Fuel Shortage

[scanner]

First which islands in the Pacific are made of rock then ?
They appear to have only measured area, not height, given that it was from aerial photographs and similar.
The islands effectively move as I understand it, with the new sediment being washed up whilst old sediment is more slowly swept away, the sediment being the remains of the coral, thus the area in general increases over time.

Who knows? DO YOU?

The volcanic islands certainly aren't coral and surely all the low lying islands aren't coral either.

Ohh and the whole of the east coast of the USA (bar a small part of New England) and a good proportion of the North Sea coast of Europe is just as vulnerable to sea level rise as the coral atolls of the Pacific, but don't seem to have their miraculous ability to grow.

[mikeonb4c]

First which islands in the Pacific are made of rock then ?
They appear to have only measured area, not height, given that it was from aerial photographs and similar.
The islands effectively move as I understand it, with the new sediment being washed up whilst old sediment is more slowly swept away, the sediment being the remains of the coral, thus the area in general increases over time.

Who knows? DO YOU?

The volcanic islands certainly aren't coral and surely all the low lying islands aren't coral either.

Ohh and the whole of the east coast of the USA (bar a small part of New England) and a good proportion of the North Sea coast of Europe is just as vulnerable to sea level rise as the coral atolls of the Pacific, but don't seem to have their miraculous ability to grow.

I was brought up on Bermuda, an extinct submerged volcano that became an island because of the coral that had accreted on it over a long period of time. I came across this in the wikipedia definition of island, and which seemed to know:

Oceanic islands are ones that do not sit on continental shelves. The vast majority are volcanic in origin such as Saint Helena in the South Atlantic Ocean.[11] The few oceanic islands that are not volcanic are tectonic in origin and arise where plate movements have lifted up the deep ocean floor above the surface. Examples include Saint Peter and Paul Rocks in the Atlantic Ocean and Macquarie Island in the Pacific.

One type of volcanic oceanic island is found in a volcanic island arc. These islands arise from volcanoes where the subduction of one plate under another is occurring. Examples include the Aleutian Islands, the Mariana Islands, and most of Tonga in the Pacific Ocean. Some of the Lesser Antilles and the South Sandwich Islands are the only Atlantic Ocean examples.

Another type of volcanic oceanic island occurs where an oceanic rift reaches the surface. There are two examples: Iceland, which is the world's second largest volcanic island, and Jan Mayen. Both are in the Atlantic.

A third type of volcanic oceanic island is formed over volcanic hotspots. A hotspot is more or less stationary relative to the moving tectonic plate above it, so a chain of islands results as the plate drifts. Over long periods of time, this type of island is eventually "drowned" by isostatic adjustment and eroded, becoming a seamount. Plate movement across a hot-spot produces a line of islands oriented in the direction of the plate movement. An example is the Hawaiian Islands, from Hawaii to Kure, which then extends beneath the sea surface in a more northerly direction as the Emperor Seamounts. Another chain with similar orientation is the Tuamotu Archipelago; its older, northerly trend is the Line Islands. The southernmost chain is the Austral Islands, with its northerly trending part the atolls in the nation of Tuvalu. Tristan da Cunha is an example of a hotspot volcano in the Atlantic Ocean. Another hot spot in the Atlantic is the island of Surtsey, which was formed in 1963.

An atoll is an island formed from a coral reef that has grown on an eroded and submerged volcanic island. The reef rises to the surface of the water and forms a new island. Atolls are typically ring-shaped with a central lagoon. Examples include the Line Islands in the Pacific and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

One interesting thought is what happens to all this if increasing acidity, ocean warming etc continues to kill coral colonies as evidenced with 'bleaching'. Presumably coral islands will then cease to grow

Turning back to diesel (and anything else) and its associated health risks. We seem to have forgotten that where there is a gain, there is most likely a loss. We have to make choices. In congested city areas, where diesel is causing particular concern (no pun intended) I'd suggest we choose electric (or people power) over fossil fuels. In rural areas, it would be interesting to assess which poses the greater risk to health: diesel or pesticides. Both of them are (I think?) fossil derived, both needed by all of us if we are not to starve and both. Of the two, I'd suspect pesticides of being the greater risk to human health, both for people living near crops (drifting spray), and for people eating them. Just a guess though.

[BongoBongo123]

First which islands in the Pacific are made of rock then ?
They appear to have only measured area, not height, given that it was from aerial photographs and similar.
The islands effectively move as I understand it, with the new sediment being washed up whilst old sediment is more slowly swept away, the sediment being the remains of the coral, thus the area in general increases over time.

Who knows? DO YOU?

The volcanic islands certainly aren't coral and surely all the low lying islands aren't coral either.

Ohh and the whole of the east coast of the USA (bar a small part of New England) and a good proportion of the North Sea coast of Europe is just as vulnerable to sea level rise as the coral atolls of the Pacific, but don't seem to have their miraculous ability to grow.

I was brought up on Bermuda, an extinct submerged volcano that became an island because of the coral that had accreted on it over a long period of time. I came across this in the wikipedia definition of island, and which seemed to know:

Oceanic islands are ones that do not sit on continental shelves. The vast majority are volcanic in origin such as Saint Helena in the South Atlantic Ocean.[11] The few oceanic islands that are not volcanic are tectonic in origin and arise where plate movements have lifted up the deep ocean floor above the surface. Examples include Saint Peter and Paul Rocks in the Atlantic Ocean and Macquarie Island in the Pacific.

One type of volcanic oceanic island is found in a volcanic island arc. These islands arise from volcanoes where the subduction of one plate under another is occurring. Examples include the Aleutian Islands, the Mariana Islands, and most of Tonga in the Pacific Ocean. Some of the Lesser Antilles and the South Sandwich Islands are the only Atlantic Ocean examples.

Another type of volcanic oceanic island occurs where an oceanic rift reaches the surface. There are two examples: Iceland, which is the world's second largest volcanic island, and Jan Mayen. Both are in the Atlantic.

A third type of volcanic oceanic island is formed over volcanic hotspots. A hotspot is more or less stationary relative to the moving tectonic plate above it, so a chain of islands results as the plate drifts. Over long periods of time, this type of island is eventually "drowned" by isostatic adjustment and eroded, becoming a seamount. Plate movement across a hot-spot produces a line of islands oriented in the direction of the plate movement. An example is the Hawaiian Islands, from Hawaii to Kure, which then extends beneath the sea surface in a more northerly direction as the Emperor Seamounts. Another chain with similar orientation is the Tuamotu Archipelago; its older, northerly trend is the Line Islands. The southernmost chain is the Austral Islands, with its northerly trending part the atolls in the nation of Tuvalu. Tristan da Cunha is an example of a hotspot volcano in the Atlantic Ocean. Another hot spot in the Atlantic is the island of Surtsey, which was formed in 1963.

An atoll is an island formed from a coral reef that has grown on an eroded and submerged volcanic island. The reef rises to the surface of the water and forms a new island. Atolls are typically ring-shaped with a central lagoon. Examples include the Line Islands in the Pacific and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

One interesting thought is what happens to all this if increasing acidity, ocean warming etc continues to kill coral colonies as evidenced with 'bleaching'. Presumably coral islands will then cease to grow

Turning back to diesel (and anything else) and its associated health risks. We seem to have forgotten that where there is a gain, there is most likely a loss. We have to make choices. In congested city areas, where diesel is causing particular concern (no pun intended) I'd suggest we choose electric (or people power) over fossil fuels. In rural areas, it would be interesting to assess which poses the greater risk to health: diesel or pesticides. Both of them are (I think?) fossil derived, both needed by all of us if we are not to starve and both. Of the two, I'd suspect pesticides of being the greater risk to human health, both for people living near crops (drifting spray), and for people eating them. Just a guess though.

Not sure they can be compared with value, they both are potentially capable of causing illness I bet. Different timescales, but ultimately there is only so much poison a human can take on board before things go wrong, slowly or quickly.

Veering off...

I am not an organic nut (who can afford to be?) but things I put a lot of into my body... i.e. I love my milk (yum) so I choose organic and it is not really much more expensive + the difference in taste is HUGE, much more Omega 3 in organic milk so a lot to gain. There are a few other products I choose organic I go 50/50 organic and non organic with butter cause that is expensive relatively speaking. If you use marg choose butter, it is natural and saturated fat is no longer the threat they thought whereas Omega 6 in marg is inflammatory. (and very processed) If I eat carrots I choose organic cause they are the most toxic of veg, they are very good at hoovering up inorganic pesticides and toxins (add it to this list of baddies)

You can also add aubergines to the least toxic list.

https://colchesterfarm.wordpress.com/20 ... egetables/

One other tip I live by is a small bit of 85pct cocoa dark chocolate a day (organic suggested, I eat Green and Blacks and I treat it as a preventative medicine)... this is merely 2 sites... seriously if there is 1 thing we should eat is a small bit of dark choc everyday the health benefits are seemingly endless (one really big one is reduces likely hood of strokes by 20-30pct depending on the study):

It is important to eat 85pct cocoa dark chocolate and I mean 2 squares a day not 1/2 a bar a day, lol. It is quite bitter in taste and not very sweet typically. And it does not include cr*p like Galaxy and Dairy milk/Bournville, that stuff is not even classed as chocolate because of the low cocoa solids and milk content.

http://authoritynutrition.com/7-health- ... chocolate/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-33145215

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3657

I am no expert and have to filter through what I think is BS and what has some validity just like anyone else really. It can be a minefield but the info is out there.

[mikeonb4c]

Not sure they can be compared with value, they both are potentially capable of causing illness I bet. Different timescales, but ultimately there is only so much poison a human can take on board before things go wrong, slowly or quickly.

But compare them we must unfortunately. It is how risk/cost/benefit analysis is done. And it is those analyses that ultimately determine policy. Not quite correct. In a democracy, the public voting with their feet can influence policy more than rational analysis, but not necessarily (in hindsight) for the better. You're right though when you hint that timescales are often not considered enough. On which score, considering it possible to contain something toxic for 10,000 years is something that I can get nervous about.

[BongoBongo123]

Not sure they can be compared with value, they both are potentially capable of causing illness I bet. Different timescales, but ultimately there is only so much poison a human can take on board before things go wrong, slowly or quickly.

But compare them we must unfortunately. It is how risk/cost/benefit analysis is done. And it is those analyses that ultimately determine policy. Not quite correct. In a democracy, the public voting with their feet can influence policy more than rational analysis, but not necessarily (in hindsight) for the better. You're right though when you hint that timescales are often not considered enough. On which score, considering it possible to contain something toxic for 10,000 years is something that I can get nervous about.

Pesticides main cause of illness is in the consumption by eating. Fuel is burned I am not sure why they need to be compared quite. They are both happening irrelevant of health effects and no comparison is required. Both bad for the environment and us, to what degree ?

If you really want to have something to ponder and be concerned about look up "peak phosphorus". An element essential for growing anything now made from powdered rock and in relatively short supply.

This will start us off:

http://oilprice.com/Metals/Foodstuffs/D ... rming.html

Finite supply and is only available in a few countries. China is no longer selling it on the open market as they use tonnes. Modern agriculture has made us 100pct dependent on this and once gone we are basically extinct given our reliance on dumping tonnes of inorganic fertilizer on land (because it is literally devoid of any organic nutritional goodness) in the existing modern agricultural world.

Certainly a few things that need addressing in our worlds near future.

[mikeonb4c]

Not sure they can be compared with value, they both are potentially capable of causing illness I bet. Different timescales, but ultimately there is only so much poison a human can take on board before things go wrong, slowly or quickly.

But compare them we must unfortunately. It is how risk/cost/benefit analysis is done. And it is those analyses that ultimately determine policy. Not quite correct. In a democracy, the public voting with their feet can influence policy more than rational analysis, but not necessarily (in hindsight) for the better. You're right though when you hint that timescales are often not considered enough. On which score, considering it possible to contain something toxic for 10,000 years is something that I can get nervous about.

Pesticides main cause of illness is in the consumption by eating. Fuel is burned I am not sure why they need to be compared quite. They are both happening irrelevant of health effects and no comparison is required. Both bad for the environment and us, to what degree ?

If you really want to have something to ponder and be concerned about look up "peak phosphorus". An element essential for growing anything now made from powdered rock and in relatively short supply.

This will start us off:

http://oilprice.com/Metals/Foodstuffs/D ... rming.html

Finite supply and is only available in a few countries. China is no longer selling it on the open market as they use tonnes. Modern agriculture has made us 100pct dependent on this and once gone we are basically extinct given our reliance on dumping tonnes of inorganic fertilizer on land (because it is literally devoid of any organic nutritional goodness) in the existing modern agricultural world.

Certainly a few things that need addressing in our worlds near future.

They certainly do, though as that article discusses a lot can happen to restore the balance between phosphate demand and availability. Around 1969 I asked my stepfather, a senior civil servant whose work and interests meant he knoew a lot, when the world would run out of oil. I was 17 years old and getting interested in stuff like that. He told me that from all the data available, and based on known exploitable reserves and forecast growth in demand, the world was expected to run out of oil c1990. Scary stuff. Then the 1973 oil crisis happened, oil prices rose, demand magically plummeted (though motorists didn't appear to have to curtail their habits), and exploration of North Sea oil became commercially viable. All of a sudden the picture changed beyond recognition. From that experience I learned never to unquestioningly believe what the experts say.

Returning to the diesel/pesticide debate, you've pretty much shaped the answer to your own question I reckon. It's not so much that we're directly comparing diesel (or petrol) and pesticides (Shall I top up your diesel tank with pesticide Sir?) as considering that the dilemma facing us in respect of each is in many ways similar :

* Both are very important to economic existence
* Each carries a risk, and each carries a benefit
* At what point, and under what circumstances, does the risk of each begin to outweigh the benefit each brings
* Are we stuck with one or other or both of them, like it or not
* If we are stuck with them, what can be done to limit the damage they might do, within the limits of what the economy can absorb and public opinion can be expected to follow

For both diesel and pesticides, exposing high concentrations of people to high concentrations is undesirable. Once the concentration of either (or both) becomes less, then the upside/downside balance changes.

Fertilisers too are a concern - nitrates and other agrochemicals getting into the water table is a big issue. Maybe that's where we'll find the driver for addressing the phosphate shortage?

[BongoBongo123]

I am not convinced when scientists, businesses and governments who develop and employ things consider the future enough. In some cases we don't know the consequences until it is too late and yet we rely on them to maintain the standard of living. Few people have the capacity for self sufficiency and we rely on massive, beyond complex industrialized processes and everything following a "like clock work" timetable otherwise it's chaos in 36 hours.

It is certainly worth considering that situation we have brought about. And with the world as it is today... (not going that great in the Middle East, and beyond is it ) it is no wonder we can end up feeling a little vulnerable.