Freediving vs. The Earth

[gaiadiver]

Hello all ou t there

 

[RockFTO]

Hello there

 

[vali]

hi...why that sad face?

 

[gaiadiver]

hi...why that sad face?

Everything we dive with is not biodegradable, synthetic materials it must make terrible pollution to make these plastics. We burn deezel fuel and gas in dive boats, and our cars going diving, and jet fuel flying to diving. All just for pleasures for some of the world's rich people. We are terrible.

 

[cebaztian]

Strange discussion when the original question/statement has been edited out.

 

[vali]

in a cold winter.....if u don't burn wood, you will die!
the warm of your home is provided by burning coal i presume....when you burn coal, noxes are released in atmosphere....
why you judge freedivers and don't judge the one who warm you in the cold winters....
aaaa....honolulu
not all of us is so lucky...ei?
no offence!!!

 

[naiad]

I can see both sides of the argument - we need to use some resources, therefore cause some pollution, but we can try to reduce the damage. I think most freedivers are more environmentally aware than most people, because we like fish and other aquatic life.

 

[Kars]

Truth is that many, if not everything could be made in responsible way.
Like internal combustion engines have been running perfectly without gimmics on water (which itself safely converted to HHO). Many other inventors haven been bought, intimidaded, killed to keep the elite in power and on track.

The latest hyped hysteria, is the one Al Gore is promoting: Global warming.
Science shows clearly that Co2 is only a fraction of a percent of the 'greenhousgasses', though mr Gore want us to feel guilty and hand over our freedom to the state to safe us from the unavoideble doom and gloom.

Funny to hear that on Mars, Jupiter, Titan and Pluto according to NASA, a significant temperture rise is occuring. Has E.T. industries on these planets?

Things I more worry about is GM foods, because that's seemingly irreversible.
The use of Uranium on the modern battlefield, rendering places inhabitable for MILIONS of yeas, appart from the poisen clouds detected half arround the globe.
Another major is the global DEhumanisation apparent and promoted anyware.

Rubber is a natural substance, likewise is oil. I'm sure that industries can create some new material which break down quicker, but than it's not much fun ripping open a suit after a few poolsessions. The transport cost and energy is in my estimation much higher than the energy into the materials.
In other words when things are made more durable than so goes down cost of ownership, energy needed for production, resource use, etc. But he the 'Owners' of this Global plantation don't want you to have spare time, security, and start learning and thinking.

What brings people to posing a particular question? Could it be they've read something in the media, saw a partcular show, film, or was inspired by another person?
How much of one's culture is created by the people as opposed of by the elite?
How much of a person is a borrowed, how much is really that person?

Freediving can be a very educational activity, revealing the ghost in the machine, showing what life is about.
Thanks to Freediving and sungazing I learned, and now LOVE life.

Love Peace and Water,

Kars.

 

[marginatus]

And MR AL Gore always cicles to the places where we gives his conferences and doesn't use lots of confort related things (AC, expensive suits...) that use a lot of energy...
It's good to be worried about the "Gaia" but we must start by us (individualy) instead of pointin it to others...

 

[Boot]

Boooh go freediving

 

[shoutatthesky]

Hey Gaiadiver, what was the original question/argument? Are you trying to start a healthy debate or just campaigning against freediving?

 

[efattah]

Thanks to the Startech plasma converter (http://www.startech.net/), which will soon see service in 16 countries (including my own country), all garbage including toxic waste can be converted into clean electricity. So stop worrying.

Several start-up companies are going to buy startech plasma converters, and then dig out all the land-fills in the USA and convert the garbage to electricity (hydrogen, oxygen, and obsidian), which would bring a profit of more than $50 billion.

In Panama, startech converters will not only solve their garbage problem, but will also generate 80% of their country's electricity.

The way the future looks, the more garbage you produce, the better.

When it comes to global warming, the Earth is definitely warming. However whether or not it is directly because of humans is still a difficult question.

 

[wet]

Eric, looks good, but where does it talk about electrical production above and beyond required operating electricity? I didn't see it on the cover or FAQ pages. That is where I'm somewhat skeptical.

I also have a concern that soil nutrients & minerals will be lost from forest and field products to become part of the obsidian-like material, rather than returned directly to the soil, not sure if that's a big concern, perhaps more so in areas with poor soils or less rain. I don't know about the gases which are then burned for power.

DDeden

 

[trux]

Thanks to the Startech plasma converter (http://www.startech.net/), which will soon see service in 16 countries (including my own country), all garbage including toxic waste can be converted into clean electricity. So stop worrying.

The plasma technology is definitively interesting and progressive, but the articles about Startech Plasma Converter are highly idealized and extremely hyped. They do not address at all diverse problems occurring during the plasma conversion. I have to find yet an objective independent document analyzing the ecologic balance of the device. I think it will be positive, but still there are many problems involved.

Layman reading the description on Startech's website or in numerous popular science magazines, without the ability to read between the lines, may easily become under the impression that the device converts all matter into some kind of uniform gas (PCG) and solid matter (obsidian glass). Less educated persons could be even easily under the impression that the device converts waste (it means all type of molecules and atoms) into hydrogen or natural gas, and some kind of unspecified homogene harmless matter (obsidian glass).

That's, of course, quite a nonsense denying all physical and chemical laws. Its the same believe as the one that drove medieval alchemists in their attempts to convert diverse matters into gold. The only way to change atomic properties of a matter is nuclear fusion or fission, but that's quite a different category, that we are still pretty far from even experimenting with (even less mastering it), and has absolutely nothing to do with plasma gasification.

So what actually happens in a plasma converter? Well, in no way atoms change their properties. Hydrogen remains hydrogen, oxygen remains oxygen, iron remains iron, lead remains lead, mercury remains mercury, arsenic remains arsenic, etc, etc. Only molecular chemical bindings are disrupted, hence molecules (both organic and inorganic) cease to exist and break into the composing atoms. But still these atoms remain in the plasma; they do not disappear or convert into atoms of other elements.

Now, the plasma needs to be cooled - that happens by injecting big amounts of water, cooling down the plasma from ~16,000°C (30.000°F) to 50°C (122°F). Basically, the two mentioned waste products result from this process - the PCG gas and the obsidian glass. But amount of the waste matter is washed away with the cooling water too. Startech website claims that the pollution of the water is minimal, and that the PCG gas and the obsidian glass are non-toxic. That's really hard to believe. Better told, I think it is an outright lie. If you "burn" daily thousands of tons of waste, it necessarily contains kilograms of different heavy metals and other further nonbreakable (atomic) toxic or dangerous elements. The same amount of the toxins will necessarily remain on the output too. There is no way they could disappear. They do evaporate in the plasma, but the solidify back after cooling it down.

Furthermore, since there is no process in the device separating the resulting elements, they are all mixed together in the gas, in the cooling water, and in the obsidian-like stone, and hence they will necessarily chemically react and create possibly toxic molecules. Water need to be filtered (Startech claims it does not if the waste contains few heavy metals, but everything including plastics and practically any other material contains heavy metals), and the PCG gas needs to be filtered through carbon filters - that creates also a lot of quite toxic waste.

Startech claims that the obsidian-like byproduct is nontoxic and non-leachable, but in another article about Startech (quite positive) in Popular Science, the admit there are opponents of the technology pointing out the extreme toxicity of the obsidian byproduct and its water solubility and hence the danger of ground water contamination. And other experts warn about the chemical building of toxins in cooling plasma.

So yes, the technology seems to be better than landfills or traditional incineration, but still you should not expect from it any miracles and claiming that it turns sh!t into gold, or that the more waste the better. Also the final energy balance (including the energy needed for the production, distribution, and consumption the products creating the waste) will be always negative - if you know some basic physical laws, it is certainly clear enough. In other words, a better technology for compacting waste (and the plasma converter is not really much more than that) is certainly welcome, but is should be no excuse for unnecessary consumption and creation of waste!

 

[Jee]

Hi Kars!

you wrote:
"The latest hyped hysteria, is the one Al Gore is promoting: Global warming.
Science shows clearly that Co2 is only a fraction of a percent of the 'greenhousgasses', though mr Gore want us to feel guilty and hand over our freedom to the state to safe us from the unavoideble doom and gloom. "

I dont't agree with you about this question. I was following this question as a high priority problem in the last 7 years. My thought was always, that increasing greenhouse effect could be a really big problem. You now, how I'm into renewable energies. This is the main reason why. Now the international science community thinks, that 1. CO2 level rise causes significant (the main) increase of greenhouse effect, 2. this CO2 level raise is due to the industry - mostly the power generation, partly other industries, and partly using our cars, ships, airplanes. What we do now is mostly: dig out the burried carbon based, fossil energy storage stuff, then burn it, and use the energy of them. While this process the CO2 gets to the atmosphere. The measured level is far higher, than it was (according to old-old gas templates) a olong-long ago (from after the dinosaurs).

The work of CO2 is smple - increases greenhouse effect, and so raise the temperature. (changes the climate system - causes unknown storms, floods, othre unusual events /mostly these are not good/)
There are other factors lik methan (the gas). The situation is, that methan-hydrate, which is stored at the bottom of the seas, oceans, can be also released by a little rasie of the temp., so this can further boost the process.
Also changes of the climate at the trophical area can cause the rainforrsts to shrink - so the carbon stored in them could also get into the atmosphere, causing even more temperature rising.

I don't care what Bush says, I never really cared about. These are my thoughts, based on the information I got from several resources. Take in account, that I not only reads and watch the daily shows on TV and the daily papers (which can be the more easily manipulated).

Also - the groups you mention denied the whole effect, and the level of these effects until the last year! What caused them to change their mind? Easy: it is the profit. Until then it was worth to deny it, but now it is worth to say it. This is because of two reasons, I think: 1. the damage, what is caused, and what will be caused because of this effect is too high, and andangers their profit (and their power). 2. they probably invested some money into the industry, which can lower the effect (renewables), so they can make some profit even working against the global warming. May be there is a 3th factor: they somehow understood, that this could cause the total descrtuction of the systems working now (this is partly in 1).

What I think more: they didn't still realised the importance, and the level of this problem, so there will be big problems, big changes. There is not that much what we could do. I.e. I don't burn coal to heat my house, rather use gas (russian...), but making the insulation of our house, so less heating will be enough - less CO2 released - and of course cheaper. I don't use the car that offen, rather travelling by the local train, and by bicycle (it is also a good aerob training, good for dynamics, and diving ). I try to buy things, which need less energy to produce, to transfer. I will set up a solar collector, which will give us the warm water, and later perhaps could help with the heating also. I switch off the ciomputer, when I leave the office. These are small things, but many small things are summarized...

Jee

 

[Kars]

Dear Jee,

Thanks for you questions, I shall try to expand upon my previous post because I feel the important points have not come through clearly:

I think there is Global warming.
I do not think it's made by us through producing Co2.
I think psychopathic aristocratic families control the world and have and will use any excuse to enslave mankind further.

In the intrest of time I limit myself to just giving a few links explaining several points.

On the Global warming:
- The Climate Swindle
[ame=http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=the+climate+change+swindle]The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film - Google Video[/ame]

On the aristocratic families I would recomment reading Plato's 'The Republic' where he explains the typical aristocratic believsystem. Their superiourity to the commen man, due to genetics, is in fact a social evolutionairy religeon. Who said Evolutionairy thinking is new?

On the alternative energies etc. There are many, MANY alternatives. But independance of the individual is detrimental to the intrest of those who always have and still are maintaining control. Therefore any invention that could make us more indepent is suppressed by various techniques.

[ame=http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044&q=it+runs+on+water]Equinox - It Runs on Water (Free Energy - 1995) - Google Video[/ame]

[ame=http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=5359419035322337224&q=race+to+zeropoint]Free Energy - The Race to Zero Point - Google Video[/ame]

And if you feel like doing a little handywork youself, try reproducing what a 10 yearold school girl made for het science project:
Bedini Motor test


Closing I would like to state I find it rather disturbing that while 'the goverment' wants us to limit ourselves, they happily engage in using 'depleted' uranium on the battlefield, proving grounds, allow and subsedice Genetic modicifation, spray the skies with metals, fungus and polymers to alter the weather, our moods, our abilities, our health and lifespan.

It's nice to know that many freedivers are intrested in thinking for themselves, do ask questions, and hopefully strong enough to comprehend there are psychopaths in charge of society who seek to turn the rest of us into hollow functional machines or fellow psychopaths to serve them. Cutting Through the Matrix with Alan Watt - Clearing the rubbish from the road to reality

Personally I work hard to retain in us what makes us human, what distincts us from the animals?

Love, Peace and water,

Kars

ps.
Recommended books/movies: 1984, Brave New World, Wag the Dog, Things to Come, Brazil, THX 1138, The Matrix.
In fact with close to any film there is (predictive)programming going on, but to most people it's unconscious as they concentrate on the superficial story.
It also applies for songs or anyother form of mass communication.

 

[Jee]

Yo Kars,

I chekcked the movie about the Global Warming, and it really looks like a propaganda film - for the fossil energy. It looks as it were made for the order of the oil companies. Some of the parts in the film are simply not true. I mean there is a part, when they show, how they make fire in the home, in the room, and how dangerous is the indoor smoke. C'mon! There is a thing called chimney - not a new thing! I could understand, that they are really poor, but making a chimney is not mainly the question of money.

I will make it clearer later..

 

[trux]

It is sad that the issue became politicized. And it is even sadder that people based on their political sympathies let influence their common sense by it.

Vast majority of climatologists seem to agree that global warming is indeed caused or accelerated by humans. There is only a tiny minority opposing their opinion telling that's just a natural cycle (until recently many of them even claimed there is no global warming at all - but that's already no more possible due to a very good evidence in statistical data). I am not a climatologist, have not sufficient knowledge about it, but from what I read and see, I tend to believe that the human activity is at least partially responsible for the disaster. I am aware though that I may be wrong, and that the main stream climatology may be wrong too.

I am not telling that the tiny opposition cannot be right. But even if the global warming is just a natural cycle, who cares? The problem of the warming is here and it must be coped with. Emissions definitely accelerate, and do not reduce the warming effect, hence it will be necessary to limit them regardless if they were the primary trigger or not. Additionally CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel are always bind with releasing other pollution and toxins poisoning our atmosphere, ocean, food, and our own bodies. So tell me now, you opponents of emissions limiting, why are you against it? Why are you permanently arguing that GW is just a conspiracy of aristocrats, or communists, or Gore, or Democrats, or China, or Europeans, or Greenpeace, or whoever else? It is just because you fell in the trap of those who really do have interest in keeping on burning fossil fuels as long as possible. It is not in your interest, you can be sure.

The Kyoto Protocol in 1998 was the first political step trying to slow down the GW process. And you are misled by the propaganda if you think it was aimed against you as the small consumer. If it was really applied, it would be especially the big corporations that lose - they would need to invest giant amounts and create many new workplaces for the research. Well, it is undoubtful that the final bill would be paid by the end consumers, as usually, but the real reason for the opposition against the Kyoto protocol was definitely not the fear about the small end consumer. It was the resistance of the big corporations. You are terribly mistaken if you believe the opposite.

Since at least the 50's of the 20'th century it is clear that getting energy from fossil fuels is very bad not only for the environment, but that it is a quite limited source of energy and will soon run out. Researches of efficient alternative methods of energy production were started in that time (for example nuclear fusion (not the classical fission), but also many others), but most of the projects were either stopped or quite limited due to insufficient funding.

The refusal of the USA, the world-wide biggest polluter, to sign the Kyoto Protocol, to start reducing emissions, and lead the research and development of new technologies was really tragic, but not surprising. The US government, instead of focusing on supporting and funding new progressive technologies, decided to launch wars for taking control over the last remaining resources oil. The most paradoxical is that these wars, not only directly drive the consumption and wasting of the oil, and other ecological damage during the war, but especially that only a tiny fraction of the war costs would be more than sufficient for countless research projects. The cost of the useless war in Iraq is now at half a trillion of dollars and is expected to reach 1T ($1,000,000,000,000) at the end of Bush's term. Even the biggest mammoth research projects (like for example the over-bloated ITER fusion reactor built in France) cost just a tiny fraction of that. Many very promising projects that were frozen by Bush's government, could have survived with less than the cost of one single day of the war.

So please stop opposing ecological proposals, and investment into better technologies. Stop supporting the fossil fuel industry. Stop supporting killing for oil. You do nothing else by denying the necessity of a reaction to the Global Warming, and to the closing end of fossil fuel. Instead of fighting for the few of it remaining, and burning it, we better spend our energy and skills in inventing better technologies and polluting less!

 

[Jee]

Thanx trux for saving me to type something similar in.
Kars, I (think I) know your motives, and respect for that, but I think in this specific question you're not right with your theory. Just because the most people state that, it doesn't mean, it is not true, and it is the trick of the group, who ownes the power. I hope you understand what I mean. I grew up in a socialist (not the western type socialist!) system, and I had to know how to choose the tiny bits of truth from the flooded state (communist party) ruled media. I experienced a lot of tricks. What I think is, that this "denying the Global Warming as a minority, who is depressed" is also such a trick.You know, double denial.. Actually now I experience the same tricks, as the actual leader party (the descendant of the ex Communist Party) uses a lot of tricks to reach it's targets.. but this is offtopic here.

What I meant is: it is not always gold, even though it is glowing.

 

[naiad]

Additionally CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel are always bind with releasing other pollution and toxins poisoning our atmosphere, ocean, food, and our own bodies.

I agree. Reducing pollution has to be a good thing, whether or not it is responsible for global warming.