The Fine Line Between Adaptation and Migration! by Johnnie Buttram

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!

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

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

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

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

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

I certainly agree! I'll be able to help tomorrow, look forward to working with you Johnnie

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

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

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. :)

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

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.