|
|
"pete" <vincent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dtjfud$cak$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In sci.geo.geology, on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:48:26 GMT, George
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> sez:
>
> ` "pete" <vincent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> ` news:dtgqko$dm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ` > In sci.geo.geology, on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:12:44 GMT, George
> ` > <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> sez:
> ` >
> ` > ` "Bob Officer" <bobofficers@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> ` > ` news:k8klv1ha4rjv24r1fk7045jk1l59jn28lk@xxxxxxxxxx
> ` > ` > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:48:59 GMT, in sci.geo.earthquakes,
> "George"
> ` > ` > <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ` > ` >
> ` > ` >>
> ` > ` >>"Skywise" <into@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> ` > ` >>news:11vlc6d2b4l3la4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ` > ` >>> "George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> ` > ` >>> hxwKf.781084$x96.334152@attbi_s72:">news:hxwKf.781084$x96.334152@attbi_s72:
> ` > ` >>>
> ` > ` >>> <Snipola>
> ` > ` >>>> Brian, you just gave me an idea. Those large transformers at
> the
> ` > ` >>>> substation near my parent's home used to blow up on a
> semi-annual
> ` > ` >>>> basis
> ` > ` >>> <Snipola>
> ` > ` >>>
> ` > ` >>> I wasn't thinking of that specifically, but now that you
> mention
> ` > ` >>> it, that could very well be the cause. I recall watching
> expose's
> ` > ` >>> on TV back inthe 80's and earlier about the dangers of PCB's in
> ` > ` >>> transformers. Seemed there were cancer clusters popping up all
> ` > ` >>> over that had that one thing in common. Even the 'pole pigs' on
> ` > ` >>> the neighborhood pole leaked, contaminating backyards.
> ` > ` >>>
> ` > ` >>> Brian
> ` > ` >>> --
> ` > ` >>> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy,
> ` > Skepticism
> ` > ` >>> Seismic FAQ:
> www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html">http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> ` > ` >>> Quake "predictions":
> ` > www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html">http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
> ` > ` >>> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
> ` > ` >>
> ` > ` >>Yeah, given that I've worked on sites that were contaminated with
> ` > PCBs,
> ` > ` >>it
> ` > ` >>should have occurred to me sooner. Duh! Only thing is, I've
> looked
> ` > up
> ` > ` >>the
> ` > ` >>toxicological effects of PCBs and there is no mention of the
> kinds of
> ` > ` >>cancers and non-cancerous tumours that I've seen in my parents'
> ` > ` >>neighborhood. The worst damage it causes is liver cancer and
> cancer
> ` > of
> ` > ` >>the
> ` > ` >>bilary tract. No mention of brain tumours. The reports do
> suggest
> ` > that
> ` > ` >>it
> ` > ` >>may be a factor in other diseases. Sigh. It's never easy, and
> ` > rarely
> ` > ` >>simple, is it?
> ` > ` >
> ` > ` > PCB break down to Dioxins
> ` > ` >
> ` > ` >
> ` >
> www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=dioxin+PCBs&btnG=Search">http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=dioxin+PCBs&btnG=Search
> ` > ` >
> ` > ` > www.noharm.org/us/pvcDehp/dioxin">http://www.noharm.org/us/pvcDehp/dioxin
> ` > ` >
> ` > ` >
> ` > ` > --
> ` > ` > Ak'toh'di
> ` >
> ` > ` Yeah, I know. Nasty stuff.
> ` >
> ` > ` George
> ` >
> ` > I'm somewhat ambivalent about the whole powerline thing (there's
> ` > currently
> ` > a row locally over a 250kV line being pushed through a nearby
> ` > neighbourhood). I've generally been in the camp that says look, you
> ` > get higher fields sitting next to your 110V lightbulb 6" from your
> ` > head while you read your book, but I must admit that when those
> ` > fields are at that strength over such distances that you can hold
> ` > up a 4' fluorescent lamp at night and see it lighting up from the
> ` > voltage difference, there are certainly going to be some sort of
> ` > effects going on. That said, I've tended to be of the opinion
> (because
> ` > I know much less about chemistry, biology, and toxicology, and
> ` > the answers are likely to be in the areas I haven't explored...)
> ` > that the place people should be looking is to the atmospheric
> ` > chemistry that is catalyzed by the corona discharges around the
> ` > conductors. In the particle physics HV wire chamber detectors
> ` > we use around here, we have to design to eliminate any chance
> ` > of corona discharges, beyond any electronic interference they
> ` > can cause, because the strange chemistry they foster (via strange
> ` > ions and radicals they pump out) will poison the delicate balance
> ` > of gases needed to maintain a situation where a charged particle
> ` > will cause a small burst of current in the HV field, which then
> ` > spontaneously quenches before an arc develops. O2 is also a
> ` > nasty killer for wire chambers, and because we keep it out,
> ` > we can see a lot of the weird results of HV discharge that
> ` > would otherwise be oxidized into less obvious forms. For instance,
> ` > we will often see, in afflicted chambers, the organic vapour
> ` > components of the gas mixture polymerizing with silicon apparently
> ` > from the fibreglas of the chamber structure, and plating onto
> ` > the wires as some sort of silicone glorp. What sort of species
> ` > might you get with atmospheric N2 and O2 and plastic insulator parts,
> ` > forming on the towers and drifting down, studded with active
> ` > radical bits? This would suggest undergrounding HV lines would
> ` > eliminate the problems...
> ` >
>
> ` Until water leaks onto them. By the way, what is a "glorp". Is that a
> ` professional term? lol
>
> Well, of course. It represents nicely how we have bothered with it
> enough to have it analysed with a SEM mass-spec attachment, but
> not enough to try to figure out how the constituent atomic species
> have managed to bond together, and into what, exactly. We also
> have very nice SEM pix, kicking around. Sometimes it's a goo,
> other times it's a solid, sometimes it's a smooth coating, sometimes
> it's crusty like spattered plaster, and sometimes it's all
> spidery whiskers tracking outward along the field lines. Mostly
> it's a pain. Fortunately we've found that for some reason a
> small addition of CF4 to the gas mix seems to chase it away,
> and fortunately we're still allowed to use a bit of CF4 - lots
> of great gas mixtures featured freons which are now verboten.
>
I think I'll take your word for it, in this case.
George
|
|