Why we should listen to the 97%

[Toddsterpatriot]

One thousand of a gram will kill you instantly. One million of a gram will kill you in 5 years.

I did a paper on it in college.

One milligram where? Lung, stomach, bloodstream?

Who the fuck do you think I am, Doctor Gupta?

I think you're Dr Hook.

 

[PMZ]

How toxic? Any numbers?

One thousand of a gram will kill you instantly. One million of a gram will kill you in 5 years.

I did a paper on it in college.

According to this guy, you should have failed.

The dangers of plutonium are analyzed in detail in a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report that is available on the web at www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/118825.html. Here are the key facts:

Plutonium is toxic both because of its chemical effects and because of its radioactivity. The chemical toxicity is similar to that of other "heavy metals" and is not the cause for the widespread fear. The dangers are different for ingestiion and for inhalation.

Ingestion. For acute radiation poisoning, the lethal dose is estimated to be 500 milligrams (mg), i.e. about 1/2 gram. A common poison, cyanide, requires a dose 5 times smaller to cause death: 100 mg. Thus for ingestion, plutonium is very toxic, but five times less toxic than cyanide. There is also a risk of cancer from ingestion, with a lethal doze (1 cancer) for 480 mg.

Inhalation. For inhalation, the plutonium can cause death within a month (from pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema); that requires 20 mg inhaled. To cause cancer with high probability, the amount that must be inhaled is 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms. The lethal dose for botulism toxin is 0.070 micrograms = 70 nanograms, a factor of

How easy is it to breathe in 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms? To get to the critical part of the lungs, the particle must be no larger than about 3 microns. A particle of that size has a mass of about 0.140 micrograms. To get to a dose of 80 micrograms requires 80/0.14 = 560 particles.

Light

Are you arguing that because it's not the most toxic substance in the world, it's not toxic?

 

[PMZ]

Yeah, reading the idiocy PMS posts does make me feel smarter.

You're the only one who'd know if you "feel smarter". All we can observe is that you act dumber.

That would hurt, if all life on Earth hadn't ended during the Carboniferous.

A classic example of you acting dumb. Does it make you feel smart?

 

[skookerasbil]

Certainly you're right that the wealthy white educated males who wrote the Constitution favored themselves with a grand plutocracy of the fashion in those days.

But we, the people, over the next 150 years turned it into a democracy. Then insisted that all citizens have equal rights under the law.

Conservatives want to undo what we, the people did.

The answer is no.

Still waiting s0n.....on how the science is mattering?

''Still waiting s0n.....on how the science is mattering?''

Gee dad, that's a strange question. Science always matters. It's always a revelation about the truth of the universe. How can that not matter?

And it leads to solutions. Humanity doesn't have to just accept problems. We can solve them. How cool is that?

Progress.

Thanks dad for asking. Good talk.

Actually......in terms of climate science, nothing is mattering. Like I said.....its nothing more than a hobby.......like a bit old group navel contemplation session. There are no solutions. Never were.......never will be. The "solutions" are nothing but hail Mary pass guesses.( so-called green fantasies) As such, they are having zero effect on public policy that would possible create those "solutions". The best the climate k00ks have now is wind and solar power.......which are laughable.


What the nutters never understand that there is an absolute truth linking politics and science. The dreams of the green nutters like we have on this forum is a world that is not possible.......100% certainty. Why? Because the world runs on fossil fuels and nothing else......well.....I lie.....3% of energy use is via renewables. Just enough to keep the Al Gores of the world building their mega-estates and flying all over the world in Lear jets.


As Ive said in the past.......nobody cares about the science. To the public, its akin to a fly on the ass of an elephant. When might that change? Well......if sometime in the future, we see reports of 70 degree temperatures in central Alaska in the middle of January for a period of 3 weeks. Not a moment sooner. When we see waterskiing going on in Buckland Alaska in mid-January, MAYBE people will take notice.

 

[skookerasbil]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[skookerasbil]

I love this forum.

 

[PMZ]

Still waiting s0n.....on how the science is mattering?

''Still waiting s0n.....on how the science is mattering?''

Gee dad, that's a strange question. Science always matters. It's always a revelation about the truth of the universe. How can that not matter?

And it leads to solutions. Humanity doesn't have to just accept problems. We can solve them. How cool is that?

Progress.

Thanks dad for asking. Good talk.

Actually......in terms of climate science, nothing is mattering. Like I said.....its nothing more than a hobby.......like a bit old group navel contemplation session. There are no solutions. Never were.......never will be. The "solutions" are nothing but hail Mary pass guesses.( so-called green fantasies) As such, they are having zero effect on public policy that would possible create those "solutions". The best the climate k00ks have now is wind and solar power.......which are laughable.


What the nutters never understand that there is an absolute truth linking politics and science. The dreams of the green nutters like we have on this forum is a world that is not possible.......100% certainty. Why? Because the world runs on fossil fuels and nothing else......well.....I lie.....3% of energy use is via renewables. Just enough to keep the Al Gores of the world building their mega-estates and flying all over the world in Lear jets.


As Ive said in the past.......nobody cares about the science. To the public, its akin to a fly on the ass of an elephant. When might that change? Well......if sometime in the future, we see reports of 70 degree temperatures in central Alaska in the middle of January for a period of 3 weeks. Not a moment sooner. When we see waterskiing going on in Buckland Alaska in mid-January, MAYBE people will take notice.

I believe that your point is that nothing matters to you. After all, you are the only one that you can speak for.

I'll bet though that nobody is surprised that nothing matters to you. In fact, it's in my experience, not an atypical conservative worldview. Maybe it's even a requirement in order to be a conservative.

 

[PMZ]

I love this forum.

Me too!

 

[westwall]

Plutonium is the by product of nuclear reactors. It is one of the most toxic substances known to man. It takes a hundred thousand years to break down.

It also occurs naturally.

Do transuranic elements such as plutonium ever occur naturally? : Scientific American

That's misleading. They do not occur in potent quantities, naturally.

Neither does U235.

 

[westwall]

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.

There has been no compelling evidence that a warm Earth is bad. In fact the historical record is very clear that number one the Earth has been MUCH warmer for the vast period of its existence (75% of the Earths life has been much warmer than today) and secondly the time when it was much warmer in the past, the PETM witnessed, an explosion of life all over the planet.

The claim that a warmer world is bad, is simply not born out by fact. On the other hand, the asteroid impact possibility is very real and that we know has the ability to do exactly what you claim warm will do. And you idiots whistle Dixie about it because you can't make money off of it.

The compelling evidence is that the more the climate changes from what we built civilization around the more we'll spend adapting to the new one.

You hope that by denying that proven fact you can get others to pay for your lifestyle.

Your plot to overthrow the country by denial lies, to impose that BS on all of us, is obvious now.

It's not happening.

You have zero evidence to support that. Absolutely none. What you do have is the requirement that we squander 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope that it will reduce the global temps by one degree in 100 years.....maybe. That's ALL you've got.

 

[skookerasbil]

''Still waiting s0n.....on how the science is mattering?''

Gee dad, that's a strange question. Science always matters. It's always a revelation about the truth of the universe. How can that not matter?

And it leads to solutions. Humanity doesn't have to just accept problems. We can solve them. How cool is that?

Progress.

Thanks dad for asking. Good talk.

Actually......in terms of climate science, nothing is mattering. Like I said.....its nothing more than a hobby.......like a bit old group navel contemplation session. There are no solutions. Never were.......never will be. The "solutions" are nothing but hail Mary pass guesses.( so-called green fantasies) As such, they are having zero effect on public policy that would possible create those "solutions". The best the climate k00ks have now is wind and solar power.......which are laughable.


What the nutters never understand that there is an absolute truth linking politics and science. The dreams of the green nutters like we have on this forum is a world that is not possible.......100% certainty. Why? Because the world runs on fossil fuels and nothing else......well.....I lie.....3% of energy use is via renewables. Just enough to keep the Al Gores of the world building their mega-estates and flying all over the world in Lear jets.


As Ive said in the past.......nobody cares about the science. To the public, its akin to a fly on the ass of an elephant. When might that change? Well......if sometime in the future, we see reports of 70 degree temperatures in central Alaska in the middle of January for a period of 3 weeks. Not a moment sooner. When we see waterskiing going on in Buckland Alaska in mid-January, MAYBE people will take notice.

I believe that your point is that nothing matters to you. After all, you are the only one that you can speak for.

I'll bet though that nobody is surprised that nothing matters to you. In fact, it's in my experience, not an atypical conservative worldview. Maybe it's even a requirement in order to be a conservative.

meh



I only care about whos not winning!!!



In recent years, conservatives are getting their clocks cleaned on most everything. But not on the issue of climate science. It is utter domination of the progressive nutty-asses. In the past 7 years, they've moved the goalposts exactly zero = losing.

 

[westwall]

I could make money off the fear of asteroid impact. I have helmets. You're worried about it, Dave. I think we can do business.

Yeah sure. You watch this video and let us know how effective your little tin hats are fool.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTmwbhyNBtA]Meteorite hits Russia impact Video Collections of meteorite explosions - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Abraham3]

I could make money off the fear of asteroid impact. I have helmets. You're worried about it, Dave. I think we can do business.

Yeah sure. You watch this video and let us know how effective your little tin hats are fool.

God are you stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One thousand of a gram will kill you instantly. One million of a gram will kill you in 5 years.

I did a paper on it in college.

According to this guy, you should have failed.

The dangers of plutonium are analyzed in detail in a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report that is available on the web at www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/118825.html. Here are the key facts:

Plutonium is toxic both because of its chemical effects and because of its radioactivity. The chemical toxicity is similar to that of other "heavy metals" and is not the cause for the widespread fear. The dangers are different for ingestiion and for inhalation.

Ingestion. For acute radiation poisoning, the lethal dose is estimated to be 500 milligrams (mg), i.e. about 1/2 gram. A common poison, cyanide, requires a dose 5 times smaller to cause death: 100 mg. Thus for ingestion, plutonium is very toxic, but five times less toxic than cyanide. There is also a risk of cancer from ingestion, with a lethal doze (1 cancer) for 480 mg.

Inhalation. For inhalation, the plutonium can cause death within a month (from pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema); that requires 20 mg inhaled. To cause cancer with high probability, the amount that must be inhaled is 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms. The lethal dose for botulism toxin is 0.070 micrograms = 70 nanograms, a factor of

How easy is it to breathe in 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms? To get to the critical part of the lungs, the particle must be no larger than about 3 microns. A particle of that size has a mass of about 0.140 micrograms. To get to a dose of 80 micrograms requires 80/0.14 = 560 particles.

Light

Are you arguing that because it's not the most toxic substance in the world, it's not toxic?

No, I am arguing that Snookie's claim that one milligram, anywhere, will kill you instantly, is wrong.
Nader should have taken the dare. Wimp.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're the only one who'd know if you "feel smarter". All we can observe is that you act dumber.

That would hurt, if all life on Earth hadn't ended during the Carboniferous.

A classic example of you acting dumb. Does it make you feel smart?

No, acting like you does not make me feel smart.

 

[westwall]

I could make money off the fear of asteroid impact. I have helmets. You're worried about it, Dave. I think we can do business.

Yeah sure. You watch this video and let us know how effective your little tin hats are fool.

God are you stupid.

I know! And yet, compared to you, I'm a certifiable genius!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.

Everyone who doesn't want to waste tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in CO2.

Still think reprocessing spent fuel creates fissile materials?
Or that Plutonium isn't for reactors?

Yes. I proved it to you. Why do you think that we don't do it?

Sorry, dummy, plutonium isn't created by chemical processing.

 

[Abraham3]

Everyone who doesn't want to waste tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in CO2.

Still think reprocessing spent fuel creates fissile materials?
Or that Plutonium isn't for reactors?

Yes. I proved it to you. Why do you think that we don't do it?

Sorry, dummy, plutonium isn't created by chemical processing.

Reprocessing spent fuel rods is more a mechanical process (think centrifuges). And plutonium, like any other chemical, can certainly be manipulated (isolated for instance) by chemical processes. It's not magic.

 

[Snookie]

How toxic? Any numbers?

One thousand of a gram will kill you instantly. One million of a gram will kill you in 5 years.

I did a paper on it in college.

According to this guy, you should have failed.

The dangers of plutonium are analyzed in detail in a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report that is available on the web at www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/118825.html. Here are the key facts:

Plutonium is toxic both because of its chemical effects and because of its radioactivity. The chemical toxicity is similar to that of other "heavy metals" and is not the cause for the widespread fear. The dangers are different for ingestiion and for inhalation.

Ingestion. For acute radiation poisoning, the lethal dose is estimated to be 500 milligrams (mg), i.e. about 1/2 gram. A common poison, cyanide, requires a dose 5 times smaller to cause death: 100 mg. Thus for ingestion, plutonium is very toxic, but five times less toxic than cyanide. There is also a risk of cancer from ingestion, with a lethal doze (1 cancer) for 480 mg.

Inhalation. For inhalation, the plutonium can cause death within a month (from pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema); that requires 20 mg inhaled. To cause cancer with high probability, the amount that must be inhaled is 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms. The lethal dose for botulism toxin is 0.070 micrograms = 70 nanograms, a factor of

How easy is it to breathe in 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms? To get to the critical part of the lungs, the particle must be no larger than about 3 microns. A particle of that size has a mass of about 0.140 micrograms. To get to a dose of 80 micrograms requires 80/0.14 = 560 particles.

Light

Tell that to the Japanese.

 

[Abraham3]

Snookie is absolutely correct. Plutonium (or any other potent alpha-emitter) is incredibly deadly INSIDE your body. Interestingly, it is not particularly deadly outside your body - at least outside your anti-C suit.

Alpha-emitters do nasty things to your wet parts. Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles.