Living on Mars, a pipe dream

Living on Mars, a pipe dream

Some ‘visionaries’ foresee the human race living on other planets. Sure, in principle nothing wrong with it.

However to really have any chance of survival in the long term that planet has to conform to very restricted parameters, as conditions found on earth since after millions of years having evolved as a species on earth our bodies are designed to live within the boundaries as set by the earth’s conditions.

Even a small relatively deviation in temperature is enough to make human life very hard reason why so few people live on the poles and why the human race had it’s origins nearer the equator.

We need a temperature within a narrow band to survive.

Now take for example the planet Mars.

It’s dead. It died long time ago, it’s atmosphere consists of for us unbreathable gases (mostly CO2) at about half earth’s pressure making surface life impossible.

It doesn’t have a revolving iron core so no magnetic field to deflect hard radiation making surface life impossible

The water content of the planet consists mostly of permafrost at <250 kelvin making the availability of liquid water near enough impossible.

The surface consists of oxidized rock and a good layer of micro particle dust making articulated earth like machines of any usable size a nearly impossible task to keep operational.

The same dust will enter into any construction made by us and in the long term cause any machine or living entity being perfused by that dust.

This dust is mostly iron oxide. Surface of Mars As an abrasive compound it really does the trick. It is toxic in the amounts found in Mars surface and atmosphere.

It is certainly a compound which will destroy any larger machine due to it destroying bearings and being and electric conductor short circuiting any electronic device, which cannot with our present or to be foreseen technology be totally sealed off.

Than the daily dose of radiation. Already the even the shortest Earth-Mars round trip would be about 0.66 sievert. This amount is like receiving a whole-body CT scan every five or six days. Conditions on Mars aren’t any better due to lack of dense atmosphere and magnetic field.  Radiation on Mars 

So only subsoil habitation is possible and than at great depth. In order to construct a habitat suitable to sustain multiple generations we need to excavate about the size of the current habited surface of earth which including the surface needed for agriculture (based on 2018 population) Earth has a land surface of 149 million km².

Which needs to be heated since the planet is at <250 kelvin. It also needs to have daylight lighting, earth like atmosphere and pressure. The energy needed to just begin to excavate a small colony, heat it, pressurize it and give it earth like atmosphere is beyond calculation. And how does one obtain this energy? Solar panels won’t work since the sun is to distant, windmills won’t work due to the low density of the atmosphere.

Only one energy source would be direct matter to energy conversion as in nuclear fission and/or fusion. But it would have to be a really huge reactor, or field of reactors to generate this energy. But how do you build that on Mars? How do you build the infrastructure? For that you need energy you don’t have yet.

In other words, to have a real self sustaining colony on Mars which won’t cause inbreeding within one generation you need to deplete all resources on Earth, send them to Mars, invent robots that will reliably prefabricate the living quarters and other infrastructure. After the decennia it takes to do that send at least 100.000 of humans of diverse populations to Mars and hope they won’t kill each other on the trip and the cosmic radiation doesn’t cause a significant mutation.

In conclusion the ‘visionary’ which proposes making Mars an alternative for Earth suffers from an overly active imagination and sincere lack of factual knowledge/comprehension thereof

 

 

 

 

 

No dose effect on mortality by particulate matter PM2.5

No dose effect on mortality by particulate matter PM2.5

pm2noeffect

Enstrom’s study: Fine Particulate Matter and Total Mortality

As with the fake science ‘supporting’ AGW this latest effort to scare people into paying exorbitant eco taxes for non existent problems begins to unravel fast.

It’s really amazing how time and again ecowarriors try to get away with baseless fake science in order to get their hand in your wallet. 

The tactic is always the same: propose a very scary problem, pump it up with hundreds of taxpayer/donation funded studies whose premise is: Here is the desired outcome now please write us a paper saying it is so.

As with the air quality standards. Air in the Western World became so clean over the last decades it’s having a measurable effect of the amount of sunlight actually striking the ground. Standards for what constitutes ‘clean air’ are now so strict that nature itself can’t adhere to it. Natural causes of air ‘pollution’ (hey we as a species managed to overcome much worse over the last million+ years and we prosper) are worldwide the main driver.

Just as with CO2 not being a pollutant but a highly necessary trace gas for vegetation so is PM2.5 a in greater part a natural phenomenon we live with since time memorial.

 

selfreported ‘science’ proves alcohol changes mood

selfreported ‘science’ proves alcohol changes mood

In this ‘study’ alcohol moodiness seems to ‘prove’ that the sort of alcohol ingested (liquor, wine, beer) influences the state of mind of the person.

quote:

” Main outcome measures Positive and negative emotions associated with consumption of different alcoholic beverages (energised, relaxed, sexy, confident, tired, aggressive, ill, restless and tearful) over the past 12 months in different settings.

Results Alcoholic beverages vary in the types of emotions individuals report they elicit, with spirits more frequently eliciting emotional changes of all types. Overall 29.8% of respondents reported feeling aggressive when drinking spirits, compared with only 7.1% when drinking red wine (p<0.001). Women more frequently reported feeling all emotions when drinking alcohol, apart from feelings of aggression. Respondents’ level of alcohol dependency was strongly associated with feeling all emotions, with the likelihood of aggression being significantly higher in possible dependent versus low risk drinkers (adjusted OR 6.4; 95% CI 5.79 to 7.09; p<0.001). The odds of feeling the majority of positive and negative emotions also remained highest among dependent drinkers irrespective of setting.”

 

Evidently the more one consumes in alcohol quantity, be it liquor/wine/beer/etc the influence will be more influential however to write and get accepted a paper stating that the sort of beverage influences the mood is beyond absurd.

The use of ‘report/reported’ in this paper should have been more than enough to have it refused for publication, how inebriated where the participants?

Unfortunately it’s not only with alcohol where self reporting has been used as a valid measurement.

I invite anyone to do a word search ‘report’ in the fields such as psychology, sociologically, psychiatry, air pollution or whichever field which can’t be empirically proven

Going by my personal experience self reporting in those fields is overwhelming

 

 

Why current EV vehicles will not replace ICE vehicles

Why current EV vehicles will not replace ICE vehicles

Simple. There is no national grid that can nor will supply the energy needed to replace the energy currently supplied by hydrocarbons. Not daily, not hourly.

I’ll keep it extremely simple to be comprehensible. To transport the equivalent of hydrocarbon energy content to electricity you need very high capacity 24/7 power plants. You need to have high capacity transport lines in the 1000 kV range which need multiple transformers to  step down the energy to the level it won’t blow up your car.

You need the cables, either from aluminum or copper to take up the charge. No national grid has this. So you need to replace the whole infrastructure down to the connection of your domicile to the grid.

The grid needs to be able to compensate for the wildly varying supply now that so called green power plants come on line. Solar doesn’t work at night, wind farms don’t work when there is either to much or to little wind.

But even if they would work 24/7 (current levels are at best 20% of rated capacity in the northern hemisphere) still no city has the infrastructure to cope with a projected demand of 100% EV vehicles, ships, airplanes.

In fact even the very big conglomerates with the most modern infrastructure won’t be able to supply all energy needs including vehicles without melting the transport lines.

On purpose i refrained from introducing the calculations of how much energy is generated using hydrocarbons and how there is noway anyone will be able to replace it by green energy nor realistically transmit it to the end-user.

The problem here is that those who profess this replacement live in large cities, with relatively few EV vehicles and electricity supplied by fossil fuels without realizing that the the rest of the world doesn’t have an infrastructure even capable to keep a refrigerator running without fail let alone charge an EV vehicle.

And don’t get me started on long haul trucks. Only a very small part of the world has flat straight roads with high capacity power lines.

Or transatlantic freight-ships. Where are you going to charge your 200.000 tonnes capacity container-ship? The Panama canal?

 

 

 

Defending the car industry because it is too stupid to defend itself.

Defending the car industry because it is too stupid to defend itself.

Here’s what you need to know.

  1. Dieselgate was about higher than allowed NOx emissions caused by car manufacturers rigging their engines to cheat emissions tests.
  2. EPA imagines NOx as a precursor to fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
  3. It is claimed that PM2.5 causes millions of deaths every year.
  4. Scare Pollution debunks the claim that PM2.5 kills anyone. So NOx kills no one.
  5. So there is nothing to the extra NOx emissions and this study except a lot of junk science.

The media release is here

It must be said that none nowhere ever  managed to show a causal link between pm2.5 and health/longevity , at the very best one could show that in fact pm2.5 has no effect on health except when taken in extreme doses as in smoking (which counts for 20.000 times the pm2.5 per cigarette as compared to the outside air and even than it’s impossible to pinpoint if the smokers died from cancerous/toxic substances in that smoke rather than the particulate matter).

As of today nobody can show a death certificate which claims pm2.5 as cause of death but by setting the standards of air-pollution to the level of pm2.5 all air on the whole of earth can be deemed as being polluted as long as one keeps on setting the ‘safe’ level lower and lower.

So in fact in the western world there is no notable air-pollution if one just discounts the fairytale of particulate matter as a danger to public health.

It is however a perfect system to scare people to pay exorbitant prices for energy. The most ‘green’ countries have the highest consumer prices for energy which is great for the industry. Those benefit most since all subsidies for ‘green’ energy makes for a gorgeous business model. Money for free. No wonder many jump on the bandwagon 

 

So does PM2.5 actually kill that many people?

So does PM2.5 actually kill that many people?

Or really anyone at all? A new study just published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacologydrives a stake through the heart of EPA’s claims.

The study compared daily PM2.5 levels in California with daily death counts during the 13 years between 2000 to 2012. Over those 4,745 days, no association could be found between PM2.5 levels and the over two million deaths included in the analysis. EPA claims that elderly people are most vulnerable to the allegedly lethal effect of PM2.5. But the California study specifically examined this issue and found no association between PM2.5 and deaths among the elderly.

Without a doubt this is the largest and best-conducted epidemiologic study ever on PM2.5. Virtually every death in California was considered and the state is meticulous about its air-quality data. California has the ultimate range in air quality, from the best to the worst in the U.S. In comparison, previous EPA-funded studies have focused only on limited (read “cherry-picked”) urban areas, rely on guesstimated or assumed PM2.5 levels and often include deaths from accidents, homicides and other causes that can’t possibly be related to PM2.5.

Full Article