Combustion
I think that the evaporate alcohol gas will flare up inside the bottle, burning a translucent orange, and then quickly die out because of the imited amount of oxygen in the bottle.
IT TURNED INTO A SODA-ROCKET FLAMBE! I was correct in the fact that it was a translucent orange (blue deeper in the bottle) and that it was fairly quick in ignition and flaring. I did not guess that it the force would shoot it vertically and into the desk. I also did not predict that some of the flame would be shot about 6 inches out of the neck of the bottle.
Climate Change
Climate Change 30% of solar radiation is reflected back into space while 70% is absorbs then is thrown into the atmosphere were 30% goes through it and 70% is reflected back to Earth. Preexisting gases, such as Methan, Co2, andNitrogen Oxide were sky rocketed when humans used things such as fossil fuel burning, aresol cans, etc as well as making new gases. These gases help to heat the Earth and trap that heat within it so it can't be discharged. The gases also destroy the Ozone which makes it harder for that 30% heat to be reflected back into space.
Co2 Gas
I think that once CO2 gas is introduced to the naked flame of the candle, the will be a bit of a slower burn but still translucent and blue at the base. I don't think that it will be as explosive of a reaction,though.
Jeesh, that was stupid of me not to get that. When building a well, you want to set a candle down there to see if there is clean oxygen (it will burn) or if there is no oxygen/a high quantity of another gas (it will be extinguished). This is because a fire needs oxygen to burn so when it was introduced to only carbon dioxide, there was no oxygen for it to consume.
Effects of Co2 Gas on the Earth
4.5 billion years ago (beginning of Earth) it was estimated that Co2 made up 80% of the Earth's atmosphere. About 2 billion years ago, Co2 made up 20%-30%. With the evolution of plants and photosynthesizing, they helped reduce Co2 levels and raise oxygen levels. But when trees die and decompose, they release Co2 and since we are cutting down acres of trees everyday, we are releasing more Co2 and allowing less means to absorb carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen, depleting those levels as well. With fossil fuels, those organisms never completely decomposed and never released all their Co2 but as we burn them, we are releasing that stored up Co2. It is theorized that the warming of the ocean releases Co2 levels that have built up over time.
Hydrogen Gas
Since Ms. Leland said this could be used as an alternate fuel source, I'm inclined to think that this will not snuff out the flame like the previous experiment. THIS TIME, I don't think that the ignition will be as explosive as the alcohol (and, I was right without he last one that it wasn't explosive, I just didn't think that was as right as I wanted to be). I think that this will also be translucent and orange, blue at the base where it will burn hottest. I think it will burn as long as the gas is produced if it reacts like baking soda and vinegar in the idea that it creates the gas as it reacts. But I am hesitant to say any of this because she threw a monkey wrench in there with the Co2, so I have virtually zero confidence in that prediction.
Haha. THAT was a classic, none mad-scientist flambe`. And, more importantly, I was right! Haha! It did burn translucent orange (no blue), it did burn as long as the gas was being produced, but the ignition was a bit explosive, not as much as the first test, but enough to have a quite loud poof of a pop.
Renewable Resources
86% of energy used is fossil fuels. Wind energy is going to be used for the future. Solar energy is being promising.
Solar power count for less than .01% of world's energy but is growing. Created by concentrating heat or useing solar panels. SOlar hot water heating is the only practical way to create solar energy. On average the solar marketing fact grew 14% annually.
Tidal Generation:
Pros- Stable electricity generated because tides are stable.
Cons- More costly than traditional hydro-electricity. Effects marine estuaries.
Wave Power: Located several miles off shore and gathers energy as a buoy bobs up and down the waves
BIofuels:
Pros- 100x's more energy per hectare is given back using vegetable oil and have lower fossil fuel input.
Cons- Possibly takes more energy to grow and harvest than is provided. Takes more fossil fuel to make than it does to give back.
Corn ethanol net energy with a breaking point of 0. So any energy below 0 that's produced equates to no energy gained.
Air Pressure:
I think the gas will condense so you can see it go out in billowing wisps. That, or, with the way things are going, it might explode. You never know with Ms. Leland. . . .
What went wrong??? Ms. Leland heated up the can and wisps of steam were escaping out the top when she quickly grabbed in and dunked it in the ice cold water and NOTHING HAPPENED. It looked to be like it was supposed to be an instantaneous because Ms. Leland immediately took the can out, dripping and cold, after a moment of nothing.
Now we're gonna put the can in upside-down, I'm expecting that once we do, a cascade of bubbles will blow up and out of the can.
Wow, I was dead-wrong with the explosion prediction, it IMPLODED! My guess would be that because the air pressure was different. And since a gas takes up more space, when she dunked the heated gas that would try to rise above the sinking cold air/water it instantly turned into liquid that created a void (or vacuum, as I have been informed) that caused the can to implode.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Chernobyl Health Article
Summary:
High dose or does rate was the reason the majority of the early deaths in Chernobyl because repair and regeneration can be inadequate so that a lot of cells would be destroyed which would cause impaired organ function. These are labeled as "deterministic effects" which can be life-threatening if the does is high enough. The first signs of a high dosage of radiation include the following diarrhoea, vomiting (which usually occurred within the first 15-30 minutes of exposure), fever, erythema, and mucous membrane were severely damaged. and erythema. The white-blood cell count within the first 24-36 hours of radiation also determined the severity of the dose and the only people to receive high dosage were the workers and the firemen who fought the fire.
Low doses or dose rate, damage can be repaired by cellular mechanisms that are still in functioning order and can atone for the harmed cells. But if the repair is inadequate or flawed, these cells can develop into cancerous cells further in the future or morph into inheritable defects. These late effects are referred to as "stochastic effects" and survival improved greatly; no early deaths were recorded in the less than 1-2 Gy exposure group.
What are the effects of "deterministic effects?"
What are the effects of "stochastic effects?"
In which case can cells have a chance to regenerate?
High dose or does rate was the reason the majority of the early deaths in Chernobyl because repair and regeneration can be inadequate so that a lot of cells would be destroyed which would cause impaired organ function. These are labeled as "deterministic effects" which can be life-threatening if the does is high enough. The first signs of a high dosage of radiation include the following diarrhoea, vomiting (which usually occurred within the first 15-30 minutes of exposure), fever, erythema, and mucous membrane were severely damaged. and erythema. The white-blood cell count within the first 24-36 hours of radiation also determined the severity of the dose and the only people to receive high dosage were the workers and the firemen who fought the fire.
Low doses or dose rate, damage can be repaired by cellular mechanisms that are still in functioning order and can atone for the harmed cells. But if the repair is inadequate or flawed, these cells can develop into cancerous cells further in the future or morph into inheritable defects. These late effects are referred to as "stochastic effects" and survival improved greatly; no early deaths were recorded in the less than 1-2 Gy exposure group.
What are the effects of "deterministic effects?"
What are the effects of "stochastic effects?"
In which case can cells have a chance to regenerate?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Chernobyl Questions
1.) Why is Chernobyl habitable for nature and places like Sweden and norway, they had to clean up reindeer carcasses because they had eaten contaminated soil?
2.) If there was a hundred times more radiation than Hiroshima and Nagasaki (more than 100 roentgens an hour which is more than a person should get yearly for the power plant) so why did only 187 people die vs. the thousands at the bombings (initially)?
3.) "One corner of a field might be highly dangerous, while just a few yards away levels seemed low." Why was the blast so uneven?
4.) "Up to 4,000 of these children had doses as high as 2,000 roentgen equivalents." How many roentgens does it take to kill a person?
5.) "As a consequence of inhaling aerosols containing iodine 131 immediately after the accident, 13,000 children in the re- gion experienced radiation doses to the thyroid of more than 200 roentgen equivalents." If the aerosols are bad to inhale, will anything happen if it touches someone?
6.) "Still, previous experi- ence with the long-term effects of radiation—much of it derived from studies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki—suggests that the toll [diseases and such] will continue to rise." Did the effects at HIroshima and Nagasaki ever decrease? Weren't people looking similar to Pompeii after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why are effects less than Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though radiation was high?
7.) "This mental trauma has given rise to a psychological syndrome comparable to that suffered by veterans of wars in Viet- nam and Afghanistan." So is it like shell-shock? ARE PEOPLE GETTING SICK FROM THE MEDIA??? (Like Dr. Whelan suggested?)
8.) "In order to prevent soluble compounds from further con- taminating water sources, the wastes must be removed to properly designed and equipped storage facilities—facilities that do not yet exist." How did Hiroshima and Nagasaki clean-up their radiation?
9.) "Rain and snow can get inside. If the sarcophagus were to collapse—which could happen if there were an earthquake—the rubble would very likely release large amounts of ra- dioactive dust." Can people not learn from their mistakes? B.P., you were WARNED that your pump needed repair!
10.) "We have embarked on a new, post-Chornobyl era, and we have yet to comprehend all the consequences." What will prove to be the most deadly and long-lasting effect?
2.) If there was a hundred times more radiation than Hiroshima and Nagasaki (more than 100 roentgens an hour which is more than a person should get yearly for the power plant) so why did only 187 people die vs. the thousands at the bombings (initially)?
3.) "One corner of a field might be highly dangerous, while just a few yards away levels seemed low." Why was the blast so uneven?
4.) "Up to 4,000 of these children had doses as high as 2,000 roentgen equivalents." How many roentgens does it take to kill a person?
5.) "As a consequence of inhaling aerosols containing iodine 131 immediately after the accident, 13,000 children in the re- gion experienced radiation doses to the thyroid of more than 200 roentgen equivalents." If the aerosols are bad to inhale, will anything happen if it touches someone?
6.) "Still, previous experi- ence with the long-term effects of radiation—much of it derived from studies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki—suggests that the toll [diseases and such] will continue to rise." Did the effects at HIroshima and Nagasaki ever decrease? Weren't people looking similar to Pompeii after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why are effects less than Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though radiation was high?
7.) "This mental trauma has given rise to a psychological syndrome comparable to that suffered by veterans of wars in Viet- nam and Afghanistan." So is it like shell-shock? ARE PEOPLE GETTING SICK FROM THE MEDIA??? (Like Dr. Whelan suggested?)
8.) "In order to prevent soluble compounds from further con- taminating water sources, the wastes must be removed to properly designed and equipped storage facilities—facilities that do not yet exist." How did Hiroshima and Nagasaki clean-up their radiation?
9.) "Rain and snow can get inside. If the sarcophagus were to collapse—which could happen if there were an earthquake—the rubble would very likely release large amounts of ra- dioactive dust." Can people not learn from their mistakes? B.P., you were WARNED that your pump needed repair!
10.) "We have embarked on a new, post-Chornobyl era, and we have yet to comprehend all the consequences." What will prove to be the most deadly and long-lasting effect?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Love Canal Panel Questions
1.) Is there any CURRENT evidence that the health problems are linked to the chemicals.
2.) If there is an uncommon amount of health problems/mutations/defects, then why can it not be DIRECTLY linked to the toxins?
3.) If this has happened in other places (on a smaller scale), then can we monitor that situation better to see how long it takes hose chemicals to disperse if, in fact, they do.
4.) Can the effects of these toxins be similar to that of DDT?
5.) Flies can be mutated by just living in cigarette smoke (i.e. wings and different color eyes) so shouldn't the effects of these toxins be far more apparent and severe?
2.) If there is an uncommon amount of health problems/mutations/defects, then why can it not be DIRECTLY linked to the toxins?
3.) If this has happened in other places (on a smaller scale), then can we monitor that situation better to see how long it takes hose chemicals to disperse if, in fact, they do.
4.) Can the effects of these toxins be similar to that of DDT?
5.) Flies can be mutated by just living in cigarette smoke (i.e. wings and different color eyes) so shouldn't the effects of these toxins be far more apparent and severe?
8/30 Catalyst
1.) What caused the toxic waste to begin being pushed to the surface?
The winter and the wet season caused the water to run beneath the canal and push the toxins up. Also when people tried to move teh chemicals, it proved to make it worse.
2.) What are some of the health hazards associated with the chemicals dumped there?
There were a lot cancers and other problems such as liver disease, mutations, central nervous system problem, birth deffects, heart attacks, and epilepsy.
3.) Besides humans how are other parts of the ecosystem affected by this?
When the chemicals rose and created this gooey, black pools it was like tar pits and grasses and and plants couldn't grow there and what flora did grow, animals couldn't eat it, that is if they even lived there. Also, if humans can be mutated, couldn't animals that lived there be mutated, too, and what if they ruined the whole food chains and if another animal eats that contaminated one, then effects similar to DDT occur. It is also easy for animals to become mutated (ex. flies that are subject to smoke can have their genetic make-up changed and mutations can occur, i.e.: wings and different color eyes).
The winter and the wet season caused the water to run beneath the canal and push the toxins up. Also when people tried to move teh chemicals, it proved to make it worse.
2.) What are some of the health hazards associated with the chemicals dumped there?
There were a lot cancers and other problems such as liver disease, mutations, central nervous system problem, birth deffects, heart attacks, and epilepsy.
3.) Besides humans how are other parts of the ecosystem affected by this?
When the chemicals rose and created this gooey, black pools it was like tar pits and grasses and and plants couldn't grow there and what flora did grow, animals couldn't eat it, that is if they even lived there. Also, if humans can be mutated, couldn't animals that lived there be mutated, too, and what if they ruined the whole food chains and if another animal eats that contaminated one, then effects similar to DDT occur. It is also easy for animals to become mutated (ex. flies that are subject to smoke can have their genetic make-up changed and mutations can occur, i.e.: wings and different color eyes).
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Hazards of Oil Dispersants
Facts:
Susan Shaw
*1/3 of all marine life is in danger of going extinct in 30 years
*Not dispersing oil=mangroves are hit; corals and sea grass are not
*Dispersing oil=mangroves are not harmed; coral and sea grass is
*Coral is being hit hardest
*Corexit and oil=0% fertilization with coral vs. just oil=98% fertilization
*1/4 of marine life (most of them rare) live in the coral reefs
*Corexit and oil is more toxic than either alone
*Corexit+oil=19,000x's increase in toxicity
*33 Wildlife refugees are at risk
*Gills and respiratory systems are most sensitive to toxicity
*Air-breathing mammals inhale toxic fumes which leads to pneumonia
*Foodweb will collapse
____________________________________________________________________________
Facts:
Article
*USF found oil at the bottom of an underwater cavern
*USF believes chemical dispersants caused the oil to sink
*USF thinks sunken oil will have an effect on bottom-dwelling plankton (base of foodchain)
*USF wonders in the sunken oil can rise again?
*UGA discover oil plumes in early May
*UGA estimates that there is still 90% of the oil in the water
*UGA oceanographers and toxicologists believe that 80% of the oil is still there in some form
*The federal government hasn't taken into account the effects of methane at Macondo and oil
*Plumes aren't underwater rivers of oil-they are likely invisible and represent parts per billion of oil
*Dispersed oil doesn't mean the oil is gone," says John Hovecar.
____________________________________________________________________________
Solving a Problem=Bigger Problem?
I think solving one problem can equal a bigger problem in different ways. One way in which solving a problem can create a bigger one, is by not necessarily creating a larger one, but, rather, by discovering a more bigger problem. As in, if you hadn't figured out Problem #1, you would've never even seen Problem #2; you had gain some information which was a key piece of info to the second complication. The second way one problem can mean a larger problem is, you screwed up trying to fix problem 1.
Your solution was one that would've been better if you hadn't even thought of it. Ex.) The BP oil spill: Corexit and the oil was more toxic than either alone and caused 0% fertilization in coral whereas just oil would've had 98%. Finally, another way that clearing one obstacle leads you to another, higher obstacle is by solving something that should've never been solved which just leads to the domino effect where one solution leads to another problem and another and another. Maybe humans should've died out long ago but we had created tools and advanced ourselves to situate ourselves to better our lives and started to withdraw ourselves from nature's laws and rule and it may end up killing everything around us . . . or we'll kill ourselves. We kept trying to solve many problems (and failing often) and if we DID solve one problem, then it lead to another. Even medicine, it leads to a larger population and if we looked at ourselves as we did other animals, we would be an over-population and be a huge hazard. But we don't (unless something HUGE happens and slaps us in the face-normally we cause it) but that doesn't mean our actions still don't have an effect; just because we refuse to see it, doesn't mean it's not there. And could this be the result of all our trials-and-errors we've done over the past years in order to, not only survive, but flourish?
____________________________________________________________________________
Oil vs. Chemical Dispersants
This depends, are we looking at it from the mangroves' or the corals'/sea grass' point of view? If it's from the mangroves', then the oil is far deadlier; if it's from the corals'/sea grass', then the chemical dispersants are. And if it's from human's perspective (the physical, not the mental), then Corexit because it has arsenic which is known to have high cancer-causing effects. But, really, the deadliest thing are the chemical dispersants and oil together. This dynamic duo is more toxic than either alone.
Susan Shaw
*1/3 of all marine life is in danger of going extinct in 30 years
*Not dispersing oil=mangroves are hit; corals and sea grass are not
*Dispersing oil=mangroves are not harmed; coral and sea grass is
*Coral is being hit hardest
*Corexit and oil=0% fertilization with coral vs. just oil=98% fertilization
*1/4 of marine life (most of them rare) live in the coral reefs
*Corexit and oil is more toxic than either alone
*Corexit+oil=19,000x's increase in toxicity
*33 Wildlife refugees are at risk
*Gills and respiratory systems are most sensitive to toxicity
*Air-breathing mammals inhale toxic fumes which leads to pneumonia
*Foodweb will collapse
____________________________________________________________________________
Facts:
Article
*USF found oil at the bottom of an underwater cavern
*USF believes chemical dispersants caused the oil to sink
*USF thinks sunken oil will have an effect on bottom-dwelling plankton (base of foodchain)
*USF wonders in the sunken oil can rise again?
*UGA discover oil plumes in early May
*UGA estimates that there is still 90% of the oil in the water
*UGA oceanographers and toxicologists believe that 80% of the oil is still there in some form
*The federal government hasn't taken into account the effects of methane at Macondo and oil
*Plumes aren't underwater rivers of oil-they are likely invisible and represent parts per billion of oil
*Dispersed oil doesn't mean the oil is gone," says John Hovecar.
____________________________________________________________________________
Solving a Problem=Bigger Problem?
I think solving one problem can equal a bigger problem in different ways. One way in which solving a problem can create a bigger one, is by not necessarily creating a larger one, but, rather, by discovering a more bigger problem. As in, if you hadn't figured out Problem #1, you would've never even seen Problem #2; you had gain some information which was a key piece of info to the second complication. The second way one problem can mean a larger problem is, you screwed up trying to fix problem 1.
Your solution was one that would've been better if you hadn't even thought of it. Ex.) The BP oil spill: Corexit and the oil was more toxic than either alone and caused 0% fertilization in coral whereas just oil would've had 98%. Finally, another way that clearing one obstacle leads you to another, higher obstacle is by solving something that should've never been solved which just leads to the domino effect where one solution leads to another problem and another and another. Maybe humans should've died out long ago but we had created tools and advanced ourselves to situate ourselves to better our lives and started to withdraw ourselves from nature's laws and rule and it may end up killing everything around us . . . or we'll kill ourselves. We kept trying to solve many problems (and failing often) and if we DID solve one problem, then it lead to another. Even medicine, it leads to a larger population and if we looked at ourselves as we did other animals, we would be an over-population and be a huge hazard. But we don't (unless something HUGE happens and slaps us in the face-normally we cause it) but that doesn't mean our actions still don't have an effect; just because we refuse to see it, doesn't mean it's not there. And could this be the result of all our trials-and-errors we've done over the past years in order to, not only survive, but flourish?
____________________________________________________________________________
Oil vs. Chemical Dispersants
This depends, are we looking at it from the mangroves' or the corals'/sea grass' point of view? If it's from the mangroves', then the oil is far deadlier; if it's from the corals'/sea grass', then the chemical dispersants are. And if it's from human's perspective (the physical, not the mental), then Corexit because it has arsenic which is known to have high cancer-causing effects. But, really, the deadliest thing are the chemical dispersants and oil together. This dynamic duo is more toxic than either alone.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Chemical Dispersant
Does chemical dispersants mutate the flora and fauna?
Can we solve this "solution" by using similar method as that of DDT?
Can chemical dispersants spread across the world (by currents, air, creatures, etc.) to become an international problem?
Can we solve this "solution" by using similar method as that of DDT?
Can chemical dispersants spread across the world (by currents, air, creatures, etc.) to become an international problem?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)