|
The way America fights (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Mebot |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
actually half life is just saying that it has a huge mass of protons and neutrons to dump and it keeps moving around on the table of elements as electrons electrons go down...ie Pu 238 can go up a slot with a beta decay and then move down 4 with an alpha and then go up 3 after three betas et cetera. if it collapses to Fr 224 it will still be radioactive and giving off tons of alpha and beta. Cherynobyl is still uninhabitable and japan still ticks off the geiger counter |
You must have raped your Chem test on Monday eh? You know this cold :D |
|
|
| Orbax |
| meh c- hehe. Half of the test was math and I left them blank cuz I had a B+ in the class and all i needed to do was pass. My teacher just looked at it and laughed when I went over with him and he thought it was great. I had already told him I just needed a d in the class for my transfer. |
|
|
| Abject Silver |
| quote: | Originally posted by Photo_bot_2k1
listen boy,
the fact of the matter is, DU has a long half life, and becuase of that it will not decay very rapidly which means it will not release as much alpha, beta or gamma radiation
it is as simple as that.
electromagnetic radiation IS NOT RADIOACTIVE decay except for the case of gamma rays
visible light and gamma radiaiton is electromagnetic radiation
you were wrong, now please stop trying to save ur own ass, by saying stupid things like what you just said
DU can definatly be dangerous CHEMICALLY and still have a big half life, but then again cyanide is deadly and it isnt radioactive at all |
alright, cool down or you'll give yourself a heart attack.
i misread what you wrote about elemag radiation/radioactivity and am wrong. congratulations. happy now? |
|
|
| Photo_bot_2k1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abject Silver
alright, cool down or you'll give yourself a heart attack.
i misread what you wrote about elemag radiation/radioactivity and am wrong. congratulations. happy now? |
im very ing happy
i win
and you have been
 |
|
|
| Abject Silver |
| quote: | Originally posted by Photo_bot_2k1
im very ing happy
i win
and you have been
|
haha, figures. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abject Silver
the second link talks about internal damage of DU. that's the big problem - inhalation of DU dust. when you inhale a tiny bit of it, it really won't matter how long the halflife of it is, because you won't just get rid of it in a bowel movement. it'll react chemically inside you.
|
True, but I posted a study done by the royal society concerning the toxocological effects of DU on the human body, and given consumption estimates, even in most of the worst case scenarios, the uranium intake is deemed as being not a significant risk unless at the most extreme of cases. ;) |
|
|
| Abject Silver |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
True, but I posted a study done by the royal society concerning the toxocological effects of DU on the human body, and given consumption estimates, even in most of the worst case scenarios, the uranium intake is deemed as being not a significant risk unless at the most extreme of cases. ;) |
makes sense, but not a significant risk to the person that inhales the stuff, or that person's progeny?
because take agent orange in vietnam - supposedly it's not as big a problem for people exposed to it, but ~580,000 kids have been born with deformities since the end of the conflict there. adbuster's stats, iirc.
i don't know too much about DU's adverse effects on a given people, but i think the red flags being raised about it aren't just specific to its offspring. at least, that's something that should be taken into account. |
|
|
| mizzuno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Without the Saudi's money in your banks and their oil supply.. the US would be nothing too.
Oh ... i forgot, you have your own oil now... its called Iraq. |
..looks like i'm gonna have to school another fool...
Lets see you're from Canada, quebec i would gather..anyway..where do you get you oil from? Oh wait i forgot Canada has the mysterious power of getting all its oil from non saudi sources. Listen you have no clue what you're talking about, if you knew anything about oil or petroleum distillates for that matter you would see that your whole life is made easier and cheaper by oil. I can guarantee that 90% of every product you have is an oil derivative, even that keyboard your typing on right now..thats right plastics my friend are made from oil...is this news to you? And lets see where does Canada get its electricity from? Oh wait must be more of that non saudi oil. Like it or not you have to deal with people, nations etc that you don't like and sometimes are your enemy, why you ask? Because its all about standard of living, and it just so happens there is a direct correlation of power/energy consumption and standard of living, That is one of the reasons why the US consumes more energy per capita than other nations.
If you have a problem with Bush then state clearly what your objections are. Stop linking so called "big corporations", which by the way are the same corps that you buy products from daily, from medicine to electricty. The democrats in this country also have big business on their side yet you find them to be more palatable because they are mostly artists, actors and entertainment moguls. Yet they are big business as well. You only seem to attack the very companies which allow all this to be possible. Because without electrons (electricty/power plants/fuel), you would never have any entertainment or high tech industry. So lets save the whole big business smoke and mirror BS for other mindless fools who say "how high" when told to jump.
Mizzuno |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abject Silver
makes sense, but not a significant risk to the person that inhales the stuff, or that person's progeny?
because take agent orange in vietnam - supposedly it's not as big a problem for people exposed to it, but ~580,000 kids have been born with deformities since the end of the conflict there. adbuster's stats, iirc.
i don't know too much about DU's adverse effects on a given people, but i think the red flags being raised about it aren't just specific to its offspring. at least, that's something that should be taken into account. |
From the royal society study:
Studies on the reproductive health of workers in the nuclear industry, and of survivors of the atomic bombs, show little evidence of decreased fertility, or of an increased incidience of miscarriages or birth defects (Otake et all 1990; Doyle et al 2000). For example, a large study of over 20,000 pregnancies in the partners of male radiation workers at the ATomic Weapons Establishment who had been exposed to radiation prior to conception showed no increase in foetal deahts or malformations.
.
.
.
The effects of uranium on reproductive health have been ovserved in male mice, although at very high intakes. Daily ingestion of large amounts of soluble uranium (between 10 and 80 mg per kg per day; over nine weeks had no apparent effect on testicular sperm development but there were some effects on the morphology of the hormone producing cells in the testes at the highest exposure level.
In other studies, the offspring of mice injected with plutonium showed an increased predisposition to the induction of leukaemia by a chemical mutagen, but the intake that would be required to produce the same dose to the testses of a 70kg man using the much less radioactive DU would be far above that causing lethality due to the chemical toxicity of uranium. (read: if they are that contaminated the person would be far more likely to die from their uranium dosage than to be able to sire a child)
Page 14/15 of the royal society study |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
For Cyrus:
http://geogate.geographie.uni-marbu...odule/m2/u5.htm
| quote: | | Per capita energy consumption in Canada is very high when compared to other nations of the world. It is approximately 50% higher than that of the US and about 60 times higher than that of India. |
The United States has more energy consumption mainly because of its higher population, but Canadians are, by far, bigger wasters of energy than most of the rest of the world. Nonetheless, we can and should do more, as a world, to reduce our dependence on oil.
For Mizz:
| quote: | | Non-conventional reserves are oils derived from the northern frontier, offshore and that derived from the tar sands of northeastern Alberta. The tar sands are a mixture of sand and tar [12] that forms a sticky tar-like substance and is found in large quantities near the surface, thus allowing access through open pit mining. Once mined, the substance is heated allowing the sand and oil to separate; the oil can later be processed like any conventional heavy oil. Presently, Canada produces about 25 % of the total crude oil potential [13] from the tar sands; it is the only country in the world to produce oil from tar sands. The oil potential in these tar sands is nearly equivalent to the conventional oil reserves of southern Arabia, the area with the largest proven reserves. Compared to Canada's own conventional oil reserves, the recoverable oil from the tar sands (using present technology) is about 300 billion barrels - 30 times greater than conventional reserves [14]. As a result, non-convential reserves should be good for another 250 years. |
Canada has vast potential oil reserves because of its utilization of these tar sands. I'm not sure if the US has any recoverable oil from tar sand sources, but it would be benefitial for the US to break free of it's chains to Arabia by finding alternate sources of energy; preferably ones with the least amount of environmental impact. In rural parts of Texas and California that I've been to, you will find giant windfarms for example. Of course these do inflict a kind of "aesthetic damage" upon the land.:haha: |
|
|
| montie |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
Of course these do inflict a kind of "aesthetic damage" upon the land.:haha: |
i think they look really cool!
definatly alot nicer than some petroleum burning power plant |
|
|
| mizzuno |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
For Cyrus:
http://geogate.geographie.uni-marbu...odule/m2/u5.htm
The United States has more energy consumption mainly because of its higher population, but Canadians are, by far, bigger wasters of energy than most of the rest of the world. Nonetheless, we can and should do more, as a world, to reduce our dependence on oil.
For Mizz:
Canada has vast potential oil reserves because of its utilization of these tar sands. I'm not sure if the US has any recoverable oil from tar sand sources, but it would be benefitial for the US to break free of it's chains to Arabia by finding alternate sources of energy; preferably ones with the least amount of environmental impact. In rural parts of Texas and California that I've been to, you will find giant windfarms for example. Of course these do inflict a kind of "aesthetic damage" upon the land.:haha: |
Point well taken,
But i would bet you that extracting that oil comes at a very high premium compared to "normal" methods. I totaly agree with the notion of using alternative energy sources, I personally am in the midst of starting a company based upon distributed energy and fuel cells. The bottom line is the world has spent over 100 years developing an infrastructure for the refinement and distribution of fossil fuels. This infrastructure has cost untold trillions of dollars in investment by so called "big" oil companies. So of course these very same companies want to protect their investment. I just find it hypocritical to bite the hand that feeds you, in this case energy.
Mizz |
|
|
|
|
