Hello, Code. I have posted the link for a scholarly paper linking the presence of atmospheric releases of Krypton-85 to storm activity.
Will either get the link and .pdf source from my library, or will try to re-post it. Too bad we don't have ready access to archived material. Personally try to save these links.
There was a good one that was easily found in 2011. Posted the link several times in 2011-2012.
Hopefully will be able to retrieve the entire article as it was published w/o restriction in the past.
It's probably on my desktop computer but will try to find it for you. The main focus of the article I found (and likely a few others here way back when) was the effect of Krypton 85 on storm activity, specifically.
Don't recall seeing any inference or statement though in relation to the formation of hurricanes. Don't know if that's what Dr. A. might have said….
Here is more here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=metereological+consequences+of+k-85&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I also have a file which I have posted previously on enenews.com, but I'm really busy right now. The thorium industry wants to allow more K-85 into the atmosphere because they can't operate on the present EPA restrictions.
There was a letter to the EPA saying that they needed to have the restrictions lifted for allowable K-85.
The sad thing is that they will keep reprocessing uranium, etc., and using nuclear technology until a storm will come along and melt down all the reactors.
Trump is wanting small nuclear "tactical" weapons. The destruction of the earth is. in my opinion, almost complete because too many politicians around the world have no knowledge of the horrible consequences of radiation to all life.
-
stock, for understanding the effect of krypton, read this paper on the influence of cosmic rays modulated by the suns magnetic field on earths climate via nucleation of low level clouds. The main thing required to understand the role of krypton is to compare the ionization potential of cosmic rays, and krypton, maybe look at carbon 14 and radon too. This SHOULD give a relative perspective.
You would like the paper because most of the climate change observed can be ascribed to modulation of cosmic rays by the sun and subsequent variation in cloud cover which has forcing potential of 20 to 25 watts/m2
http://www.earthscienceindia.info/pdfupload/tech_pdf-9.pdf
solar effect on cloud nucleation at lower altitudes is an order of magnitude larger than previously assumed
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/4/045004/pdf
another interesting paper on the association of cosmic ray nucleation of clouds and its effect on climate
http://insa.nic.in/writereaddata/UpLoadedFiles/PINSA/2017_Art41.pdf
My first inclination would be to think krypton could cool the climate. But the situation is complex with latent heat moving with winds and the time delay brought by nucleation changing the regions where energy flow and shading may occur. Clouds over mid latitudes have a different effect on climate than at the poles
Animal manure works only because the animals have eaten plants, but with a huge loss of the original energy by the time it has been used to fertilize fields. Modern farming also uses fossil fuels which also is a waste of energy and destructive to the environment.
Winger; et al. (2005). "A new compilation of the atmospheric 85krypton inventories from 1945 to 2000 and its evaluation in a global transport model". Jrnl of Envir Radioactivity. 80: 183–215. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.09.005.
Might be stuck w. Elsevier references & need to purchase the article. (It was avail. for free.) Linking to DOE Technical Paper from 1978; poss. the most credible source readily available. Some anti-nuclear critics link the presence of Krypton 85 to climate change. (That's a stretch & poss. a bogus argument). Full texr of paper avail. in .pdf format here:
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/7076284
Basically the hypothesis tested was: does presence of Kr-85 in the atmosphere alter the natural ionization background? Explores potential consequences of an altered electrical state of the atmosphere.
Estim. levels of atmospheric Kr-85:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-0982-6_26?no-access=true
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/1352231094900418
Article above discusses environmental radioactivity
air conductivity.
Report comment
-
This one might be the one discussing weather and climate effects:
Kollert, R. and Bitzin, M.: 1989, ‘Climatic Aspects of Radioactive Gases, in Particular Krypton-85’, Kollert-Donderer, Bremen.
(Will see if it's avail. w/o doing the "Google Scholar" bit.)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-0982-6_26
From this preview .pdf: As of publication date in 1989 (and things may have changed dramatically since then), the…
"estimated air load of Kr-85 is eight orders of magnitude larger than the natural Kr-85 radiation background of 100 nBq/m3 corresponding to a total natural Kr-85 inventory of 400 GBq (NCRP, 1975)…. This is the KR-95 inventory shown in Figure 1 as the natural background existing before 1945."
This is interesting, from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton-85
"However, as of 2009 the total amount in the atmosphere is estimated at 5500 PBq due to anthropogenic sources.[5] At the end of the year 2000, it was estimated to be 4800 PBq,[4] and in 1973, an estimated 1961 PBq (53 Megacuries).[6] The most important of these human sources is nuclear fuel reprocessing. Nuclear fission produces about three atoms of krypton-85 for every 1000 fissions; i.e. it has a fission yield of 0.3%.[7] Most or all of this krypton-85 is retained in the spent nuclear fuel rods; spent fuel on discharge from a reactor contains between 0.13-1.8 PBq/Mg of krypton-85…."
Stats from prior to 2011 and Fukushima accident.
Report comment
-
Code, what do you think of the following?
The following is interesting. "HoTaters" gets plastered all over the internet. Hmmn, in association with the alleged climate change effects of Kr-85. (Sigh.) Guess that happens if you comment a lot, and people talk (which they do).
The original post quoted is from an intelligent & thoughtful post from Horse, in response to one of our earlier discussions here re: Kr-85.
"RE: Krypton-85 & Climate – Horse – 03-24-2017
@ HoTaters, Noticed your interest in Kr-85 and extreme storms, one of my interests too.
Quote:Lescaudron, Pierre; Knight-Jadczyk, Laura (2014-05-22). Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection (The Secret History of the World) (Kindle Locations 2031-2035). Red Pill Press. Kindle Edition.
http://www.redpillpress.com/shop/earth-changes-human-cosmic-connection-secret-history-world-series-volume-3/
Nuclear plants exhibit similar properties. They emit ionizing radiation which ‘scrape away’ electrons from molecules, creating positive and negative ions. [307]
In the conductive plume, the negative ions are attracted to the top of the plume by the positive ionosphere, while the positive ions are attracted to the bottom of the plume by the Earth’s negative surface. The fact that nuclear plant plumes are mostly composed of water vapor, a good electric conductor, eases the ionic movement described above and the upward flow of free electrons from the ground to the top of the plume…."
Report comment
-
from comment by Horse and quotation, (cont.)
Very interesting!
"On April 18th, 2013 the LaSalle nuclear plant in Illinois experienced an unusual incident: two of its reactors shut down and a radioactive venting procedure was carried out when it was struck by lightning. However, from 1992 to 2003, U.S. nuclear plants were struck by lightning 66 times, yet none of those strikes caused equipment damage or radioactive leakage. [309]
[attachment=1179]
So, what really happened in LaSalle? Was the accident simply due to an insulator defect, as claimed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), [310] or was the source of this ‘lightning’ something out of the ordinary? Nuclear plants are very well protected with lightning prevention equipment, [311] but cometary discharges exhibit two major differences when compared to ‘normal’ lightning bolts: their polarity is reversed [312] and their intensity can be much higher. The steady increase in cometary activity may cause more such events in the near future."
From Horse:
"Good book with more on the Electric Universe theories, I bought the kindle version. Plumes of water vapor are a good conductor; Krypton is an even better conductor. Most lightning is negative but some lightning can be positive and 10X stronger than the negative. Krypton-85, with its 10.8 year half-life, wasn’t in the atmosphere until the Atomic Age…."
Report comment
-
Horse, cont.
"Bomb testing 60 years ago, most of it had beta decayed into stable rubidium. Industrial NPP releases have been steadily increasing as more were put online and numerous accidents along the way were dumping this in the lower atmosphere instead of blowing it up into the upper atmosphere where it would spend some time decaying before falling on our heads.
Fuku was four big accidents and fuel melt blobs are still in an uncontained and unknown state. In the early years I noticed lots of intense storms on the tepcams; fog, rain, and lightning. Remember the red lightning; that was positive lightning. As the plume spread over the northern hemisphere other areas began experiencing more extreme weather events. The plume acts as a radioactive cathode to deliver a stronger charge to ground. Charged particles from solar wind and upper atmospheric cometary dust loading find an amplified path to ground in the plume."
From personal observation (HoTaters), the atmospheric effects of the Fuku releases in March and April, 2011 were massive. We had rainouts in N. California of nearly Biblical proportions; massive storm cells such as I had NEVER seen. Everyone (inc. all the "old timers" 80-90 years old) said the storms were unprecedented.
So on some level, we may have to talk about anecdotal reports. But the link to the increased storm activity exists.
Just have to find that derned reference again!
Report comment
-
Code, what do you think of the discusson re: Kr-85, positive and negative lightning polarity, red lightning, Tepcam observations, and the presence of Kr-85 having a cathode-like effect?
I'm not up to speed on electrical energy and its behavior.
What do you make of this? You are better able to analyze the data in interpret it.
And Jebus, you, too, might understand this and be well qualified to comment.
Anyone else care to chime in?
My personal research on the weather in N. California and Oregon, parts of Washington State showed lots of heavy rain activity in March and April, 2011. Would have to check the rainfall data (precip. figures) for accurate info. I did check the rainfall for N. Cali. on the approximate date the plume might have made landfall after Reactor 3 detonated/got wrecked. There was a very intense rainstorm around Marysville and Yuba City the date the plume likely arrived. Wind and jet stream patterns showed the precip. for No. Calfornia was pushed into that area, where there was heavy rainfall.
Commenting on some of this pushes me back to trying to recapture data I'd studied back in 2011-2012. Some of the data is hard to find again.
Report comment
-
-
-
Wikipedia article cont.
"The average atmospheric concentration of krypton-85 was approximately 0.6 Bq/m3 in 1976, and has increased to approximately 1.3 Bq/m3 as of 2005.[4][10] These are approximate global average values; concentrations are higher locally around nuclear reprocessing facilities, and are generally higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere.
For wide-area atmospheric monitoring, krypton-85 is the best indicator for clandestine plutonium separations.
Krypton-85 releases increase the electrical conductivity of atmospheric air. Meteorological effects are expected to be stronger closer to the source of the emissions."
Wondering what accidents like WIPP, Hanford incidents, other, may have done to the total atmospheric loading.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6044655_Meteorological_Consequences_of_Atmospheric_Krypton-85
Can download abstract in Excel. Must join ResearchGate to get full article access (or find it somewhere else).
Majia is cited here:
http://caferadlab.com/printthread.php?tid=168
Majia cited the possible effect of the Fukushima accident on atmospheric Kr-85 levels.
Theres no cerified and validated physics model for kr85 which is chemically inert, influencing the atmosphere. This is an antinuke canard. The legitimate scientific community are not buying it. If you want to buy into it, that's your perogative. I think youll find its a nonstarter and you need not waste your time.
ReplyDeletehttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Krypton-85_and_climate_change
ReplyDeleteMaja's "research" isnt scientific and cites antinuke memes. The amount of Kr85 in the atmosphere is benign. I read her link and found it not credible. First off consider the sheer volume of the atmosphere. The Earth is very robust to Kr85 since 1. Its a minor fission product and 2. Gaseous fission products have escaped into the atmosphere due to the spontaneous fission of natural uranium since the beginning of time.
ReplyDeleteNow she is correct about one thing: our planet is radioactive- naturally.
The real thing she doesnt understand is the amout of raduoactivity introduced into the environment by man made activities the past 70 years is inconsequential to the total amount over the past 4 billion years.
Radioactivity is responsible for heating the Earths core. This has been geologically proven.
Mans fear of deminimus artificial radiation levels is illogical relative to natural.
Mt St Helens released more radioactive ash into the environment than all the above weapons tests combibed.
People dont realize that there are natural pathways of alpha, beta, gamma, even neutrons in our wnvironment.
Plutoium gets a bad rap becausw many think its purely artificial. Oklo showed that not to be true.
Anywhere there is narural U, there is trace amts of Pu from neutron capture from spontaneous fission in Uranium.
http://majiasblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/krypton-85-beta-decay-in-our-environment.html?m=1
Radiation is responsible for about half of the core heat of the earth, I did the calcs. The other half is, guess what happens when you spin large chunks of iron in a magnetic flux (think motor)...the earth is a huge motor. My work.
DeleteIts more than 50% for radiation heating. Your heatup model doesnt factor in energy balance. Write a paper that gets a peer review in a journal.
DeleteC'mon bro at least throw me a bone for the motor analogy that "science" has missed to this day.
Delete18 Oct 2015 Krypton-85 caferadlab.com/thread-168-post-496.html
ReplyDeleteLike I said, junk science.
Delete