Skip navigation
24comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Dr. Alexander Aylett

Feb 25, 2013
10:47

Judge


1 |
Share via:
Hi Johnnie, thanks for your contribution. You are the first proposal under this heading and it's great to have you. I see that there are some fields left open at the bottom of your project outline. When you have a chance, enter a few more details!

Johnnie Buttram

Feb 26, 2013
10:45

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear Dr. Alex Aylett, While writing "The Fine Line Between Adaptation and Migration" proposal, my objective was to address major issues into a condensed, easy-to-read overview for the reader. However, I know there may be other readers who may prefer more detailed explanations of these complex issues. With your permission, we will keep the original proposal in place, and I will also write a second proposal titled, "The Fine Line Between Adaptation and Migration .. EXPANDED" for those readers wanting a more comprehensive view of the applications. Please advise, Johnnie Buttram

Rob Laubacher

Feb 26, 2013
11:38

Staff


3 |
Share via:
Hi Johnnie, I wanted to expand on Alex's comment. In creating the template for proposals, we wanted to prompt authors to think about and address a range of aspects of their idea. Our belief is that it's desirable to have proposals that cover these multiple aspects in a somewhat comprehensive way. The "Pitch" and "Summary" sections of the template were designed to give authors a place to provide a quick overview. Thanks for your interest and active participation in the Climate CoLab, Rob Laubacher

Johnnie Buttram

Mar 3, 2013
10:26

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear Climate CoLab; I have expanded "The Fine Line Between Adaptation and Migration". Thank you for your suggestions. Johnnie Buttram

Dr. Alexander Aylett

Mar 4, 2013
09:18

Judge


5 |
Share via:
Thanks Johnnie, and if you have material for the final sections that are listed below, go ahead and add that too! Who will take these actions? Where will these actions be taken? What are other key benefits? What are the proposal’s costs? Time line Related proposals References

Dr. Alexander Aylett

Mar 4, 2013
09:11

Judge


6 |
Share via:
HI again Johnnie, I just saw that you made your changes by creating a new proposal. We can only have one proposal on the site per project. Please add that new material your *original* proposal (the edit button is on the upper left of your screen), and once that's done we'll remove the other post. -- That way you wont loose the votes that people have already given to your project.

Johnnie Buttram

Mar 8, 2013
05:09

Member


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear Alex, I have complied with your request to reduce my proposal to one submission. Please erase the "NULL" proposal at your convenience. Thank you, Johnnie Buttram

Pia Jensen

Mar 28, 2013
11:31

Member


8 |
Share via:
Am intrigued by the application of sea water in active volcanic sites to create added transpiration to form more clouds to deflect solar and have been reading up this past year on other geo-engineering which is used at high altitudes and is known as either aerosol spraying, or chemtrails. There seems to be some consensus that this method actually causes more heat to be trapped, which is not helpful. Would the sea water cloud creation have the same effect, or is that a technical problem with chemtrails caused by the ingredients used in aerosol spray mixes?

Johnnie Buttram

Mar 29, 2013
02:49

Member


9 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear pj, Being a self-funded (hands on) inventor and researcher for almost 50 of my 70 years, I wanted to use the abundance of seawater and the wasted energy of volcanoes in a natural way to confront our planets (SRM) and (CDR) issues. Over the past several years, I have read advocates for and against high altitude aerosol spraying of dilutions and/or chem trail (SRM) solutions. You asked the question, "Would the seawater cloud creation have similar effects of heat trapping?" I believe .. probably yes. However, the seawater of the cloud formations will usually rain-out in a few days. PJ, if you would spare me a little more of your time - I would like to share with you why I wrote "The Fine Line Between Adaptation and Migration!" Shortly after my wife retired from teaching, we drilled a water well in 2,000 and built a small cabin off-the-grid in the hills of Oklahoma. We used 3 solar panels for electricity, propane for cooking and heating, and embraced the peaceful sounds of nature. We (especially me) were living the dream until natural gas drillers contaminated our water well. We hauled water - built a cistern - bulldozed a muddy pond and finally (dry and thirsty)realized how much we and billions of others have taken for granted every time the water spigot is turned on. Without water, everything become so labor intensive that due to my health issues we had to move back to town in 2010. I have noted for at least the last 35 years we as a civilization may not be aware of how important it is to replenish every molecule in our atmosphere - due to warming temperatures. Because every molecule that is not replaced in the warmest square foot of our atmosphere - will continue to promote entropy that will get us all in the inevitable end. These are the primary reasons that I wrote the solutions of www.cloudtec-srm-cdr.com and http://savingafrica.org . PJ,thank you for your time

Pia Jensen

Mar 31, 2013
10:44

Member


10 |
Share via:
You are welcome, I find the idea intriguing - far more intriguing than the UK's proposal last year to create an artificial & chemical volcano spew to produce more rain potential. I think you may be on to something - the lack of persistent solar deflection is a good thing (vs the ongoing solar reflection of aerosol spray ingredients) .. and - what happens when the two different temperatures hit? (cold or lukewarm seawater on hot lava? besides potential for transpiration - evaporation, cracking of lava rock due to different temps, chemical mix (sea water elements & whatever the lava rocks may produce when hit w/ mineral laden sea water)? And, with current worldwide volcanic activity, is there a potential for "overdoing" the "vulcan syndrome"? e.g. - rapid earth cooling... thanks for the feedback and info. :)

Pia Jensen

Mar 31, 2013
10:17

Member


11 |
Share via:
and, by the way, sorry to hear about the "homestead" failure due to industrial activity, that is a shame.

Johnnie Buttram

Apr 1, 2013
09:50

Member


12 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
pj, I believe climate solutions should (if possible) use natural ingredients with designed on & off activation processes for adjustments. My (flip-the-light switch friends) believed moving off-the-grid at my age was a complete no-brainer. However, the voluntary experience helped me to better understand (in a very small and controlled way) that we have no guarantee that goods and services will always be available. I am now fully convinced that adaptation and migration are serious issues. johnnie

Pia Jensen

Apr 1, 2013
07:07

Member


13 |
Share via:
I certainly agree! I'll be able to help tomorrow, look forward to working with you Johnnie

Pia Jensen

Apr 2, 2013
01:08

Member


14 |
Share via:
Hi Johnnie, please check the resources I added to references - there may be something in that information (scientifically) that adds to your proposal, though not in line with your vulcan proposal, is food for thought.

Johnnie Buttram

Apr 3, 2013
11:42

Member


15 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear PJ, Thanks for the tweak corrections and reference additions on the proposal .. especially the TED video. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ I read in your profile that you are focused on nuclear news from around the world and especially the Fukushima disaster in Japan. If you will take a look at the close of the Adaptation proposal, you will notice the phrase, "will also recycle over and over to sand filter our polluted oceans, replenish, and provide the albedo we need to cool and heal our planet naturally." I have a question you and your forward thinking friends and associates might want to kick around just in case you might want to do a study in the future. Is Planet Earth better off with diluted quantities of nuclear pollution floating in our oceans? .. OR .. Are we better off if we flowed this polluted seawater onto our desert lands for massive evaporation? The overlapping factors and variables that will be involved to make a prudent determination will require individuals with unique brain skills. johnnie

Pia Jensen

Apr 4, 2013
05:06

Member


16 |
Share via:
Ah, Johnnie! The Ten Million Dollar Question! I suppose if I have a viable answer for that I'll be raking in the big bucks. (this response is in progress, brb) sadly, though... I know of no viable solution and I have been reading a lot of reports from expert physicists and physicians. Top help me process your valuable question, following are the "parameters" so to speak - and this won't be complete as I'm no scientist with "all that" knowledge going on. I'll provide references below as well. 1) The mix of radioactive elements which continue to release into the ocean and atmosphere is a lethal and unique combo which includes MOX fuel (1) which is a more lethal mix of radioactive material than were released at Chernobyl in 1986. 2) Ionizing radiation moves through materials and are not "stopped" by most material applications. a.[snip] Shielding: Air or skin can be sufficient to substantially attenuate low-energy alpha and beta radiation. Barriers of lead, concrete, or water give effective protection from more energetic particles such as gamma rays and neutrons. Some radioactive materials are stored or handled underwater or by remote control in rooms constructed of thick concrete or lined with lead. There are special plastic shields that stop beta particles, and air will stop most alpha particles. The effectiveness of a material in shielding radiation is determined by its half-value thicknesses, the thickness of material that reduces the radiation by half. This value is a function of the material itself and of the type and energy of ionizing radiation. Some generally accepted thicknesses of attenuating material are 5 mm of aluminum for most beta particles, and 3 inches of lead for gamma radiation.[snip] b. [snip] Radiation shielding is based on the principle of attenuation, which is the ability to reduce a wave’s or ray’s effect by blocking or bouncing particles through a barrier material. Charged particles may be attenuated by losing energy to reactions with electrons in the barrier, while x-ray and gamma radiation are attenuated through photoemission, scattering, or pair production. Neutrons can be made less harmful through a combination of elastic and inelastic scattering, and most neutron barriers are constructed with materials that encourage these processes. The main types of radiation encountered in industrial projects include: • Gamma and X-rays Shielding: These are forms of electromagnetic radiation that occur with higher energy levels than those displayed by ultraviolet or visible light. • Neutron Shielding: Neutrons are particles that have neither a positive nor a negative charge, and thus provide a wide range of energy and mass levels that must be blocked. • Alpha and Beta Particles: Alpha particles are positively charged helium nuclei, and are relatively easy to block, while beta particles are negatively charged electrons that are more difficult to shield against.[snip] References (1) MOX Fuel: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel Mixed oxide fuel, commonly referred to as MOX fuel, is nuclear fuel that contains more than one oxide of fissile material, usually consisting of plutonium blended with natural uranium, reprocessed uranium, or depleted uranium. [snip] Mixed oxide fuel, commonly referred to as MOX fuel, is nuclear fuel that contains more than one oxide of fissile material, usually consisting of plutonium blended with natural uranium, reprocessed uranium, or depleted uranium. There are several factors that influence the selection and use of radioactive shielding materials. Considerations such as attenuation effectiveness, strength, resistance to damage, thermal properties, and cost efficiency can affect radiation protection in numerous ways. For example, metals are strong and resistant to radiation damage, but they undergo changes in their mechanical properties and degrade in certain ways from radiation exposure. Likewise, concretes are strong, durable, and relatively inexpensive to produce, but become weaker at elevated temperatures and less effective at blocking neutrons.[snip] (2)a Ionizing radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation (2)b Materials Used in Radiation Shielding www.thomasnet.com/articles/custom-manufacturing-fabricating/radiation-shielding-materials As an aside: Funding fears haunt MOX plant and its 2300 workers chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2013-04-04/funding-fears-haunt-mox-plant-and-its-2300-workers

Pia Jensen

Apr 4, 2013
06:33

Member


17 |
Share via:
if there was an edit function for comments I'd make these edits: Note more of the MOX fuel components such as corium and tritium as well as plutonium, cesium, etc. (2) Different types of radiation move through most materials and are not effectively "stopped" by most material applications and add to (2) as a [snip] Neutron Shielding - Lead is quite ineffective for blocking neutron radiation, as neutrons are uncharged and can simply pass through dense materials. Materials composed of low atomic number elements are preferable for stopping this type of radiation because they have a higher probability of forming cross-sections that will interact with the neutrons. Hydrogen and hydrogen-based materials are well-suited for this task. Compounds with a high concentration of hydrogen atoms, such as water, form efficient neutron barriers in addition to being relatively inexpensive shielding substances. However, low density materials can emit gamma rays when blocking neutrons, meaning that neutron radiation shielding is most effective when it incorporates both high and low atomic number elements. The low-density material can disperse the neutrons through elastic scattering, while the high-density segments block the subsequent gamma rays with inelastic scattering. [snip] To continue then: (3) Radiation does not "dilute" and does "recycle" or disperse into/through eco/life systems and also bio-accumulates in life systems (e.g. the small fish eats plankton, the bigger fish eats that small fish, a bigger fish eats that fish then somebody catches that bigger fish and eats it. At that point the effect of radiation contamination is amplified because the original level of radiation in the small fish that contaminated plankton, for example, is now much greater. [snip]How the radioactive materials released from the Fukushima plants will behave in the ocean will depend on their chemical properties and reactivity, explained Ted Poston, a ecotoxicologist with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a U.S. government facility in Richland, Washington. If the radionuclides are in soluble form, they will behave differently than if they are absorbed into particles, said Poston. Soluble iodine, for example, will disperse rather rapidly. But if a radionuclide reacts with other molecules or gets deposited on existing particulates — bits of minerals, for example — they can be suspended in the water or, if larger, may drop to the sea floor. “If particulates in the water column are very small they will move with the current,” he explained. “If bigger or denser, they can settle in sediment.” (4) TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co.) has attempted to "decontaminate" the area surrounding their nuclear power plants, as well as the facilities themselves and areas surrounding the plants and areas receiving fallout. This practice has not worked, is not working and has resulted in accumulations of large amounts of radioactive soil/materials/waste being stored in plastic bags throughout these areas where decontamination occurs. This includes properties directly adjacent to schools, residential areas, and commercial areas as well farmland and forests. [snip] The process is also yielding roughly 440 tons of water every day, raising the issue of what to do with the contaminated liquid. Officials hope that this water purification system will remove nuclear particles when completed.[snip] And [snip] Full-fledged operation of the advanced liquid processing system (ALPS) will start in about four months after its performance is verified. Tepco said it plans to process 250 tons of irradiated water a day using the new multinuclide removal system, which has the capacity to dispose of up to 500 tons when fully operational.[snip] (5) When radiation enters eco systems it simply cycles through systems, is not "diminished" and re-enters eco-systems when, for example, radiation contaminated trees disperse pollen - the pollen is radioactive and travels vast distances to land on soil, food, a person's body, and water. Sort of liek energy - it can not be destroyed. This is why Finland chose to bury its waste in a very deep underground facility which is the first of its kind in the world. See video reference below for "Nuclear Waste Storage Facility in Finland (first in world)" and "NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND DECOMMISSIONING". (6) Then, we have all the technical implications as well as political and finance considerations. [snip] In October 2011, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, said the government would spend at least $13 billion to clean up vast areas contaminated by radiation. In an interview with the public broadcaster NHK, Mr. Noda said the decontamination was “a prerequisite for people to return to their homelands.” At that time the government had raised $2.9 billion for the decontamination, Mr. Noda said, and plans to allocate a further $3.3 billion in the third extra budget. [Source: japan-afterthebigearthquake.blogspot.com Reuters, October 21, 2011] [snip] Unfortunately, decontamination does not work and is fraught multiple moral and ethical complications, such as - do people really have a chance at a healthy life if they return to their contaminated homes? So, with all of that in mind - your questions: 1. Is Planet Earth better off with diluted quantities of nuclear pollution floating in our oceans? and 2. Are we better off if we flowed this polluted seawater onto our desert lands for massive evaporation? Neither is okay due to long life of radioactive particles (hundreds of years in some cases), the bio-accumulation effects, the cycling nature of radiation particles through eco/life systems, the sky high costs of managing "clean-up" efforts, the political fallout (Not In My Back Yard, please), and accessing the only final waste disposal solution on earth - Finland's deep depository. "Dilution" does not really occur, and dumping the materials on land (desert or otherwise) would simply put the materials back into the atmosphere via transpiration. Sorry I can't be more positive. References (3)Radioactivity in the Ocean: Diluted, But Far from Harmless e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless/2391/ (4)a Rare tour of Fukushima reveals colossal decontamination efforts worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/08/17234000-rare-tour-of-fukushima-reveals-colossal-decontamination-efforts?lite (4)b Tepco testing new water decontamination system at Fukushima No. 1 plant www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/03/31/national/tepco-testing-new-water-decontamination-system-at-fukushima-no-1-plant/#.UV3nWBn1vuU (5)a Nuclear Waste Storage Facility in Finland (first in world) www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2iF9W1ORtI (5)b NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND DECOMMISSIONING http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/profiles/Finland_report.pdf (6) CLEAN UP, DECONTAMINATION AND RADIOACTIVE DEBRIS AND SOIL AROUND FUKUSHIMA factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=1856& Additional references (PDFs in my computer): Mox fuel-corium-plutonium in Fukushima Daiichi: The Mystery of Fukushima Daiichi's fuel (author unknown but materials taken from reports by Areva, a french nuclear energy company; sfen.org, senat.fr, nrc.gov, iaea.org, taro.org, and owni.fr INPO 11-005 November 2011 Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Radioactive Inventory at the Fukushima NPP G. Pretzsch, V. Hannstein, M. Wehrfritz (GRS) Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH Schwertnergasse 1, 50667 Köln, Germany

Pia Jensen

Apr 4, 2013
11:05

Member


18 |
Share via:
this just got loaded up at docstoc: Fukushima-Daiichi Radioactive Material Storage www.docstoc.com/docs/151245045/Fukushima-Daiichi-Radioactive-Material-Storage

Pia Jensen

Apr 5, 2013
01:18

Member


19 |
Share via:
Your proposal is much "tighter" Johnnie, good work! I am beginning to understand better now the concept. perhaps you'll be able to produce some artistic rendition of the pen stocks. :)

Pia Jensen

Apr 5, 2013
03:19

Member


20 |
Share via:
one more vital piece of info on radiation - when material objects are exposed to bombarding radioactive elements over time - they deteriorate - thermometers break, concrete breaks down, robotics stop functioning...

Johnnie Buttram

Apr 6, 2013
12:16

Member


21 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear pj, When I asked the question, "Is Planet Earth better off with diluted quantities of nuclear pollution floating in our oceans?" and "Are we better off, if we flowed this polluted seawater onto our desert lands for massive evaporation?" I did not anticipate that you would spend several research hours dissimulating information to reach final conclusion. You are to be commended for your diligence and dedication in search of understanding. If I understand it right, your findings indicate that once radioactivity enters the sea that "Dilution" does not really occur. As a side benefit to adding needed moisture to our atmosphere - I had hoped that molecular evaporation of minute amounts of diluted radioactivity exposed to the UV's of the sun might be a variable that would somehow help neutralize the damaging potential of this cruel dilemma. As a realist - deep in my heart - I knew the odds of this being a significant factor to find a catch 22 placebo for Planet Earth was a shot in the dark. In the inevitable end . . radioactivity may prove to have been a glowing miscalculation! PJ - thanks again for you time, johnnie

Pia Jensen

Apr 6, 2013
05:58

Member


22 |
Share via:
well, not so much time, you know how it is when you spend a couple years researching an issue, it's all near the top of your knowledge base... my findings are based on the science presented by such experts as Arnie Gundersen and others who have come forward from the nuclear physics world to provide scientific testament. My head is full of this stuff. It isn't what I expected when I began watching Fukushima and connecting with both experts and others from Japan who are in the fallout zones... I'm a sponge and I feel like I'm leaking nuclear information post 311. That said... Yes, certainly, less is best, but, I think Fukushima has tipped those scales. But, this does not mean we ought not seek solutions - there are studies to show that certain plants absorb radiation, a black fungus eats it (Chernobyl) and some researchers are working on better solutions for removal... and, who knows, maybe we can find something that is best at "sequestering" radiation... keep thinking and talking...

Pia Jensen

Apr 6, 2013
05:38

Member


23 |
Share via:
what we need, I think at this point, is to design and build safe cities - with areas that protect people from ongoing fallout, because that's our best shot at survival. And, I really like your water transpiration idea... keep working on that - it may be our best geo-engineering idea yet.

2013geoengineeringjudges 2013geoengineeringjudges

Jul 6, 2013
03:44

Judge


24 |
Share via:
Thank you for sharing your ideas and for the work invested to create this proposal. We have considered this proposal carefully, and note that the approach for generating clouds in the scheme presented here is similar to your proposal titled "Exploiting Volcanoes". However, the issues that have been raised in previous comments made by the contest Advisor on that proposal (Exploiting Volcanoes) have not been addressed sufficiently to convince the judges that clouds can be generated as described here and therefore that this scheme is feasible.