search results matching tag: plants

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.004 seconds

    Videos (768)     Sift Talk (20)     Blogs (69)     Comments (1000)   

Fire Air Tankers Drop Load on Car

CrushBug says...

Water is like concrete. It does not want to get out of your way.

I did a face plant once while water skiing and damn did that hurt, plus I wrenched my shoulder.

Honest Government Ad | We're Fucked

newtboy says...

Sure.
For newts, it's everything.
Leaf litter, twigs and branches, and downed trees are all imperative for a healthy forest....as is periodic fire in most cases. They are habitat for most forest animals.
They also moderate soil humidity, keeping it from drying out to dust, and return nutrients to the soil for plants to utilize.

Few forests could survive being raked clean, none would remain healthy.

BSR said:

Thank you newt. Can you dwell a little on the importance of the ecosystem of the forest floor also?

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

newtboy says...

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.

Could Earth's Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?

newtboy says...

The 1mSv per year is the max the employees at the dump/recycling plant can be exposed to, so leeching more than that into public water systems seems impossible unless I'm missing something. This comes mainly from solid scale deposits removed from the closed loop systems.
Average employees in German plants seemed to get around 3 mSv/yr on their table.

At Fukushima, According to TEPCO records, the average workers’ effective dose over the first 19 months after the accident was about 12 mSv. About 35% of the workforce received total doses of more than 10 mSv over that period, while 0.7% of the workforce received doses of more than 100 mSv.
The 10mSv was the estimated average exposure for those who evacuated immediately, not the area. Because iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, the local exposure levels dropped rapidly, but because caesium-137 has a half life of 30 years, contaminated areas will be "hot" for quite a while, and are still off limits as I understand it.

Sort of...., most of the area surrounding Chernobyl is just above background levels after major decontamination including removal of all soil, but many areas closer to the plant are still being measured at well above safe levels to this day, and unapproachable, while others may be visited only with monitoring equipment, dose meters, and only for short times. It's not back to background levels everywhere, with measurements up to 336uSv/hr recorded in enclosed areas and abandoned recovery equipment (the claw used to dig at the reactor for instance)....no where near that low at the plant itself. Places like the nearby cemetery which couldn't have the contamination removed still measure higher than maximum occupational limits for adults working with radioactive material. The radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building, including the control room, have been estimated at 300Sv/hr, (300,000mSv/hr) providing a fatal dose in just over a minute.
http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

Don't get me wrong, I support nuclear power. I just don't believe in pretending it's "safe". That's how Chernobyl happened....overconfidence and irresponsibility. If we consider it unacceptably disastrous if it goes wrong, we might design plants that can't go wrong...The tech exists.

Spacedog79 said:

You'd be surprised.

Geothermal try to keep public exposure to less than 1 mSv per year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283106142_Natural_radionuclides_in_deep_geothermal_heat_and_power_plants_of_Germany

Living near a Nuclear Power station will get you about 0.00009 mSv/year.

Living in Fukushima will get you about 10 mSv in a lifetime, with life expectancy there at about 84 years that is 0.177 mSv/year.

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

Even Chernobyl is almost entirely background radiation now. Radiation is all scaremongering and misinformation these days, so people freak out about it but it really isn't that dangerous. It takes about 100 mSv a year to have even the slightest statistically detectable health effect and far more than that to actually kill someone.

Could Earth's Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?

newtboy says...

Please site your sources for this information.
I'm assuming they mean the estimated radiation from a properly functioning nuclear power plant and not the average actual radiation, which includes meltdowns, leaks, transportation accidents, etc. I can't imagine any geothermal plant ever contaminating like Chernobyl or Fukushima did.

It bears noting that coal ash is apparently 3-6 more radioactive than properly functioning nuclear power plants emit for the same energy generation, and it gets absorbed both directly from particles and indirectly in food and water.

Spacedog79 said:

Don't tell the environmentalists how much radiation geothermal releases. It is many orders of magnitude more than a nuclear power station and if they were held to the same standard they would never be built.

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

newtboy says...

What say you to those who grow their own food, produce their own power with microhydro, solar, and or wind, (or only buy renewable energy, possible in California) and drive electric vehicles or bicycles when they drive?

What about those who still pollute, but offset their carbon usage by buying credits/planting trees?

Can they blame the problem on the companies who supply destructive products and the junk science that tricks gullible ignoramuses into believing they aren't destructive...or do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

I mean, your position seems to be if you assholes wouldn't buy the lead painted products, we wouldn't be selling it to toy companies and producing studies claiming it's safe....so it's your fault your child is brain damaged....or the same argument over opioids, your fault you listened to your doctor and got addicted, then turned to heroin, not your doctor who told you the pills weren't addictive, certainly not the drug company who told your doctor they were safe, right?
Fortunately, courts don't think that way, just ask Johnson and Johnson.

Yes, customers bear some responsibility for what they buy, but not nearly as much as the sellers, especially true when the sellers advertise by lying about the dangers. When companies lie about their products dangers, they make themselves 100% responsible for their damages.

bcglorf said:

I'm gonna have to stop at 100 companies being responsible for 71% of green house gas emissions.

If the criticism is deceptive practices, don't start with deceptive statistics of your own. It's awful easy to blame Shell for all the greenhouse gas emissions of the gasoline they sell. It's wonderful to not have to take personal responsibility for your act of buying that gas for your own transportation, for the manufacture of your own food, for the transportation of that same food to your supermarket. Better still, the gas and electricity used to heat and cool your home can be blamed on the coal and power companies too.

Videos like this are part of the problem by abdicating our own responsibilities and pawning it off on someone else. Stop making this worse while pretending to care about the problem.

FPV drone pilot is invited to film a power plant demolition

cloudballoon says...

That's why I said "assume", and listed the "parameters" etc... if the hiring commission is for that type of video, then it's a fail. Is that not reasonable?

Conversely, if the commission is to just make a cool video for marketing, then it's a win if you like it Different assumption, different purpose, different perspective. I have no problem with that.

To me, the "corporate" guys seem/might not be that happy about the execution, but the Drone Racers Team sure are ecstatic. I can understand that, of course, it's a rare opportunity for them.

I take professional photos for architects (banks, high-end restaurants, retail & offices, etc). They set out what I need to capture: furniture, electrical outlets, height and space relation... all need to be in-frame, properly and neatly placed; garbage & plants, office supplies hidden, staff out of the picture, etc...i.e. parameters. Photos that I give them are often different from what I would take in the scene from an artistic perspective. Perhaps that warped by perspective on this video.

eric3579 said:

So how do you explain why everyone seemed extremely happy with what he captured? Surely if he had botched what he was suppose to do they would not have been so impressed with the footage. I assume they got exactly what they wanted.

b4rringt0n (Member Profile)

b4rringt0n (Member Profile)

newtboy (Member Profile)

newtboy (Member Profile)

Florida Cop Plants Drugs At Over 120 Traffic Stops in 1 Year

Florida Cop Plants Drugs At Over 120 Traffic Stops in 1 Year

Sagemind says...

What I don't like about "NOW THIS" videos, is everythiung is paraphased, and video is chopped from the original "found" video.
No names are given.

So here is more info.
Zach Wester, 26, was arrested on felony charges of racketeering, official misconduct, fabricating evidence, possession of a controlled substance and false imprisonment.

The one-time Jackson County deputy faces misdemeanor charges of perjury, possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement said.

He was arrested by FDLE agents and taken to the Wakulla County Jail, where he is being held without bail.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/10/former-jackson-county-deputy-zach-wester-arrested-drug-planting-probe/1693260001/

shinyblurry (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

God so loved the world that He tried to murder it, including all innocents; babies, unborn babies (proof God does believe in and practices abortion, btw), plants, animals, fungi, everything....according to your lore. Sure, the story goes he saved most (not all) species magically, but outright violently murdered 99.999999999999999999% of all individuals with a tantrum.

Then, to those few left, he demanded complete incessant obedient subservience and worship of himself and his son under threat of eternal torture for any found lacking.

That.
Is.
Not.
Love.

That's disrespectful distain and empty promises for those who meet his impossible, self contradictory requirements.

shinyblurry said:

There is one thing we can't afford to be wrong about:

John 3:16-18
16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon