Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: environmental – Page 25

William Pentland, Contributor

I write about energy and environmental issues.

Massive reserves of “freshwater” are buried beneath the seabed on continental shelves around the world, including off Australia, China, North America and South Africa.

This is the conclusion of a new study by a team of Australian scientists that appears in this week’s issue of the journal, Nature.

Based on an analysis of seafloor water studies conducted for oil and gas exploration purposes, the study showed that an estimated that 500,000 cubic kilometers of low-salinity water is trapped in aquifers under the ocean floor.

“The volume of this water resource is a hundred times greater than the amount we’ve extracted from the Earth’s sub-surface in the past century since 1900,” said Vincent Post, a groundwater hydro geologist from Flinders University in Adelaide and the new study’s lead author.

This new freshwater resource could give regions suffering with limited access to freshwater more options for combating the impact of droughts and alleviating the impact of water scarcity on future generations.

Read more

I write this post on specific request from Anthony, who kindly asked that I write a bottom line summary of what I found through my research which leads me to suggest the points should be cleared up in research and/or a safety conference on the LHC.

1. As HR is an unproven theory, it may prove to be ineffective compared to the math model. This regardless of Rossler’s Telemach theorem which attempts to prove this.

2. The G&M calculation on theoretical MBH accretion rates is fundamentally flawed, as it bases the analysis on one single MBH and fails to consider about MBH aggregation.

3. As HR is an unproven concept, it cannot be relied upon to detect MBH. The only method to be certain no MBH are created is to monitor unaccounted loss of mass/energy.

As concerns raised in the public domain were not being answered sufficiently, there is a moral duty for a public safety conference to discuss likely MBH decay/accretion rates.

I dismissed what I would consider the more colourful risks. I’m considering writing a follow-on whitepaper on the topic of MBH aggregation. If two MBH aggregate at any point it would halve the G&M calculated time-frame, and further aggregation would reduce the accretion time-frame accordingly. If frequent MBH aggregation was a typical expected occurrence, then you would have a run-away effect, so this requires an analysis.

If I can intervene on the polarized opinions posted by some individuals on Lifeboat regarding CERN and particle physics safety debate, wherein I was name dropped recently — the person in question, Mr Church, may find my email address on page one of the dissertation linked in my bio. Regarding the safety conference asked for by the Cologne Administrative Court cited by Prof Rossler, I would suggest that with its ample funds, The Lifeboat Foundation should host a public conference on the subject and invite CERN delegates, critics and journalists alike to attend. In the spirit of the Lifeboat Foundation, however, I would suggest that the focus of such conference should be on discussion of how particle physics can be used to solve problems in the future — and the matter of fringe concerns on MBH accretion rates and so on could be dealt with as a subtext. I think it would be a good opportunity to ‘clear the air’ and could be good for the profile not just of the Lifeboat Foundation, but for particle physics research in general. I would like to hear others thoughts on this, and how Lifeboat manages its funds for such events and conferences…