Pub #brownchem: @alpha137
*** #brownchem :End of /NAMES list.
*** Mode is +
*** Channel started at Thursday, August 27, 1998 2:32:12 PM
*** lizzk (gloworm4@174-121-120.ipt.aol.com) has joined channel #brownchem
alpha137: hello
lizzk: Hello, sorry I am late, I had to change my schedule, but it took forever, there was such a long line.
alpha137: That us par for the course!
lizzk: yes, unfortunately
alpha137: pun intended
lizzk: ha ha, I didn't even think of it until you said that
alpha137: Now, back to acid rain, etc.
lizzk: ok
alpha137: We know that the origin of acid rain is from burning sulfur to produce SO_2 and also oxides of nitrogen + some chemistry in the atmosphere.
lizzk: yes
alpha137: Are there any other sources besides what people do?
lizzk: yes, I think that natural things like volcanoes, can cause some acid rain, and also the earth naturally lets off a certain amount of SO_x and NO_x just in normal processes
alpha137: Do we have a measure of these natural sources of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides?
lizzk: IN the book it talked about the natural emmission and then what humans c aused to be in the atomosphere, so there must be some way of measuring it
alpha137: I think there is a list in Table 6.1.
lizzk: Probably a computer model, or an extrapolation based on known data
lizzk: yes
alpha137: How do we answer the Russ Linbaugh's of the world since there are natural sources of acid rain?
lizzk: You have to compare what is natural with what is anthropogenic, and the degree
lizzk: I mean, if humans are letting out more than the earth, that is probably not good, especially if it is a lot more\
lizzk: Plus, it is sort of like that old I Love Lucy where she is working in the chocolate factory, when the chocolates come slower, she is fine and she can keep up with them, just as when the sox and nox are low the earth can keep up with them and clean them out and not have bad results, but when the speed of the chocolates increases (or the ammount of sox and nox increases by a lot) Lucy couldn't keep up, and neither can nature
lizzk: maybe that isn't the most scientific explination and analogy, but it is a valid one
lizzk: hello?
alpha137: sorry
lizzk: thats ok
lizzk: i was just a little confused
alpha137: According to Table 6.1 humans contribute 79% of the total SO_x
lizzk: yes, that is a lot
alpha137: Your Lucy answer is actually what I was after.
lizzk: ok
alpha137: Again, we have this dynamic system and when we add too much too fast the system (earth) cannot respond, or get to equilibrium quickly.
lizzk: yes
alpha137: Is there a difference between carbon dioxide (the global warming problem) and SO_x/NO_x (acid rain problem)?
alpha137: From earth's point of view, that is.
lizzk: not really, they are both about overloading a system, which causes the system to go wrong and bad things (for us) happen- too much of a good thing
alpha137: I am just trying to thinnk about this. One of the differences is that the carbon dioxide becomes part of an existing system (limestone, etc. - the carbon cycle) while sulfur and nitrogen oxides are not???
lizzk: but the sulfur and nitrogen oxides become a sort of part of the precipitation system,
lizzk: not in exactlu the same sense of course
lizzk: but they are not nearly as essential to life as CO_2
alpha137: There must be a "sulfur cycle" and a "nitrogen cycle" and they must be incorporated in natural compounds.
lizzk: yes,
alpha137: It just seems that the effects are more damaging, at least in a regional sense.
lizzk: yes, but perhaps the damages of acid rain are more damaging in the short run, but if GW contines, it seems that might be almost a bigger problem
alpha137: How do we tell which is the larger problem, global warming, or acid rain?
lizzk: I don't know, they both seem pretty bad to me
alpha137: The globe has huge amounts of coal, by the way.
lizzk: and of course, we can't really know what will happen in the future
alpha137: Burning that coal produces not only carbon dioxide, but also sulfur oxides.
lizzk: yes, and that is what we have been doing
alpha137: We have discussed some of the ways to deal with the global warming problem, what do we do about acid rain?
lizzk: I think the solution has to be to lower emmissions, to prevent it in the future, there isn;t much we can do now to neutralize the acid or that sort of thing
alpha137: How do we lower the emission of sulfur compounds?
lizzk: well, short of stopping burning coal etc, you could clean the coal before it is burned, or you could clean the fumes released
lizzk: to remove sulfur oxides
alpha137: The text says that removal of sulfur from coal from stack gas, in one method, produces CaSO_4(s) what do we do with that?
alpha137: Also, the text over simplifies coal. Coal is a complex mixture containing some heavy elements like vanadium. What do we do with those?
lizzk: I am not sure
lizzk: to both,
alpha137: At least CaSO_4 (s) is not nuclear waste.
lizzk: but if the elements like vanadium don';t hurth the atomposphere, let them stay there
lizzk: can it be used to any practical purpose?
alpha137: Recycling is a possibility, but I have this feeling that getting the heavy elements out of the CaSO_4 would be expensive.
lizzk: who knows, maybe it could be used as a new insulator for houses, or building material if it is strong? I don't know, the best situation would be to use it for something, even if it is like pencils
lizzk: but if you have to clean it and process it, then people might not want that
alpha137: I bet that when the stack gases are treated not only do sulfur oxides become removed, but all sorts of other stuff as well.
lizzk: yes, so they should be treated for everyones sake, but what to do with the leftover sludge
alpha137: Since you mention the word "sludge" we have a BIG sludge problem.
lizzk: yes
alpha137: In sewage treatment plants, after bacteria have done their job and all the processing is completed there is sludge left over.
alpha137: This sludge is almost like a new element of nature.
lizzk: yes,
alpha137: The treatment plant may burn it to reduce the volume and get rid of all organic matter.
lizzk: I think it should be used for something instead of being dumped or put into a landfil eit
lizzk: eit means etc
alpha137: In Rhode Island the residue is treated like a toxic waste-which it is.
alpha137: Sludge, containing organic stuff, can be used as ferterlizer.
lizzk: Its probably the same here, but when they are burning it, do they at least use that as a source of energy?
alpha137: However, sludge contains heavy metals that are toxic.
lizzk: ok
alpha137: That means that there are limits to the amount of sludge that can be applied to fields.
lizzk: yes, especially if something is going to eat what grows in the feilds,
lizzk: and that is normally the case
alpha137: Usually, waste burning does not result in energy conservation as it should.
lizzk: thats too bad
alpha137: On the other hand, there are dumps that do collect the methane produced and this is used as a fuel.
lizzk: that is good, a start
lizzk: my mom used to buy a fertilizer that was made from the sewer system sludge, but she just used it on the grass
lizzk: but it smelled terrrible
lizzk: (not that surprising considering where it is from)
alpha137: So, what is going on here? We are producing acid rain that is messing up lakes and streams, especially on the east coast, and we are producing CO_2 that is warming the atm and we are producing too much sewage, etc.
lizzk: we are a very wasteful country
alpha137: By the way, there should be no reason that fertilizer should really stink.
lizzk: It only smelled right after the first rain
lizzk: so she says
alpha137: Millorganite was such a fertilizer from Millwalkee.
lizzk: that was it
alpha137: What is your opinion about what we should do with these problems?
lizzk: I think that we should cut down on our energy useage, as far as coal goes at least, and we do use a lot of everything
alpha137: OK, how do we get that to happen?
lizzk: Maybe they can discover a "cleaner" way to produce energy, and then if people are aware of the consequences of what we are doing right now, then perhaps people won;'t mind a change
lizzk: SO there are two main branches, the science part, and the public campaign part, but the two are intertwineed
lizzk: The scientests must be able to talk and the campaingn people to give real science and have an intellegint discussion about the topic
alpha137: We discussed the fuel cell car as an energy efficient thing. Heat pumps may also get us closer to the theromdynamic efficiency. These come from science.
lizzk: yes
alpha137: Why would people use these?
lizzk: There must be some incentive, like they are better for peoples health, or fpor the environment, but they must be given a reason to care aout the enviro. more than keeping their lives the same,
lizzk: that has to be a big reason-
lizzk: But we have real reasons reading what is going to happen is enough to scare me
alpha137: I think that if the science is reasonable that thinking people, and I include some in the Congress in this group, will act responsibly.
lizzk: yes
lizzk: me too
alpha137: I also do not think that the total scientific answers are necessary. Indeed, to get to that point will mean we have missed the opportunity to deal with these problems.
alpha137: I meant to say are NOT necessary.
lizzk: I agree,
alpha137: I guess I said it OK.
lizzk: there will have to be some guess work,
lizzk: BUt trends can be very effective
lizzk: in convincing people
alpha137: In our disucssions and readings I believe that we know enough to really start to deal with not only global warming, but also acid rain.
lizzk: I agree completely,
alpha137: I think that what we have been saying is that we need to do the science and then we need to convey that science to people and government.
lizzk: yes, that is what I think
lizzk: I think that the information needs to be user-friendly, not everyone understands the workings of thermodynamics and a system at equilibrium, and also a good charismatic leader,
lizzk: or at least a leader of some sort
alpha137: If we have enough good science then we should be able to deal with the Russ Liimbaugh's, and the industry people, at least to reduce their effectiveness.
alpha137: You are certainly right that the manner in which the explainations are given is important. Too technical and you lose people in seconds. The explainations must be graphical, sort of sensational, but correct.
lizzk: yes, deffinintly, now i think people are hiding behind their critisizm of the problems because they don' want to face them and the changes that will have to occur to deal with these issues
lizzk: and have enough science so that the scientiest wont scoff
alpha137: These kinds of explainations are not easy to produce!
lizzk: yes, it would have to be a delicate balance,
alpha137: I was once asked, by the Lung Association, to explain what 60 micrograms per cubic meter meant when talking about particulate air pollution.
alpha137: This is what I came up with.
lizzk: but then, they would fit the occasion, if it is in a science report or magazine, you have different info from a commercial on TV
alpha137: Imagine breathing in a human hair 6 feet in length, but cut up into very tiny pieces. That is 60 micrograms per cubic meter. Everyone gasped!
lizzk: oh my goodness, that is so good, is that per breath?!
alpha137: They could visualize breathing in a 6 foot hair! And they did not like the idea.
alpha137: Well, it was per day.
lizzk: oh, that is still not a happy thought
lizzk: is that the pollution that we have on a regular basis?
alpha137: I have to go and get a free lunch now. An advisors meeting. I would like to discuss Lake Onondaga next Tues at 9:30 am. Is that OK?
lizzk: ok, see you then
lizzk: Thank you, have a nice weekend
lizzk: bye
alpha137: The 60 micrograms per cubic meter is/or was the national particulate std.
alpha137: bye
lizzk: thats terrible!
lizzk: bye
*** Signoff: lizzk (Leaving)