Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide, are gases that increase Earth’s surface temperature by absorbing infrared radiation. The strength of absorption and atmospheric lifetime determine the potency of these gases. Perchlorate, a naturally occurring and man-made contaminant, has gained attention due to its potential thyroid toxicity and its presence in drinking water and surface waters in the United States and Canada.
Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation from Earth’s surface and reradiate it back to Earth’s surface, contributing to the greenhouse effect. They vary in their sources, measures needed to control them, intensity of trapping solar heat, and duration of presence. Perchlorate contamination has become a hot environmental issue due to its potential thyroid toxicity and its potential impact on human health.
Perchlorate is a chemical compound containing the perchlorate ion, ClO-4, the conjugate base of perchloric acid (ionic perchlorate). It is both naturally occurring and manufactured inorganic anion made up of four oxygen atoms bonded to a chlorine atom. Perchlorates decompose under thermal stress to give oxygen, which can then combine with organic matter to produce oxygen.
Perchlorate can be found in groundwater, surface water, and soil, and can be a strong oxidizer capable of contaminating water and soils when solid salts of ammonium and potassium are present. The potential impacts of perchlorate in the Colorado River on the Salton Sea, California, have been evaluated.
📹 Let’s Nuke Mars!
Elon Musk thinks that we can make Mars habitable by nuking it. But would that really work? ———- Dooblydoo thanks go to the …
Is perchlorate in food?
New tests by Consumer Reports have found that perchlorate, a chemical found in rocket fuel, missiles, explosives, airbags, and certain plastics, is present in various fast foods and grocery items. The highest levels were found in foods popular with babies and kids. Perchlorate was first identified as a contaminant in water and food decades ago, but federal regulators have largely neglected the issue. The findings highlight the potential health risks associated with perchlorate exposure in food and water, and suggest potential solutions for regulatory action.
Is methanol a greenhouse gas?
Atmospheric methanol (MeOH), the most common hydrocarbon in the atmosphere, can indirectly contribute to global warming by breaking down in the atmosphere when it reacts with the hydroxyl radical (OH). This process is the primary process for breaking down atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Significant emissions of MeOH can reduce the concentration of OH available to break down methane, resulting in climatic warming. The final decomposition products of atmospheric MeOH include CO2.
Therefore, avoiding unburned MeOH emissions is crucial to minimize the climatic impact of MeOH as a fuel. Assessment of emission effects is complicated by atmospheric processes, as emissions from combustion engines can be divided into gases and particulates, but there are many potential components that undergo processes in the atmosphere that can change their properties.
Is methanol an air pollutant?
It is anticipated that methanol, when released into the environment, will volatilize to the atmosphere, where it will undergo a series of chemical reactions and potentially contribute to the formation of photochemical smog when it reacts with other volatile organic carbon substances.
Is perchlorate natural?
Perchlorate, a naturally occurring and man-made contaminant, is increasingly detected in groundwater, surface water, and soil. The majority of perchlorate utilized in the United States is employed as an oxidizer in rocket and missile fuel.
Is perchlorate a gas?
Perchlorate salts are readily soluble in water and have been demonstrated to exert an influence on endocrine systems. For classification of carcinogenic substances, please contact the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
What type of chemical is perchlorate?
Perchlorate, also known as perchlorate anion, is a negatively charged group of atoms with a central chlorine atom bonded to four oxygen atoms. Its molecular formula is ClO4. This Public Health Statement is part of a series of Public Health Statements about hazardous substances and their health effects. The effects of exposure depend on the dose, duration, exposure method, personal traits, habits, and presence of other chemicals. For more information, contact the ATSDR Information Center at 1-800-232-4636.
Is perchlorate bad for the environment?
Perchlorate, a highly soluble and mobile substance, has potential health effects on the thyroid gland and ecosystems at certain exposure levels. It is highly soluble and mobile in groundwater, causing widespread contamination after release. The Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) has provided a systematic approach to in situ bioremediation in groundwater, including decision trees on nitrates, carbon tetrachloride, and perchlorate.
Is potassium perchlorate a gas?
Potassium perchlorate is a crystalline solid that finds application in a number of different fields, including explosives, flares, rocket propellants, photography, medication, and automobile safety airbags.
What is a perchlorate in environmental science?
Perchlorate is a negatively charged ion with one chloride atom bound to four oxygen atoms, found in chemical compounds like potassium and ammonium. These colorless solids are highly soluble in water and non-volatile in subsurface environments. Perchlorate is commonly used as oxidizers in rocket propellants, fireworks production, explosives, munitions, and signal flare manufacturing. It is sourced from Chilean nitrate deposits and potash deposits in the southwestern United States.
Perchlorate is manufactured and used in 45 states, with 90% of its use in the defense and aerospace industries. Improper waste management practices have led to environmental impacts at many sites where perchlorate has been manufactured or used. Human exposure to perchlorate is primarily through ingestion of contaminated drinking water and food. High exposures can interfere with iodide uptake into the thyroid gland, disrupting thyroid functions and reducing thyroid hormone production, which are crucial for normal growth and development in fetuses, infants, and young children.
Is hydrazine a gas?
Hydroxide is a colorless, fuming, oily liquid with an ammonia-like odor. It is utilized in a variety of applications, including boiler treatment, rocket propellant, blowing agents, agricultural chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and spandex fibers.
Why are perchlorates hazardous to life?
Perchlorates, a type of salt, can have health effects due to their own toxicity, specifically affecting the thyroid gland’s ability to absorb iodine, which is crucial for hormone production. Studies have shown that healthy volunteers who consume about 35 mg of perchlorate daily for 14 days or 3 mg for 6 months do not experience any health issues. However, prolonged exposure to high levels of perchlorate can lead to hypothyroidism, a medical condition characterized by low thyroid hormone levels in the blood.
This can lead to adverse effects on various organs, including the skin, cardiovascular system, pulmonary system, kidneys, liver, and reproductive system. In animals, perchlorate has been found to be the main target of toxicity, with no effect on reproduction in a study in rats. Other chemicals, such as thiocyanate and nitrate, also inhibit iodide uptake.
📹 How Much Do Rockets Pollute? Are They Bad For Our Air?
TIMESTAMPS! 00:00 – Intro 06:00 – WHAT ACTUALLY COMES OUT THE FLAMEY END OF A ROCKET? 16:15 – WHAT DO …
Wait wait wait. Thought just occurred. We can’t dig deep into the ground because of the heat from our active core. Is this a problem on Mars? I’ve heard they don’t have an active core, thus the lack of a magnetic field. Would if be easier/feasible to dig deep enough into Mars then start bombing/tampering with the core to attempt to make it active again, thus restoring it’s magnetic field?
0:50 I think you’ve made a hasty generalization here. Just how much would ionizing radiation from the nuclear weapons add to the atmosphere? And for how long? Since people won’t be exposed to the atmosphere (it’s ratified, has fine dust, and no oxygen) how would this add to the challenge of exploring Mars? I don’t think that it would. I think this non sequitur is motivated by irrational fear of nuclear weapons instead of by science.
Really? Mars has strong winds? I mean sure, the wind speed can reach 60 MPH, but with only 1% the the atmospheric density of earth, strong winds, it ain’t. You are looking at the equivalent wind force of about 0.6 MPH. Also, thank you for forgetting to mention that this was a half-joke comment by Elon to Colbert.
hey! that was my idea! i came up with that idea over a decade ago!!! the other major solution i had for terraforming(or even reclaiming desert) would be to dump a bunch of organic waste on it… say… all of the trash that piles up that is biodegradable…. yea that stuff breaks down into nutrient rich matter that is perfect for bringing sandy soils and other places back to life! or at least make them sustain plants which will hold onto water which in turn helps make life possible… but yea… i keep waiting for an email or a phone call for a job! i got a lot of ideas that’ll fix this planet in more ways than one!
“So we can expand our knowledge of well understood planets from one to two.” …My dog just got covered in Cookie Crisp cereal that I spit out laughing. Thank you for that. Also judging by the smile she’s sporting while cleaning up my mess, I’m fairly sure Kisa (the above mentioned dog) would thank you too if she were able.
I wonder if anyone has looked into using the radiation that reaches the surface of Mars to power a magnetic field generator – the more radiation that comes, the more power would be funneled into the field generator, so it would self-balance. However, the key issue would be whether that radiation is enough to power a field that can successfully deflect enough radiation. Perhaps if it weren’t targeting the whole planet, but just a “colony” area or some such, the idea would be more tenable as the amount of radiation collected could be increased with a larger collector and the energy used in a smaller field location.. Expensive and complex, probably, but could negate the whole radiation issue if achieved. Anybody else have thoughts on this?
sooooo since the dust from mars can be burned as fuel if we send a rover again that burns the dust of mars then is it possible that it will live longer? and another idea since that percholorates can produce oxygen does that mean that we can produce enough oxygen for our researchers to stay longer there and study how to terra form the mars ? just a thought
Mars is awesome. Warm the polar ice caps! We could point giant space mirrors at them, or manufacture PFC’s or other super-greenhouse gases till the planet cooks up, and some have even suggested using nuclear bombs. But warm the poles! The CO2 at the poles would melt, providing 20% of the Earth’s atmospheric pressure. This is enough to give us 3 things:- 1. Radiation protection! We wouldn’t need magnetosphere to protect us as one fifth atmospheric pressure is enough to bring the surface radiation down to safe levels. 2. Clothes! Dump clunky vacuum pressure-suits and just wear normal warm clothes! (With an oxygen mask of course, just like on a high mountain). 3. Farming! Some agriculture could begin on the Martian surface, without pressure domes. 4. Easier construction! Habitats don’t have to be sealed against vacuum outside: 20% Earth’s atmosphere is far easier to build for. Protection, clothes, farming, and easier habitats. That’s what warming the poles would allow! And 20% is just the beginning. Mars has all the atmosphere we could want to manufacture locked away in its surface if we mine it long enough.
There’s this constant thing from NASA about finding life on Mars and, although that would be a very very very very important discovery, PUTTING life on Mars is 100 000 000 000% more important… oh, I give up banging my head against this wall… leave Mars to the hippies…. lets move to Venus instead!
I think we should direct a number of iron meteors at Mars. This would heat it up and, if enough heat was generated, could give it an iron core capable of generating a magnetic field. Without a magnetic field, any atmosphere we create will eventually be stripped away by the solar wind. After that, you could consider seeding with something to convert the perchlorate.
I heard that if hydrogen bombs are exploded high enough above the ground (I seem to remember either 80m or 800m, but no higher) there is no long-term radiation. Any one know if this is true or not? I also thought the same source said that’s why the super powers ‘coat’ their hydrogen bombs in fissionable material to inflict long-term radiation on the enemy too, or, by having them detonate at ground level, the soil becomes radioactive, but they want some to explode at 80m (800m?) to maximise the blast area.
Well, the winds on Mars are inconsequential. The atmospheric pressure is so low (about 0.6% of Earth’s) that any winds have little effect.. the movie “The Martian” shows high winds and that is the only thing that the author took artistic licence with! Wind speeds top out at around 60 mph in even the most violent dust storms.
You can design a Thermonuclear device to have minimum radioactive impact, and to maximize physical impact. Its just expensive, and would increase the cost and weight of the weapon by quite a bit, since until now we haven’t been concerned with this very much (except for the “neutron bomb”, which would be a useless method for this application). Currently, we want to be able to drop bombs from aircraft and to launch them with missiles… so we haven’t designed them to do this task. But its eminently doable. How you do this is complicated to explain, however it can be done, especially with a stationary device, or potentially an “underice” device.
Why is another important factor missed out: the gravity? The gravity on mars is too weak to hold the kind of atmosphere we need to survive, for instance when it comes to pressure. It’s atmosphere is what it is because the gravity wasn’t strong enough to hold onto the water that was already present and thus it got evaporated into space.
Mr. Green mentions detonating nukes on the surface of Mars. Whether this idea has ANY merit, I do not know. That said, a nuke detonated ABOVE the surface, so the resulting fireball DOES NOT actually reach the planet’s surface, would produce much less fallout than a surface burst. But it would STILL produce a lot of radiant heat.
If Mars does have oxidised metals, we could potentially de-oxidise them, use the oxygen for our purpose and drop the metals near the core to heat up and grow. Or we could use some sort of giant deoxidiser to remove oxygen from the perchlorates, thus producing oxygen for the atmosphere, and heating it up enough from the leftover burnt perchlorates.
SciShow Space, if we, by some magic mean, would be able to drop a giant meteor in mars. Like moon size. it would not kinda solve the terraforming problem? Loots of heat would bring the core and magnetic field back alive, would gain mass and maybe gravity enough to sustain greater atmosfere, would ad water, burn the perclorite etc?
The first point is kind of moot. Mars is already so radiated that without some kind of shelter you’ll have a lot of cancers rather quickly. However if you already live in shelters a bit of extra radiation won’t really make a difference. The biggest problem I see with that plan is that whatever atmosphere you create would just get blown away by solar wind anyway.
1:01 The diagram is actually misleading in a small but important way. Some people may confuse the Geographic North and South Poles with the Magnetic North and South Poles. To clarify, Magnetic North is located at the Geographic South Pole, and the Magnetic South Pole is located at the Geographic North Pole. You can test this with a compass. Just remember that opposites attract! And it is the Magnetism that creates our “shield.” Peace. 😀
Hm, this has been asked before i’m sure but, would it be possible to create a magnetic field generator for interplanetary space ships to sort of work like our earth’s Magnetosphere? protecting the astronauts from harmful radiation. hm, i’m thinking that would take a shit ton of power in order to create a stable magnetic field around the ship.
FRom Chaos and destruction comes order and purpose …. But, If I remember right, Waay back, I remember reading a COMIC BOOK … that had the same story line. It didnt end well for the planet earth. I think we might want to check with the locals that might be under ground there first. LOL…Dontcha just love a good comic!
We don’t need atomic bombs to heat the Mars. We need a dyson ring or swarm. Take something like giant lenses or mirrors. We just need plane surfaces, so aluminum based mirrors could work if they used as some kind of sail. Then: Let’s heat the planet up. The only question I ask myself, can such swarm generate a magnetic shield to protect from radiation? Normally, it should come from the planets core to create a stable field. My ideas are not as fucked up to make a planet uninhabitable for the next 10.000 years.
instead of wasting energy heating the core and the surrounding rock to keep it molten, JUST COOL IT DOWN FURTHER. after that you can create a superconducting electromagnet that will generate a magnetic field far more efficiently than circling molten iron which wastes a lot of the energy as escaping heat!! it is far easier to generate a magnetic field that can encompass a planet using an artificial electromagnet in place of the martian core. Then u can nuke the surface afterwards to hold the atmosphere after which the sun does the rest of the work reviving it.
The biggest problem with terraforming Mars is that with only half gravity, water molecules reach escape velocity and forever leave the Martian atmosphere. Even if we could introduce enough water to create vast oceans on Mars, they would evaporate back into space all over again. Also we don’t know that human development will proceed normally at half gravity; also how long in half gravity before you can not return to Earth due to atrophy and weakness?
What Mars is missing most is mass and a hot core making a magnetic field. If you wanted those things you would have to do something drastic in any case. The most obvious solution for adding mass is to add a lot of mass and the most logical source of that extra mass is the asteroid belt, preferably the largest asteroid Ceres. Humanity will not likely survive long enough much less have the technology but if we or our AI descendents get past our present difficulties and can have a long enough perspective, then with very careful planning bringing Ceres to Mars could put Mars into a closer orbit and provide the needed heat and mass plus a magnetic field, though it might take a million years or so to become ideal. But that is a matter of perspective as to if it is considered quick or slow.
Mars doesn’t have enough gravity to hold those elements in abundance so you would be blowing the material up into the atmosphere and out into space. If you think that colonizing Mars is a good idea, then you should start by colonizing Antarctica. Mars, on it’s warmest day, is about the temperature of Antarctica in wintertime. However, Antarctica is close, the air is breathable, and there is water everywhere.
Isn’t the real problem lack of gravity? So that all of the extra atmosphere will just drift away into space? What we really need to do is increase the density of mars, and if we add molten material maybe we can get a magnetic field too. Or like, we could just send robots to study it and visit it periodically like we did the moon 🙂
Elon Musk clarified in a Vanity Fair interview that what he was talking about was creating two little pulsing suns via fusion above the north and south poles of mars that would warm the poles up enough so that the frozen CO2 would gasify and densify the atmosphere. water would also heat up and you would have more water vapor and CO2 in the martian atmosphere which in that case would be good because the CO2 would warm mars up.
Also, there isn’t enough gravity to hold a thick atmosphere (for long). So even if you do thicken it up by melting the polar caps, much of it would dissipate pretty high above the planet where the solar wind would blow it away over the course of a few millennia. So it’s a temporary solution. You can’t really terraform mars unless you can make it heavier, and hopefully in the process kick start a dynamo reaction in the molten core to create a magnetosphere. Without more gravity and some radiation protection, Mars missions will be flags and footprints, but not colonization. Sorry.
What could possibly go wrong??? First we are super careful not to bring any earth organisms to other bodies in the solar system, then we set off atomic weapons and fill the atmosphere and eventually the entire planet with radioactive particles, so that we can live there. I will say it again, what could possibly go wrong???????