OT: best legislative bill title EVER!

Page 2 of 5  
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

The figure is, more accurately, 22% and correlates closely with other measurements using other methods and going back a century. The direct sunlight measurements only stretch back about 30 years but they are the source of the 22% figure.
Bill
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is that 22% more reflected back into space or 22% less reaching the ground because it is absorbed higher up in the atmosphere?
Can you point us to a source we can check at our leisure, as opposed to waiting for a rebroadcast?
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:
[Re: claimed 22% reduction in incident sunlight]

My money is on "No." Or no answer. <g>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 4, 1:38 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Well PBS has a transcript online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html
The 22% figure was from Israel. For other parts of the world:
Between the 1950s and the early 1990s, the level of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface had dropped: nine percent in Antarctica, 10 percent in areas of the U.S.A., by almost 30 percent in one region of Russia, and by 16 percent in parts of the British Isles....
and a bit lower down:
on average, the solar energy reaching Earth had fallen by two percent to four percent.
THAT is a figure I can believe.
--
FF





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

The wife bought the video online somewhere. That's about all I know as to where it came from.
Bill
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe the Nova videos are available from www.pbs.org.
There is even an online transcript of _Global Dimming_.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Forget thoughts of an 'exercise'. The number comes from two sources of direct measurement. One taken over a span of 30 years and the other covering a related measurement taken for the past century (that's a full 100 years of data) on every continent. Your sig line is the most accurate part of your reply. Keep it and ditch the rest.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is why I said "apparent spectrum". :-) I figured it probably isn't the same, but it sure *looks* the same.

And the really odd thing about that notion is that, worldwide, _every_year_ more people die in coal mining accidents than have _ever_ died from nuclear reactor accidents.

I fear you're right. Unfortunately.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:37:02 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

I've been using CF bulbs in several places. I have not really been overwhelmed with the output from these bulbs compared to incandescent. In a couple of places, like the closet, the room is noticeably darker than when using incandescents even when using the theoretically equivalent luminescence bulbs. The lifetime of the CF's relative to cost is also somewhat problematic; in my use of them for porch lights, I get about 1 year of life out of them. When one factors in the much higher cost of the bulb compared to incandescents, even when having to replace the incandescents about 3 times in that period, the cost of electricity saved vs. the cost of the CF is not all that great.
It's also somewhat disengenous of the legislator and others to claim that incandescent technology hasn't changed much in the past 150 years. The fact is, that there has been considerable technology development in areas of filament technology (higher luminescence for lower power through the filament, etc.) as well as various coating technologies to provide improved diffusion, efficiency, and quality of light. [No, I don't work for an incandescent manufacturer, I was however, exposed to some of this in various reading I have done for various purposes].
One of the concerns with this kind of legislation is the inadvertent side effects it might have. This might preclude the advent of innovative technologies because they have been prohibited by legislative fiat depending on the definitions used to describe "incandescent light bulb".
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers - "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all nuclear accidents to date"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
An extremely inaccurate bumper sticker.
Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers - "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all nuclear accidents to date"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends on when it was produced. Unless you're aware of people dying in nuclear accidents prior to 1968.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 5, 6:40 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

I am.
There were no fatalities attributed to acute radiation exposure from civilian nuclear power plants prior to the Chernobyl disaster.
There were three fatalities at a DOD research reactor in Idaho Falls during the 1960's. One probably died almost immediately from trauma. One other probably died from the acute exposure, the third is less certain. Thermal burns are hard to differentiate from beta-burns, especially post-mortem.
Famously, two people working on the Manhattan project died from acute radiation exposure from sub-critical nuclear accidents, performing an experiment nick-named "tickling the dragon's tail". Oppenheimer banned the procedure after the second fatality.
The Castle Bravo test, which 'accidentally' was more than twice as powerful as expected killed a Japanese fisherman near (but outside of) the exclusion zone.
Almost certainly there have been more fatal radiation exposure accidents that can be accurately characterized as nuclear--just not at civilian power reactors.
That number is no doubt tiny compared to non-radiation fatalities in the nuclear industry or any other comparable industry.
Those qualifiers 'civilian power plant' and 'from acute radiation poisoning', are important. The risk of leukemia to nuclear plant workers is less than for a number of other industries but possibly slightly elevated above the norm.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Thanks, Fred -- good info.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, pre-Chernobyl and referring to power reactors it was quite accurate--people who died in power reactor accidents generally did so by falling off of platforms or getting run over by fork lifts or the like, not anything related to nuclear power. There were deaths on the Manhattan project, but that was research on the cutting edge and it's understandable that there were unknowns to deal with.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, it's an accurate statement as long as you ignore it's lack of accuracy. Got it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope, it was accurate when it was on a bumper sticker.
You aren't by any chance a member of the "Hell, no, we won't glow" contingent are you?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, it wasn't.
The Idaho Falls accident was before Kennedy drove off the bridge.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-

Define nuclear accidents.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.