/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 47 KB, 608x414, tyler-the-creator-yonkers1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:22:06 2011 No.2820135 [Reply] [Original]

>Try to talk to friend about peak oil and the ramifications that will occur when oil production in the world inevitably hits the other side of the bell curve
>He smugly says "It won't happen we'll just invent something"
>Wont hear me out and cant see the bigger picture, basically only thinks as far as "I'll just drive less"
>other friend just says "we can just use alternative fuels dumbass"
>Friends mother says that peak oil sounds like a bunch of nonsense and wont happen.

Anybody have experience with those sorts of people who "believe" in science instead of practicing it? They don't look at the facts of a problem but instead just have "faith" in science and think it will solve any problem in the world, instead of facing up to the fact that within the rules and laws of the world that science has uncovered they can't just keep doing things the way they do them sustainably?

Anyway, feel free to share your experiences with these kinds of people or have a peak oil general.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:25:06 2011 No.2820153

I don't really know anything about peak oil, apart from "it's happened already" or "it's scaremongering".

Can I get some sources that explain the length of time our current oil consumption can nbe sustained at before we get into serious shit? Or are we already too late?

Are there any valid forms of alternate energy (maybe throium salt reactors, or is this just theoretical never-gonna-happen)_?

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:31:06 2011 No.2820174

They're just like people who tie themselves up in senseless religions, except instead of some god(s) they worship science, and in their eyes scientists are powerful prophets who can do anything with a little time and work.

They've split their minds from reality in order to avoid facing it. Do not attempt to argue with them any further, as they are beyond discussion.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:39:08 2011 No.2820218
File: 51 KB, 195x195, 1287031600337.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>family having evolution-bashing circlejerk
>brother actually says "it's like, if humans evolved from apes, why are they still apes?"
>mfw
>spend next 1.5 hours informing him that apes and humans came from common ancestor, and exist in separate environments.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:45:06 2011 No.2820258

> he believes peak oil will be a catastrophe
there will be nuclear ships everywhere
there will be public transport running on electricity (mainly trains)
there will be electric cars for agriculture
industry keeps running happily on nuclear power of which the champion nations have plenty
end of story

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:46:06 2011 No.2820267 >>2820218 what ancestor? i've heard n times that we came form same shit but nobody says what is the name of that motherfucker

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:47:06 2011 No.2820272

>>2820258
>nuclear ships everywhere

Dude, after the Fukushima mess, there's so much public fear that we'll be lucky if nuclear technology doesn't get banned altogether. Germany is already dismantling its nuclear plants and building wind turbines everywhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:48:06 2011 No.2820281 File: 4 KB, 181x251, scarynigga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2820272 >wind turbines laughingwhores.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:48:06 2011 No.2820284 >>2820258 Sure, what you depict may not look so bad, but the transition from what we depend on to that (considering nuclear power's not outright blacked out) will be a very rough period. You may want to stockpile some weaponry.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:49:06 2011 No.2820288

>>2820153

I'd say watch the documentaries:
"Blind spot"
"Collapse" the one ft. Michael Ruppert
"Escape from suburbia"

I'm too lazy to go around and find all the sources (i know i know), but in short we don't really know when peak oil will occur or if it has, because it's really hard to judge when your main sources of numbers come from oil producing nations and companies who certainly don't want you to know they're running low. But, when you look at the rate at which population is growing, and the demand for oil with it (from nations such as china). It's almost certain that we will be seeing consequences in the 21st century.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:50:06 2011 No.2820296 >>2820284 If you think stockpiling weaponry would be anything but completely retarded, you're worse than the people who just assume science will fix everything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:53:06 2011 No.2820315 >>2820284 Transition will be gradual. Oil production capacity won't run out overnight. There will be only minor problems if we are be able to fill in at the rate the capacity disappears. >>2820272 US (France & UK too?) Navy has a perfect track record.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:54:06 2011 No.2820322
File: 1.99 MB, 391x237, 1300918331481-1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2820135
Well, not everyone looks at the whole situation.
>We have a petroleum infrastructure.
Changing our infrastructure (i.e. every car, for example) over to an "alternative energy" would require a fuckton more energy than we have available today. Not to mention what if we wait to change things when it becomes a real confrontational problem?
>Alternative energies usually break even in terms of causing other problems as they solve them.
For example: If we were to make liquid fuel from corn we'd have to grow corn over some 97% of the surface area of America just to keep up with our fuel consumption. That's out of the question. Also corn ethanol only works on diesel vehicles with a special carburetors, not gasoline cars.

The depressing reality goes on and on. Chaos, at least for a good while seems inevitable.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:55:06 2011 No.2820330

>>2820258

Hey man, i'm not saying it will be the end of the human race or anything, but electricity has to be generated somewhere, and as far as nuclear power radium is still a limited resource. Not to mention it takes like fucking 20 years due to legislation to get them set up. I don't think we will have the infrastructure to deal with this before it hits us. The energy you get from electric sources still doesn't compare to the staggering net energy you get from a barrel of oil so basically the whole lifestyle of the food on your plate traveled 200 miles to get there will pretty much go away.

I think in the end we will have a localized agriculture lifestyle with a lot of electric power like you said, but to do that the world population will need to go down quite a bit. We're going to have to transition and a lot of people just wont see it for what it is. Things will be extremely hairy in that transitional period.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:55:06 2011 No.2820332

meh, i do this

i have total confidence that science will save me from global warming, cure my lung cancer and invent an alternate and eco-friendly plastic/fuel source like oil

i know i shouldn't but whatever. anyway, we've already hit peak oil and we're doing fine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGScU5ESei4

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:56:06 2011 No.2820335

>>2820322
> Changing our infrastructure (i.e. every car, for example) over to an "alternative energy" would require a fuckton more energy than we have available today
Lolno. We had the energy to build those cars and we have the energy to change them (or just make new better ones).

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:58:06 2011 No.2820345 >>2820315 >Transition will be gradual. >implying people won't wait until it's a serious fucking problem >implying it won't be too late by then

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 19:59:06 2011 No.2820353 >>2820322 You say it's reality like we've already descended into an anarchic state in which rogue gangs of bikers battle for scarce gasoline reserves in the bombed-out ruins of suburbia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:02:06 2011 No.2820365 >>2820345 sweden changed from driving on the right to the left overnight most of europe changed to an international currency overnight it's doable

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:02:06 2011 No.2820369 >>2820335 >We had the energy to build those cars and we have the energy to change them bullshit, that's why this is a problem. We are using a finite energy resource millions of times faster than it took to naturally be produced. You're complacent.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:03:06 2011 No.2820375

>>2820272

I agree. The Fukishima event going to have some serious repercussions. Several plants in my state (one a mere 15km from me) are considering either drastic reform or ceasing operations.

People don't understand that accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima wouldn't occur with proper inspection and procedure. Nuclear energy is a cheap, relatively clean energy source and shouldn't be tossed because of a couple of mistakes that were overlooked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:05:06 2011 No.2820381 >>2820365 Um they didn't do those things because they ran out of energy. When we start running out of energy, food will become scarce and expensive. Expect shit to explode when that happens. You are comparing two completely different things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:07:06 2011 No.2820389 File: 9 KB, 251x242, reactioncharmander.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'll be dead in 50-60 years anyway I don't give a single fuck

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:10:06 2011 No.2820399

>>2820375
>People don't understand that accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima wouldn't occur with proper inspection and procedure.

You're a complete fucking idiot. Nothing was wrong with the Fukushima plant. It was inspected and in perfect operating order. What happened was it was hit with an earthquake and a fucking tsunami. You can't "inspect" an act of nature away.

Please drink everything under your sink right now.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:15:06 2011 No.2820431

>>2820399
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Operating_history

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Meltdown_at_Japanese_Nuclear_Power_Plant__A_Disaster_Wait
ing_to_Happen_110313

it is well known that the spent fuel pools were re-built to warehouse a lot more than they were initially designed to. and that TEPCO has a spotty history with inspection records.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:18:06 2011 No.2820449 >>2820431 Plus, you know, the fifth most powerful earthquake in recorded history and its associated tsunami.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:20:06 2011 No.2820460

Hard to blame these people...We all do it. I'm guessing that most of us have lived in comfort our entire lives and everything has just kind of worked out. We don't really have reason to believe something couldn't be done about problems. It's just hard to see something awful happening when it never has before.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:21:06 2011 No.2820467 >>2820449 i'm not saying that the environmental disasters are not disasterous. i'm saying that the GE Mark 1 boiling reactor has many known flaws esp pertaining to a loss of coolant in the core, which is the issue they have now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:25:06 2011 No.2820484 >>2820431 >DERP, Captain Hindsight No wonder they make fun of engineers on this board. Come on faggot, design an earthquake/tsunami proof nuclear power plant. Lets see you fucking do it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:26:06 2011 No.2820490 >>2820399 a tsunami like that hits every 100 years or so a plant is expected to operate 50 years even if it's 1000 years it's still a 5% chance and a massively shitty job from the japanese authorities but then how the japs do it is not how others do it

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:33:06 2011 No.2820529 >>2820399 Geez, no reason to call me names. You obviously don't know what you are talking about, sonny.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:36:06 2011 No.2820537
File: 626 KB, 1525x1946, Girls-Laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2820529
Yes, you're right. What happened at Fukushima was a failure of inspection and regulation and had nothing to do with the HUGE FUCKING EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI.

You are so FUCKING stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:37:06 2011 No.2820546 >>2820537 See >>2820490

Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 20:44:06 2011 No.2820584

1) Time period that nuclear plants have been used to create energy: about 60 years.
2) Number of shitfuck incidents: 3 major and countless smaller ones (3 mile, Chernobyl, Fukushima)
3) Conclusion: We can expect every 20 years one major incident. That is too much.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:44:06 2011 No.2820585 >>2820537 He's saying that while the natural disaster was the direct cause, the poor maintenance didn't help anything.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:45:06 2011 No.2820588

>>2820546
What's your point? What solution do you have?

Yes, you're a know-it-all fuckhead who has perfect hindsight on the situation will all of your criticisms and absolutely no real solutions. You just bitch and moan about things that have already happened but you'd be on your ass crying if this was YOUR responsibility.

You're a sub-human worm piece of shit. You are displaying some of the most disgusting, needless human traits. Worm. You're a fucking worm.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:45:06 2011 No.2820589 >>2820584 You're not taking into account the improving technology. Chernobyl was the result of piss-poor controls. Fukushima was the result of natura- wait. you're trolling. Go away.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:47:06 2011 No.2820597 >>2820588 Oh, maybe build plants to withstand the conditions of the building site. That might prevent some accidents.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:47:06 2011 No.2820598 >>2820584 Lordfap, kindly, gtfo of here. Sincerely, the nuclear engineer from yesterday.

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 20:47:06 2011 No.2820599 >>2820589 How am I trolling. That was basic statistics there. You can count to 3, can you? Improving technology my ass. In all of the incidents, the problem was human failure for some or other reason.

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 20:48:06 2011 No.2820603 >>2820598 Well fuck you, wannabe nucular engineer. I actually do work in the energy sector.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:49:06 2011 No.2820605

I figure by the time some parts of the world start running out of oil, other parts of them will have switched over to almost complete renewable energy generation. It's going to be largely patchwork because there's no unifying global authority to bring it about.

For example, Iceland's not going to have many problems with peak oil.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:49:06 2011 No.2820606 >>2820585 There is no amount of maintenance can prevent the damage of that earthquake and tsunami. There is no such thing as a earthquake proof building.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:49:06 2011 No.2820607 >>2820484 Generation IV Integral Fast Reactors passively shutdown when disconnected from coolant power. Due to the nature of the liquid metal core natural convection keeps the reactor at a stable condition. In other words, tsunami/earthquake proof.

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 20:50:06 2011 No.2820610 >>2820605 Depends. They could do a lot of stuff with geothermal energy, but how would they fuel cars and planes?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:50:06 2011 No.2820611 >>2820597 Protip: There are NO earthquake proof buildings. Even more so, there are NO earthquake proof nuclear power plants.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:52:06 2011 No.2820618 >>2820603 shoveling shit in a coal mine isn't "working in the energy sector" like you're implying.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:52:06 2011 No.2820619 >>2820611 fullretard.jpg

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:53:06 2011 No.2820621

>>2820588
i sense that you are mad.

look up pebble bed reactors.
inherently safe.
downside is the output but whatever.

you are so buttfrustrated about something someone said on the internet that you are totally missing the point here.

nuclear power is FUCKING DANGEROUS. i live in central new york state, and a professor of mine found FUCKING borium from that jippo shitpiece reactor in the snow.

there is radiation in milk in washington state.

now i have to deal with the consequences of TEPO and GE being motherfuckers.

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 20:53:06 2011 No.2820623 >>2820605 Not to forget fishing boats. Sails again?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:54:06 2011 No.2820625 >>2820623 How about sails that double as solar panels? You can use the sails when the wind's blowing and a propeller when it's not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:54:06 2011 No.2820626 >>2820603 The fact that you're getting oh-so-butthurt at my presence should be a testament to your insignificant grasp of nuclear power.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:55:06 2011 No.2820629 EPRs are also completely safe, meltdown's gonna break them but there will be no radiation release even if all power is lost.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:55:06 2011 No.2820631

>>2820607
There is no way to test your claims of tsunami/earthquake proof. It sounds like a crock of shit.

And these Gen 4 reactors sound great, but how practical is it to replace all other reactors or the ones at greatest risk (risk as we understand it).

Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 20:56:06 2011 No.2820634

Even if we started building newest technology thorium reactors now, we would still create radioactive waste. We haven't been able to find a solution for the waste storage for 60 years now! We just store the shit at the plants, cause we don't know what to do with it. There isn't going to be a recycling, nobody wants to ship dozens of tons of nuclear waste across the country and back.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:56:06 2011 No.2820638 >>2820619 It's like someone claiming to make an unsinkable ship. It's a stupid, stupid claim. >titanic

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:57:06 2011 No.2820640

>>2820621

You do know that you get twice your daily dose of radiation from eating a banana, right? Just because of the radioactive potassium bananas pull from the soil.

The levels of radiation in the US from Fukushima are absolutely insignificant compared to the levels that will give you radiation poisoning or even a slightly increased incidence of cancer. Stop fearmongering.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:57:06 2011 No.2820642 >>2820634 Why can you not have recycling facilities be integral parts of each new powerplant?

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 20:57:06 2011 No.2820643

>>2820611
The buildings are earthquake proofed. The problem was the seawall was engineered to only tolarate lesser tsunamis. The one that happened exceeded tolerances by a few meters and washed away the diesel backup.
Had they instead put the diesel generators on top of the reactor buildings the fukushima reactors would be up an running again, and probably housing tsunami victims that lost their homes to the waves as other nuclear reactors in japan currently is doing(because the reactor buildings themself are built according to ridiculous specifications and won't move due to some shitty water,ever)

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 20:58:06 2011 No.2820646 >>2820626 You can be my antagonist, if you insist. Satan.

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 20:59:06 2011 No.2820651 >>2820642 Too costly? Who would pay for that? Energy companies are private businesses. Their main concern is making money for the shareholders. Everything else comes second.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:00:06 2011 No.2820652 >>2820638 there are upper limits to how strong earthquakes can be, afaik richter 11 just can't happen just build them on a spot where you can have confidence the ground won't open up and swallow them

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:00:06 2011 No.2820654

>>2820634

Ask France about their spent fuel problem. Oh wait, they don't have one because they recycle their fuel to the point where the mutagenic effect is negligible and the carcinogenic effect is near negligible. Kindly, shut the fuck up.

And the only reason there is a spent fuel problem in other countries like the US is because Congress MANDATES a max fuel burn time. A nuclear power plant has to replace fuel that's been burned for 1.5 years not because they have to, but because law requires it! We could keep it in there for an immeasurable time and by the time it comes out, it would be absolutely fine to bury, just hot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:01:06 2011 No.2820656 >>2820651 proliferation is the true reason

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:01:06 2011 No.2820658 kind of off topic here, but i want to get into alternative energy/fuel. what major has the best chance of me getting into those fields? I was thinking chemical engineering, but im unsure.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:02:06 2011 No.2820662

>>2820153
There is basically only one thing you really need to know: We have no fucking idea how much oil there is left total, but we know it is finite and the number of new deposits being discovered is dropping precipitously every year.

That, at the very least, should be beyond argument.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:02:06 2011 No.2820663

Took Economics of the Energy Industry last quarter.

We have a good 50 years of known oil reserves that we can access at todays prices.

As prices rise, it we'll become economical to pump out the more expensive stuff.

Also, gradually rising oil prices will make people drive a little less, make/sell/buy more efficient cars, and eventually oil will become expensive enough that renewables can compete with it economically. Energy will not be as cheap as it is now (more of your paycheck will go to lighting/heating/food relative to other goods)
But, it will be a reasonable transition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:02:06 2011 No.2820666 >>2820658 aerospace engineering => wind power, tidal power, all that

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:03:06 2011 No.2820671

>>2820651

Look at the figures. Pound for pound of fuel, coal burning plants release more radiation than a nuclear plant does over its lifetime. In the US at least, coal plants up front cost an insignificant amount of money and are still subsidized almost 10x the amount nuclear is. In the long run, however, the fuel costs for coal plants grossly outweigh the total cost of nuclear. Your argument is invalid.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:03:06 2011 No.2820672

>>2820621
No you don't have to deal with it.
The earthquake and nuclear contamination didn't happen to you, you selfish, childish, overreacting American piece of shit. It isn't about you. Do you understand that? Do you understand that other people actually have real problems?

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 21:04:06 2011 No.2820677 File: 16 KB, 358x350, blinky.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2820654 Recycling still creates radioactive waste water and steam, which has to be released somehow. The french fuckers just dump their shit into the english channel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:05:06 2011 No.2820687 >>2820677 I thought they dumped it off the Somalian coast, and all the fish died, and that was why Somalia was in anarchy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:06:06 2011 No.2820692 ITT: pessimistic people. you guys need to have some faith man.

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:06:06 2011 No.2820695

I went away for 10 minutes and this thread has like 20 new replies :O

When I'm talking about Fukushima's disaster being the result of half-assed inspection (btw the owner falsified many records) and engineers knowing that the plant would not function through an earthquake/tsunami like that I mean that, well, sure a fucking tsunami and earthquake hit the plant but all the shit that happened would not have happened if the plant was under rigid inspection and rule.

While I am for nuclear energy I think it just needs to be under guidelines.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:07:06 2011 No.2820698 >>2820666 troll

Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 21:07:06 2011 No.2820699

>>2820671
These figures never take into account the costs for disposal of nuclear waste. Who is going to pay for that? And who is going to pay for the dismantling of old reactors, too? Do you know how long it takes to dismantle a radioactive site, and how much manpower is required?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:07:06 2011 No.2820702 >>2820625 So stupid I don't know where to begin. Why not just use magic since you're so simplemindedly stupid? >NOTHING WORKS THE WAY YOU THINK IT DOES!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:10:06 2011 No.2820723 >>2820677 > implying the channel is radioactive

Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 21:11:06 2011 No.2820726

>>2820671
Also, this arguement comes up frequently that coal plants emit more radioactive materials than nuke plants.
I know of only one study from the 1970 from the ONRL (a very pro-nuke organization) that states this.
I would like to know what coal plants are supposed to emit? Coal is compressed organic matter. What could be radioactive in there? Potassium? Dunno.
Also, give me some other sources on this claim.

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 21:11:06 2011 No.2820731 >>2820723 Whatever the channel is, I wouldn't swim in it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:12:06 2011 No.2820735 >>2820629 >completely safe >nuclear power You're just as stupid as the guy implying there are earthquake proof buildings. Maybe you're the same person?

>>	pascal !n5Z3VuZapw Sat Apr 2 21:13:06 2011 No.2820739 >>2820726 most carbon is radioactive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:14:06 2011 No.2820745 >>2820643 If someone sells you an earthquake proof building, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 21:18:06 2011 No.2820760 >>2820739 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-12

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:18:06 2011 No.2820765

>>2820652
You still don't get it. There are some places on Earth (like the entire country of Japan) where no place is "safe" from earthquakes. Also no one can predict earthquakes. You can pick a spot that has no fault lines and has no history of earthquakes and tomorrow that very place can have the largest earthquake in history.

You are oversimplifying reality just so you can be a smug no-it-all dickfuck.

>>	pascal !n5Z3VuZapw Sat Apr 2 21:20:06 2011 No.2820773 >>2820760 you clearly misread my post, I said, some carbon is radioactive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:21:06 2011 No.2820776 >>2820765 DESIGN FOR RICHTER 11 QUAKE AND NOWHERE ON EARTH WILL YOU NEED TO WORRY ABOUT QUAKES

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 21:21:06 2011 No.2820780 >>2820773 yeah yeah

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:22:06 2011 No.2820783 >>2820765 >no-it-all

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:25:06 2011 No.2820794 >>2820776 It still doesn't work like that. There are NO earthquake proof buildings. Earthquakes are too unpredictable and too powerful. No. You're Stupid. Stop.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:26:06 2011 No.2820796 File: 22 KB, 200x241, white haird ape.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sounds like you were trying to lecture your friend, OP. I'd probably ignore you too and resume my "faith in science" attitude as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:26:06 2011 No.2820799 >>2820783 Oh for fuck's sake, I didn't know 4chan was a peer reviewed and edited journal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:28:06 2011 No.2820806 >>2820796 You aren't supposed to have "faith in science". It's a stupid attitude and not very logical. It's not "scientific" either.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:28:06 2011 No.2820808 >>2820794 it always has, it will continue to, and my message shall remain truthful and nutritious unto the eternity, you fuck

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:29:06 2011 No.2820809

>>2820726
Fap, everything is radioactive. The compressed organic matter could contain anything. Even small traces of uranium. The thing I mentioned earlier about bananas is true because of the radioactive potassium. The most naturally radioactive food is actually Brasil nuts (but that's a discussion for another time). My point is that the original organic matter that became coal is filled with radioactive isotopes. This problem is further complicated by other radioactive sources that are common in rock, which become mixed in with coal from the process which forms coal from organic matter. This is all fine and golden because we're exposed to background radiation from the sun, rock (interestingly enough concrete emits an incredible amount of radiation), and organic matter, every day! The problem comes by burning the coal itself because it takes all these solid radioactive nuclides and turns them into particulates that are present in coal smoke and ash. The most dangerous components are in the smoke which is inhaled by humans and animals and are allowed to decay within the lungs where they can reach particularly sensitive organs.

The best case to illustrate this is alpha emitters. Alpha particles are huge (they're actually helium nuclei), but since they have relatively insignificant kinetic energy, they are pretty well attenuated by little shielding. Dead layers of skin prevent alpha particles from reaching critical organs. But if you somehow ingest or inhale an alpha emitter, it is more likely to interact with sensitive organs. Indeed this is the case with radon, which is inhaled where the alpha emitter can decay in the lungs and potentially cause lung cancer.

I'm working on finding peer reviewed articles for you, give me a second.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:31:06 2011 No.2820815 File: 74 KB, 1024x768, face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] > they can't just keep doing things the way they do them sustainably? Making a case about saving energy. Over the Internet. You lose. The game. You lose again.

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 21:37:06 2011 No.2820835 >>2820809 ok, waiting

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:39:06 2011 No.2820848

>>2820809
>>2820773
>>2820780

Font J., et al "Natural radioactive elements and heavy metals in coal, fly ash, and bottom ash from a thermal power plant" From: Journal of Environmental Science & Health, Part A: Environmental Science & Engineering

Somlai J., et al "Connection between radon emanation and some structural properties of coal-slag as building material." From: Radiation Measurements; Jan2008, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p72-76, 5p Affiliation of authors: 1Department of Radiochemistry, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary
2Social Organization for Radio Ecological Cleanliness, Veszprém, Hungary
3Department of Environmental Engineering and Chemical Technology, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary
4Department of Physics, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary

Mahur A.K., et al "Estimation of radon exhalation rate, natural radioactivity and radiation doses in fly ash samples from Durgapur thermal power plant, West Bengal, India." From: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity; Aug2008, Vol. 99 Issue 8 Affliation of Authors: 1Department of Applied Physics, Z.H. College of Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202002, India
2Department of Geology and Geophysics, I.I.T. Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India

Want more, Fap?

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 21:40:06 2011 No.2820861 >>2820848 will read now

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:41:06 2011 No.2820863 >>2820861 Don't you mean, "will fap to now"?

>>	Lord Fap !h3WDZNERS6 Sat Apr 2 21:49:06 2011 No.2820915 >>2820863 No fapping while science. Thanks for the links. Sheds a bit of light on the topic. Gnight

Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:53:08 2011 No.2820937
File: 49 KB, 250x250, 1287113390860.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>go to university in new england to get out of my redneck hometown
>come back for spring break
>family has their daily evolution bashing at dinner
>try to not think about stabbing them
>mfw

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 21:59:06 2011 No.2820969 >>2820937 lol redneck families are funny

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 22:02:06 2011 No.2820988 >>2820969 Maybe from the outside. Goddamn I cannot wait for my flight tomorrow morning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 23:04:06 2011 No.2821363 >>2820663 If that's true its a bit more reassuring.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 23:08:06 2011 No.2821380 >>2820937 haha sucks to be you! i don't even go back home for spring break, just thanksgiving only

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 23:14:06 2011 No.2821423 >>2820937 Flip out and proclaim loudly. "If evolution is false, how come my family is still a bunch of monkeys?" Slam the door off its hinges on the way out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 23:17:06 2011 No.2821446 I'm not afraid of peak oil because a) oil discoveries are doing quite well, especially given tar sands, and b) gas discoveries are doing much better, and cars can be run electrically on gas-powered electricity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 23:18:06 2011 No.2821451 >>2820765 >no one can predict earthquakes lrn2seismology They definitely saw the Sendai quake coming, just the magnitude was a bit underestimated lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 2 23:57:06 2011 No.2821625 >>2821451 by "predict" you mean guess that it will happen somewhere between now and 100 years then yes they were able to predict it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 3 03:45:06 2011 No.2822606 moar stories

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]