Remember me
▼ Content

Study Reveals Dangerous Levels of Radioactivity Near Fracking Waste Sites - 7 mins


Study Reveals Dangerous Levels of Radioactivity Near Fracking Waste Sites - 7 mins18-12-2017 13:35
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(406)
Greg Palast: Signs of radioactivity should be no surprise since Halliburton spent $25 Million to be excluded from Clean Water Act regulating fracking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvbxQRjpB4c


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
Edited on 18-12-2017 13:36
18-12-2017 13:46
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(406)
Aug. 11, 2015 - This past Saturday, marked a notable 10th anniversary. But it was certainly nothing to celebrate. Ten years ago, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The giant energy bill included massive giveaways for the fossil fuel, nuclear and ethanol industries and provided only token incentives for renewables and improved energy efficiency. But the most infamous piece of the law was what is now commonly known as the "Halliburton Loophole," an egregious regulatory exemption that ushered in the disastrous era of widespread oil and gas fracking that currently grips our nation.
https://www.ecowatch.com/10-years-later-fracking-and-the-halliburton-loophole-1882083309.html
18-12-2017 17:36
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(406)
Russia Today - Fracking waste contaminates Penn. watershed with radioactive material - July 2017

"Stream sediments in Pennsylvania downstream from two fracking wastewater treatment facilities were found to contain radioactive material and carcinogens, according to study scientists from Penn State, Colorado State and Dartmouth universities ...

... When scientists examined steam sediments in Blacklick Creek, just downstream from one treatment plant, it was found to contain about 200 times the level of radium found upstream of the plant.

The highest concentration of radium was just 14 percent below the level at which it would have to be treated as radioactive waste in some US states."

https://www.rt.com/usa/396281-fracking-waste-contaminates-pa-watershed/

You've got to laugh.
The commies spent years dreaming of diluting the american life essence with this much radiation.
Now the Texans are doing it for them.

18-12-2017 19:35
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
Too bad that you don't understand anything. Lies about things you don't understand isn't going to change a thing. The stock market has been climbing while boobs like you have been predicting a crash. Of course if you have any idea of what Obama did to the value of American currency you would know that the market really isn't climbing but simply returning to its proper value in relation to the dollar's worth. Don't you have some Prince or something to go worship?
18-12-2017 23:09
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(189)
Seems to me that "dangerous levels of radioactivity" comes only from the lips of that one moderator in the video from 2013. Don't know, but seems that "dangerous level" might an assumption. That one guy interviewed in the video didn't say dangerous level. He used a lot of loaded words, including something about the Loch Ness Monster, but didn't actually express anything more than fears.

Pennsylvania certainly didn't regulate fracking well enough initially and some operators got away with stuff that they wouldn't have in other states, but I don't think "dangerous radioactivity" has actually been shown.

That radium has been detected doesn't mean that much. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that with modern methods that all substances can be detected everywhere. How much always matters, have to show that. Not just say "high" either. Twice the average background amount would rate as "high" in some publications, but not be high in any practical sense. Context matters.
19-12-2017 00:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
still learning wrote:
Seems to me that "dangerous levels of radioactivity" comes only from the lips of that one moderator in the video from 2013. Don't know, but seems that "dangerous level" might an assumption. That one guy interviewed in the video didn't say dangerous level. He used a lot of loaded words, including something about the Loch Ness Monster, but didn't actually express anything more than fears.

Pennsylvania certainly didn't regulate fracking well enough initially and some operators got away with stuff that they wouldn't have in other states, but I don't think "dangerous radioactivity" has actually been shown.

That radium has been detected doesn't mean that much. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that with modern methods that all substances can be detected everywhere. How much always matters, have to show that. Not just say "high" either. Twice the average background amount would rate as "high" in some publications, but not be high in any practical sense. Context matters.


You cannot "make" elements save in extremely special cases such as beta decay. All elements heavier than carbon will beta decay. For instance iron has a half life of 2.6 million years. Radium has such a short half life that it would be EXTREMELY interesting to mining interests if Radium was detected anywhere because in order to even detect radium means that there had to be extremely large amounts.

Radium decays to Radon which is a gas (and normally escapes from radium deposits) and lead. Lead and Radium are both marketable commodities. If someone says that Radium was detected they had damn well better show mining in the area or they are lying through their teeth.
19-12-2017 00:51
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(406)
...The geologic formations that contain oil and gas deposits also contain naturally-occurring radionuclides, which are referred to as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM):

Uranium and its decay products.
Thorium and decay products.
Radium and decay products.
Potassium-40.
Lead-210/Polonium-210.

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-wastes
19-12-2017 01:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5278)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Seems to me that "dangerous levels of radioactivity" comes only from the lips of that one moderator in the video from 2013. Don't know, but seems that "dangerous level" might an assumption. That one guy interviewed in the video didn't say dangerous level. He used a lot of loaded words, including something about the Loch Ness Monster, but didn't actually express anything more than fears.

Pennsylvania certainly didn't regulate fracking well enough initially and some operators got away with stuff that they wouldn't have in other states, but I don't think "dangerous radioactivity" has actually been shown.

That radium has been detected doesn't mean that much. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that with modern methods that all substances can be detected everywhere. How much always matters, have to show that. Not just say "high" either. Twice the average background amount would rate as "high" in some publications, but not be high in any practical sense. Context matters.


You cannot "make" elements save in extremely special cases such as beta decay.

Nobody is making claim that you can make elements. What are YOU talking about?
Wake wrote:
All elements heavier than carbon will beta decay.

So where do you suppose they all came from?
Wake wrote:
For instance iron has a half life of 2.6 million years.

So where do you figure the iron came from?
Wake wrote:
Radium has such a short half life that it would be EXTREMELY interesting to mining interests if Radium was detected anywhere because in order to even detect radium means that there had to be extremely large amounts.

Wrong. You can detect radium in very small amounts.
Wake wrote:
Radium decays to Radon which is a gas (and normally escapes from radium deposits) and lead.

Yup. You find it everywhere, too. Radon is also a chemical element.
Wake wrote:
Lead and Radium are both marketable commodities.

True. So is radon.
Wake wrote:
If someone says that Radium was detected they had damn well better show mining in the area or they are lying through their teeth.

WRONG. Radon, radium, and lead (especially lead) exist almost everywhere naturally in the soil. They are NOT in concentrations high enough to make mining profitable or even sensible.

Are you going to claim you come from a family of miners now?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-12-2017 01:42
19-12-2017 01:54
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(406)
... women sense my power, and they seek the life essence ...

19-12-2017 01:56
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
monckton wrote:
...The geologic formations that contain oil and gas deposits also contain naturally-occurring radionuclides, which are referred to as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM):

Uranium and its decay products.
Thorium and decay products.
Radium and decay products.
Potassium-40.
Lead-210/Polonium-210.

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-wastes


Sorry - Radium 226 is the only "natural" radium left upon the earth and its decay products is Radon. The half life of Radon is 3 1/2 days and it decays into Polonium.

Since Radium occurs at something like one part in 6.5 million of Uranium ANY detection of Radium would trigger a gold rush. So anyone that claims that they detected Radium from fracking is a frigging liar.
19-12-2017 02:01
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(406)
I am but the messenger.
Chum up and tell them.

https://www.facebook.com/EPA
19-12-2017 05:31
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(189)
Wake wrote:
.... All elements heavier than carbon will beta decay.....


In what universe?
19-12-2017 05:31
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(189)
Wake wrote:
.... All elements heavier than carbon will beta decay.....


In what universe?
19-12-2017 15:57
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:
.... All elements heavier than carbon will beta decay.....


In what universe?


In this one. Even iron will beta decay though it has a half life of 2.6 million years. Nothing is permanent in this universe and it attempts to resolve itself back to it's constituent components of hydrogen and helium.
19-12-2017 16:53
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(189)
Wake wrote:

....In this one. Even iron will beta decay though it has a half life of 2.6 million years.....


So you view the list of stable isotopes at the below link as fake?
http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/StableIsotopes.html
19-12-2017 17:13
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....In this one. Even iron will beta decay though it has a half life of 2.6 million years.....


So you view the list of stable isotopes at the below link as fake?
http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/StableIsotopes.html


The problem is that there is a thing called a "belt of stability" of heavier elements with N-Z ratios of 1.5:1. Whether this stability is real or not is unknown since there is so much energy pumped around this solar system that cosmic rays etc. can unbalance these elements through N losses.

The question remains - why is the universe almost entirely hydrogen and helium? One side says that this is the remains of the Big Bang but we now have sufficient information of the motions of the universe to suggest that we live in an infinite universe and not one with a beginning and end. If this is so there must be a mechanism for reverting all elements back to hydrogen.
19-12-2017 18:45
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(189)
Wake wrote:

....The problem is that there is a thing called a "belt of stability" ..... reverting all elements back to hydrogen.


None of that addresses my previous question about the stable isotope list.

None of that supports your previous statement that "all elements heaver than carbon will beta decay."
19-12-2017 18:46
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....The problem is that there is a thing called a "belt of stability" ..... reverting all elements back to hydrogen.


None of that addresses my previous question about the stable isotope list.

None of that supports your previous statement that "all elements heaver than carbon will beta decay."


OK, you think that the universe is fixed in time.
19-12-2017 21:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5278)
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
...The geologic formations that contain oil and gas deposits also contain naturally-occurring radionuclides, which are referred to as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM):

Uranium and its decay products.
Thorium and decay products.
Radium and decay products.
Potassium-40.
Lead-210/Polonium-210.

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-wastes


Sorry - Radium 226 is the only "natural" radium left upon the earth and its decay products is Radon. The half life of Radon is 3 1/2 days and it decays into Polonium.

Since Radium occurs at something like one part in 6.5 million of Uranium ANY detection of Radium would trigger a gold rush. So anyone that claims that they detected Radium from fracking is a frigging liar.


So I guess all the uranium is gone, eh?

Why do you like to capitalize elements? Do you worship them somehow?


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2017 21:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5278)
monckton wrote:
I am but the messenger.
Chum up and tell them.

https://www.facebook.com/EPA


The EPA is hardly a usable reference. They're a propaganda distributor.

Radium and radon are easily detected, even at levels far lower than that where mining is profitable. Wake is full of shit, like usual.

There is one problem with the EPA's position. While these particles can be detected in oil wells, and in places near oil wells, it can be detected far away from any oil well as well. Fracking is not causing radium or radon to appear.


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2017 22:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5278)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....In this one. Even iron will beta decay though it has a half life of 2.6 million years.....


So you view the list of stable isotopes at the below link as fake?
http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/StableIsotopes.html


The problem is that there is a thing called a "belt of stability" of heavier elements with N-Z ratios of 1.5:1. Whether this stability is real or not is unknown since there is so much energy pumped around this solar system that cosmic rays etc. can unbalance these elements through N losses.

The question remains - why is the universe almost entirely hydrogen and helium?

It's not.
Wake wrote:
One side says that this is the remains of the Big Bang but we now have sufficient information of the motions of the universe to suggest that we live in an infinite universe and not one with a beginning and end.

We don't know what happened.
Wake wrote:
If this is so there must be a mechanism for reverting all elements back to hydrogen.

Why?


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2017 22:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5278)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....The problem is that there is a thing called a "belt of stability" ..... reverting all elements back to hydrogen.


None of that addresses my previous question about the stable isotope list.

None of that supports your previous statement that "all elements heaver than carbon will beta decay."


OK, you think that the universe is fixed in time.


Do you even know what 'time' is?

How can you say an infinite universe is fixed or not fixed in anything?


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2017 22:26
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
...The geologic formations that contain oil and gas deposits also contain naturally-occurring radionuclides, which are referred to as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM):

Uranium and its decay products.
Thorium and decay products.
Radium and decay products.
Potassium-40.
Lead-210/Polonium-210.

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-wastes


Sorry - Radium 226 is the only "natural" radium left upon the earth and its decay products is Radon. The half life of Radon is 3 1/2 days and it decays into Polonium.

Since Radium occurs at something like one part in 6.5 million of Uranium ANY detection of Radium would trigger a gold rush. So anyone that claims that they detected Radium from fracking is a frigging liar.


So I guess all the uranium is gone, eh?

Why do you like to capitalize elements? Do you worship them somehow?


Most people that have textbooks could look it up and see that:

1) The half life of Uranium is 4.5 Billion years.
2) That the percentage of the Earth's crust that is uranium is so small as to be nearly invisible. 16 x 10^-14%
3) When you are speaking of a specific element you are supposed to use a proper noun. This is apparently another point beyond your understanding.

The latest theories of the universe is that the motions of the galaxies in the Universe do not support the Big Bang theory. Instead there are several "infinite universe" theories being developed.

If there is an infinite universe there is something extremely incorrect with the amount of Hydrogen present. Why don't you explain to us why that would be since you are the world's greatest scientist.
19-12-2017 22:32
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....In this one. Even iron will beta decay though it has a half life of 2.6 million years.....


So you view the list of stable isotopes at the below link as fake?
http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/StableIsotopes.html


The problem is that there is a thing called a "belt of stability" of heavier elements with N-Z ratios of 1.5:1. Whether this stability is real or not is unknown since there is so much energy pumped around this solar system that cosmic rays etc. can unbalance these elements through N losses.

The question remains - why is the universe almost entirely hydrogen and helium?

It's not.
Wake wrote:
One side says that this is the remains of the Big Bang but we now have sufficient information of the motions of the universe to suggest that we live in an infinite universe and not one with a beginning and end.

We don't know what happened.
Wake wrote:
If this is so there must be a mechanism for reverting all elements back to hydrogen.

Why?


OK, then;

1) What percentage of the universe is hydrogen?
2) So you believe that God said, "Let there be light" and there was?
3) I'm waiting for your answer to 1).

You make diarrhea look clean.
19-12-2017 23:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5278)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
...The geologic formations that contain oil and gas deposits also contain naturally-occurring radionuclides, which are referred to as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM):

Uranium and its decay products.
Thorium and decay products.
Radium and decay products.
Potassium-40.
Lead-210/Polonium-210.

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-wastes


Sorry - Radium 226 is the only "natural" radium left upon the earth and its decay products is Radon. The half life of Radon is 3 1/2 days and it decays into Polonium.

Since Radium occurs at something like one part in 6.5 million of Uranium ANY detection of Radium would trigger a gold rush. So anyone that claims that they detected Radium from fracking is a frigging liar.


So I guess all the uranium is gone, eh?

Why do you like to capitalize elements? Do you worship them somehow?


Most people that have textbooks could look it up and see that:

1) The half life of Uranium is 4.5 Billion years.

Then why can we mine and use uranium? Are you saying the entire universe is much less than 4.5 billion years? (billion is not capitalized either.)
Wake wrote:
2) That the percentage of the Earth's crust that is uranium is so small as to be nearly invisible. 16 x 10^-14%

Then how we mine it?
Wake wrote:
3) When you are speaking of a specific element you are supposed to use a proper noun. This is apparently another point beyond your understanding.

A chemical element is not a proper noun. It just a normal, every ol' noun.
Wake wrote:
The latest theories of the universe is that the motions of the galaxies in the Universe do not support the Big Bang theory. Instead there are several "infinite universe" theories being developed.

The 'latest' theories?? The idea of an infinite universe that has always been there is certainly not new!

None of it is science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Science has no theories about past unobserved events.

Any theory about the origins (or non-origins) of the universe are just plain theories, and remain circular arguments. They are not science.

Wake wrote:
If there is an infinite universe there is something extremely incorrect with the amount of Hydrogen present.

In an infinite universe, how do you know how much hydrogen (or anything else) is present??
Wake wrote:
Why don't you explain to us why that would be since you are the world's greatest scientist.

Non-sequitur. Science isn't being discussed here.


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2017 23:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5278)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....In this one. Even iron will beta decay though it has a half life of 2.6 million years.....


So you view the list of stable isotopes at the below link as fake?
http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/StableIsotopes.html


The problem is that there is a thing called a "belt of stability" of heavier elements with N-Z ratios of 1.5:1. Whether this stability is real or not is unknown since there is so much energy pumped around this solar system that cosmic rays etc. can unbalance these elements through N losses.

The question remains - why is the universe almost entirely hydrogen and helium?

It's not.
Wake wrote:
One side says that this is the remains of the Big Bang but we now have sufficient information of the motions of the universe to suggest that we live in an infinite universe and not one with a beginning and end.

We don't know what happened.
Wake wrote:
If this is so there must be a mechanism for reverting all elements back to hydrogen.

Why?


OK, then;

1) What percentage of the universe is hydrogen?
No one knows.
Wake wrote:
2) So you believe that God said, "Let there be light" and there was?
Irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
3) I'm waiting for your answer to 1).
...deleted Mantra 1...

So...3) and 1) are the same question. Both are answered.


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2017 23:13
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(189)
Wake wrote:

....OK, you think that the universe is fixed in time.


Again, that doesn't address my previous question about the stable isotope list.

Nor, again, does it support your assertion that "all elements heaver than carbon will beta decay."


Examining that statement "all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay" suggests that you think oxygen 16 would beta decay (everything I've read or heard before yesterday says oxygen 16 is stable). With standard beta decay an electron is emitted from the nucleus, so conserving charge and mass, the resulting nucleus will have one less neutron and one more proton. Had eight each of protons and neutrons, goes to 9 and 7. That'd result in fluorine-16. Looking up the half-life of fluorine 16, it's about 10^-22 seconds, decaying by ejecting a proton (which should yield oxygen 15.) But you said that all elements heaver than carbon beta decay, so a supposed standard beta decay of fluorine would again, conserving charge, up the atomic number by one, one less neutron and one more proton, resulting in neon 16 (half life similar to fluorine 16). If you keep beta decaying you keep increasing atomic number. the element with atomic number 16 is sulfur, so sulfur 16 would have 16 protons and no neutrons. If we beta decayed that....I think we're off into imaginary numbers here.

Maybe you didn't mean standard beta decay, beta minus involving the nucleus ejecting an electron. Beta plus decay can happen, does happen in nature in the case of potassium 40, the nucleus ejecting a positron, the atomic number decreasing. It beta plus decay happened to oxygen 16 you'd end up with nitrogen 16. Looking that up, the halflife of nitrogen 16 is about seven seconds, beta minus decaying.

You said "all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay."
Might you have meant "some isotopes of all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay?"
19-12-2017 23:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5278)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....OK, you think that the universe is fixed in time.


Again, that doesn't address my previous question about the stable isotope list.

Nor, again, does it support your assertion that "all elements heaver than carbon will beta decay."


Examining that statement "all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay" suggests that you think oxygen 16 would beta decay (everything I've read or heard before yesterday says oxygen 16 is stable). With standard beta decay an electron is emitted from the nucleus, so conserving charge and mass, the resulting nucleus will have one less neutron and one more proton. Had eight each of protons and neutrons, goes to 9 and 7. That'd result in fluorine-16. Looking up the half-life of fluorine 16, it's about 10^-22 seconds, decaying by ejecting a proton (which should yield oxygen 15.) But you said that all elements heaver than carbon beta decay, so a supposed standard beta decay of fluorine would again, conserving charge, up the atomic number by one, one less neutron and one more proton, resulting in neon 16 (half life similar to fluorine 16). If you keep beta decaying you keep increasing atomic number. the element with atomic number 16 is sulfur, so sulfur 16 would have 16 protons and no neutrons. If we beta decayed that....I think we're off into imaginary numbers here.

Maybe you didn't mean standard beta decay, beta minus involving the nucleus ejecting an electron. Beta plus decay can happen, does happen in nature in the case of potassium 40, the nucleus ejecting a positron, the atomic number decreasing. It beta plus decay happened to oxygen 16 you'd end up with nitrogen 16. Looking that up, the halflife of nitrogen 16 is about seven seconds, beta minus decaying.

You said "all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay."
Might you have meant "some isotopes of all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay?"


If you try to follow his argument that the universe is infinite, there should be no elements higher than carbon ever found.

Or you could try to follow his argument that the universe is NOT infinite, and is much less than 4.5 billion years old.

He's in a paradox of his own making.


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2017 23:22
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
...The geologic formations that contain oil and gas deposits also contain naturally-occurring radionuclides, which are referred to as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM):

Uranium and its decay products.
Thorium and decay products.
Radium and decay products.
Potassium-40.
Lead-210/Polonium-210.

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-wastes


Sorry - Radium 226 is the only "natural" radium left upon the earth and its decay products is Radon. The half life of Radon is 3 1/2 days and it decays into Polonium.

Since Radium occurs at something like one part in 6.5 million of Uranium ANY detection of Radium would trigger a gold rush. So anyone that claims that they detected Radium from fracking is a frigging liar.


So I guess all the uranium is gone, eh?

Why do you like to capitalize elements? Do you worship them somehow?


Most people that have textbooks could look it up and see that:

1) The half life of Uranium is 4.5 Billion years.

Then why can we mine and use uranium? Are you saying the entire universe is much less than 4.5 billion years? (billion is not capitalized either.)
Wake wrote:
2) That the percentage of the Earth's crust that is uranium is so small as to be nearly invisible. 16 x 10^-14%

Then how we mine it?
Wake wrote:
3) When you are speaking of a specific element you are supposed to use a proper noun. This is apparently another point beyond your understanding.

A chemical element is not a proper noun. It just a normal, every ol' noun.
Wake wrote:
The latest theories of the universe is that the motions of the galaxies in the Universe do not support the Big Bang theory. Instead there are several "infinite universe" theories being developed.

The 'latest' theories?? The idea of an infinite universe that has always been there is certainly not new!

None of it is science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Science has no theories about past unobserved events.

Any theory about the origins (or non-origins) of the universe are just plain theories, and remain circular arguments. They are not science.

Wake wrote:
If there is an infinite universe there is something extremely incorrect with the amount of Hydrogen present.

In an infinite universe, how do you know how much hydrogen (or anything else) is present??
Wake wrote:
Why don't you explain to us why that would be since you are the world's greatest scientist.

Non-sequitur. Science isn't being discussed here.


I especially like your "how do we mine it". That demonstrates a level of ignorance so great that it even dwarf's your claims that the Central Valley of California is a desert. Or that rice is an aquatic plant.

Now tell us the one about where "God said, "Let there be light"" and there was.
19-12-2017 23:29
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....OK, you think that the universe is fixed in time.


Again, that doesn't address my previous question about the stable isotope list.

Nor, again, does it support your assertion that "all elements heaver than carbon will beta decay."


Examining that statement "all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay" suggests that you think oxygen 16 would beta decay (everything I've read or heard before yesterday says oxygen 16 is stable). With standard beta decay an electron is emitted from the nucleus, so conserving charge and mass, the resulting nucleus will have one less neutron and one more proton. Had eight each of protons and neutrons, goes to 9 and 7. That'd result in fluorine-16. Looking up the half-life of fluorine 16, it's about 10^-22 seconds, decaying by ejecting a proton (which should yield oxygen 15.) But you said that all elements heaver than carbon beta decay, so a supposed standard beta decay of fluorine would again, conserving charge, up the atomic number by one, one less neutron and one more proton, resulting in neon 16 (half life similar to fluorine 16). If you keep beta decaying you keep increasing atomic number. the element with atomic number 16 is sulfur, so sulfur 16 would have 16 protons and no neutrons. If we beta decayed that....I think we're off into imaginary numbers here.

Maybe you didn't mean standard beta decay, beta minus involving the nucleus ejecting an electron. Beta plus decay can happen, does happen in nature in the case of potassium 40, the nucleus ejecting a positron, the atomic number decreasing. It beta plus decay happened to oxygen 16 you'd end up with nitrogen 16. Looking that up, the halflife of nitrogen 16 is about seven seconds, beta minus decaying.

You said "all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay."
Might you have meant "some isotopes of all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay?"


If you try to follow his argument that the universe is infinite, there should be no elements higher than carbon ever found.

Or you could try to follow his argument that the universe is NOT infinite, and is much less than 4.5 billion years old.

He's in a paradox of his own making.


You can't even FOLLOW the discussion let alone make the slightest learned comment about it.

The Universe is composed of 75% hydrogen and almost 25% helium. All other elements are of vanishingly small percentages of a percent.

The only way they can tell the apparent age of the universe is by that high percentage of helium.

Since you are this great scientist why don't you tell us all about how that would be done?
19-12-2017 23:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5278)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....OK, you think that the universe is fixed in time.


Again, that doesn't address my previous question about the stable isotope list.

Nor, again, does it support your assertion that "all elements heaver than carbon will beta decay."


Examining that statement "all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay" suggests that you think oxygen 16 would beta decay (everything I've read or heard before yesterday says oxygen 16 is stable). With standard beta decay an electron is emitted from the nucleus, so conserving charge and mass, the resulting nucleus will have one less neutron and one more proton. Had eight each of protons and neutrons, goes to 9 and 7. That'd result in fluorine-16. Looking up the half-life of fluorine 16, it's about 10^-22 seconds, decaying by ejecting a proton (which should yield oxygen 15.) But you said that all elements heaver than carbon beta decay, so a supposed standard beta decay of fluorine would again, conserving charge, up the atomic number by one, one less neutron and one more proton, resulting in neon 16 (half life similar to fluorine 16). If you keep beta decaying you keep increasing atomic number. the element with atomic number 16 is sulfur, so sulfur 16 would have 16 protons and no neutrons. If we beta decayed that....I think we're off into imaginary numbers here.

Maybe you didn't mean standard beta decay, beta minus involving the nucleus ejecting an electron. Beta plus decay can happen, does happen in nature in the case of potassium 40, the nucleus ejecting a positron, the atomic number decreasing. It beta plus decay happened to oxygen 16 you'd end up with nitrogen 16. Looking that up, the halflife of nitrogen 16 is about seven seconds, beta minus decaying.

You said "all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay."
Might you have meant "some isotopes of all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay?"


If you try to follow his argument that the universe is infinite, there should be no elements higher than carbon ever found.

Or you could try to follow his argument that the universe is NOT infinite, and is much less than 4.5 billion years old.

He's in a paradox of his own making.


You can't even FOLLOW the discussion let alone make the slightest learned comment about it.

The Universe is composed of 75% hydrogen and almost 25% helium. All other elements are of vanishingly small percentages of a percent.

You don't know that. The universe is infinite.
Wake wrote:
The only way they can tell the apparent age of the universe is by that high percentage of helium.

You don't know that. You don't know what's in the universe.
Wake wrote:
Since you are this great scientist why don't you tell us all about how that would be done?

It can't.


The Parrot Killer
20-12-2017 02:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:

....OK, you think that the universe is fixed in time.


Again, that doesn't address my previous question about the stable isotope list.

Nor, again, does it support your assertion that "all elements heaver than carbon will beta decay."


Examining that statement "all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay" suggests that you think oxygen 16 would beta decay (everything I've read or heard before yesterday says oxygen 16 is stable). With standard beta decay an electron is emitted from the nucleus, so conserving charge and mass, the resulting nucleus will have one less neutron and one more proton. Had eight each of protons and neutrons, goes to 9 and 7. That'd result in fluorine-16. Looking up the half-life of fluorine 16, it's about 10^-22 seconds, decaying by ejecting a proton (which should yield oxygen 15.) But you said that all elements heaver than carbon beta decay, so a supposed standard beta decay of fluorine would again, conserving charge, up the atomic number by one, one less neutron and one more proton, resulting in neon 16 (half life similar to fluorine 16). If you keep beta decaying you keep increasing atomic number. the element with atomic number 16 is sulfur, so sulfur 16 would have 16 protons and no neutrons. If we beta decayed that....I think we're off into imaginary numbers here.

Maybe you didn't mean standard beta decay, beta minus involving the nucleus ejecting an electron. Beta plus decay can happen, does happen in nature in the case of potassium 40, the nucleus ejecting a positron, the atomic number decreasing. It beta plus decay happened to oxygen 16 you'd end up with nitrogen 16. Looking that up, the halflife of nitrogen 16 is about seven seconds, beta minus decaying.

You said "all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay."
Might you have meant "some isotopes of all elements heavier than carbon will beta decay?"


It takes on that appearance. But if such were the case there wouldn't be any short lived isotopes left now would there?
20-12-2017 04:58
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(189)
Wake wrote:
......But if such were the case there wouldn't be any short lived isotopes left now would there?


I don't understand the question.

Regarding the occurrence of short lived isotopes in nature, either daughter products of the decay of longer lived isotopes or they're cosmic ray interaction products.
The uranium 238 decay chain includes several short lived isotopes and a couple of medium half-life isotopes on the way to a stable lead 206.
There are about two dozen radioisotopes listed as being produced by cosmic rays. Carbon 14 is pretty well known, but see this for others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogenic_nuclide

Others produced artificially in nuclear reactors, some on purpose and some as unwanted byproducts, and by bombs and many in the lab, in accelerators.
20-12-2017 16:04
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:
......But if such were the case there wouldn't be any short lived isotopes left now would there?


I don't understand the question.


Which is the problem isn't it? You can get together with nightmare and agree with him that the matter in the universe isn't almost entirely hydrogen and helium.
20-12-2017 18:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5278)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:
......But if such were the case there wouldn't be any short lived isotopes left now would there?


I don't understand the question.


Which is the problem isn't it? You can get together with nightmare and agree with him that the matter in the universe isn't almost entirely hydrogen and helium.


A religious statement. You don't know what is in the universe.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Study Reveals Dangerous Levels of Radioactivity Near Fracking Waste Sites - 7 mins:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
'Carbon bubble' could spark global financial crisis, study warns510-06-2018 12:54
Oklahoma Earthquakes And The Rise In Fracking1021-12-2017 19:30
Barrow, Alaska: The Leading Edge Of Climate Change - 7 mins221-12-2017 18:56
The case against man made climate change, condensed - 23 mins121-12-2017 18:50
Alaska: State of Emergency - 20 mins919-12-2017 21:52
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact