Published: March 24th, 2012 at 5:24 pm ET
|
Hydrogen Density of Primary Containment Vessel at Reactor No. 2:
- March 11 @ 0.06%*
- March 16 @ 0.11%
- March 22 @ 0.18%
- March 24 @ 0.25%
*Hydrogen density before the recent rise remained relatively consistent for months, ranging between 0.04% and 0.08%
Tepco handout link: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_120324_01-e.pdf
Follow-up to:
- Now hydrogen levels triple at Reactor No. 2 in recent days
- Hydrogen levels nearly double at Reactor No. 2 in recent days
Published: March 24th, 2012 at 5:24 pm ET
|
sending...
This reminds me of Arnis Gundersons video
Fukushima Hydrogen buildup at plant Arnie Gunderson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-gIYFFs9ow&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Report Comment
ichicax4 3/23 update Nuked Radio #10 Canadian fallout & US EPA graphs with mention of r2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTKGGVKUE8
Report Comment
[cont.]
The increase is expected to be significant for only 4 to 5 days (7) and to disappear within 9 days. In contrast, the 10.76-year
radioactive half-life and the lack of significant removal mechanisms for 85Kr ensure that it will contaminate the entire atmosphere of the earth, including previously uncontaminated masses of oceanic air. This source of ionization will be much more uniformly distributed vertically and horizontally and more permanent than fallout radioactivity.
“Atmospheric Electric Model
“The classic model for the electrostatic environment of the earth treats the earth's surface as one conducting plate of a leaky spherical capacitor (5, p. 379). Although the lower atmosphere is a very poor electrical conductor, the conductivity increases rapidly with altitude. The result is that above a certain altitude, the horizontal conductivity is sufficient to equalize the potential around
the globe. Above this equalizing layer there is the equivalent of a spherical conducting region acting as the second plate of the global capacitor. The global capacitor is thought to be kept charged by electrical storms that transport a net positive charge aloft and leave the earth with a corresponding negative charge. It is continuously being discharged by conduction currents between the equalizing layer and the earth's surface. I will show that an accumulation of '5Kr in the atmosphere will decrease the electrical resistance across the global capacitor.
“Columnar resistance can be defined as the electrical resistance of a column of the atmosphere I ml in cross section connecting the earth's surface to the equalizing layer. Provided the conductivity is known as a function of altitude, the columnar resistance can be calculated from
Rc.= Integral [ dh/λ(h) ] (I)
where Rc is the columnar resistance (ohm m^2), λ(h) is the atmospheric conductivity (mho/m), and h is the altitude above sea level. The integral is taken from zero to the equalizing layer.
Report Comment
Nooooooooooo!! Say it ain't so!!!!!!!!
Nuke industry summit in Seoul: Nuclear power only option despite Fukushima: Japan News and Discussion http://t.co/YLx8KWoO
This is where President Obama is today I think.
Oh I deplore this Headline!!! NO FUCKING MORE NUKES!!!
Report Comment
nuclear power "the only realistic way to reduce global warming"…because modifying our behavior is out of the question…the funny thing is our distinguishing feature as a species is our ability to modify our behavior.
Pure junkie talk Whoopie
Come on man, just one more hit, then I promise I"ll quite
Come on man, we got to continue our current level of consumption to maintain our awesome and just world order. And besides we'll figure out what to do with the all waste, honest we will. Who knows maybe we can use just use it over and over again.
F-ing alchemists Junkie talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgfrxZlrYR4
Time for rehab Mr. Rich…
Report Comment
As usual, the opposite of what a politician says is actually the truth. Nuclear power IS THE BIGGEST CAUSE of global warming. It is destroying our greatest resources: water, air, arable land. It is killing the plankton. Without oxygen, food, and water we cannot stay alive, including the 1%. With all the genetic mutations and sterility, there will be no one left to make money off of. The elite, by supporting nuclear energy, are ensuring their own annihilation. The status quo is the dumb down quo. Radiation is destroying the mental ability to be resourceful, to find possible solutions. Chemical farming is destroying our arable land. GMOs are destroying our ability to farm and to be self-reliant. Etc., etc.
"Meteorological Consequences of Atmospheric Krypton-85"
Report Comment
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/193/4249/195.extract
Report Comment
Nuclear power and weapons are causing the extreme weather:
What could be causing the extreme weather the United States is having?
http://thedailybite.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/what-could-be-causing-the-extreme-weather-the-united-states-is-having/
Report Comment
Thanks Anne,
Great information. Continues on from other info you've pointed to before. Will see if I can get the full pdf article from that old magazine.
Report Comment
I am working on posting the rest of the article. It copies into a word document, but is in columns, so I am changing the format.
Report Comment
Hi Anne,
Did you manage to get the full text of the article from the appropriately named Aaas?
Report Comment
I have a copy of the whole article on my computer. Here is part which I typed out:
16 July 1976, Volume 193, Number 4249 Science, “Meteorological Consequences of Atmospheric Krypton-85; Krypton-85 can disturb the atmospheric environment by perturbing atmospheric electrical processes,” by William L. Boeck.
….”In summary, if the accumulation of Kr-85 in the atmosphere is allowed to reach I percent of the (MPC)a, a measurable global change in atmospheric electrical parameters will be produced.
“Inadvertent Weather Modification
“The complex interactions of the real atmosphere suggest that a substantial perturbation of ionization may affect a variety of other parameters. To date, very little has been published linking Kr-85 to atmospheric phenomena. This is probably due to the small number of scientists interested in atmospheric electricity and the general lack of awareness that mankind has the ability and apparent intention to release enough Kr-85 to change the atmospheric ionization background. Information related to this topic must be searched for in articles dealing with the atmospheric effects of cosmic-ray ionization or with electrical influences on the physical processes in clouds. As a result, there is no comprehensive theory with which to evaluate the net effect of 85Kr releases on meteorological processes. There are, however, some clues indicating that the possible environmental effects deserve serious study. Although some of the material needs updating, a 1969 article (12) on electricity and weather modification is a valuable introduction. A more recent article (13) contains a section on the impact of cosmic-ray ionization on the atmosphere.
Report Comment
“Several properties of Kr-85 indicate that its potential as a weather-modifying agent should be taken seriously. In contrast to most materials used for weather modification, Kr-85 will not be confined to a single area. Chemically inert Kr-85 will penetrate the entire atmosphere, so that its effects may be felt anywhere on the globe. Because of its long radioactive half-life, any effects will persist for decades. Atmospheric conductivity is coupled by Ohm's law with the atmospheric electric field and the ionospheric electric potential. In turn, the ionospheric potential is maintained by the balance between thunderstorm charging currents and the continual discharge through the global resistor. Unless thunderstorm electrification mechanisms are independent of the ambient electric field and related electrical phenomena, an electrical feedback loop could exist coupling thunderstorms at widely separated localities.
“On the basis of current knowledge, there appear to be several pathways by which air ionization due to 85Kr could have an environmental impact. Topics that require further investigation include the net effects of external influences on thunderstorm electrification (14); the electrically enhanced coalescence of cloud droplets to form raindrops, especially cloudbursts (15); and the formation of sulfate aerosol particles by gas-toparticle conversion mechanisms involving ions (16). Without a significant increase in research effort, it is likely that Kr-85 will accumulate in the atmosphere faster than our knowledge of related phenomena accumulates.
understanding of atmospheric processes is insufficient to determine the extent of consequent weather changes and
Report Comment
Conclusion
“Nonradiobiological phenomena affected by 15Kr include environmental radioactivity, atmospheric electricity, and inadvertent weather modification. If release of "5Kr into the atmosphere continues unabated, global changes in the atmospheric electric circuit will occur within 50 years. Our present understanding of atmospheric processes is insufficient to determine the extent of consequent weather changes and whether they would be beneficial or harmful. Because of the 10-year half-life of Kr-85, global changes may last decades.” (pp. 196-197)
References and Notes
12. S. Tilson, IEEE Spectrum 6, 26 (April 1969).
13. R. Dickinson, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 56, 1241 (1975).
14. R. Markson, Pure Appl. Geophys. 84 (part 1), 161 (1971); W. E. Cobb, Mon. Weather Rev. 95, 905 (1967); R. Reiter, Pure Appl. Geophys. 72, 259 (1969); J. D. Sartor, in Planetary Electrodynamics (Gordon & Breach, New York, 1969), vol. 2, p. 161.
15. C. B. Moore, in Electrical Processes in Atmospheres, H. Dolezalek and R. Reiter, Eds. (Steinkopff, Darmstadt, West Germany, 1976); B. Vonnegut, C. B. Moore, A. T. Botka, J. Geophys. Res. 64, 347 (1959); K. W. Wilk, in Third Conference on Severe Local Storms, G. E. Stout, Ed. (American Meteorological Society, Boston, 1963), p. 1; L. J. Battan and J. B. Theiss, J. Atmos. Sci. 27, 293 (1970); C. B. Moore, B. Vonnegut, E. A. Vrablek, D. A. McCraig, ibid. 21, 646 (1964); G. D. Kinzer, ibid. 31, 787 (1974); A. Ziv and Z. Levin, ibid., p. 1652.
16. V. A. Mohnen,J. Geophys. Res. 75, 1717 (1970); K. G. Vohra, in Combined Effects of Radioactive Chemical and Thermal Releases to the Environment (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1975), p. 209; in Physical Behavior of Radioactive Contaminants in the Atmosphere (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1974), pp. 109-119; P. V. N. Nair, T. S. Muraleedharan, Aerosol Sci. 3, 225 (1972).
Report Comment
I. Krypton-8S in the Atmosphere-Accumulation, Biological Significance and Control Technology (NCRP report 44, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Washington, D.C., 1975).
2. W. P. Kirk, Krypton-85: A Review ofthe Literature and an Analysis ofRadiation Hazards (Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1972), p. 4.
3. __ , P. W. Parish, D. A. Morken, Health Phys. 28, 249 (1975); W. P. Kirk and D. A.
Morken, ibid., p. 263; W. P. Kirk, B. F. Rehnberg, D. A. Morken, ibid., p. 275.
4. Siting of Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Waste Management Facilities (Publication ONRL-4451, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 1970), sect. 2.
5. H. Israel, Atmospheric Electricity (PublicationTT 67-51394, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1973), vol. 2.
6. L. Machta, J. Meteorol. 18, 1 12 ( 1961).
7.__ and D. L. Harris, Science 121, 75 (1955).
8. W. A. Hoppel, in Electrical Processes in Atmospheres, H. Dolezalek and R. Reiter, Eds. (Steinkopff, Darmstadt, West Germany, 1976).
9. J. R. Coleman and R. Liberace, Radiol. Health Data Rep. 7, 615 (1966); J. P. Nichols and F. T. Binford, Status of Noble Gas Removal and Disposal(Pubication ORNL-TM-3515, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 1971).
10. H. H. Woessner, W. E. Cobb, H. Gunn, J. Geophys. Res. 63, 171 (1958).
11. K. Telegadas and G. J. Ferber, Science 190, 882
(1975).
Report Comment
anne, good find. Here is a repost of an article which confirms the effect of radioactive gas from Fukushima:
Atmospheric Response to Fukushima Daiichi NPP (Japan)
Accident Reviled by Satellite and Ground observations
Conclusions
Our preliminary results show an unusual presence of hot spots on the top of the atmosphere over the radioactive leaks at FDNPP which also been conformed with abnormal change of in situ observation of radiation and atmospheric temperature near FDNPP. We interpreted this abnormal increase in OLR due to radioactive gas being released in atmosphere from the FDNPP. A physical mechanism for generating such anomalies could be the ionization of the atmospheric boundary layer similar to the case of thermal anomalies detected before strong earthquakes (Pulinets and Ouzounov, 2011).
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1107/1107.0930.pdf
Report Comment
Someone else found the citation. I was just able to get the whole article on my computer.
Report Comment
[cont. of 1st page which is at
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/193/4249/195.extract ]
“The atmosphere normally contains a number of isotopes such as tritium, 14C, 22Na, 32p, 7Be, 33P, 35S, 85Kr, radon, thoron, and the decay products of radon and thoron. At present these isotopes, with the exception of radon and its daughter products in continental air masses, do not make a significant contribution to the ion background. The radon content of an air mass depends in a complex way on meteorological conditions, including the prior history of the air mass. Because the longest radioactive half-life of a radon isotope is 3.8 days, a significant atmospheric concentration occurs only near a continuous source of radon, such as uranium-bearing rocks and soil. When a continental air mass is swept over the open oceans or polar ice caps, it is cut off from a supply of fresh radon while radioactive decay reduces the radon concentration. Although some radioactive daughter products of radon remain, these products are attached to aerosol particles and are effectively removed by rain or as fallout. Consequently, the air near the surface in remote regions of the oceans and polar caps, cleansed of most of the natural radioactivity and aerosol particles, has an ionization profile determined by the cosmic-ray distribution. Even
though the concentration of radon may increase with altitude (6) over the oceans, radon above a few kilometers from the surface is not a significant ionizing agent compared to cosmic rays.
“Artificial radioactivity from nuclear weapons tests and nuclear reactors can contaminate the regions of clean oceanic air. The contamination of oceanic air by tropospheric fallout is limited because these radioactive isotopes are attachedto aerosols which fall to the earth's surface, primarily within the latitude band of the test site. Radioactive fallout will produce a strong increase in the ionization very near the surface of the earth.
Report Comment
[Sorry, posted in wrong place]
[cont.]
The increase is expected to be significant for only 4 to 5 days (7) and to disappear within 9 days. In contrast, the 10.76-year
radioactive half-life and the lack of significant removal mechanisms for 85Kr ensure that it will contaminate the entire atmosphere of the earth, including previously uncontaminated masses of oceanic air. This source of ionization will be much more uniformly distributed vertically and horizontally and more permanent than fallout radioactivity.
“Atmospheric Electric Model
“The classic model for the electrostatic environment of the earth treats the earth's surface as one conducting plate of a leaky spherical capacitor (5, p. 379). Although the lower atmosphere is a very poor electrical conductor, the conductivity increases rapidly with altitude. The result is that above a certain altitude, the horizontal conductivity is sufficient to equalize the potential around
the globe. Above this equalizing layer there is the equivalent of a spherical conducting region acting as the second plate of the global capacitor. The global capacitor is thought to be kept charged by electrical storms that transport a net positive charge aloft and leave the earth with a corresponding negative charge. It is continuously being discharged by conduction currents between the equalizing layer and the earth's surface. I will show that an accumulation of '5Kr in the atmosphere will decrease the electrical resistance across the global capacitor.
“Columnar resistance can be defined as the electrical resistance of a column of the atmosphere I ml in cross section connecting the earth's surface to the equalizing layer. Provided the conductivity is known as a function of altitude, the columnar resistance can be calculated from
Rc.= Integral [ dh/λ(h) ] (I)
where Rc is the columnar resistance (ohm m^2), λ(h) is the atmospheric conductivity (mho/m), and h is the altitude above sea level.
Report Comment
[cont.]
The integral is taken from zero to the equalizing layer.
The columnar resistance is insensitive to the value of h used for the equalizing layer since the upper atmosphere is a good conductor.
“The total resistance, R, across the global capacitor is obtained by integrating the columnar resistances, connected in parallel, over the surface of the earth. In order to perform a realistic
computation of the total resistance, a knowledge of the conductivity profile over all portions of the surface of the earth is needed. Since conductivity measurements have been made for only a
few points on the globe, a gross simplification must be made in order to proceedwith the calculation of resistance. All continents will be assumed to have the same conductivity profile, and a value of columnar resistance, Rk, typical of continental air masses will be used. All
oceans and snow- and ice-covered regions will be assumed to have the same conductivity profile and to have a value of columnar resistance, Ro, typical of maritime air masses. Since the transition from continental to maritime air mass is a gradual one, the ratio of land to ocean,
snow and ice area,fk/fo, will be deliberately overestimated. This calculation of the fractional change in the global resistor, ΔR/R, due to an increase in volume ionization will neglect the change in columnar resistance over the land areas, with the result
ΔR/R=[ΔRo/Ro]{1/[1+fkRo/foRk ] } = 0.82 ΔRo /Ro (2)
For fk/fo = 1/3 and Ro/Rk = 2/3. As a consequence of the equalization layer, any change in the columnar resistance above the oceans will strongly affect the resistance of the global capacitor and may also affect the potential difference across it, above the continents as well as over the oceans.
Report Comment
“The volume electrical conductivity is due to atmospheric ionization. Assuming that n is the concentration of fast atmosphericion pairs (ion pairs per cubic
meter), the electrical conductivity X is given by
A = 2e μπ (3)
where e is the electronic charge and ,u is the mobility for fast ions of either sign
(square meters per volt per second). The mobility of fast ions is inversely proportional
to atmospheric density and consequently increases with height. This rapid increase of conductivity with height produces a columnar resistance to which the largest contribution is the resistance of the lower troposphere.
“The ion concentration depends on the balance between the ion production rate and the rate of loss of ions through recombination and attachment to aerosol particles as
q = an^2 + βZn (4)
where q is the ion pair production rate (ion pairs per cubic meter per second), α is the fast ion recombination coefficient (cubic meters per ion pair per second), Z is the number concentration of aerosols (number per cubic meter), and 3 is the ion-aerosol attachment coefficient (ions per particle per second). The accepted value of a is 1.6 x 10-12 m3 per ion pair per second. The coefficient ,8 depends on the size of the aerosol particles and is 8.2 x 10-12 ions per particle per second for ion attachment to an uncharged particle with a radius of 20 x 10-6 cm (8). Ion recombination dominates the process as the mean size and density of an aerosol become smaller.
“The increase in ion production rate can be related to the concentration of 85Kr since an 85Kr concentration of I nc/m3 produces an additional 2.85 x I05 ion pairs per cubic meter per second, assuming that the average energy per disintegration is 0.25 Mev and the average beta particleenergy needed to produce each ion pair is 32.5 ev.
Report Comment
TYPO; 1 nc/m^3
Report Comment
There is more, but I have to take a break. The equations are difficult to type.
Report Comment
“The increase in ion production rate can be related to the concentration of 85Kr since an 85Kr concentration of I nc/m^3 produces an additional 2.85 x I05 ion pairs per cubic meter per second, assuming that the average energy per disintegration is 0.25 Mev and the average beta particleenergy needed to produce each ion pair is 32.5 ev.
“Over open oceans the additional ionization due to 85Kr will be noticeable at concentrations well below the (MPC)a of 300 nc/m3. For example, an 85Kr concentration of 3 nc/m3 will produce an additional 8.55 x 105 ion pairs per cubic meter per second, a 57 percent increase over the sea level ion production rate due to cosmic rays.
“There are a number of reasons for choosing 3 nc/m3 as a bench mark level for 85Kr. First, at that concentration the perturbation of the ion production rate is roughly one-half of the background rate,which guarantees that effects of the perturbation will be distinguishable from background fluctuations. Second, 3 nc/m3 is a convenient submultiple (I percent) of the present (MPC)a. Consequently, the health effects of 85Kr at that level should be those expected for a whole-body radiation dose of 4.5 x 10-5 rem/year (1, p. 30). Third, a number of studies project atmospheric concentrations of the order of 3 nc/m3 for 85Kr in the early part of the next century (1, pp. 32-34; 4, 9). Fourth, normal dilution in the atmosphere is used to reduce the concentration of 85Kr in a controlled release to a concentration below the (MPG)6. A background level of I percent is not likely to affect the method or quantities involved in individual 85Kr releases.
“The equilibrium concentration of fast ions produced by cosmic rays at sea level, assuming an aerosol background of 300 x 106 particles per cubic meter, is given by Eq. 4 as 466 x 10 ion pairs per cubic meter.
Report Comment
[cont.]
If the ion production due to 85Kr at 3 nc/m3 is added to the cosmic-ray ionization rate the equilibrium density of fast ions becomes 665 x 10 ion pairs per cubic meter, an increase of 43 percent. Since by Eq. 3 the electrical conductivity is proportional to the ion density, the sea level electrical conductivity of clean oceanic air will increase by 43 percent because of the presence of 85Kr at the bench mark concentration.
“The columnar resistance can be calculated once the altitude dependence of the 85Kr concentration is established. For the unperturbed conductivity profile, I will use a profile approximating the average of the positive and negative conductivities measured by Woessner et al.(10). I will use
λ = λo.exp(0.238h) (5)
where λo = 2.8 x 10^-14 mho/m and h is in units of kilometers, as the conductivity profile due to cosmic rays. I expect that the concentration of 85Kr will decrease with altitude in proportion to
the density of air at each altitude. This type of profile leads to the conclusion that the perturbation in conductivity due to 85Kr will be greatest at sea level and will be negligible when compared to the conductivity due to cosmic rays above 10 km. Experimental evidence on the vertical distribution of 85Kr indicates that its concentration decreases only slightly faster than does the density of the atmosphere (11).
“The assumed profile of conductivity in the presence of 85Kr will have the form
λ = λo exp(0.238h) + Cλo exp(-0.238h) (6)
where h is in kilometers and C is the percentage increase in the ion pair concentration due to a particular sea level concentration of 85Kr. The first term is the cosmic contribution as given by Eq. 5. The use of the same scale factor in both exponents allows the columnar resistance, Rco, to be evaluated in closed integral form. Using Eq. 6, the integral from 0 km to infinity of Eq. I is
Rco = [1/(0.238λo)] –
[1/(C^{1/2}][π/2 – arctan(1/{C^(1/2}) (7)
Report Comment
[cont.]
This may be compared to the unperturbed columnar resistance integrated over the same limits to yield
Ro = 1/[0.238λo] (8)
The fractional change in columnar resistance will have the form
ΔRo/Ro = [ Rco –Ro]/Ro =
[1/(C^{1/2}] [π/2 – arctan(1/{C^(1/2}) ] – 1 (9)
Provided C is sufficiently less than 1, Eq. 9 9 can be written as a power series expansion
ΔRo/ Ro = – C/3 + (C^2 )/5 – ( C^3)/7 + (C^4)/9 – . .. (10)
If the 85Kr concentration at sea level is 3 nc/m^3, the quantity ΔRo/Ro = -0. 11. With this value for ΔRo/Ro, the change in the resistance of the global capacitor as given by Eq. 2 is ΔR/R = 0.093. Although the columnar resistance is an indirectly measured quantity, a shift of 10 percent from the average values for the last half-century should be easily measurable. In summary, if the accumulation of 85Kr in the atmosphere is allowed to reach I percent of the (MPC)a, a measurable global change in atmospheric electrical parameters will be produced.
"Inadvertent Weather Modification
Report Comment
Thanks for all your great work Anne, really appreciated. Its awesome.
Report Comment
Hi Anne,
Having read that, I have a couple more thoughts. I take it from that information, the author of the paper you repeated here thought it was realistic that so much Krypton 85 would be released by the early part of this century that it was likely enough Krypton 85 would be released to cause a 50% increase in the conductivity of the air over oceans at sea level. If its anywhere near that its huge. Presumably that means electrical devices with small air gaps that previously a spark could not jump across will have to be bigger or a spark will jump. No doubt there are many things that will need adjustment to account for this over the years. I wonder if this might affect automobile spark plug gaps for example? Have they changed over time for the older cars?
Cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere are currently thought to have a large influence in creating particles in the upper atmosphere that help clouds form and thereby affect climate. More rays I take it means more clouds and lower temperatures. Fewer rays , fewer clouds and higher temperatures. This was recently experimentally confirmed by CERN (I've posted about this on enenews at least once before that I can recall, with in that case links, if my memory is correct). CERN was forbidden from stating the significance of their findings, they just stated them. They built a large cloud chamber to see whether increased cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere increase cloud formation. They found that is exactly what happens.
The implications of that for the nuclear industry are huge. Apologies for not citing the research or the name of the guy who started this (and now daren't' continue it) but some scandinavian named scientist published research showing the heating and cooling of the earth is largely determined by cosmic rays creating particles which assist cloud formation in the atmosphere. He found that during high solar flare activity the sons magnetic field? Solar wind?
Report Comment
I've forgotten which it was. Is greater during that activity. Sorry, not solar flares, during sun spot activity the suns magnetic field (or solar wind, I forget which) is stronger and blocks more cosmic rays out preventing them striking earth's atmosphere and thus sun spot activity reduces cloud cover. What is the effect of this? Well, during the mini ice age of the 16th century there was so little sunspot activity that scientists of that time gave up counting sun spots. A lot more cosmic rays would have hit the atmosphere at that time with far greater cloud cover resulting and hence a far colder climate. A mini ice age. It is the suns activity that largely determines temperatures on earth through affecting cloud cover. The tiny percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has an insignificant effect on temperature compared to water vapor and cloud cover. Furthermore, the data as explained to me shows that CO2 goes up and down in response to temperature, not the other way around. The ocean is a huge sync for C02 which is more soluble than oxygen and nitrogen. Warmth disproportionately releases it. Its a convenient fiction for political reasons, and now the above info has been confirmed experimentally by CERN. But don't expect to hear that in the news.
Ok, so what does your information Anne mean in light of this? Well, ionization in the atmosphere presumably is going to affect cloud cover , but in Krypton 85's case I think it should mean greater cloud cover in that first 10km of the earth's atmosphere where most of the gas is and where most of the Cosmic rays can't reach. My guess is (I could be wrong tell me if this doesn't sound right) the Krypton 85 would create more cloud cover and actually cool things down. But who knows. It takes some more thinking through. But hopefully that's some help for where people might look.
Does increased ionization from Krypton 85 increase cloud formation? That's a big question for determining any temperature effects on the…
Report Comment
Here are the links on what went on at CERN recently. Regarding confirming previous research claiming that the earth's temperature fluctuations are in large part determined by sun spot activity affecting whether cosmic rays can hit the earth's atmosphere and create particles that help the formation of clouds. More sunspot activity = less cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere and so less cloud cover and more warmth. No sun spot activity can create an ice age.
Note one of these articles here makes the observation that those who push CO2 catastrophic global warming tend to have political views which require a global disaster before anyone would consider implementing such radical politics. Its the perfect marriage between big business nuke money and society breaker downers.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/16/cern_cloud_experiment/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/13/downing_cambridge_climate_conference/page3.html
This article mentions the CERN scientists were told to keep these findings quiet by not explaining their significance. In other words, sun spot activity is the greatest determinant of temperature fluctuations on earth. (aside from absolute disasters) Certainly its not CO2 emissions. Basically, CERN experimentally confirmed the obvious link between sun activity and climate change. In other words, CO2 causing climate change is a convenient political fiction which is the only thing keeping Nuclear energy alive.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/
Report Comment
Ok, apologies Anne, I should have read the link you posted about cosmic rays causing extra cloud cover in the atmosphere. From the sound of it, the cosmic rays cause ionization which helps clouds form, which makes things cooler if there is more cloud.
Presumably Krypton 85 will cause more ionization in the first 10km of atmosphere and hence also assist in the formation of clouds and actually make the earth cooler, not warmer.
A nuclear winter created by Krypton 85 by the sound of it. Not good for growing crops or for getting a healthy dose of vitamin d from the sun or for plant growth.
Thanks Anne, your information is greatly appreciated.
Report Comment
That then does predict that one could expect a diabolically bad summer immediately after Fukushima. Which is what happened to NZ. Fukushima wrecked out summer. Every second day it rained, and not as hot as normal. A really disappointing summer, but at least now I know why it was a record setter!
Report Comment
Yeah! Invest in a lightning rod company!
Report Comment
Ha ha! You may be right stock, likely good advice. I've mentioned here once before that soon after Fuku we had a record lightning storm here in NZ. Since then when we have had them the lightning has been spectacular. Of course weather is unpredictable, but contacts in Australia had made the same observation. I cannot help but wonder if Fukushima caused that.
Also, we have had literally record rainfall here in NZ this summer. Literally, the highest on record. We normally have big droughts in summer, but this year its literally rained just about every second day all summer. My Dad is a farmer and we had to make entirely silage without hay this year since we couldn't get three dry days in a row to make hay.
I would love to look up now what happened to our weather here after Chernobyl blew up in 86. Were there similar effects?
Report Comment
most interesting post anne! the cloud cover last year was thick and constant though no rain in the uk.. the clouds seemed to have thinned but remain.. from my perception we have alot of ground smog (radioactive in london) too though this year and very thick fog at times on the outskirts of london..
measured hot but contamination from hinkley! still no rain and summer started last week! same as last year except the hot weather came a bit earlier this year.. only lasted a month and we got mild cloudy and dry conditions for the period to september..
there is some definate effect on the wind speed from the north too.. its speeded up maybe? we got lenticular clouds in north england and the same clouds were found all the way across the northern hemisphere??
just musing here.. might make some sense to someone…
we need to decrease the emmissions of these plants quickly especially in light of the daichi situation and issues around spreading of contamination from contaminated areas that will be emmitting isotopes for some time..
the meteorology weather reports have changed too..
they didnt show the hurricanes in the winter on tv nor much wind information.. very little discussion about the anomilies they HAD to admit too either..
the censorship is in the meteorological fraternity as well! they are very connected to the private radiation forecasting for the corporations military and universities only!!
Report Comment
Most interesting Arclight. With regard to changes in your wind speed, we had unusual winds here this summer. I realize it might be just a fluke (el nino vs el nina or some such thing), but our winds were predominantly from the North rather than from the west this summer (with some more southerlies than normal too which are colder). But the big deal was more northerlies than our prevailing westerlies. Whatever the case, it was the wettest summer on record. Maybe a fluke, but to be the wettest that goes back a long, long way.
And you are right about the forecasters, meteorologists. They know where their money comes from.
Report Comment
Just in case it needs to be mentioned, hydrogen is an indication of ongoing nuclear fission, I believe. Off the top of my head, correct me if necessary, the nuclear process splits the water into its elements, hydrogen and oxygen. So this means reactor 2 or rather the mess of melted out of containment and somewhere in the ground blob of molten highly radioactive remains of fuel rods are now fissioning again and TEPCO can't control it. Not good. Wish I wasn't on the west coast. More of a story then Fishing Vessel found near Canada, but predictably, not mentioned in mainstream. Don't want west coast real estate to lose any value, eh?
Report Comment
I remember the last article I posted on here about hydrogen levels being troublesome one of the community members said they would begin to worry when levels tripled. The rate of increase here is very concerning. The hydrogen build up is what caused the first set of chain reactions. Lets hope that the hydrogen to oxygen ratio does not reach combustion points.
Report Comment
Hydrogen is an indicator of chain reactions as a great deal of energy is required to break down the water molecules by way of radiolysis.
Other indicators are increase in temperatures (which was indicated until Tepco removed instrument database), an increase in Xenon isotopes (which Tepco does not monitor/release), steam or vapor escaping from the plant or the ground near the building (which does not appear on blurry Tepco videos or is on the other side of the buildings from the cameras) and increases in radiation in and around the building (check).
Report Comment
Potrblog: Fukushima Re-criticality Neutron Feast and Famine Cycle: Dancing With the Devil
http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2011/10/fukushima-re-criticality-neutron-feast.html
Report Comment
they bored and scoped this reactor, either 1) vent the radioactive hydroden out, 2) inject nitorgen in 3) let'er blow! (it's in a containment, right ?).
Report Comment