President Trump, for eternity!

[OldBrownsFan]

JUST IN: Mexico has just deployed 15,000 troops to US southern border

Mexico is doing more than just deploying troops to their own southern border. They are now deploying almost 15,000 more troops to our southern border in an effort to stop migrants from reaching the US:

CNN – Mexico has deployed almost 15,000 troops to the US-Mexico border, according to the country’s Secretary of Defense Luis Sandoval.

“In the northern part of the country, we have deployed a total of almost 15,000 troops composed of National Guard elements and military units,” Sandoval announced today in Cancun.

Approximately 2,000 National Guard members have already been deployed to Mexico’s southern border with Belize and Guatemala, he noted, adding to the 4,500 troops already spread across the area. Many migrants begin their journey in Central America and even further south, passing through Mexico on their way toward the United States.

The deployments come after renewed pressure from the Trump administration on Mexico to help slow migration flows northward. Mexico, however, has also called on the United Nations and the United States to help with the monumental task.

Trump appears to be making big strides with the country of Mexico in an effort to stop migrants from abusing the US.

As the GOP national spokesperson put it, “Mexico continues to do more than Democrats in Congress to solve the border crisis”.

Can’t argue with that.

https://therightscoop.com/just-in-mexico-has-just-deployed-15000-troops-to-us-southern-border/

 

[Chemist]

10 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said:

But, seriously now, have they even tried sticking a giant cigarette filter in the smokestack? I mean it worked for Chesterfields right?

 

 

Reminiscent of the “science” behind man made global warming.

[jbluhm86]

On 6/22/2019 at 9:44 PM, Chemist said:

How much carbon does single volcanic eruption  have the potential to release?

Forbes: How Much CO2 Does A Single Volcano Emit?

A tremendous synthesis of information took place in 2013, revealing our best value yet for the total amount of CO2 emitted from natural release events within Earth. They found:

• 33 measured degassing volcanoes emit a total of 60 million tons of CO2 per year.
• There are a total of ~150 known degassing volcanoes, implying (based on the measured ones) that a total of 271 million tons of CO2 are released annually.
• 30 historically active volcanoes are measured to emit a total of 6.4 million tons of CO2 per year.
• With ~550 historically active volcanoes total, they extrapolate this class of object contributes 117 million tons per year.
• The global total from volcanic lakes is 94 million tons of CO2 per year.
• Additional emissions from tectonic, hydrothermal and inactive volcanic areas contribute an estimated 66 million tons of CO2 per year, although the total number of emitting, tectonic areas are unknown.
• And finally, emissions from mid-ocean ridges are estimated to be 97 million tons of CO2 annually.

Add all of these up, and you get an estimate of around 645 million tons of CO2 per year. Yes, there are uncertainties; yes, there's annual variation; yes, it's easy to get led astray if you think that Mt. Etna is typical, rather than the unusually large emitter of CO2 that it is. When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2 per year – and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons of CO2 per year – compared to humanity's 29 billion tons per year, it's overwhelmingly clear what's caused the carbon dioxide increase in Earth's atmosphere since 1750.

In fact, even if we include the rare, very large volcanic eruptions, like 1980's Mount St. Helens or 1991's Mount Pinatubo eruption, they only emitted 10 and 50 million tons of CO2 each, respectively. It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere can be determined from both ice core measurements, which easily go back hundreds of thousands of years, and by atmospheric monitoring stations, like those atop Mauna Loa. The increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1700s is staggering.

CIRES & NOAA

 

 

On 6/22/2019 at 9:36 AM, Chemist said:

Hydroelectric. Make environmentally friendly dams if you’re worried about that. 

They work great in the middle of the desert where there's no water around for hundreds of miles.

 

On 6/22/2019 at 12:46 PM, hoorta said:

Agreed about  the energy. What I worry about is  all the  spent  nuclear  fuel we're  accumulating. That stuff is  hot for something like  4,000 years. It will be  future  generations problem if it starts leaking out. 

Depends on the particular element and isotope. Some radioactive isotopes have half-lives of a few decades, some are tens of thousands of years, others are millions. Good news is that there's plenty of scientific advances being made to address this issue.

One solution being researched is taking liquid nuclear waste and combining it with blast furnace slag to create solid nuclear glass - it reduces the total volume of nuclear waste and converts it into a smaller, more stable form that is safer and more easier to store.

Another advancement is in the research of molten salt reactors. Traditional nuclear reactors use water to cool the reactor core down, but will melt down without continuous flows of water through the core - thats what happened at Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island. MSRs work by combining nuclear fuel with molten salt as a coolant/moderator - they have a much higher safety profile, use less nuclear fuel, and can even run off of nuclear waste generated by other LWC reactors.

Sad thing is, is that molten salt reactors were known to be safer and more efficient than LWC reactors all the way back in the 1960's but the government chose to fund LWCs because their waste byproducts could be enriched to form fuel for the US's nuclear weapons stockpile. Molten salt reactor's can't produce precursors for weapon's grade nuclear fuel, so it was abandoned.

[Westside Steve]

 

[Chemist]

3 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

Traditional nuclear reactors use water to cool the reactor core , but will melt down without continuous flows of water through the core - thats what happened at Chernobyl, 

 

That’s not what happened. Technicians were running a test which resulted in an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction which caused a steam explosion which blew the reactor apart and it caught on fire.

[jbluhm86]

7 minutes ago, Chemist said:

That’s not what happened. Technicians were running a test which resulted in an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction which caused a steam explosion which blew the reactor apart and it caught on fire.

And how do you get steam? By boiling water. No water = no cooling = fuel rods melt. 

Fukushima: station blackout, coupled with backup generators being damaged, caused the coolant water in the core to boil off and exposed the core, causing it to melt down. 

Three Mile Island: Operator error and sensor malfunctions left a pressure relief valve open while sensors gave a false reading of overpressure, so operators stopped the flow of coolant into the core. The coolant began to boil off, and the core partially melted before operators realized what was going on and restored water flow.

 

[Chemist]

Your article implied the first explosion occurred because there was no water. It implies the reactor was running normally until it ran out of water. That’s wrong. The reactor was not running normally. Technicians manually removed control rods far below the bare minimum required for safe operation. The control rods jammed when they tried to put them back. Only their graphite tips were in the reactor. The explosion was a steam explosion that occurred from a sudden release of immense energy, which caused the water to explode. Things didn’t catch on fire and melt until the first steam explosion caused damage to allow it do so.