Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 Dango_Bill
Seven
 
Registered: 12/01/07
Posts: 306
|
|
The batteries used to power electric cars DON'T HAVE ACID IN THEM.
Electric cars use various forms of lithium ion batteries, which simply do not contain acid.
Lithium-ion batteries are not meant to be thrown away anyways; they are meant to be recycled after they wear out or get old enough to the point where they won't hold a charge.
Even still, the type of acids used in batteries don't generally last very long in the open environment anyways - they have this high tendency to react with things and form inert salts. For instance, hydrochloric acid reacting with iron (keep in mind iron is found in soil in small amounts all over the world) will form hydrogen gas and iron chloride. Hydrogen gas may be flammable, but it is otherwise inert. Iron chloride is practically inert as well.
Edited by Dango_Bill (07/02/09 10:29 AM)
|
JaComet
Old Hand
Registered: 11/12/02
Posts: 341
Loc: Out Yonder
|
|
Quote:
iluvfungi said:
bacteria is better then fungi for fighting chemicals, because it mutates faster, thus a higher probability for creating a strain that can do something productive.
Here I agree. Bacteria provide the most promising source for help. Perhaps in a happier future fungi can be utilized to uptake heavy metals and be processed to collect them for containment.
Primefied,
Since this is your thread and you continue to address the side subject, I will continue. You may ask me to refrain at any time.
----
Let’s see what we can ascertain from a timeline with a very few published citations.
CAUTION : U.S. Government Sites among the linked.
----
Paris February 2, 2007
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Mankind to blame for global warming say scientists
02 Feb 2007 21:01:27 GMT
Source: Reuters
>The United Nations panel, which groups 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more droughts, heatwaves and a slow gain in sea levels that could continue for more than 1,000 years even if greenhouse gas emissions were capped.<
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02862898.htm
----
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
December 11, 2007
>Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.
"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added.
Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.
"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.
"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.
"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year."<
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=C9554887-802A-23AD-4303-68F67EBD151C
----
Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference
December 13, 2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D5C3C93F-802A-23AD-4F29-FE59494B48A6
----
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
December 13, 2007
>The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute<
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D4B5FD23-802A-23AD-4565-3DCE4095C360
----
Now let’s back up a bit and see where this report originated. The 2007 publication is the 4th revision.
The original published “Peer Reviewed” Report was edited from the approved draft, according to Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, Past President, National Academy of Sciences and Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute.
----
A Major Deception on Global Warming
Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996
>A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.
* * * But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
* "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
* "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
* "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.
IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.
If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.<
From SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
----
And a little wrap up from the above link :
>1 A crucial chapter of the IPCC's report was altered between the time of its formal acceptance and its printing.
2 Whether in accord with IPCC rules or not—still a hotly debated matter—"there is some evidence that the revision process did result in a subtle shift . . . that . . . tended to favour arguments that aligned with the report's broad conclusions." (Critics of the IPCC would have used much stronger words.) The editorial further admits that "phrases that might have been (mis)interpreted as undermining these conclusions have disappeared."
3 "IPCC officials," quoted (but not named) by Nature, claim that the reason for the revisions to the chapter was "to ensure that it conformed to a 'policymakers' summary' of the full report...." Their claim begs the obvious question: Should not a summary conform to the underlying scientific report rather than vice versa?<
----
So. The original scientists names are used to support a report doctored to jibe up with a preexisting “Summary” of the same report. Have any of the original 2,500 contributors publicly withdrawn their endorsement? Ya THINK? Objective Consensus . Oh please.
So we’ve learned that UN organizers refused Monckton’s credentials for an ostensibly open meeting. So what is IPCC doing to rectify this apparent dissention in Peer Consensus?
Closing their meetings.
----
>The IPCC is currently starting to outline its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) which will be finalized in 2014. As it has been the case in the past, the outline of the AR5 will be developed through a scoping process which involves climate change experts from all relevant disciplines and users of IPCC reports, in particular representatives from governments. As a first step, experts, governments and organizations involved in the Fourth Assessment Report have been asked to submit comments and observations in writing. These submissions are currently being analysed by members of the Bureau. The scoping meeting to define the outline of the AR5 is scheduled in Venice, Italy, for 13-17 July 2009 (attendance is by invitation only).<
http://www.ipcc.ch/
----
INVITED EXPERTS
SCOPING MEETING FOR THE 5th ASSESSMENT REPORT
13-17 July 2009, Venice, Italy
PDF 11 Pg.
http://www.ipcc.ch/scoping%20meeting%20AR5/documents/ipcc-list-participants-venice.pdf
----
An impressive looking list.
How many more scientists have signed on in support of the UN team? I’m not sure. Not many it would seem. Most of the new commentators and signors appear to be from the Government and Academic Bureaucrat sectors.
One would think, if IPCC “scientific evidence” were so convincing as to compel establishing a world wide “Carbon” Authority and Tax system, with an urgency, then more scientists could be found to join in raising the alarm. This has not been the case, apparently.
Am I missing something here? If so, what?
I realize that a number of skeptics are tied to oil interests, and that could be reason for their positions on the matter. Would impact their bread and butter. Interesting to note however, much lobby money in favor of reacting to CO2 caused “Climate Change” also comes from oil interests.
One may wonder why the oil industry appears to be talking out of both sides of its pocket book, but that’s another rabbit hole altogether.
Take notice how the hot button phrase is shifting from Greenhouse Emissions/Gases ( in 1989 when we “Only have 10 years before reaching the tipping point of no return” if we didn’t do something ) to Global Warming ( 1999 ish ) to Manmade Climate Change. ( Current catch phrase )
In Social Engineering circles that is called “Framing the Debate/Conversation”
OK.I gotta go.
|
fastfred
Old Hand
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,242
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
 Re: Battery acid? [Re: JaComet]
#10610740 - 07/02/09 03:27 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
To address the OP's question... Battery acid (sulfuric acid) is not a real problem. You can neutralize it with any common base and pour it down your drain. Or you can just dump it anywhere and it will neutralize its self pretty quickly on organic material. The lead it contains is not a particularly dangerous form and lead is a common element in the soil anyway.
Usually plants work better than fungi for heavy metal type bio-remediation. That's because you can pull them up roots and all. They also dry out well due to a low moisture content. Then you burn them and are left with a small amount of ash and the heavy metals you were attempting to remove. This results in a pretty efficient system with little left over waste. Mushrooms don't share these helpful attributes.
To address the rest of the thread... The global warming debate has been over for a long time amongst serious scientists in the field. There are plenty of cold, hard, and indisputable facts backing that up. Al Gore's book does a good job of debunking the counter-arguments that people use to avoid "An Inconvenient Truth". Despite being clearly debunked scientifically people continue to use these arguments because they sound reasonable and advance their agenda of avoiding the problem and it's economic consequences.
You should also check out your own links. The "650 scientists" list is a rehash of a widely debunked scam by oil industry shills. They mailed out a survey to anyone they thought could be called a "scientist". Along with it was a fraudulent letter claiming to be from a prominent scientific journal expressing claims that they were about to publish an issue debunking global warming.
Its been widely debunked, so it's sad to see people still believing it. It's all just a scam to convince people that a controversy exists. As long as people believe that they are willing to take a wait-and-see attitude, even while the real data shows that there is no disputing the fact that global warming exists and humans are the major contributor to the causes.
I could go on for a long time about how serious the issue is. Such factors as the "tipping point" where an enormous amount of carbon will be released by decaying plant material as it thaws. Or the pH of the ocean... once it gets a few tenths of a point higher no sea creature will be able to produce a shell, which could destroy the entire sea ecosystem in the course of a year or two, etc.. And there are likely countless other points-of-no-return that we just don't know enough about to predict.
Quote:
Last year’s list (which boasted 413 “prominent” scientists), for instance, included 20 economists, 44 television weathermen, 84 scientists who have either accepted money from, or are otherwise connected to, the fossil fuel industry or like minded think thanks and 70 scientists with no apparent expertise in the subject, according to Adam Siegel.
It doesn't’t help that scientists have also been included on the list against their will. Andrew Dessler noted earlier this year at Grist that meteorologist George Waldenberger was on the 2007 list – this despite asking Inhofe’s staffers to remove him from it. In his e-mail, Waldenberger wrote:
“I’ve never made any claims that debunk the “Consensus”.
-FF
|
 DrOli
Biochemist
Registered: 08/27/07
Posts: 216
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Battery acid? [Re: JaComet]
#10611177 - 07/02/09 04:44 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
First reference. "Mankind is to blame for global warming, the world's top climate scientists said on Friday, sending governments a "crystal clear" warning they must take urgent action to avert damage that could last centuries.
The United Nations panel, which groups 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more droughts, heatwaves and a slow gain in sea levels that could continue for more than 1,000 years even if greenhouse gas emissions were capped."
The quote you took is much better in context with the paragraph before it.
"The scientists said it was "very likely" -- or more than 90 percent probable -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years."
Second reference is to Lord Christopher Monckton, which wikipedia (if it is correct, states that he was educated at, "Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge where he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism". There is no scientific education there that would grant this man much validity in his claims.
His article in the opinions section of the American Physical societies journal contained above it, "its (the article) conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"
Fourth reference I need only add this http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-retired-46011008
I could do more, but I'm pretty bored. Maybe another day, if I get some more free time.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 13,811
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Battery acid? [Re: MrGreen]
#10614809 - 07/03/09 08:22 AM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RogerRabbit said:
Keep this stuff to the political forum please. This isn't the forum to bash a Nobel prize winner....
who has not only been proved correct, but that he didn't go nearly far enough and actually underestimated the problem. Satellite images of the polar ice cap and Greenland don't lie. Political hacks from both the right and left wing do lie.
In summary:
1. Don't talk about this in this forum, its off topic
2. But.... I'll declare my opinion now that it can't be challenged, and declare certain opinions correct
Either we can talk about it or we can't. Giving a contrary opinion in the same post you tell people that such opinion is off limits to be discussed, is a bit strange.
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Actually the mods in the political forum won't let you debate global warming there they pass it off into science and tech unless it has anything to do with policy structure.
Phred has only said you can't talk about science and data in the political forum, you can discuss policy. I mean I agree that's not a meritorious distinction, as the science is inextricably entwined with any political discussion of AGW or GW, but its not like he said you can't discuss it at all. Maybe the admins want it that way or something. Personally I think the off topic business is silly and should be greatly relaxed for threads with a clear political relevance. I mean, can you not discuss studies of govrenment't efficiency or the effects of policy? Even calculating the defecit is a scientific process, what's left if we exclude all science- just making shit up that supports your predetermined position? The policy is silly. Post in admin feedback if you want it changed, I'll support it. Maybe phred would not oppose it, give him a PM.
Quote:
MrGreen said:
Quote:
Primefied said:
o.k that makes sense, I bet with any base in the right combination could neutralize it.
In general this may be believed, but don't that's a very dangerous thing to think. There was a story about a guy at a plant who got a very strong acid on his face. So his go worker took a strong base and threw it on his face, problem.
Extreme bases and acids don't counter act, because both are highly reactive.
Extreme bases and acids do counteract with respect to their acidic and basic functions. While the conjugate bases/acids can have their own independant reactivit, the actual acid and base parts will neutralize.
Your story is just an example of why you shouldn't be throwing reactive chemicals on people, not an illuminating antecdote regarding reactive bases and acids not neutralizing. 1. Your face is not a great place to try and mix acids and bases to neutrality 2. any excess of base will burn you 3. and unneutralized acid will burn you
You should wash yourself with water if you get an acid on you. Throwing some NaOH on someone isn't the best course of action. (again, your face isn't the best place to try and neutralize an acidic solution, and throwing chemicals at your face isn't a reliable technique to get a homogenous solution)
|
ScavengerType
bradass87
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,699
Loc: The North
Last seen: 3 hours, 39 minutes
|
Re: Battery acid? [Re: johnm214]
#10618053 - 07/03/09 08:26 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Jacomet:
I'm aware of a lot of those quotes and besides some of them being placed out of context (not a big deal because I already know exactly why on most) there is nothing that surprises me in any way about this. Yes some scientists deny global warming. I'm sure that even after the globe was circumnavigated flat earthers still existed likely many in the pay of the church, but sure enough there was also some nuts that chose it independently. The IPCC has always been pressured by governments to ignore specifically politically inconvenient facts and probibly still is. If this is the kind of crap you have to back your argument I have to be honest this is pretty weak, I for example have found quite a resource on bit torrent both in geology courses and one specifically on climate and climate change in addition to all the literature I've read on the subject that made it quite clear what is happening and why. I bet you don't even know the reason for the "next 1000 years" figure.
Johnm:
I'm pretty sure that RR won't lock the thread until it gets excessively long. However it is also important to not just debate anything on any of the on topic (non-"community") forums. That said, it's pretty hard to ignore people who barge in somewhere to contribute their asinine opinions on actual scientific matters when they are upon scrutiny obviously uninformed at best.
So if I understand you right there are specific neutralizers that work for specific acids and getting the wrong neutralizer would not neutralize the acid? This could be important for me to know.
--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 13,811
Loc: Americas
|
|
For the usualy definition of "acid" and "base" (produces a proton or hydroxide, respectivly) no, there are not special neutralizers for the acidic and basic functionality. Anything will do.
Since an acid only produces an H+, that leaves a lot of other molecule hanging around, and this could be reactive, but if you focus on the acidity of a specific molecule, no, anything will neutralize it so long as its strong enought to do so.
Basically, any common acid will neturalize the pH disturbance produced by any common base, and vice versa.
|
ScavengerType
bradass87
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,699
Loc: The North
Last seen: 3 hours, 39 minutes
|
Re: Battery acid? [Re: johnm214]
#10621484 - 07/04/09 02:19 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
But the product of this can be reactive is what your saying then? sorta like baking soda and vinegar is neutralizing each other but the product of that reaction is likely what causes the familiar effect we all know of and this would be the reason for the reaction that occurred on that dudes face (just with different acid/base)... if i understand correctly. This would mean that acids would have bases that they should not be neutralized with.
--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 13,811
Loc: Americas
|
|
Yes, both the product of the neutralization and the product of the dissocociation of the acid in water can be reactive.
But it common practice this isn't a big deal because the stronger the acid is, generally, the weaker an acid or base its counterion is (and the common acids are common specifically because the counterions are unreactive). So Hydrochloric acid dissovles to form Cl- and H+, but Cl- is very unreactive. Further, the product of this with NaOH is also unreactive relative to the reactants, NaCl and H20. Because acids and bases are both higher energy than a similar neutral molecule, generally, the product of their reaction is generally a lower energy species. Acids are oxidized, Bases are reduced, and they combine to form less reactive prodcuts.
But if your not talking about common acids and bases used for such, then you can always find examples of things whose counterion or the result of the reaction would be reactive.
Common acids and bases generally are selected specifically because the counterions aren't very reactive. You just want an acid, you don't need it interfering in your reaction. Some are chosen specifically because they are reactive, though, like nitric acid. This will oxidize many thing, because its counterion is highly oxidized.
|
Shroominit
Part Time Mycologist
Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 4,662
|
|
I'll take the battery acid off their hands. 
It's sulphuric acid, and is very useful outside of just batteries.
|
Dango_Bill
Seven
Registered: 12/01/07
Posts: 306
|
|
Quote:
Shroominit said:
I'll take the battery acid off their hands.
It's sulphuric acid, and is very useful outside of just batteries.
Use it how? Got some corpses you don't want?
--------------------
|
ScavengerType
bradass87
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,699
Loc: The North
Last seen: 3 hours, 39 minutes
|
|
lol
--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club
|
Shroominit
Part Time Mycologist
Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 4,662
|
|
Nah it wouldn't take care of the bones. You should just use an incinerator at that point.
|
LitCloset
hypochondriac
Registered: 04/01/09
Posts: 628
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
|
sorry just skimmed through quickly so this may have been covered.
on the subject of elemental contaminats, there are ways to use microbes to make them safer. it usually involves changing there oxidation state so they are much less soluble in water. this usally causes them to precipitate in the soil where they are relitivley harmless as long as you dont eat it or something changes it back.
sulfuric acid is no biggy. there are more than enough microbes that help neutralize acidic conditions.
my avatar is a pic of one of my final agar plates in my last project. it has no carbon source at all. just basic salts and noble agar. the plates where placed in a toluene atmosphere of 10% and many bacteria and fungus grew in the presence of the toluene actually using it as its sole carbon source. growing almost as fast as they did on NA. i isolated all of the organisms from dirt that was taken from a dump where cars where spilling gasoline all over the ground.
this sort of organism is used in bioreactors for bio remediation of ground water, soil etc.
a good example of elemental remediation is the uranium and many other elements taken out of the soil at oak ridge, my current favorite strain of cube.
|
13shrooms
Lightning Shaman
Registered: 01/01/09
Posts: 16,031
Loc: In the Ether
|
|
Quote:
I'm just saying there's always two or more sides to any debate. Those who cling religiously to any single argument are nearly always wrong.
RR
 
spontainious evolution @ Amazon.com it relates but I dont feel like typing to explain...
|
all_for_war
Stranger
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 326
Last seen: 2 years, 14 days
|
|
baking soda works...
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, RogerRabbit
2,077 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
<---THREAD
