Air quality

A massive fire of burning plastic
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-fire-firefighters-remain-blaze-8846937

Is not going to be good for air quality.

Fires at recycling centres are more frequent than we would like, and begs the question on recycling methods, as to whether it is really a good idea to collect all the plastic etc into one place and then let it burn.

It is to be hoped that the fire was accidental - otherwise there might well be questions asked?

I wouldn't worry too much regarding the air quality. T'is but a spittle-lick on a flea's bum when put against the fires still burning in Indonesia and Peru after ten years of accidental arson.

It isn't carbon from wood/waste burning that will be the problem. Volcano's produce billions of tons more each year. It is the waste products from oil and coal used world wide that pose the greatest threat - after comets, meteor's, aliens (of the third kind) and Cyril Smith.

Rivers of molten plastic and huge flames and plumes of black smoke do worry me a bit, if I am within a hundred miles of them, depending on which way the wind is blowing, and it can change.

These recycling dump fires are more frequent than they should be, quite often really, and quite toxic, something not right there.

However, it is difficult to engage the interest of the public in this, they can often be heard cheerfully singing

"I don't care if I do die, do die, do die,
Gonna stick my nose in the burning air
All the do die day."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tuu5YtkPIo

As they sort out paper, plastic and bottles into different containers.

I think the answer may lay in the soil. Oil/coal will slowly but surely become a redundant material as the world moves on to other forms of energy. Plastics likewise. They will be replaced with less obnoxious materials which will be recycled and stored in a less susceptible manner which will not form the dangerous situations as at present. We have to live with what we have - imperfection.
Not that we won't always. But hopefully less so. I blame the PC brigade myself. Wanting everything removed from under the carpets and exposed to the elements for torturous raptures. Let sleeping dogs lie or be prepared to accept the diabolical consequences and society's inevitable upheaval. What a world.

Henry Ford built cars of a plastic made of soya. Very strong apparently.

Anything that is less 'malignant' to the planets needs will suffice. Soya or green beans I don't care - unless of course they are needed to feed the billions that are coming.

It's always a bit worrying when a fire breaks out in a building used to store chemicals in a pharmaceutical factory and sends up a huge plume of black smoke.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/fire-next-etihad-campus-manchester-8985331

"According to Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, the fire was fueled by wooden pallets and unidentified chemicals."

OK then, just chemicals eh.

High air pollution alert for the UK, but rather worse down south. People are advised to stay away from main roads and avoid strenuous exercise. It can be strenuous exercise avoiding main roads,

And they busy themselves by worrying about smoking in public places?  Someone's having a laugh aren't they!

Law and regulation about tobacco smoking comes from a slightly different political direction, the ongoing battle between tobacco companies and health organisations.

Polluted air on larger, industrial scale has been with us since the industrial revolution. Attitudes to it come from that history. It's been accepted by governments, and populations induced to accept, that certain areas and populations will suffer air pollution to life-shortening levels, for economic and strategic reasons.

Pollution from industry and road traffic has been accepted for economic reasons, road traffic and chemicals = economic growth. Certain areas of UK, particularly north and midlands in WW2 were designated as high pollution zones, with the oil-based and other chemical industries for the war effort, the resulting loss of population accepted as war casualties.

With that background, acceptance of air pollution and patriotism were linked. Patriotism may have waned, but acceptance of air pollution has remained. The public still generally feel uncomfortable about complaining of air pollution, unfortunate, as it's increasingly a serious problem.

In the battle between 'air' quality and 'air' pollution I would maintain that the one cannot be divorced from the other without a change in our attitudes to travel. Either we give up traveling, by all mechanised methods, or we radically and quickly 'change' the mechanisation of those methods.
The biggest pollutant is, by far, the combustion engine and oil. Eradicate the oil fueled combustion engine and hey-presto half the worlds pollution disappears.  Go on -. I dare you.

A thinner poulation density and smarter housing, heating, transport and industry would be the answer. Experts in all that sort of stuff say nuclear power is the only practical way to cope with the sort of population density we have now.

And they are correct. Why does Iran want to pursue nuclear when it has all the oil it needs.
A. Because it wants to make bombs?
B. Because it wants a better, cleaner method of energy?
C. Because it wants the capacity to have a deterrent whereby it cannot be threatened by others?

I would suggest 'all' three reasons in order to bring itself into the mainstream of political filibustering on an international scale.

And why wouldn't they?

The argument for danger from natural causes - Iran sits astride a fault line - hasn't fazed them. The argument for decommissioning and eradication of waste hasn't fazed them. Ergo - they must have determined that the positives outweigh the negatives for the future of their country. Simples.

Iran has a lot more space and landmass to stretch itself out in than we do. We're more like Japan, a small, overcrowded group of islands offshore of a continent.

Logic says we should move to nuclear power for our energy needs, same as it did in Japan, the problem lies with the safety aspect, the technology is there, but safety depends on the politics and culture.

Nuclear power stations and railways have something in common when it comes to safety. Those who work in the industries have a very high opinion of their work, and tend to brush off accidents as someone elses fault. Accidents in nuclear power are devastating, the UK has a poor record.

Are we a society that is up to reliably controlling nuclear power? Think how many systems in the UK are 'not fit for purpouse'.

Russia, USA, Japan have all had nuclear power accidents, the same as us. The age of free electricity will have to wait until we develop a national culture of reliable competency, if that's ever going to happen.

 

cyfrifia wrote: Accidents in nuclear power are devastating, the UK has a poor record.

 

Actually, we have a pretty good safety record. Cherobyl and 3 Mile Island did not happen here, no Fukashima.

While there was a large issue at Winscale, compared to the issues with the USA defence piles, it was small and contained.

Quite correct johnb - and - any small accidents we did encounter came at a time when the industry was in its infancy at a time when we ourselves hadn't come to grasp the pitfalls or the appropriate technology in order to safeguard the outcomes. It's a different ball-game today.
Anyone who says that nuclear power is completely safe is a liar. No energy - no matter what kind can ever be absolutely safe from accident/stupidity where man is concerned. We do our best - and hope that in the main we move forward and survive. Perfection is an illusion and thus, if proffered, should be treated with the greatest of skepticism. Build the plants - we are already 30 years behind everyone else.

There have been just a few unfortunate incidents in the past with nuclear power in UK. The instinct of government and the industry has been to keep it quiet. That instinct, or culture is a problem.

Whether you think bigger and more nuclear power stations could be run safely depends on whether you think the country is going to the dogs and nothing is done properly, or, exactly the opposite and reliably so for the future.

If you are asking has this country been run by a bunch of self-serving selfish misfits for the past 50 years then of course it has- goes without saying. We all know that. Will the next 50 years be just as bad? Of course it will - unless the voting public give the indolent cretins a shot in the arse to change things. Are we seeing that process beginning at the moment? Possibly. It will take however a further 10 years (and 2 more general elections) for the self-serving cretins to realise things cannot go on the way they have been going. To ignore the electorate will, ultimately, produce big upheavals which nobody in their right minds wants. But will they see the signs in time - - - - -????

Europe seem in disarray about atomic power generation, the Japanese disaster caused upset, economic woes have delayed building projects. As things stand, atomic power can't solve our future energy needs without a clear and definite european agreement and plan, and there doesn't seem to be one.

Meanwhile, clean air to breathe should be recognised as a human right, industrial fires of chemicals, tyres and so on should attract more protest and fines.

I keep saying - - -it's the combustion engine that's at fault. We need to dump the present system of transport ASAP.

Atlas wrote:I keep saying - - -it's the combustion engine that's at fault. We need to dump the present system of transport ASAP.

And replace it with...??

Excellent question. Nothing on the market as yet that can replace it therefore - we continue as we have done for the last century - taking our chances and hopeful of the best. Air quality - worst place India followed closely by China. Asia will have to go through fifty years of lung disease (regardless of the smoking job) until the markets find viable alternative methods of propulsion and energy production. That's life. I know. I've been there. 

If the UK could make it's own decisions, or usefully co-operate with Europe, neither of which seem to be 'on the cards', a reasonable argument could be made to divert the cost of trident into the safe production of nuclear power electricity. In todays complicated world, a dynamic economy and the technical progress that can involve can be as effective a defence as megakill nuclear weapons.

Industry powered by nuclear energy can produce flexible response high tech weapon systems as well as exportable consumer items. Cheap, almost free electricity could run transport systems as well as heat houses. Used inventively, electricity can power many things.

In reality, we don't have the focus or culture to achieve that sort of thing, so it's all theoretical.

There's just no answer to that other than to say - indubitably.

It's a good Sunday word. Could spend a couple of hours dissecting and generally messing about with it. If I had the inclination. Which I don't.  See you tomorrow.