Re: FW: - Climate Change Hearings and the roll(?) of nuclear power

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>

An: RadSafe <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Datum: Mittwoch, 31. Juli 2002 23:38

Betreff: Re: FW: - Climate Change Hearings and the roll(?) of nuclear power





Absolutely nothing to do with radiation, but one of my pet peeves:



> Less CO2 leaves the USA on our east coast than enters on west because our

> forests absorb more than our cars produce.



Most mature forests do NOT absorb CO2. (Where is the carbon supposed to go?)

There are a few swampy places where the forests are making peat, but a

forest in equilibrium cannot absorb CO2. CO2 is absorbed by wheat fields.

The O2 is released and C is shipped off in the wheat. (Of course the C gets

released when someone eats the wheat)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------





I have some problems to understand your arguments, especially since you with

the "wheat argument" give yourself the reason, why you are wrong. Wood is

cut in forests and therefore the C in wood is shipped off, exactly like it

is in wheat, and it is over the time released again - though at another

place. CO2 is needed by the forest to replenish the wood and bushes removed

and destroyed by logging and fires. Your argument would only be valid, if

all forests were in "secular equilibrium" - but they are not.



Further I do not understand why wheat fields have enhanced radon emissions.

The cause for enhanced emission of radon from soil would be tilling - but

this is done in all kind of cultivations. Could you please explain?





Finally, the USA atmosphere is not contained within its borders. As we

know - not at least from the world wide distribution of nuclear fission

products from the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests - pollutants are going

anywhere and are mixing intensively. While the fission products were

distributed attached to aerosols (except the radioactive rare gases like

Kr-85 and Xe-133 and others) CO2 is a gas, which is much easier mixed and

not like aerosols deposited. There is no way to determine, where a certain

molecule of CO2 comes from.



Therefore world-wide action is needed to cut down the CO2 emissions - if

this is desired. In Kyoto it was desired - very few nations who agreed have

really cut down the emissions, but it is at least for us Europeans

irritating that the largest polluter has backed out, putting forward

economic arguments - but not even taking any serious steps to start

construction of new power plants.



Franz











************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/