birdwing7 1115 Report post Posted April 23, 2011 Has anyone run across an argument in debate rounds regarding arsenic accumulation? SU Dani, a Brazilian researcher, says that the mining and use of gold, coal and oil release anthropogenic arsenic into the atmosphere, which is really bad. From the abstract: "The potential rise of successful forms of inborn resistance to arsenic in humans will make it certain that a number of other hardly won, nicely balanced human-specific adaptednesses will decline. These include a decline of encephalization and life-span, and consequentially intelligence and longevity. These changes are likely to have far-reaching impacts on biological and cultural evolution of mankind. The only efficient way of reducing chronic global exposure to arsenic and avoiding further human losses is the inactivation of important sources of anthropogenic arsenic such as hard rock mining and burning of fossil fuels." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19846256 It strikes me that a case to build solar powered satellites and mine asteroids would move mining off of earth and stop the burning of fossil fuels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrMarantz 385 Report post Posted April 23, 2011 The converse being that the mining of materials needed to build the solar panels would also cause this arsenic to be released. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbockmon 24 Report post Posted April 23, 2011 What would constitute the brink? I mean people have been mining and metal working for a long time now, and burning coal and fossil fuels since the industrial rev. It's kinda hard for me to believe that this invisible stuff that i have been breathing in since i was born will just one day decide to kill me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdwing7 1115 Report post Posted April 24, 2011 The converse being that the mining of materials needed to build the solar panels would also cause this arsenic to be released. Likely much less arsenic release than continued burning of fossil fuels. And, although I've only read the abstract, I imagine the author provides evidence on the point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
broken 136 Report post Posted April 24, 2011 Likely much less arsenic release than continued burning of fossil fuels. And, although I've only read the abstract, I imagine the author provides evidence on the point. The abstract doesn't say anything about space, as far as I can tell. And it seems like if arsenic really was a WMD, putting it aboard a potentially explosive rocket and sending it through earth's atmosphere towards an asteroid would be quite risky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cleelau 5 Report post Posted April 24, 2011 that is a really cool, especially the part about the loss of intelligence Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdwing7 1115 Report post Posted April 24, 2011 The abstract doesn't say anything about space, as far as I can tell. And it seems like if arsenic really was a WMD, putting it aboard a potentially explosive rocket and sending it through earth's atmosphere towards an asteroid would be quite risky. I don't think anyone is suggesting putting arsenic on a rocket. The point is, solar powered satellites would rid the earth of the need for burning fossil fuels. Any renewable energy source could access the same advantage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
broken 136 Report post Posted April 24, 2011 I don't think anyone is suggesting putting arsenic on a rocket. The point is, solar powered satellites would rid the earth of the need for burning fossil fuels. Any renewable energy source could access the same advantage. I was talking about in the context of space mining--the first word in the title is "Gold". +there's the question of whether or not the energy provided by SPS could replace both coal and oil, but I haven't looked at that evidence yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
