584,829 active members*
4,748 visitors online*
Register for free
Login
Page 1 of 4 123
Results 1 to 20 of 75
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12177

    Cremation Bad For The Planet

    From Agence France-Presse (Whatever happened to Reuters?)

    An Australian scientist called Wednesday for an end to the age-old tradition of cremation, saying the practice contributed to global warming. Incinerating one body can produce more than 50 kilograms of carbon dioxide.
    ...people could help the environment by being buried in a cardboard box under a tree. The decomposing bodies would provide the tree with nutrients and the tree would convert carbon dioxide into life-giving oxygen for decades.....what a shame to be cremated when you go up in a big bubble of carbon dioxide...Why waste all that carbon dioxide on your death?....it would not be a bad idea to bequeath one's body as food for a forest....You can actually do, after your death, an enormous amount of good for the planet....


    The guy is a Reproductive Biologist which maybe explains why he doesn't seem to realise that it does not matter whether some is burnt or just decomposes naturally the same amount of CO2 is produced. But he got his name in newspapers worldwide.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1468
    Undoubtedly he ended his report with something along the lines of "however, much more research needs to be done into the subject.. and I'm the person to do it... give me lots of money".

    The carbon from the tree would eventualy be given up.. unless we buried the tree too... in fact, perhaps we could get all the old trees and dead people, then use a high pressure industrial press to create oil.. I may sell that idea to Shell Oil hehe. We could power the press by tethering miles long wires attached to satelites- the wire would pass through the earth's magnetic field generating free electricity according to some physicists left hand rule of something.. but I need to research it more- can I have some money please?
    I love deadlines- I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12177
    Quote Originally Posted by ImanCarrot View Post
    ......We could power the press by tethering miles long wires attached to satelites- the wire would pass through the earth's magnetic field generating free electricity according to some physicists left hand rule of something.. but I need to research it more- can I have some money please?
    This does need more research:

    The satellite would have to be geostationary or the wire would wrap around the earth and reel the satellite in.

    Therefore the satellite, wire and earth rotate as a single unit.

    Therefore the wire is not moving relative to the magnetic field of the earth.

    Therefore no free electricity?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3206
    Quote Originally Posted by Geof View Post
    .... Incinerating one body can produce more than 50 kilograms of carbon dioxide.
    .........The decomposing bodies would provide the tree with nutrients and the tree would convert carbon dioxide into life-giving oxygen for decades.........[/I][/B]
    Decomposition results in CO2 AND....????? Decomposition is a net benefit?? The next logical step in this direction is that we grind up the bodies and use them for fertilizer.

    "Hey Mom! These home-growed tomatoes are YUMMY!! I never dreamed gramma would be so tasty!"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1408
    Quote Originally Posted by Geof View Post
    This does need more research:

    The satellite would have to be geostationary or the wire would wrap around the earth and reel the satellite in.

    Therefore the satellite, wire and earth rotate as a single unit.

    Therefore the wire is not moving relative to the magnetic field of the earth.

    Therefore no free electricity?
    Dear Geof,

    I think that the answer is to repeatedly re-deploy the satellite in a non-geostationary orbit. This would have two benefits..

    1) electricity would be generated because the wire would be moving relative to the earth's magnet field

    2) the huge amount of force available when the satellite collides with the earth's surface could be used directly to power the ...er....oil press.


    Best wishes


    Martin

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    938
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzissist View Post
    Decomposition results in CO2 AND....????? Decomposition is a net benefit?? The next logical step in this direction is that we grind up the bodies and use them for fertilizer.

    "Hey Mom! These home-growed tomatoes are YUMMY!! I never dreamed gramma would be so tasty!"
    Watch the old science fiction film Soylent Green, tasefully done. One step beyond fertilizer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
    If you cut it to small you can always nail another piece on the end, but if you cut it to big... then what the hell you gonna do?

    Steven

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3206
    Perfect Tommy: Emilio Lizardo. Wasn't he on TV once?
    Buckaroo Banzai: You're thinking of Mr. Wizard.
    Reno: Emilio Lizardo is a top scientist, dummkopf.
    Perfect Tommy: So was Mr. Wizard.

    RIP Mr. Wizard. The good news is you've been replaced by Bill Nye.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    938
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzissist View Post
    Perfect Tommy: [I]Emilio Lizardo. ...
    Great movie. One of the best
    If you cut it to small you can always nail another piece on the end, but if you cut it to big... then what the hell you gonna do?

    Steven

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1468
    The satellite would have to be geostationary or the wire would wrap around the earth and reel the satellite in.
    Damn, I was hoping no-one would notice that... ok, my preliminary research (which needs more funding) has revealed that two satellites in non- geostationary orbits, one say 1 km above the other and linked by several wires would produce electricity. [edit] or even 3 or 4 linked horizontaly like a bolas[/edit]

    The "dead press" could be situated on the lower satelite [edit] or the centre of the "bolas"[/edit] and the oil dispensed directly as "oil rain", or passed to a geostationary satelite and...

    Getting the dead stuff up into orbit could be problematic, however I beleive our crack team (of one) have devised a unique solution in using a geostationary satelite with 1 tonne of collected oil from the "dead press" (TM) attached to a steel cable loop and pulley down to the ground... attach 1 tonne of dead stuff to the other end of the loop and reel it in. Because the weights in both sides of the loop are equal it should cost not a lot of energy...

    You could also replace some of the "dead" weight by live tourists and charge them a fortune.

    My head hurts...
    I love deadlines- I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3206
    Don't let the Met Office Hadley Centre see your idea...they'll steal it fer sure!!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    938
    Quote Originally Posted by ImanCarrot View Post
    Damn, I was hoping no-one would notice that... ok, my preliminary research (which needs more funding)
    Sounds like a good ten years of government funding available there
    If you cut it to small you can always nail another piece on the end, but if you cut it to big... then what the hell you gonna do?

    Steven

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12177
    Quote Originally Posted by ImanCarrot View Post
    Damn, I was hoping no-one would notice that... ok, my preliminary research (which needs more funding) has revealed that two satellites in non- geostationary orbits....
    What I find scary is that this idea has about the same level of practicality as some proposals that seem to have been seriously touted; millions of little discs and things like that.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1468
    Lmao, for those of you who don't know- what Geof is referring to is actualy being considered as a serious proposal- I read it in New Scientist or Scientific America or something like that- the idea goes like this...

    We blast a huge rocket off towards the sun and stop it at the Legrange point then disperse billiiiiions of little thin reflective disks which will effectively act like a pair of sunglasses for the earth (I kid you not).

    Apart from the huge impracticality of the weight of the beast needed... they haven't really thought it out. Now my physics is not brilliant, but I beleive that after a while the little disks would all end up on the same plane (like Saturn's rings) cos they would attract each other by gravity in the North South direction (although centripetal force would keep them spread out laterally).

    That's why all our planets, and asteroid belt, and Kuiper belt lie on the same plane (I know pluto's slightly off, but that's proly a captured asteroid) and not spread out in a homogenous sphere.

    Also.. who would hoover them all up if it worked too wel lolol.

    These guys are actualy getting paid for this... off our taxes.

    More funding needed!
    I love deadlines- I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12177
    Quote Originally Posted by ImanCarrot View Post
    .... Now my physics is not brilliant, but I beleive that after a while the little disks would all end up on the same plane (like Saturn's rings) ...
    Your physics is fine but you may have a slightly optimistic idea of the timing for this to occur; measured in year I think it involves a 1 followed by seven or eight zeroes.

    It was in New Scientist. Which as I pointed out in a different thread has jumped wholeheartedly on the Anthropogenic Global Warming bandwagon.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1468
    Ahhh in true machinist tradition I hadn't thought of the timescale :withstupi
    "What do you mean the deigners have eaten all the project's budgeted hours?! you want it WHEN!?" lol

    And so true about New Scientist, I've been reading it since it was a monthly mag but these days I find myself flicking through about a quarter of it without even reading the bits about global warming: it's so "what if" these days.
    I love deadlines- I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    938
    Quote Originally Posted by ImanCarrot View Post

    Apart from the huge impracticality of the weight of the beast needed... they have't really thought it out. Now my physics is not brilliant, but I beleive that after a while the little disks would all end up on the same plane (like Saturn's rings) cos they would attract each other by gravity in the North South direction (although centripetal force would keep them spread out laterally).
    Weight and gravitational mass shouldn't be an issue. Their just reflective disks, doesn't matter if their 10lb lead disks or .001 mylar sheet. Of course a few to many and we plunge ourselves into an ice age. And then what, we bomb the little disks out of existence to get rid of a few? Oh yeah, I can see the headlined now... Earth declares war on little mylar disk... save the mylar people protests heard round the world.... Sean Penn traveling to the mylar belt to act as a human shield...

    So, it this the ultimate solution so we can pump more crap into the air and all die early from cancer and emphysema or should we just clean things up a little?
    If you cut it to small you can always nail another piece on the end, but if you cut it to big... then what the hell you gonna do?

    Steven

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12177
    Quote Originally Posted by ImanCarrot View Post
    ...And so true about New Scientist, I've been reading it since it was a monthly mag but these days I find myself flicking through about a quarter of it without even reading the bits about global warming: it's so "what if" these days.
    Yes, I think it has degenerated more in the past two years than the previous 40 or so.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1408

    Help needed with astronomy

    Dear All,

    I never got to grips with astronomy, and my knowledge of gravitational pull is mighty thin. I would be very grateful if anybody could enlighten me on these issues...

    1) If you increase the mass of the Earth ( say, by importing rubble from far off planets), would the Earth assume an orbit round the Sun that is of a smaller "radius" compared to the present one, or a larger radius? (I'm guessing a smaller radius, but may well be wrong).

    2) If there is a natural change in radius, does the Earth have to be moved to it, or will it assume it of its own accord ?

    Incidentally, I think that ImanCarrot's posts are two of the funniest pieces I have ever read. I was helpless. Thank-you.

    Best wishes

    Martin

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    12177
    Quote Originally Posted by martinw View Post
    Dear All,

    I never got to grips with astronomy, and my knowledge of gravitational pull is mighty thin. I would be very grateful if anybody could enlighten me on these issues...

    1) If you increase the mass of the Earth ( say, by importing rubble from far off planets), would the Earth assume an orbit round the Sun that is of a smaller "radius" compared to the present one, or a larger radius? (I'm guessing a smaller radius, but may well be wrong).

    2) If there is a natural change in radius, does the Earth have to be moved to it, or will it assume it of its own accord ?

    Incidentally, I think that ImanCarrot's posts are two of the funniest pieces I have ever read. I was helpless. Thank-you.

    Best wishes

    Martin
    Well we are importing rubble, but it is called dust, from out there, to the tune of multi-thousands of tons per year I think. You can probably find out how much via Google.

    What does it do to the Earth's orbital distance? That is a good question. We need Priapus, or whatever he called himself, to come on the scene and give us a lecture.

    I am sure conservation of angular momentum comes into it somewhere .

    But what has this got to do with the topic of MY Thread? You Thread Hijacker!!!!!!(chair)

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1408
    Quote Originally Posted by Geof View Post

    But what has this got to do with the topic of MY Thread? You Thread Hijacker!!!!!!(chair)
    Dear Geof,

    Your thread threw up the idea of exporting "dead stuff" to space as an alternative to cremation. It might solve global warming. OK, I cannot pretend that a space-based "dead press" (TM) was my favourite option.

    Anyway, you mentioned a scheme to give the Earth a pair of "designer" shades, and I started thinking.....

    ....instead of blocking solar radiation with shades, why not reduce solar radiation by moving the Earth to a different, and more distant orbit from the Sun.

    It could be that a less "massy" Earth might assume the required orbit.

    If this could be achieved by dumping "dead stuff" into space.... Bingo...loads of dead birds with one stone.

    Best wishes,

    Martin

Page 1 of 4 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •