PDA

View Full Version : next time you install wiring



aostling
08-06-2007, 09:01 PM
I'm reading a book about what can be done to combat global warming. It quotes Paul Roberts in his book The End of Oil,


Contractors know that thicker-gauge copper wire conducts electricity more efficiently, with less energy lost through wasted heat, than does thinner wire. The difference is big enough that using thicker wire, though more expensive to install than a thinner wire, will pay for itself through lower energy bills in less than five months. Nevertheless, contractors rarely use thicker wire because electrical work is usually done by the low bidder, whose goal, not surprisingly, is to minimize up-front costs. The thinnest wire allowed by law is invariably installed, and the house or business essentially throws away much of the electricity before it reaches a lightbulb or applicance.

In a heating climate, this "wasted" energy cuts down on the heating load, but in a cooling climate this could be more of a total energy drain. The author is only talking about conditions in the USA. I wonder if similar practices are common elsewhere?

platypus2020
08-06-2007, 09:22 PM
Aostling,

My son had a house built in outside of DC in W. Va, about 10 years ago, he wanted 12 ga wire and 20 amp circuits in the bedrooms, and had it speced that way, when finally got final plans the house all the bedrooms were to be wired with 14 ga wire and 15 amp circuits, he complained to the builder. He was told that what he wanted was stupid, and they were not going to deviate from their (the builder's) standard. He fired the builder, got another and got what he wanted. He was willing to pay for it, but the original builder refused, sometimes you can't get better, even if your willing to pay for it.

jack

h12721
08-06-2007, 10:06 PM
"""The difference is big enough that using thicker wire, though more expensive to install than a thinner wire, will pay for itself through lower energy bills in less than five months."""

That sounds a bit over the top. You run 10 Amps through a # 14 Wire and I don't think you would feel heat rise.
Hilmar

J Tiers
08-06-2007, 10:07 PM
The book quote is "technically correct" as to the effect. But it is FAR OFF as to the scale of the "problem" in house wiring.

a 3% voltage drop is quite a bit in wiring. That is equal to about 3.5V out of 120V.

In a 15 amp circuit, loaded to the maximum continuous loading, which is 12A, the result is about 42watts LOST. The DELIVERED power is about 1400W, or 97% of the possible power.

For a 20A circuit, and the 16A max continuous loading, the lost power is 56W and the delivered power is 1864W, again 97% of the possible power is delivered.

Now, those are MAXIMUM currents, and near maximum voltage drops. They apply typically when the run of wire is long, because the breaker size sets the wire size.

With more typical shorter wire runs, of the same size wire, the losses are less than 3%.

Now, Paul Roberts may consider that a 97% delivery of power under worst case conditions is "losing much of the power", but I do not agree.

I also question the "saving the cost in 5 months" statement. There are quite a number of assumptions in that statement, and usually they will be found not to be realistic, aside from real long term loads like an AC unit.

if you are using CF bulbs etc, you are already avoiding much of the losses he is counting on to justify the costing.

Then again, it takes substantially larger wire to cut losses in half. That wire is not as commonly available, is physically larger and harder to run, is substantially more expensive, and STILL cuts losses only in half, i.e. to 1.5% instead of 3%. So you get 98.5% of your power instead of 97%, ONLY WHEN AT MAX LOAD.

Not only that, some jurisdictions will NOT allow certain loads to be wired with larger wire. In some cases the load cannot accept the size. In others they worry that you will replace the breaker with a larger rating due to the wire, and then will have a hazard with 15A outlets on a 20 or 30A circuit.

If you want to discuss losses, check the electric utility. THEY know exactly the losses in their wiring. That is why they charge more for low power factors.... lots of current and losses, but less power transfer, so low efficiency.

Nope, as applied to house wiring, it is "technically correct" but effectively bogus.

tryp
08-07-2007, 01:22 AM
At todays prices and considering the energy used to make the copper in the first place you would never recoup the cost in a lifetime and environamentally ie climate change you are also behind, unless you ran the wire to its max load 24/7. And even then in sceptical.

If we really want ot takle this in the smartest way, we'd all go to 220 like Europe, then for the same power the currents and associated losses are cut drastically.

Why isn't the US industrial standard 600v like Canada? Considering the scale this would save lots of companies alot of money in transformers motors and cabling costs. I heard its because of the copper companies and the pressure they have over whomever makes the standards.

Rich Carlstedt
08-07-2007, 04:07 PM
..."what can be done to combat global warming. It quotes Paul Roberts in his book The End of Oil "

Such books are written by someone with an agenda that precludes Logic and Reason. it reminds me of the single sheet of toilet paper rule professed by one of hollywoods elite...to bad the "elite" are not "enlightened".
And to think that a tree surrended it's life for such trash!
Rich

aostling
08-07-2007, 05:06 PM
..."what can be done to combat global warming. It quotes Paul Roberts in his book The End of Oil "

Such books are written by someone with an agenda that precludes Logic and Reason.

This may be true of Robert's book. The allusion comes from Mike Tidwell's The Ravaging Tide -- Strange Weather, Future Katrinas, and the Coming Death of America's Coastal Cities. Tidwell (perhaps like Roberts) is no scientist, more of a reporter. His earlier book Bayou Farewell predicted the effects of Katrina, two years before it happened.

Tidwell maintains that the city most at risk from an upcoming hurricane-surge catastrophe is New York. Hurricanes strike there with much reduced frequency, but the protection is essentially non-existent. The Manhattan tunnel entrances are only three feet above sea level. The subway system would be flooded. It only requires that a Category 3 strike, at high tide.

Swarf&Sparks
08-08-2007, 08:36 AM
Re global warming, keep an open mind.

Have a look at "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

Yes, I've seen it and the arguments are convincing.

JerryL
08-08-2007, 09:48 AM
When ever I add on or remodel ..In the main house i always put in more recepticals than I think I need and I run 12 gage wire to 20 amp breakers. By doing this I find that I will never be in want of a receptical and I can run anything I may want. Kitchen / patio / decks are a great area for wives etc running 2 -3 crock pots and a coffe pot along with the micro etc . for parties .
As for the garage and basement and outside , I run 10 gage into 30 amp breakers .
Never had a problem and hope I never will
Only thing I have never done and want to is run my whole main box as a GFI from the main feed into the box .

aostling
08-08-2007, 09:49 AM
Re global warming, keep an open mind.



The data leaves no room for doubt that global warming is underway. There have been many periods in earth's history where global warming was not caused by man. The current warming correlates with the increase of human-caused CO2 build-up. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed papers which dispute this, out of hundreds written on the subject.

Compared to Europe (I'm not sure about China, or Australia) the US is the worst culprit by far, using twice as much energy per capita. It should be easy to match the European rate of energy usage without personal hardship, or harmful effects to the economy.

Swarf&Sparks
08-08-2007, 09:54 AM
While there is no doubt that global warming is occurring, the doco casts doubt on man's contribution and the effects thereof.

I had a look for the DVD in Ch4 catalogue and it's been removed.
Hmmm.....

The doco was shown here free to air recently on the ABC.

Lew Hartswick
08-08-2007, 09:57 AM
. There have been many periods in earth's history where global warming was not caused by man. The current warming correlates with the increase of human-caused CO2 build-up. y.

Does everyone know that "correlation" does NOT equate to "cause
and effect" ? :-)
...lew...

Swarf&Sparks
08-08-2007, 09:59 AM
Exactly the point of the doco Lew

Carld
08-08-2007, 10:14 AM
Most if not all electrical contractors will spec 15A circuits in homes. I don't think that is the smart thing to do because it's easy to overload or max a circuit. It may not happen in a bedroom but in a bath, utility, kitchen and living rooms are highly subject to overload or near maxing and will heat the wiring, mostly at the terminal joints and plugs. Junction boxes where wires are together with wire nuts are subject to overheating more so than the wires in conduit or romax. Think about all the appliances running in those rooms. I personnaly think 20A should be the minumim in homes and 30A in business installations.

I have worked in several shops wired with 15A circuits and had to constantly reset breakers and sometimes wait for them to cool off.

I built our home and shop and they are wired with 20A circuits and I will not have problems. I use a portable dehumidifier and move it from room to room. It can pull 15A and I am sure would cause problems if not for the 20A circuits.

To me it's not an invironmental issue but a common sense issue. I have a serious issue with the invironmentalists as they have caused more problems than they like to think they have solved. The invironmentalists should be tied to trees in the path of wild fires untill there are no more of them left, environmentalists that is. Maybe we could clean up the fire prone areas then and eliminate most wild fires.

J Tiers
08-08-2007, 10:20 AM
The data leaves no room for doubt that global warming is underway. There have been many periods in earth's history where global warming was not caused by man. The current warming correlates with the increase of human-caused CO2 build-up. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed papers which dispute this, out of hundreds written on the subject.


It seems to correlate BEST with the use of high flying jet aircraft, and the widespread use of aircraft to begin with. There may be various reasons suggested for this.

As for the CO2, possibly that, possibly other "greenhouse gases".

Evan
08-08-2007, 10:51 AM
As usual, I will point out that correlation does not imply causation. The use of aircraft coincides with the widespread use of fossil fuels in general. Aircraft may well have a cooling effect due to the documented increase in daytime cloud cover they produce.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020808075457.htm

J Tiers
08-08-2007, 11:26 AM
As usual, I will point out that correlation does not imply causation. The use of aircraft coincides with the widespread use of fossil fuels in general.

Watch out for that argument....... warming also "correlates" with increased use of fossil fuel, which likewise often creates cloud cover.

However, there seems to be a steep boost at around the end of WW2, at least that is what I have seen claimed.

The study shown is suggestive, but fails to address the cumulative effect of depositing combustion products at higher altitudes over a 50 year time.

And, it would be surprising if eliminating any amount of cloud cover would result in NO effect.

The question is, whether the cloud cover OR the combustion products are the dominant effect.

Correlation suggests that it is worth study. It may well be that high altitude "greenhouse gases" have much more effect than those at low altitude.

A simple estimation suggests that around 200 flights of 1000 miles may produce a cubic mile of direct unmixed exhaust volume.

I understand there are about 12,000 flights per day. If each averages 300 miles, something on the order of 20 cubic miles of unmixed exhaust might be deposited per day at relatively high altitude.

Mixing will spread that exhaust volume around, 'infecting" 200 or 2000 cubic miles per day. Obviously not all of that material will be moved to lower altitudes or somehow destroyed every day.

And, obviously, not all that volume will be effective cloud cover produced. The longest persistence is 6 hours, the minimum a minute or less, and many flights are at night, or at times when the bulk of the persistence time of contrails would be at night (late afternoon and evening flights).

Naturally, ANYTHING to do with aircraft would be far more effective (good or bad) than all the house wiring in the US.

Evan
08-08-2007, 12:00 PM
The problem is that this puzzle has a million pieces and they are all the same color. Worse, some of them don't even belong to the puzzle. Worse yet, If WE are responsible then it will take at least as much concerted effort to undo the damage as it took to do it, and under much more difficult circumstances with much reduced resources. Plus, whatever we do (including nothing) we run a very great risk of getting slapped hard by the Law of Unintended Consequences.

flyboy771
08-08-2007, 12:56 PM
The problem is that this puzzle has a million pieces and they are all the same color. Worse, some of them don't even belong to the puzzle. Worse yet, If WE are responsible then it will take at least as much concerted effort to undo the damage as it took to do it, and under much more difficult circumstances with much reduced resources. Plus, whatever we do (including nothing) we run a very great risk of getting slapped hard by the Law of Unintended Consequences.

THAT is the part too many people ignore. Well said.

I read an article the other day somewhere that argued that walking to the supermarket was MORE environmentally damaging than driving... The justification goes something like this (and I'm making up numbers because I don't remember the ones given, but the proportions are consistent with what was in the article)... you consume 300 calories walking back and forth, and it costs 15 pounds of CO2 to produce that amount of food... whereas if you drive, you only burn 2 pounds of fuel, producing only that much CO2... So there you go, unless you sit around on your butt and drive everywhere, and get no exercise in your flourescent lit house with the TV in standby mode, you're contributing to global warming.

Do people who think this stuff up REALLY have nothing better to do?

J Tiers
08-08-2007, 01:55 PM
Actually, the solution is VERY SIMPLE.

Since the problem accelerated around 1940 - 1950, the best possible way to deal with the issue is to REQUIRE a return to the conditions as of say, 1930.

REQUIRE all nations to *somehow* return to the total population of 1930, the distribution of population of 1930, the distribution and use of resources of 1930.

That would buy time to figure out the long term solution, which is probably a return to the conditions around 1066.

Now, there are a host of problems with that, but they are primarily political......

Some countries should have no problem with the population, they are already killing off people fast. The other ones will be faced with a more complex decision as to who to execute.

Rich Carlstedt
08-08-2007, 02:00 PM
J Tiers said
"However, there seems to be a steep boost at around the end of WW2, at least that is what I have seen claimed."

How J, about this then ?

We did not try to reduce acid rain till the 50"s
Acid rain is caused by Sulfur Dioxide.
Sulfur Dioxide emmisions have been tremendously lowered.
When I was a kid, Chicago had this huge grey cloud over it. You could see Chicago by airplane, several hundred miles away.
Today it is only 1/10 what it was, and you no longer hear about acid rain..Right ?
Guess what..one of the biggest 'reflectors' of Solar radiation back into space is ?
Right, it's Sulfur Dioxide.....the stuff of coal burning AND Volcano emissions and we all know that the earth cools TREMENDOUSLY after a major erruption.
This is a known fact.
We prposely strip Sulfur out of all fuels
Can you put these facts together ?

It does not take a rocket scientist to "possibly" conclude that our overt activities to "help" the environment has really hindered it in the "Name of a Good Cause"
This has been done over and over again by "scientists' who bring in rare species to 'control' a unwanted weed or animal, only to find out later
that the "new" control was actually worse than the original species.

Witness these:
1.Honey bees from Africa were brought to Brazil in the 1950s. The purpose was to introduce genetic material from the tropically adapted African bees into the resident European bees, thereby making better honey producers..
Right !
2 The Emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang Di, died by mercury pills intended to give him eternal life. But Scientists said it was good !
3 Ever hear of a 'Full Frontal Lobotomy" Gee they work !

There is no better statement about any Scientific "fact" than this quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking something you don't actually know There’s not a mechanic or a scientist alive who hasn’t suffered from that one so much that he’s not instinctively on guard. That’s the main reason why so much scientific and mechanical information sounds so dull and so cautious. If you get careless or go romanticising scientific information, giving it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you. It does it often enough anyway even when you don’t give it opportunities. One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical when dealing with Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely."


-- Robert Pirsig. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

-----------------------------------------
The Globe may be warming.. so what ?
What I want is Scientific facts not assumptions
" Cities are warmer".....but not all cities !
What does blacktop and concrete edifices do ?..don't ask !
"the polar ice caps are melting"....what about mount Killimanjaro at over 19,000 feet and a year round temperature BELOW freezing. its melting too. What is common to the polar caps.. our Sun !

Genius is defined as "Seeing the Obvious", which is something the GW crowd ignores.
Rich

J Tiers
08-08-2007, 02:10 PM
That's a decent point.

I think the trend has been upward for over 150 years, but the last 50 are the fastest.

I don't know how fast the sulphur dioxide removal was, though. Is it enough to explain a "knee" in the curve?

Apparently, the slope of increase abruptly changed around 1950..... most of the acid rain stuff was later, and is actually still going on.

Mad Scientist
08-08-2007, 06:11 PM
The data leaves no room for doubt that global warming is underway. There have been many periods in earth's history where global warming was not caused by man. The current warming correlates with the increase of human-caused CO2 build-up. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed papers which dispute this, out of hundreds written on the subject.


According to some articles that I have read there is a cause and effect between CO2 and global warming. It would seem that as the world warms up this causes the CO2 levels to increase.

Speaking of articles I found this one to be extremely interesting.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaundercf/id12.html

(Unfortunately it is extremely looooooooong.)

It was written by a 15 year old high school student as an extra credit assignment. If only our scientists and politicians were up to her standards maybe we could get some where on the global warming problem.

She starts out with:


Global warming is an issue of great importance. Let there be no doubt, the evidence is overwhelming: Earth is warming.
The questions that remain are;
1) What is the cause of the global warming? Is it man made atmospheric carbon dioxide? Or is the cause of global warming natural variability?
2) How will politicians spend money while waiting for the answer to question #1?

I will demonstrate that the Earth’s warming climate is a result of natural variance and that man made changes in the warming climate in the last 40 years are negligible at best. I will insert pieces of the puzzle from new scientific studies that were not available or were ignored in previous global warming studies.
I add a possible piece of the puzzle, nuclear weapons testing in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, that may have made a small contribution to cooling at that time.
After reviewing numerous scientific studies and observing data, it is clear that the theory that “man made increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are causing global warming” is not likely.

And concludes with:



Solar activity is and has always been what drives the climate system.

Steps need to be taken to create distance between science and political parties, and science and financial motives.

The CO2 molecule has been given way too much power in Earth’s atmosphere.

DryCreek
08-09-2007, 12:45 AM
The 15 year old student sounds like a very bright and observant person. I can only hope there are enough people like her around to counter the current group think among many voting adults.

Evan
08-09-2007, 01:02 AM
We have beaten this horse before, extensively. Suffice it to say that there simply isn't any evidence that supports solar effects as the cause of the observed warming. Solar variability is too small by an order of magnitude.

Rich Carlstedt
08-09-2007, 01:29 AM
then how do you explain increase temperatures on Mars and other Planets?
rich

CoolHand
08-09-2007, 01:55 AM
We have beaten this horse before, extensively. Suffice it to say that there simply isn't any evidence that supports solar effects as the cause of the observed warming. Solar variability is too small by an order of magnitude.

You have got to be kidding me.

The sun, that huge thermonuclear reactor floating in space some 91M miles from here, who's energy powers the entirety of life on this planet, has so little effect on our global mean temp as to be totally unworthy of inclusion in the study? Where'd you get that from? Funny how it's making temps rise on other planets in this system, but doesn't effect earth at all.

And the observed warming? A single deg C, which BTW, is well within the error band of the data (IE it could actually have gone up two deg C, or none, or gone down a deg C). Sounds like we could actually just be chasing gremlins in the model.

To say that everyone thinks anything about the subject is simplistic at best, and outright purposefully misleading at worst. There are scientists out there who do not agree, but anyone who speaks up is instantly marginalized as having been bought off (as though the GW fan boys aren't reaping great windfalls of cash for saying what they are), or just plain ignored by the main stream media.

The fact is, that we don't know anything at all conclusively, and to go off and do something unnecessary on bad data is worse than doing nothing at all until we have better data.

The hockey stick graph is itself of dubious origin, but even if it wasn't, to suggest that the only possible cause is CO2 from fossil fuels because we started burning more of them post 1950, is fundamentally flawed. That may be the case, but there is an equal possibility that it could be caused by something else. Lets look at some things that have changed while the temp (supposedly) has gone up:

1) Steel hulled ships were invented.
2) Two major wars were fought.
3) The world population of pirates declined.
4) Jet airplanes were invented.
5) Non-Lead based paints were developed.
6) Color film was invented.
7) TV was invented.
8) Communism overtook much of Eastern Europe.
9) Man landed on the Moon.
10) Communism overtook China and North Korea.
11) The atom bomb was invented.

All of these things occurred while the warming was to have taken place, yet no one suggests that warming is caused by low global pirate populations, that communism causes temp to rise, or that color film is to blame. They are non sequiturs, as is the link between CO2 and warming, but for some reason people take the latter as gospel and dismiss the former as "big oil" propaganda. Science has become lazy and money hungry, and we as a people have become intellectually dull to the point that we will believe whatever the evening news puts in front of us.

It's a sad state of affairs really. The Gov has a vested interest in GW being our fault, and they control the research dollars. If you're pro-AGW, you get funded, if you aren't, you don't. Doesn't take a behavioral psychologist to figure out how the great majority of funding requests will be prefaced. The bigger the scare, the more dollars to be reaped, so not only are scientists predisposed to start a study with the mindset to support AGW, but they realize that the more horrid their predictions, the greater the chance that the media will flock to them to run the sensational story, and the greater chance that their grants will continue to be funded (or become even larger).

Normally, I'd not care, let them all have a circle jerk if it makes them feel better and it gives them jobs, but in this instance, the ultimate result will be the loss of even the most basic freedoms to you and me, and that I will not abide.

Swarf&Sparks
08-09-2007, 04:35 AM
If anyone is interested, ABC shop her in Oz, still has the doco DVD for sale. See:
http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?form=simple&num_ranks=10&collection=shop&summaries=off&query=great+global+warming&meta_f=&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

Evan
08-09-2007, 04:37 AM
You have got to be kidding me.

The sun, that huge thermonuclear reactor floating in space some 91M miles from here, who's energy powers the entirety of life on this planet, has so little effect on our global mean temp as to be totally unworthy of inclusion in the study? Where'd you get that from? Funny how it's making temps rise on other planets in this system, but doesn't effect earth at all.

It has an enormous effect on the global temperature. Nobody said it isn't worth studying. The problem with the idea that it is driving climate change is that it doesn't show enough variability to explain it. We don't have good data on the mean solar output from before space based measurements since ground level measurements are only accurate to no better than 1%. That is well below the accuracy required to make any correlation between climate change and solar output. More accurate data from satellites is only available for the last few solar cycles and simply doesn't show enough variability to account for the observed changes.

The amount of variability seen in space based measurements is approximately 1/10 of what is needed to account for the observed changes. This leaves the so called theories that the changes in solar output are responsible in the realm of pure speculation. They are missing one very important thing; Evidence. Correlations between sunspot cycles and climate change are not evidence. As has been said, a correlation does not imply cause or effect.

It is an axiom in science that a correlation between two things proves nothing by itself. Many things that are unrelated are correlated. It's very easy to become misled into thinking that two things that must on the face of it be connected really are connected.

An example: A past study showed a clear correlation between living near power lines and childhood leukemia. This was trumpeted as evidence that low frequency electromagnetic radiation causes cancer. In fact, living near power lines also means living near leaking power transformers containing PCBs that cause cancer.

Historical geologic records of sunspot cycles and changes in climate only mean that sunspot cycles are sufficient to cause enough change to be recorded in the fossil record. It does NOT mean that those changes are enough to account for the observed changes in climate. There are other possibilities, such as the Milankovich cycles (http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/milank.htm) that explain the long term variations of climate.

Without evidence of sufficient solar variation the idea that changes in the solar output are the driving force for climate change remains unsupported. At this time it is only speculation.

J Tiers
08-09-2007, 09:08 AM
An example: A past study showed a clear correlation between living near power lines and childhood leukemia. This was trumpeted as evidence that low frequency electromagnetic radiation causes cancer. In fact, living near power lines also means living near leaking power transformers containing PCBs that cause cancer.



Of course you DO understand how FALSE that is, right?

It is OF COURSE perfectly possible to live very near a power line, and be a hundred miles from any transformer.

Now, I am not advocating the power line=cancer connections either. But power lines are associated with many things...

PCBs, of course, in some isolated places

asbestos particles

creosote and other pole preservatives

electrochemically modified ambient pollutants

In the case of the power line issue, the argument is nearly all from "correlations". While the things are cancer causes, they are not always shown to be present in the cases of cancers supposedly resulting.

In the case of GW, the putative causes are certainly present. As are a number of OTHER things.

The question is what the ACTUAL cause is. There are correlations, but there is some question remaining whether the SOLE cause is "X". It may not matter.

While there is a "consensus" among certain groups, there is a certain politico-religious issue also. With the best of proof , right now, I question if an alternate explanation, EVEN IF TRUE, could be proposed without being howled down by the masses of the "scientific community" who are committed to the current explanation of GW too deeply to change.

Then the very severe proposed "cures".... "Stop doing everything" (unless you are a government or large corporation).

Not much better...............

It is a bit like high blood pressure..... If you have it, the doctors immediately trot out bans on every substance that has even been potentially shown to maybe raise blood pressure.

It isn't that treatment is bad. The issue there is that without exact knowledge of the cause, EVERYTHING is forbidden on the principle that "you can't be too safe, we're talking about your health here".

Or the cases (one in my extended family) where treatment for possible future clotting-related stroke with blood thinners resulted in a more severe stroke from the thinned blood.

The "cure" or "prevention" was ineffective at preventing the result, although it DID assure that the cause was not the one envisioned.

Similar forces and cures are at work with GW.

bob_s
08-09-2007, 09:51 AM
Human population has increased from 1950 ~2.5B to 2007 ~6.5B.

Each human generates ~ 1 liter of CH4/day == 6.2M meter3 (230 MMcf/day)

That's an increase of 141.3 MMcf/day since 1950. Does this correlate with global warming?

Which is it easier for humans to accomplish? To stop farting or to stop reproducing?

oldtiffie
08-09-2007, 10:02 AM
Deleted/edited-out

Evan
08-09-2007, 11:10 AM
Of course you DO understand how FALSE that is, right?

It is OF COURSE perfectly possible to live very near a power line, and be a hundred miles from any transformer.

Now, I am not advocating the power line=cancer connections either. But power lines are associated with many things...

It's not at all false. In a population that lives near power lines there WILL be more people that live near leaking transformers than in a population that doesn't live near power lines. We are talking about statistics here which is how all the analysis of what is going on with the climate is done.

I'm going to go out today and take a few pictures to show what climate change is doing here. I will either post them here or make a new thread to put them in.

Rich Carlstedt
08-09-2007, 01:39 PM
Evan said
" They are missing one very important thing; Evidence. Correlations between sunspot cycles and climate change are not evidence. As has been said, a correlation does not imply cause or effect. "

Wow, have you said it....it many ways..
CO2 has NOT be proven to the CAUSE of a rise in Earths temps.
It has appeared to be higher during times of elevated temperatures But to use your words ( that) " does not imply cause or effect."

Next, You address only "Sun Spots"
How can you say it has no effect when a Sun spot can shut down our power grid (New England i.e) ? No other extraterrestial event can do that ?
It is more than Sun Spots Evan, it is the total output of the sun, COUPLED with the dramatic changes in Earths Magnetic Fields.

Listen up guys...no one is putting this one fact in the equation. !

The Earth has lost 30 % (huge number) of its magnetic forces and polarity.(source: Greenich England Study) during the past 300 years
It is surmised we are going into 'pole reversal " event sometime in the not too distant future. Mag lines of force gradually diminish, then the poles flip
THIS LOSS of magnetic energy leaves planitary inhabitants exposed to greater and greater radiation bombardment...it may explain the Ozone hole ?
The magnetic lines of force are the only things that "shield" us from the sun and outer space radiation !
Are increased Skin Cancer rates a symtom ? And we all know Pilots are at great risk when flying at high altitudes for long periods.
So this loss may also end all mankind, and we can do nothing about it.
I am not implying it is, but these facts are never considered or even included by the GW advocates !

"A past study showed a clear correlation between living near power lines and childhood leukemia. "
This is False Evan..
Source...New York Times ... July 3, 1997
From the The New England Journal of Medicine
"Power Lines Don't Cause Leukemia, Study Concludes "
( larger study over many years and better 'controls" in THIS study)

PS I lived next to 160K power Lines (part of my back yard) for 10 years and
followed the sensationalism during that whole period.
There is more danger having a Microwave oven in the house (to kids) than a
power line outside (my opinion)

rich

Evan
08-09-2007, 09:01 PM
How can you say it has no effect when a Sun spot can shut down our power grid (New England i.e) ? No other extraterrestial event can do that ?
It is more than Sun Spots Evan, it is the total output of the sun, COUPLED with the dramatic changes in Earths Magnetic Fields.

The coronal mass ejections (CME) that happen during a flare can cause the magnetic field to wobble by up to +- one or two degrees when the magnetosphere is temporarily compressed. This has a period of around 30 to 100 seconds per cycle. This movement of the Earth's magnetic field is enough to induce large stray currents in long power transmission lines and cause them to fail. It has no effect on the climate that we know of or can even think of.


THIS LOSS of magnetic energy leaves planitary inhabitants exposed to greater and greater radiation bombardment...it may explain the Ozone hole ?
The ozone holes are quite well understood. Chlorine catalyzes the destruction of ozone at high altitudes.


"A past study showed a clear correlation between living near power lines and childhood leukemia. "
This is False Evan..
Source...New York Times ... July 3, 1997
From the The New England Journal of Medicine
"Power Lines Don't Cause Leukemia, Study Concludes "
( larger study over many years and better 'controls" in THIS study)
Yes, it is false. That is my point. Even though there is a correlation between living near power lines and cancer the power lines don't induce leukemia.

J Tiers
08-09-2007, 10:31 PM
It's not at all false. In a population that lives near power lines there WILL be more people that live near leaking transformers than in a population that doesn't live near power lines. We are talking about statistics here which is how all the analysis of what is going on with the climate is done.

I'm going to go out today and take a few pictures to show what climate change is doing here. I will either post them here or make a new thread to put them in.

I will quote your original statement with alterations in bold to make it agree with your more recent statements...


An example: A past study showed a clear correlation between living near power lines and childhood leukemia. This was trumpeted as evidence that low frequency electromagnetic radiation causes cancer. In fact, living near power lines also means in certain cases living near leaking power transformers containing PCBs that cause cancer.

The alteration changes your meaning from a certainty of a nearby transformer (leaking, at that) to your new statement of "more people living near" such transformers, i.e. not everyone does, but some do.

Of course, VERY FEW IF ANY people living near high tension transmission wires are near leaking, (or tight) transformers because of it, since those transformers are large and located in isolated, fenced areas. YET THOSE SAME LINES ARE CALLED THE WORST AND MOST CANCER-CAUSING.

OBVIOUSLY any correlation must be for a different reason, NOT leaking transformers,

Oh, yeah..... Transformers these days no longer contain the PCB-tainted oil......... so even that is no longer true, except of old installations.

dp
08-09-2007, 10:44 PM
Plus, whatever we do (including nothing) we run a very great risk of getting slapped hard by the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Recall that during the recent global cooling era a suggested solution was to coat the polar ice with soot. I'm wondering if Al Gore had investments in soot generators at that time...

Evan
08-09-2007, 11:15 PM
Jerry,

The statement I made is in reference to the statistical chances. Of course not every single person that lives near power lines lives near a transformer. But, statistically, the entire sample set does live closer to transformers than people who don't live near power lines.

A very good example happened right here in the 80's. We have major power lines running through here that supply power all the way down to California from the WAC Bennett dam. About 40 miles north of here is a major capacitor and transformer station. It was discovered that a capacitor bank had been leaking thousands of gallons of PCBs into a nearby stream. The clue was when a nearby resident began seeing many malformed and dead births in his livestock. The PCBs ran down the stream to Mcleese Lake and seriously contaminated it. It was impossible to clean it up and the lake bottom is still contaminated.

Many of the residents there today weren't around when that happened and it has been largely forgotten. People swim and fish in the lake. Many people that live there undoubtedly have a serious exposure to PCBs from the capacitor station whether they live right next to it or not.

So, all the people living along that part of the power line corridor have at the least a statistically elevated risk of PCB exposure.

Evan
08-09-2007, 11:22 PM
Lots of PCBs still around Jerry.



To the Kansas Senate Utilities Committee
January 22, 2004

Question 1:
Tell the committee the extent to which you can identify transformers, which contain
PCBs and their location throughout Midwest Energy’s, Inc. distribution system.

Answer
Midwest has 31 units listed below with their respective PCB concentrations. The last 3 are "pure
pyranol*" transformers located at Ross Beach Station (these are registered with the EPA as
required). This list identifies the larger PCB transformers of all Midwest’s distribution
substations. *(Pyranol is pure PCB, and tests at 900,000 to 1,000,000 PPM, whereas most of our
regular transformers that test over 50 PPM have only small concentrations of Pyranol in the
regular mineral oil).
As far as distribution class (pole type) transformers that are over 50 ppm, Midwest Energy does
not have any accounting of how many or where the PCB contaminated transformers are. If a spill
occurs, Midwest treats pole transformers that have not been tested as PCB contaminated
transformers (as allowed by EPA regulations). It is not mandatory to test these transformers and
therefore we cannot account for any locations or how many PCB contaminated transformers we
have. Our PCB database has 11,000+ entries from the past 23 years of testing distribution
transformers. Many of these units were tested and disposed of during their routine maintenance
cycles, or when they came through Midwest’s maintenance shop for repair or evaluation. All
PCB or PCB contaminated pole type transformers have been retrofilled, junked or disposed of.
Hence, the database pertains to the units still in the field that are less than 50 ppm, or non-PCB
units.

Midwest estimates that 7.5% (3,199) of its 42,649 distribution transformers are PCB or PCB
contaminated. All PCB or PCB contaminated units tested shall be disposed of. It is expected
that Midwest will be nearly PCB free within the next 20 years.


http://www.kslegislature.org/committeeminutes/03-04/senate/sutils/meetings/ME012204MEI.pdf