environment Archivi - Keep Calm and Drink Coffee

SHADOW

Oct 8, 2022 | TECHNOLOGY

Shadow, what is your first thought?

I start by quoting people: Nick.

Then random: motors

Music

Movies

I could go on, more and more, would you like to mention other examples as well?

The world is full of shadows …

I wonder how the choice to call Shadow even a computer that can be accessed remotely came about.

It is is a powerful Windows PC that allows to use any kind of application without buying hardware, which as you know, tends to be obsolete very quickly, as well as expensive.

A faculty that opens up a kind of new and important revolution with respect to the use of technology in our daily lives.

Or do you see it more as another standardization?

The obvious and immediate benefits come in the form of being able to operate at maximum power without having to shell out large sums in equipment purchases.

Also at the level of the environment, the exploitation of certain materials would certainly be reduced, and above all, the need for disposal of many devices would be reduced, since everyone would be able to operate with the available device, simply by connecting.

However, connection may also be the first downside: if it goes off, all work would stop.

The same if the “server” would break.

And again: the conditions at the beginning may appear advantageous, but the costs could rise uncontrollably, as we are unfortunately seeing.

So there is a risk of finding oneself regretting the old PC, perhaps slow but working.

Light, or shadow?

While we decide, something “dark” undoubtedly is the cloud!

I can’t help but think about the scene in which Jason Segel yells at Cameron Diaz, “nobody knows what the cloud is!”

The infamous cloud: a kind of black hole where our data ends up, or a valuable opportunity?

To USerS 🙂 the harsh judgment.

PM 2.5

Jun 6, 2020 | ENVIRONMENT, ITALY, SCIENCE

PM comes from Particulate Matter: and consists of airborne particulate matter, more precisely, according to the definition of the Ministry of the Environment it represents the set of solid and liquid atmospheric particles suspended in ambient air. The term PM_2.5 identifies particles with a diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 µm … from here on, however, I dissociate from the description: these particles are too easily incorporated into the PM10 values, especially in the detection ratios, when instead the difference it is substantial.
Why?
I always quote verbatim from the Essia i.e. Effects on the Health of Air Pollution project: in particular, the smallest particles manage to penetrate deeper into the respiratory system. Hence, it is important to understand which and how many particles are able to penetrate the human body, how deep they manage to reach and what type of substances they can carry. For example, the toxicity of particulate matter, and therefore its ability to generate damage to health, can be amplified by the ability to absorb gaseous substances such as PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) and heavy metals, some of which are powerful carcinogens.
The significant relief of environmental pollution in relation to the onset of tumors is also the subject of the open letter published by Isde the increase in tumor incidence and chronic degenerative diseases that occur in the most polluted areas and at an increasingly early age affecting children, adolescents and young adults is the most striking aspect of the link between environment and health.
I disagree with the choice of the adjective: I find this aspect rather terrifying than striking.
Even the OMS declares that in the European Union only the finest particulate matter causes a loss of life expectancy of about 8,6 months.
In light of all this, it would be natural to think that given the high danger, strict monitoring is applied on the emissions of this fine particulate.
Unfortunately, on the other hand, in many cases it is not even distinguished from the PM10 and is very smoky, forgive the play on words, reporting the data of the relief that has a daily index: which oscillates between 9 and 8 while I’m writing, when the term of comparison is according to Ispra is an annual limit of 25 µm, among other things with a reference to 2010: it is difficult even to find updated information, I wonder why.
Personally I consider this topic of the utmost importance and I care about Lomellina: a land battered between mud and waste-to-energy plants, where livability is compromised.
In Italy there are 51 waste-to-energy plants, of which 29 only in northern Italy are reported by the Civil Protection specifying that the fumes generated are treated and purified.
Among other things, the results of a 2017 Inemar study indicates non-industrial combustion as the main responsible for the PM_2.5 emission in Lombardy.
What does it consist of in practice? According to the classification “trade, residential, agriculture.”
To put it mildly: “Are we getting too hot?”
It would look just like this: in fact the concentrations are significantly higher in the winter months as visibly demonstrated in the EEA European Environment Agency graphs.
So waste-to-energy plants are innocent?
No, although over the years the incinerators have covered this “enhancement” with control and purification systems that have certainly reduced the percentage of incidence, a quantity of pollutants is still discharged into the atmosphere. The notorious nano-particles are as capable of easily entering our body and reaching blood, tissues and organs as they are partially able to escape the filtering or disposal systems, here you find an analysis about it.
And if you can solve the calculation of the daily / annual thresholds, you deserve a coffee!

WATER IS BEING DEPLETED MANY, MANY TIMES FASTER THAN NATURE CAN REPLENISH IT. Maude Barlow

Apr 18, 2020 | ECONOMY, WORLD

Water is an essential good for life itself.
Among the countless uses, water is also used for our coffee 🙂
If I asked you to describe what water is for you, what would you answer? What is the first word that comes to your mind?
The vocabulary defines it a chemical compound in its three states of aggregation, DIFFUSED IN NATURE.
For me, immediate association is a “precious asset”.
What I wasn’t thinking about was the vision as an economic good: commodity.
And while here in Italy the various governments follow one another with the more or less common denominator of circumventing the outcome of the referendum according to which we would have voted not to privatize it, there are parts of the world where water is subject to market prices.
Yes, as on the stock exchange, precisely with the price fluctuating even according to the weather forecast.
Can the need for water be considered a market demand? According to an increasing number of investors, without any doubt.
This speculation started quietly over fifteen years ago and provides for a division of the water into quotas: a part for the needs of the urban centers, a part for agriculture divided in proportion to the properties, and a part for the environment, for good peace of ecologists.
All this is happening for example in Australia, where as we know there are large desert areas and very hot temperature.
At the beginning, farmers were given the mirage of the option of being able to sell part of their water, if in excess, and make a profit.
But an analyst is not needed to consider that water gradually decreases from year to year.
And when does the quota allocated end?
Simple: you can buy more water.
But obviously the price will have gone up.
However, the “rising” figure, which is constantly exponentially increasing, attracts speculators is another: the total population.
More people means more water needed, not only for the needs: also for the production of food.
All this leads to a consideration: if the oil was called black gold, the water for many is already “Blue Gold”.
In the title I quoted Maude Barlow: born in 1947 in the campaign to make water recognized as a human right, to conclude, on the other hand, I would like to draw inspiration from Thomas Fuller’s phrase:
We never know the worth of water till the well is dry.
Maybe allow me to update it: we don’t know the value of water until it becomes a commodity.

RADIOACTIVE COFFEE

Jan 6, 2020 | ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE, WORLD

What do the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents have in common? First of all a number: they are both level 7.
The Chernobyl accident occurred in 1986 and according to the Greenpeace report thirty years after the catastrophe over ten thousand square kilometers are unusable for economic activity, more than one hundred and fifty thousand square kilometers are the contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine and five million people live in areas officially considered contaminated. Due to the high levels of plutonium contamination within 10 kilometers of the plant, the area cannot be repopulated for the next ten thousand years.
The recent HBO series has given us the opportunity to live again through images, those days that have changed everyone’s habits.
Thousands of miles away, we have avoided foods such as vegetables and milk, in addition to special measures for children.
As regards Fukushima, according to the Greenpeace report, the government’s decontamination interventions have been fragmented, inadequate and there is a serious risk of re-contamination of the already decontaminated areas. Despite massive effort and expense, decontamination is likely to become an endless process. Furthermore, decontamination efforts without being able to ‘get rid’ of radioactive contamination, i.e. simply moving it to other places such as temporary storage sites, continue to pose a danger to local communities and the environment.
The risk is that Japan will decide to discharge the contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean.
The water that from the day of the accident, that is, from 11 March 2011, was necessary to pump on the reactor to keep the core temperature low: more than 220 cubic meters per day. Can you figure how big the quantity can be?
According to Tepco’s forecasts, the storage limit will be reached in 2022.
This problem affects the whole world even if only South Korea seems to worry about it for now.
Not to mention the perennial risk that this thousand tanks represent in a seismic area.
Meanwhile, some newspapers are already reporting that tritium is “relatively toxic” and minimizing the impact of disposal at sea since it would have a short life, of course, a decay of just over 12 years is nothing compared to ten thousand …
Recall that tritium was used for fluorescence in watches and that use has been interrupted.
Now the question is simple: if it is really so harmless, why storing it for nine years?
I would say that when we talk about nuclear power plants, even Einstein‘s phrase is no longer enough, we are not even like rats that build a trap for themselves, we went further.
The lightness with which the construction of these plants is allowed, knowing that in case of accidents there is no way to shelter, it is as disgusting as appealing to the causes of force majeure hiding behind the fact that the real effects on health do not appear immediately.
People will get sick and die, but someone will have earned money. As it always happens.