* Energy *

[moi621]

Saw a couple of energy stories today but, there is no current Energy Thread.
And resurrecting dormant Threads is not I am told.

Under the omnibus ENERGY concept, we might consider the science or the price we are willing to pay.
Under the Price we are willing to pay, consider.
http://news.yahoo.com/radioactive-bl...190121826.html
Radioactive bluefin tuna crossed the Pacific to US
" . . . The levels of radioactive cesium were 10 times higher than the amount measured in tuna off the California coast in previous years. But even so, that's still far below safe-to-eat limits set by the U.S. and Japanese governments. . ."
Safe?
The same governments have a trick question on radiology tech exams. Truthfully, I don't know about Japan - but I bet they do.
"The Safe Amount of Radiation is:" - the answer is ZERO.

No matter how safe the newer reactors are -
Nuclear; It only takes one oopsy.

Moi

The Bright Side.
Glow in the dark sushi


Southern California Edison,
Rent My Roof!

[moi621]

The other (promised) article of interest.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2831784.story
Wind farms considering detection systems to prevent bird deaths
Adding bird detection systems could protect wind farms from litigation in case of deaths of threatened species.
" . . Avian radar systems are in operation at wind farms in Texas and in European nations including Spain. A radar unit was installed at Pattern Energy's controversial Ocotillo Express Wind Project site in Imperial County. Pattern Energy declined to comment about its effectiveness. . ."

The plan is to stop the turbines when the radar detects birdies.

Moi

[A-1]

moi,

Hey.

Cesium 134 and Cesium 137 both decay into for all practical purposes stable Barium, with a 1/2 life of 540 million years...eventually. The 1/2 life of Cs134 is a smidgeon over 2 years and it decays by release of beta and then by gamma radiation.

Cesium 137 has a 1/2 life of 30 years decaying by beta radiation only.

If they say that there is a LOW health risk from these isotopes I am inclined to believe them, but I understand your doubt. Of course, there is the CONCENTRATION phenomenon to worry about when ingested if secreted. If retained in a long bone the long 1/2 life decreases the activity considerably. So, before getting cancer from such low radiation dosages the living being dies first of old age.

Read here for yourself and then govern yourself according to your best judgments.

http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/cesium.pdf

Windmills?

I worry more about the screws of ships killing fish. If a bird cannot see a windmill that big perhaps natural selection should take over and allow only birdies with good eyesight to reproduce.

...but let us not go there, O.K.?

...let us not forget that cheap generation of electricity is good for everyone's nest egg.

[Riverwind]

So far in the last 2 weeks 5 birds have flown into my bay window, 3 died.

Moi, we have already talked about this, the number of bird deaths due to wind turbines is so far down on the list of things that kill birds its listed LAST, So STOP ALREADY .

As for the fish, don't eat fish, problem solved.


River

[moi621]

Great Physical Science.

Now study up on the Biology of Cesium.
Then consider the selective risks to growing children. Let us know, please.

Moi
BSc Biological Sciences, Magna Cum Laude, Special Honors
University of California, Irvine. 1970

[moi621]

So far in the last 2 weeks 5 birds have flown into my bay window, 3 died.

Moi, we have already talked about this, the number of bird deaths due to wind turbines is so far down on the list of things that kill birds its listed LAST, So STOP ALREADY .

As for the fish, don't eat fish, problem solved.
River

"Moi, we have already talked about this"
No, friend, River DEAR <nice River> <nice River>
The article was selected for sharing because of the effort by the Wind Turbine Companies to reduce bird kills. It was not my decision they do so. Please do not blame me. Although you "can".
A radar bird detection system that will shut down the wind turbine is the point, shared.
That, Sir, we have NOT ". . already talked about this"
Unless you say so, Sir .

Moi
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean River is not out to get me.

[Riverwind]

If these wind mills stop every time a bird gets near they are never going to turn and hence no power from an idle wind mill. Once again creating a solution were there is no problem.

Like I said, if it bothers you, DON'T EAT THE FISH. problem solved.

You see you don't need to be Magna Cum Laude to use common sense.

If you are worried about the fish, DON'T EAT THE FISH.



River

[StefanIsMe]

I have to admit that while most of my friends see me as a bit of a tree-hugging nature-lover, and while I do indeed love our avian friends, I also live right smack on the very edge of a massive (for Canada) windfarm, the Pembina River Valley one. If I walk a block south from my house, and look down the road, the closest windmill (1.2 miles away) looks as big as the McDonalds (one block away).

When I consider the alternatives (smoke-belching coal-burning generators (I know, I know, they are cleaner nowadays, but still), risky nuclear, and environment-flooding hydro dams, I honestly have very little problem with some (few, some, lots) of birdies getting their brains bashed in so that I can continue to have lights, cold beer, and hot food.

Until solar gets cheaper or wave-generators get bigger and cheaper, I'm very happy with how clean and non-fuel (nevermind fossil; no fuel at all beyond "wind")-using our friendly neighborhood wind-farm is.

It took out a gaggle of geese and a diorama worth of ducks this year. And, as with River, so did my front room picture window; however I have no plans to replace either my window or the windfarm. Both do their jobs admirably .

I have to say I question the effectiveness of this on/off sensor-thing re. birds and windmills... indeed, around here, during migration, that would me shutting them off pretty much always.

There's a whole huge bunch of us humans; we all want and need power every day; it's gotta come from somewhere. Wind is the most "free", fuel-wise, on par with the grossly more expensive solar, so I'm happy to sacrifice the birds.

[Riverwind]

You know I lived in northern California for years and drove over the small mountain range to get to work every day, on of the biggest wind farms is there I think about 5000 of them. The city of Livermore (where the lab is) is powered by the wind farm with some to spare. Its nice, clean, free in so many ways.


River

[A-1]

Great Physical Science.

Now study up on the Biology of Cesium.
Then consider the selective risks to growing children. Let us know, please.

Moi
BSc Biological Sciences, Magna Cum Laude, Special Honors
University of California, Irvine. 1970

I taught Radiobiology at the college level for 13 years... more recently than 1970.

Did you ever take such a course? It IS a very specialized area.

Mostly, it concentrates on statistics, from Hiroshima and Nagasaki... more recently from Chernobyl. You see very early the studies of Hermann Muller with Drosophila concluded that there are no "unique" diseases caused by radiation exposure. The exposure only changes the FREQUENCY of disease. Then there is MegaMouse, but that concerns long-term effects also.

You seem to indicate on your last post that you are more concerned with the law of Bergonie and Tribondeau and either exposure to genetic material of living things or possibly the exposure of pregnancy. This has to do with the radio-sensitivity of cells to radiation. I would assume that you begin by asking questions and then with no capacity to conduct legitimate research, make conclusions that fit your pre-cast answers to your own questions.

Look, moi, I AM NOT trying to be nasty right now, but YOU know the scientific method as well as I.

At best you are talking about a stochastic risk and most likely from my experience no risk.

moi, statistically speaking, the risk is not assessable.

You see, there are 3 methods of radiation risk assessment. They are Absolute, Excess and Relative.

Since it is HIGHLY unethical to use radiation experiments on humans, and since experiments on animals or other living things is limited at best and inaccurate at worst, all we have to use to assess risk are groups that have already been exposed and statistical evaluation.

I will say at this point that the unique response at Chernobyl of Chernobyl Heart is currently being studied and that the full effects of the Chernobyl disaster may not be known for a very long time, it has already been 26 years and we are still finding out new things in regard to this accident.

The best thing that I can tell you is to go to the National Council on Radiation Protection online, join, and read and research. This is an independent body of scientists. You may even be able to make significant contributions if you do your science correctly.

Our task as scientists is to ADD to the bodies of knowledge of science, not to tear them down. O.K.? Now. Bitch all that you want, but that IS the way that the majority of scientists who spend NO TIME engaging in science fiction feel about this issue.

Have a great day... and don't kill any birds. We have wild ducks swimming in our back yard every morning...

[erikboy]

"The Safe Amount of Radiation is:" - the answer is ZERO.

Nowhere in the world there is ZERO radiation. There is a background radiation and at some places there are natural radioactive material sources that emit Radon for example. Also all coal burningpowerstations are great radioactive material emitters, in fact they have emitted more radioctive material into atmosphere than all nuclear disasters and tests put together.
For example I live in place where Radon is very common. All basements must have forced or special ventilation systems in place. That blue tuna fish having Cesium levels well below dangerous levels seem to be innocent compared to Radon in my basement.

[Riverwind]

Moi, Don't eat the fish.


River

[A-1]

moi,

Don't swim in the ocean. The sharks may eat you and they are already having enough survival problems.

[moi621]

Safe level of radiation is ZERO.
Not what is in the real world. This is a trick question on radiology exams.
I did not put it there. I only suffered it.

The Biology of Cesium, sans fluff, SVP. (SVP fancy schmancy for PAH-Leeze)

Moi
Keeping It Real.




Who needs natural gas for cheap flaming
Try respond without addressing Moi for more better cerebrated input and all that stuff.
I know, higher priced *Energy*

[fhunter]

Safe level of radiation is ZERO

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/usagamma.gif - Moi, move to the Great Lakes region, background radiation level there is much lower than in California.
You'll live longer

Oh, and one more thing:

You and other People
You naturally contain Potassium, Carbon-14, and other radionuclides. This makes you radioactive. To the tune of around 40 mrem a year. Other people are also radioactive, so you get slight doses from being around other people as well.

Ever thought about becoming a hermit? :-p