality requires it. Now the
problem of nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and
transportation to sites from the energy production site is a little
bit bigger problem than you characterize as "work arounds", but that
is your choice, just like you said it is the solution, but then when
challenged you place the caveat of work arounds on such a statement.
(hint maybe you need to do a little more research before you make such
a declaration)
[/quote]
Let me know when you recommend an alternative. A /viable/ alternative.

columbiaaccidentinvestiga · Guest

On Oct 14, 1:38 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:" Let me know
when you recommend an alternative. A /viable/ alternative."

laughing, let me know when you have though out your so called solution
beyond your child like rhetoric, as you are the one who stated
something was the solution, and all i did was point out that your so
called solution creates more problems in the form of transportation,
short and long term storage of the byproducts from nuclear power
plants. Now if you cannot handle progressing past glassing over
problems you call "work arounds", and you need to characterize those
problems in such a way that it becomes obvious that you dont have a
clue beyond your myopic rhetoric, thats where your so called solution
becomes a joke....

John M. · Guest

On Oct 14, 10:51 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 6:54 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

On Oct 12, 1:15 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

Still waiting for
all this CO2 to cause the temperatures to exceed 1934, 1998, 1926 etc.

What are you blathering about, you idiot. Temperatures in 1998
exceeded those of 1934, 1926, etc. already. What you are waiting for
is personal sanity, and it doesn>t look as though it>s coming your way
anytime soon.

Nice of a disciple of the fraud of the high priest Dancin Hansen to
chime in. US statistics which were much more accurately compiled
before WWII than world statistics do not show this. 1934 was much
warmer and 1926 is third behind 1998.
[/quote]
Nope. Every single method researched shows 1998 the warmest year for
thousands of years.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> The Big Environment Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2