Ant Sinclair

I was reading a fact sheet from the Argonne National Laboratory that like for like concentrations of Potassium40 and Cesium137, 50% more people will succumb to mortality per 100 000 from Cesium137 than Potassium40, why is this?, is there a difference in how the two isotopes decay?

What is the source of Potassium40 in the Pacific and how long has it been there?

Is it not a point to start from?, how accurate are these "family trees" may be a place to start in deciding its' accuracy.

Below is a link to website whos' author claims to be an ex-jesuit, there are many articles on this website and the link below is alledgedly to the Sangreal Blood-line or Rose-Line, this Sangreal Blood-Line also shows Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, how authentic it is I don't know. http://one-evil.org/content/bloodline_03c_sangreal.html

Below is an article about a seventh century manuscript basically saying Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had children. http://rt.com/usa/jesus-wife-king-papyrus-740/

Dim Your Massey is in great condition, have You done restoration work on Her? For last 20 years We've been saying We'll give ours some tlc in the winter months but still haven't got round to it, having said that I only use ours in fair weather, She's got Her own shed and She's in identical condition to when We first acquired Her

No It's an International Harvester-Macormick, built in the next county of South Yorkshire in Doncaster, a great tractor and so reliable and older than Me. We do have a Massey with a front loader on it but it's bigger than the IH Mac, I will admit the Massey too is a great tractor and both are diesel Side view And front, she's a good old gal!

Thanks for Your reply Acme, I typed gardening in the forum search box and it brought Me to the Lounge and didn't see yodas' thread. Thanks for the Link to which I will do some experimentation this season to see what results I obtain and will let You know The "earthworks" are potatoe rows Rob ;-) I don't why I didn't open any of these threads up there are some excellent posts and pictures!

From I being young My folks have always grown most of their own vegetables and I have followed in their gardening foot-steps. I read on an "alternative" web site a while ago that planting at certain times of the Lunar Cycle increases harvest yield, is there any science behind this? Attached is a photograph of some My gardening this season and our old faithful who never fails to start year after year!

Iam no expert in this field but found this tonight and thought it may have some bearing on previously discussed matters or I may be wrong; Indeed, nuclear expert Robert Alvarez – senior policy adviser to the Energy Department’s secretary and deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment from 1993 to 1999 – wroteyesterday: According to a previously secret 1955 memo from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission regarding concerns of the British government over contaminated tuna, “dissipation of radioactive fall-out in ocean waters is not a gradual spreading out of the activity from the region with the highest concentration to uncontaminated regions, but that in all probability the process results in scattered pockets and streams of higher radioactive materials in the Pacific. We can speculate that tuna which now show radioactivity from ingested materials [this is in 1955, not today] have been living, in or have passed through, such pockets; or have been feeding on plant and animal life which has been exposed in those areas.” http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/why-the-ocean-may-not-adequately-dilute-the-radiation-from-fukushima.html

You are warranted swansont in pointing the above out! Since I started going over Carters' video I have had to check out for Myself the points He was putting across as well as cross-referencing His findings to others and My own research into this same subject. This work is by no means a "little" task and Iam endeavouring with it day by day inbetween participating on other threads and trying to balance family life. It is on its' way.

One of the final paragraphs; Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly, have worked towards a given conclusion. And indeed, the observations are different, significantly and materially, between the three phases of data collection. The entire study should therefore be dismissed.

Sorry didn't realise; http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html?m=1

Below is a link to a very recent article in The Australian, below that is a paragraph from the article by Professor Richard Tol. Is the 97% Consensus on Man-Made Global Warming Correct?, what are the real figures? http://m.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/global-warming-consensus-claim-doesnt-stand-up/story-e6frg6zo-1227276959248 The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isnt. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.

In this link from wikipedia (http://en.m.wikipedi...ki/Oxygen_cycle) it states three Oxygen Resevoirs ie the Atmosphere, Biosphere and Lithosphere, if Oxygen is depleting from the Atmosphere by whatever rate, can Oxygen "leach" into the Atmosphere from the Biosphere and Lithosphere or is only the Atmospheres' Oxygen Resevoir applicable when calculating the net Oxygen available for life?

Thanks for Your reply Essay, would You know how these Oxygen resevoirs "come into play" as regards overall Oxygen levels that a lot of life on earth need to carry on living. And could You please expand a little more on these "other global changes" that could create "catastrophic disruptions" for civilisation?

Below is a link to a wikipedia article regarding Oxygen production and consumption. In this article in the Capacities and Flux section are two tables, Table1 is regarding Major Resevoirs involved in the Oxygen cycle and Table2 is regarding Annual gain and loss of Atmospheric Oxygen, should We be worried by increasing Oxygen Consumption and the loss of Oxygen Producers taking into account any resevoirs of Oxygen? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle

Thanks for Your reply Pavel, being on Scienceforums.net is all about learning and We are all learning on here daily, even the experts

Drax is a 4GW Station or 1 1/100th approxiamtely of Chinas' projected increase of 422GW of coal generated energy by 2040. If the 32/44ths assumption is correct then 32/44 x 60700 x 104 = 4,591,000 tonnes of O2 if these chinese stations run at a similar efficiency to Drax. This figure is half of My earlier approximation but drastically different to Your calculation.

Pavelcherapan below is a link to the CO2 output of Drax Power Station, in this article on wikipedia it says that this station in 2007 produced 22160000 tonnes of CO2, so would that be approximately 60700 tonnes per day yes?, if this is so is not 32/44ths of this O2? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_power_station

The pie charts indicate Coal pavel. If Iam reading this right pavel would that mean approximately 10 Million tons of Oxygen per day would be consumed for 422 GW?I believe it would be prudent for science to evaluate all of Earths' numerical tonnage of O2 being produced by phytoplankton, forestry and other sources and its' consumption and their forcasted rates. Does anybody know the metric tonnage of O2 in Earths" atmosphere at present?

Below is the last two paragraphs from an article from The Institute of Science in Society and below these two paragraphs a link to the article. The crucial role of forests and phytoplankton [4] in oxygenating the earth shows how urgent it is to take oxygen accounting seriously in climate policies. Reductionist accounting for CO2 alone is insufficient, and even grossly misleading and dangerous. A case in point is the proposal of the International Biochar Initiative (IBI). ‘Biochar’ is charcoal produced to be buried in the soil that IBI has been promoting worldwide over the past several years [16] as a means of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere to save the climate and enhance soil fertility. It involves planting fast growing tree and various other crops on hundreds of millions of hectares of ‘spare land’ mostly in developing countries, to be harvested and turned into charcoal in a process that could produce crude oil and gases as low grade fuels. There are many excellent arguments against this initiative [17], but the most decisive is that it will certainly further accelerate deforestation and destruction of other natural ecosystems (identified as ‘spare land’). In the process, it could precipitate an oxygen crisis from which we would never recover [18] (Beware the Biochar Initiative, SiS 44). http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php Stringjunky has a good point in that if the public could see that burning fossil fuels was also affecting the Oxygen that they breathe, that it would be easier to get them on-side in being more prudent in their energy usage. Below is a link to another web page, on this web page towards the bottom are two pie charts showing showing Chinas' use of fossil fuels in 2012 and projected use by 2040. There is an overall increase in use of fossil fuels to produce an extra 422 Giga Watts of energy, how much Oxygen consumption would this extra 422 GW equate to ? http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ch

I would have thought that Oxygen content in Earths Atmosphere would be something science would look at as it is quite an important gas to Man and most life on Earth, like Peter said in His Guardian News Paper article "I found it surprising no one is looking at this".

Is Oxygen Content at that altitude getting lower?, and if it, is by how much?Is anybody checking?