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.
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
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?
On Feb 4, 1:38 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller) wrote:
Well PBS has a transcript online:
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.
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.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:37:02 GMT, email@example.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
On Feb 5, 6:40 am, firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller) wrote:
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
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.
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.
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.