The Oil Spill In The Gulf – It could become the U.S’s biggest natural disaster

That’s right. As big as the Love Canal. As Big as 3 Mile Island. As big as the Exxon Valdez. I shudder to think what this could do to the entire Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1269440/Visible-space-giant-oil-slick-oozing-Americas-Gulf-Coast.html

Visible from space, the giant oil slick oozing towards America’s Gulf Coast

By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 3:06 PM on 28th April 2010

Creeping just 20 miles from America’s Gulf Coast, this is the mammoth oil slick threatening to become an environmental disaster in a satellite image taken from space.

The spectacle – caught on Nasa’s Aqua satellite using its Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer instrument – is remarkable as oil slicks are usually notoriously difficult to spot using such equipment.

Yet in these images, the spill’s mirror-like reflection as the sun glints off the water is clearly visible.

Enlarge   mout of mississippi Snapshot of disaster: Four hundred miles out in space, Nasa’s Aqua satellite has taken pictures of the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.  In this image from Sunday, the centre of it is about even with the mouth of the Mississippi River
The mirror-like sheen of the oil slick is seen in this image taken  from space by NASA's Aquatic satellite The mirror-like sheen of the oil slick is seen in this image taken from space by NASA’s Aquatic satellite

The enormous spill, which was caused by the April 20 explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, is now around 48 miles long and 80 miles wide. It is believed to be around 600 miles in circumference.

Hundreds of hotel owners, fishermen and restaurateurs are fearing for their livelihoods as the slick edges ever closer to the American Gulf Coast.

Forecasters say the spill could wash ashore within days near delicate wetlands, oyster beds and pristine white beaches.

:}

Please read the entire article. It is really really scary.

And This from LEAN

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

The Unified Command (U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Minerals Management Service, BP and Transocean) had released this statement earlier today:

Responders have scheduled a controlled, on-location burn to begin at approximately 11 a.m. CDT today (April 28, 2010)…. today’s controlled burn will remove oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and marine and other wildlife.
Workboats will consolidate oil into a fire resistant boom approximately 500 feet long. This oil will then be towed to a more remote area, where it will be ignited and burned in a controlled manner. The plan calls for small, controlled burns of several thousand gallons of oil lasting approximately one hour each.

The Unified Command has also made such statements as:

(The burning is) a strategy designed to minimize environmental risks by removing large quantities of oil…

…there are no anticipated impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles.

The vast majority of this slick will be addressed through natural means and through use of chemical dispersants. Today’s burn will not affect other ongoing response activities, such as on-water skimming, dispersant application, and subsurface wellhead intervention operations. Preparations are also underway in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and Alabama to set up a protective boom to minimize shoreline impact.

We believe that releases of information from the Unified Command are glossing over the environmental aspects of this oil spill and failing in their duty to provide the public with accurate and unbiased information. From our experience and the experience of all of our colleagues in dealing with oil spills, once the oil is in the water it is impossible to eliminate all environmental impact. We believe that the government agencies in charge must make a full and accurate assessment of the environmental impacts of this spill.

“The vast majority of this slick will be addressed through natural means.” This sounds an awful lot like: The vast majority of the oil slick will be left in the environment. What impact will this have to the Gulf environment?

The chemical dispersants are essentially a soap like material that emulsifies the oil and causes it to sink into the water column and to the sea floor. What impact will this sub-surface oil have on marine life, on the oyster beds and benthic organisms?

Oil booms proved to be pretty ineffective during the fuel-oil barge spill in the Mississippi River in 2008. How effective will booms be in rough seas?

We do agree that burning the slick is preferable to the surface oil coming on to shore but we also ask that the Agencies involved make a full and accurate assessment of the environmental impacts of the burning of the surface oil.

We simply ask that an honest and accurate assessment of the full environmental impacts of this spill be conducted by the relevant government agencies and then released to the public.

To report affected wildlife, call 1-866-557-1401.

For more information regarding the Deepwater Horizon incident, contact the joint information center at (985) 902-5231 or (985) 902-5240.

You can contact us at 1-866-msriver.

:}

God I hate this.

:}

So A Volcano And An Oil Rig Blew Up – So what it was Earth Week

It is true, a Volcano blew up and I did not say a word:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/14/iceland.volcano.evacuation/index.html

800 evacuated as Iceland volcano erupts

By the CNN Wire Staff
April 14, 2010 12:38 p.m. EDT

(CNN) — Icelandic authorities evacuated about 800 people early Wednesday when a volcano erupted beneath the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, an emergency spokesman said.

The first evacuations began at 2 a.m. (10 p.m. ET Tuesday), according to Rognvaldur Olafsson, chief inspector at Iceland’s Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management. He said everyone in the area was safe.

“We have located the fissure that is erupting under the glacier,” Olafsson told CNN. He said scientists are currently doing aerial reconnaissance of the area and that officials would know more when they return.

So far, he said, the eruption has created a large hole in the glacier. Lava is not a big concern but flooding is, he said.

iReport: Are you there? Send your images, videos

Map: Eyjafjallajokull glacier

RELATED TOPICS
  • Iceland

“The volcano is under the glacier, and it’s melting parts of the glacier,” Olafsson said. “The rivers will rise and potentially make some damage.”

iReporter captures footage of eruption

Rivers closest to the glacier have already started rising, he added.

The glacier is the sixth-biggest in Iceland, just to the west of the bigger glacier, Myrdalsjokull. It is about 100 miles (160 km) east of the capital, Reykjavik.

:}

So will it effect the environment. Yes. Anything that disrupts air travel is a good thing because air travel is one of the largest causes of global warming. Will it cool the planet any. Probably not but if Kitra goes off it could be a major event and the last three times “Eyja” went off Kitra did too. So keep on watching folks. Air travel here was disrupted too so it was nice to sit on my swing out back and look at the stars with no blinking jet lights.

:}

And yes, an Oil Rig blew up and sank. What, that doesn’t happen everyday? I guess the gulf needs 42,000 gallons of oil spilled in it every day for God knows how long.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/26/national/main6433600.shtml

NEW ORLEANS, April 26, 2010

Oil Spill Continues; Will Robot Fix Leak?

Officials Wait to See if Unmanned Submarines Can Activate Cut-Off Valves a Mile Below Gulf of Mexico Surface

(CBS/AP)

Authorities continue to monitor the size and direction of a Gulf of Mexico oil sheen by air, while using robotic underwater equipment to try to shut off its source at a wrecked deepwater drilling platform.

The Coast Guard and the companies that owned an operated the rig plan a Monday afternoon news conference in Robert, La., the site of a command center established over the weekend to deal with the crisis.

The oil has been leaking at a rate estimated at 42,000 gallons a day. Workers are trying to make sure the oil doesn’t reach the Gulf Coast’s fragile ecosystem.

An explosion on the floating deep water rig last Tuesday night led to a huge fire and the eventual sinking of the rig. The search for 11 missing workers was called off on Friday.

Crews began using a robot submarine Sunday to try to the leak nearly a mile below the surface, but said it would take at least another day before they knew whether the job was completed.

The Coast Guard said the oil spill was expected to stay 30 miles off the coast for the next several days.

The robot submarines are trying to activate valves at the well head. If that doesn’t work, crews are also planning to drill a relief well to cut off the flow – which could take several months.

What appeared to a manageable spill a couple of days ago after an oil rig exploded and sank off the Louisiana coast Tuesday, has now turned into a more serious environmental problem. The new leak was discovered Saturday, and as much as 1,000 barrels – or 42,000 gallons – of oil is leaking each day, Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said.

:}

This is what they want in the artic? If they drill off Virginia, is this what they want coming up Chesapeake Bay?

:}

My Dad Owned 3 Dodge Desotos – In the early and mids 60s

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdMDexoMSlc

What a difference 50 years make. My dad loved these cars. They weighed a ton, had huge engines and got 10 miles to the gallon when gas was 15 cents a gallon. Now we are switching to electricity. What a world we live in.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmEpXnjJj0 )


1958 Dodge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeSoto_%28automobile%29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

1952 DeSoto DeLuxe hood ornament.

The DeSoto (sometimes De Soto) was a brand of automobile based in the United States, manufactured and marketed by the Chrysler Corporation from 1928 to 1961. The DeSoto logo featured a stylized image of Hernando de Soto. The De Soto marque was officially dropped 30 November 1960, with a bit over two million built since 1928.[1]

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sN-srcAgH8 )

The DeSoto make was founded by Walter Chrysler on August 4, 1928, and introduced for the 1929 model year. It was named after the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto. Chrysler wanted to enter the brand in competition with its arch-rivals General Motors, Studebaker, and Willys-Knight, in the mid-price class.

Shortly after DeSoto was introduced, however, Chrysler completed its purchase of the Dodge Brothers, giving the company two mid-priced makes. Had the transaction been completed sooner, DeSoto never would have been introduced.

Initially, the two-make strategy was relatively successful, with DeSoto priced below Dodge models. Despite the economic times, DeSoto sales were relatively healthy, pacing Dodge at around 25,000 units in 1932. However, in 1933, Chrysler reversed the market positions of the two marques in hopes of boosting Dodge sales. By elevating DeSoto, it received Chrysler’s streamlined 1934 Airflow bodies. But, on the shorter DeSoto wheelbase, the design was a disaster and was unpopular with consumers. Unlike Chrysler, which still had more traditional models to fall back on, DeSoto was hobbled by the Airflow design until the 1935 Airstream arrived.

Aside from its Airflow models, DeSoto’s 1942 model is probably its second most memorable model from the pre-war years, when the cars were fitted with powered pop-up headlights, a first for a North American mass-production vehicle. DeSoto marketed the feature as “Air-Foil” lights “Out of Sight Except at Night”.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGBKy5iMRBw )

After wartime restrictions on automotive production were ended, DeSoto returned to civilian car production when it reissued its 1942 models as 1946 models, but without the hidden-headlight feature, and with fender lines extending into the doors, like other Chrysler products of the immediate postwar period.

Until 1952, DeSoto used the Deluxe and Custom model designations. However, in 1953, DeSoto dropped the Deluxe and Custom names and designated its six-cylinder cars the Powermaster and its V8 car the Firedome.

At its height, DeSoto’s more popular models included the Firedome, Firesweep, and Fireflite. The DeSoto Adventurer, introduced for 1956 as a high-performance hard-top coupe (similar to Chrysler’s 300), became a full-range model in 1960.

DeSotos sold well through the 1956 model year. That year, for the first, and only, time in the marque’s history, it served as Pace Car at the Indianapolis 500.[2] In 1955,[3] along with all Chrysler models, De Sotos were redesigned with Virgil Exner‘s “Forward Look”. Exner gave the DeSoto soaring tailfins fitted with triple taillights, and consumers responded by buying record numbers. The 1957 had a well integrated design, with two variations: the smaller Firesweep, based on the concurrent Dodge; and the Firedome and Fireflite (and its halo model Adventurer sub-series), based on the larger Chrysler body. As was conventional in the era, subsequent years within the typical three year model block were distinguished by trim, bumper, and other low cost modifications, typically by adding bulk to bumpers and grilles, taillight changes, color choices, instrumentation and interior design changes and often additional external trim.

The 1958 economic downturn hurt sales of mid-priced makes across the board, and DeSoto sales were 60 percent lower than those of 1957 in what would be DeSoto’s worst year since 1938. The sales slide continued for 1959 and 1960 (down 40 percent from the already low 1959 figures), and rumors began to circulate DeSoto was going to be discontinued

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY6vxrs_S_o )

By the time the 1961 DeSoto was introduced in the fall of 1960, rumors were widespread that Chrysler was moving towards terminating the brand, fueled by a reduction in model offerings for the 1960 model year.

For 1961, DeSoto lost its series designations entirely, in a move reminiscent of Packard’s final lineup. And, like the final Packards, the final DeSoto was of questionable design merit. Again, based on the shorter Chrysler Windsor wheelbase, the DeSoto featured a two-tiered grille (each tier with a different texture) and revised taillights. Only a two-door hardtop and a four-door hardtop were offered. The cars were trimmed similarly to the 1960 Fireflite.

The final decision to discontinue DeSoto was announced on November 30, 1960, just forty-seven days after the 1961 models were introduced. At the time, Chrysler warehouses contained several million dollars in 1961 DeSoto parts, so the company ramped up production in order to use up the stock. Chrysler and Plymouth dealers, which had been forced to take possession of DeSotos under the terms of their franchise agreements, received no compensation from Chrysler for their unsold DeSotos at the time of the formal announcement. Making matters worse, Chrysler kept shipping the cars through December, many of which were sold at a loss by dealers eager to be rid of them. After the parts stock was exhausted, a few outstanding customer orders were filled with Chrysler Windsors.

:}

Have a good weekend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abtsjWiiDoY

:}

City Water Light And Power – Energy Efficiency in Springfield Illinois

I forget to give them the credit they deserve. We have a local utility that has invested in wind power and early Energy Conservation Programs. And it was created by a socialist.

http://www.cwlp.com/

Welcome to the home page of City Water, Light & Power (CWLP), the municipal electric and water utility for Springfield, Illinois. CWLP also owns and manages Lake Springfield, the primary source of drinking water for Springfield and one of Central Illinois’ premier recreational resources.

City Water, Light & Power’s general offices are located on the fourth floor of Municipal Center East, 800 East Monroe, Springfield, IL 62757. Contact information for the General Office and other utility offices can be found on the Contact Information page in the About CWLP section.

For more information about the utility or its various divisions, select one of the main topics or subtopics in the left-hand column of this page.

Top l CWLP Home l CWLP Contact Info l Search l City of Springfield

:}

These guys are the best.

http://www.cwlp.com/energy_services/energy_services.htm

The CWLP Energy Services Office offers a variety of services designed to help our residential and commercial customers increase personal comfort and convenience while reducing energy and water costs. The office is staffed by a team of  Energy Experts who work diligently to keep abreast of the latest developments in energy-related technologies. They share their knowledge with CWLP’s residential and business customers via several avenues, including advertising; free publications produced specifically with our customers’ needs in mind; bill inserts; informational videos; home energy audits; and Low-Cost/No-Cost Efficiency Workshops and other community involvement programs. The Energy Services Office also administers CWLP’s efficiency rebate programs.

The  Energy Services Office is in downtown Springfield on the northwest corner of Monroe and S. 6th Streets. We invite customers to stop in and visit us, view our energy-efficient lighting displays and water conservation exhibit, pick up free efficiency literature, or talk with the Energy Experts. We also welcome questions or requests for information that come through the mail, by phone or FAX, or via email.

Reach us at: 2nd Floor
231 S. 6th St.
Springfield, IL 62701
Phone: (217) 789-2070
FAX: (217) 789-2210
email: nrgxprts@cwlp.com

For more information about CWLP’s Energy Services Office or about how you can make your home or business more energy efficient, select any of the topics or subtopics listed in the left-hand column of this page.

:}

See you at jam band friday…

:}

3rd Street Corridor In Springfield IL – I haven’t done local stuff lately

But since I picked on St. John’s yesterday today we bring you the Rail Road Companies. In particular the community investing and protecting Union Pacific.

:}

I posted page one here. You can call or email them if you want the whole thing. If you click on the image it will get a little bigger. My choices for posting were not great. Reeeal Big so that only part of it fit on the page or mid range which looks like the above.

:}

St. John’s Hospital Is Building Green – But how green is that?

http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-7175-getting-bigger-going-green.html

Thursday, April 8,2010

Getting bigger, going green

St. John’s expansion will be environmentally friendly

By Patrick Yeagle

As St. John’s Hospital is preparing to renovate its downtown campus, the 135-year-old Springfield institution is paying special attention to minimizing the project’s environmental footprint and maximizing local economic benefits.

On March 31, hospital officials announced a $162 million proposal to demolish certain old structures on the hospital’s campus and replace them with more modern surgery, pharmacy and patient areas.

Dave Olejniczak, chief operating officer at St. John’s, says the project will incorporate several cost-saving, environmentally friendly designs, such as paints, stains and adhesives with low toxin levels, energy-efficient light fixtures and natural lighting whenever possible.

“A little bit of it is an investment up front, but the majority of it is going to be a cost savings down the road, in particular when we focus on the glass elements around the facility itself,” he says. “With having the natural light, it’s going to reduce the amount of artificial light we have to generate.”

Recycling is a big part of the design as well. From the carpet made of recycled fibers to the reuse of scrap materials such as steel and wood, Olejniczak says the project will uphold the hospital’s “stewardship values.”

“Envitronmental stewardship, from a Fransiscan perspective, is ensuring that we’re using the resources that we’re currently given to the best of our ability, and to take what we have and reuse it or recycle it,” Olejniczak said.

:}

To which I said:

Editor

Illinois Times

1320 S. State Street

PO Box 5256

Springfield, IL  62705

Emailed: 4/12/10

editor@illinoistimes.com

Dear Editor:

I am writing to you regarding your brief article about St. John Hospital’s future building plans. It is laudable that they plan on making that building locally built and green. However I did not hear “state-of-the-art” speak included in that admittedly short article. First and foremost I hope the Hospital will perform a green tear down. We should be wasting as little as possible these days. Putting perfectly good materials in the landfill is no longer acceptable.

Second I hope they also perform a green rebuild so that everything in the new Hospital wing will be recycled. Finally I hope that the new wing will generate its own energy and be super efficient in its energy usage. If they use windows, please use windows that generate electricity. If they have a roof I hope that it has wind turbines on top and plenty of plants to absorb the water that lands there. I hope that they put in geothermal heating and cooling systems. This is after all about people’s health. If St. Johns becomes a beacon of how we can lead our lives without pollutants then they will be contributing to the over all health of our community.

As the article pointed out it is also about health care costs. Industry estimates are that if the medical community used energy efficiently they could cut our medical cost by 10 to 15%. That would be a huge benefit to us all.

Doug Nicodemus

948 E. Adams

Riverton, Il  62561

day) 6297031

email dougnic55@yahoo.com

:}

If you want to read more about healthcare you might look here:

http://mastersofpublichealth.org/top-50-public-health-blogs.html

:}

Massey Mine Accident Could Have Been Prevented – But not by Blankenship

It’s jam band friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ciiCyxOJA&playnext_from=TL&videos=Oix0MvcQ62o&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh%2Bdiv-1r-2-HM

He was too busy buying judges and worse yet funding Climate change deniers and Cap and Trade deniers. And I am not the only one to think so:

http://www.grist.org/article/don-blankenship-seventh-scariest-person-in-america/

Don Blankenship: Seventh scariest person in America

Massey Energy CEO is a really bad dude

avatar for David Roberts

by David Roberts

24 Oct 2006 4:40 PM

The venerable print magazine Old Trout was recently relaunched with a splashy issue on “The Thirteen Scariest Americans.” I was asked to write up the scariest American from an environmental point of view.

The choice was not difficult. The scariest polluter in the U.S. is Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy. The guy is evil, and I don’t use that word lightly.

The issue is out now. (Look for it on a newsstand near you!) The folks at Old Trout have given me permission to publish an expanded version of the piece after a suitable period of exclusivity. So watch for that at the beginning of December.

In the meantime, check out three things.

First, there’s this longish New York Times piece on Blankenship from Sunday. In the usual style of mainstream reportage, it is studiously neutral in tone, woefully downplaying the environmental destruction Massey does and the thuggish tactics Blankenship has imposed. But you can get a pretty accurate general picture of the guy.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHNZVrxEts&feature=related )

:}

This is actually a repost:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/09/rolling-stone-climate-killers-polluters-and-science-deniers-rupert-murdoch-warren-buffett-john-mccain/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/

The Coal Baron
Don Blankenship
CEO, Massey Energy

In an age when most CEOs are canny enough to at least pay lip service to the realities of climate change, Blankenship stands apart as corporate America’s most unabashed denier. Global warming, he insists, is nothing but “a hoax and a Ponzi scheme.” His fortune depends on such lies: Massey Energy, the nation’s fourth-largest coal-mining operation, unearths more than 40 million tons of the fossil fuel each year — often by blowing the tops off of Appalachian mountains.

The country’s highest-paid coal executive, Blankenship is a villain ripped straight from the comic books: a jowly, mustache-sporting, union-busting coal baron who uses his fortune to bend politics to his will. He recently financed a $3.5 million campaign to oust a state Supreme Court justice who frequently ruled against his company, and he hung out on the French Riviera with another judge who was weighing an appeal by Massey. “Don Blankenship would actually be less powerful if he were in elected office,” Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia once observed. “He would be twice as accountable and half as feared.”

On the national level, Blankenship enjoys a position of influence on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has led the fight to kill climate legislation. He enjoys inveighing against the “greeniacs” — including Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Al Gore — who are “taking over the world.” And he has even taken to tweeting about climate change: “We must demand that more coal be burned to save the Earth from global cooling.”

In more unguarded moments, however, Blankenship confesses that his over-the-top rhetoric is strategic. “If it weren’t for guys like me,” he says, “the middle would be further to the left.” He also admits that his efforts to block climate legislation are ultimately self-serving: “It would probably cut our business in half”.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsS811o21-k&feature=related )

:}

yah that kind of guy…

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3nCI_9uQfI&feature=related )

:}

Global Warming Is Not A Crisis – According to the New York Times

I keep wanting to make the point that medicine is one of our biggest energy wasters but the world keeps yanking my chain like this:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/on-the-energy-gap-and-climate-crisis/

The one I’d choose is much like the one stated by  Richard Somerville of the University of California, San Diego, during a climate debate several years ago over the proposition that “ Global Warming is Not a Crisis.”

:}

But then little things like this pop up the same day:

http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/2010/04/08/global-warming-is-still-an-issue-two-glaciers-disappear/

Global Warming is Still an Issue, Two Glaciers Disappear

Posted by Staff on Apr 8th, 2010 /

Two more glaciers have disappeared from Glacier National Park. There are 25 glaciers left and scientists believe they will be gone by the end of the decade. This brings the problem of Global Warming back into the news after the recent email scandals, that implied that many in the Global Warming movement were manipulating statistics.

The loss of the glaciers in the northwestern Montana park is attributed to warmer temperatures. These 2 glaciers fell below the measure used by scientists to determine if they can be called glaciers. This number is 25 acres. When the glacier falls below this number, it is no longer considered a glacier. The largest glacier in the park, called the “Harrison Glacier” covers 465 acres.

The decrease of glaciers means there is less water in the rivers of the area. Less water also contributes to an increase in fires and a decrease in fish. It is not certain what is causing the rise in temperatures causing the shrinking of the glaciers. 90% of glaciers worldwide are now said to be shrinking. Alaska, the Alps and the Andes are leading the world in the loss of glaciers. Scientist have toyed with the idea of covering glaciers in plastic sheeting to keep them cooler.

:}

Isn’t life pathetic sometimes…

:}

Energy Consumption And Healthcare – What does treatment really cost.

The basic problem in the beginning of the conservation movement (energy) was no one knew how much energy was being used and thus how much could be saved. The same is true in spades for medicine. Think about it, how much does an xray cost? No one knows. So how much energy does an xray take? When you ask you get answers like this…

http://greenanswers.com/q/72578/science-technology/how-much-energy-does-it-take-make-x-ray

seanm (881) 3/10/10 10:37am

This is a good question and the answer varies depending on the type of X-ray machines you’re talking about. Traditionally X-rays have only been possible with a high voltage generation, which takes a lot of energy, anywhere from 30 to 150 kV. By comparison, high-voltage electric transmission lines operate at about 110 kV, so we’re talking about a lot of power. However, X-rays can be exposed in tiny fractions of seconds and since the 1980s technology has advanced to make X-rays even faster so as to reduce the exposure of operators and patients to radiation. I could not find specific energy consumption ratings on various X-ray machines, but there are efforts afoot to replace traditional X-ray machines with digital ones, which in addition to eliminating the need to keep film and developer on hand will reduce energy consumption by up to 78%.

Citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://www.gereports.com/picturing-the-benefits-of-digital-x-rays/

:}

say what…

:}

or an mri (they routinely charge 2 to 3 thousand $$$)???

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080908210925AA26KhC

How electricity does an Xray or MRI machine use per scan? How much does it cost the Hospital?

My brother insists that it takes a LOT of electricity in order to power and Xray or MRI machine just for one scan. He thinks it uses more than a normal household uses per month. I doubt that. Does anyone know how much is used or how much it costs? No guesses please…my other brother loves to answer questions with guess-answers because he thinks he’s probably always right…conveniently nobody ever has a computer when he gives these questionable answers and nobody remembers what he said

answer1

Best Answer – Chosen by Voters

The amount of energy used will always be constant on the machines the only way to solve this problem is to determine where the machines are used to get kilowatt costs as they are more expensive in some areas of the country. Once you determine that factor it will be easy to solve the equation.

answer2

Here is a listing of a typical “open” MRI Model describing the power consumption:
Manufactured by Esaote S.p.A.; a low field open MRI scanner with permanent magnet for orthopedic use. The outstanding feature of this MRI system is a patient friendly design with 24 cm diameter, which allows the imaging of extremities and small body parts like shoulder MRI. The power consumption is around 1.3 kW and the needed minimum floor space is an area of 16 sq m.

So it uses about 1.3kW to run. The usual power outlet is 480 volts/3 phase/125 amps. It uses more power (up to 2kW) when the magnet is on. Keep in mind that this is considered a ‘small’ MRI machine. Larger units weigh up to 12 tons and are assembled on site in phases.

Typical US 3-prong outlet is 125 volts/15 amps.

A typical US household uses approximately 8900 kW per year. So one MRI scanner consumes approximately several dozen households worth per year depending on how often it’s used.

Source(s):

RN

answer3

X ray machines draw a lot of power for a very short time, a few seconds. So overall power consumption is low. MRI is no different.
Overall, the consumption would depend on how much it is used. If the X ray machine is being used for 1000 films, the consumption would be equal to a household consumption.

:}

The point being that we have no idea what our healthcare costs and doctors want to keep it that way.

:}

Energy Concerns And Healthcare

The medical and healthcare industries use energy like there was no tomorrow. I estimate that the US could save at least 20% on its healthcare bills. For those of you in small towns…how much do you waste on driving to your doctor? Why don’t the hospitals put a telecommunications computer in your city or town hall? That way you can call in, get an appointment, walk down to City Hall and talk to your doctor. Even show him where you hurt. To say the medical community is stodgy is wrong…it is too smart for its own britches.

http://www.matmanmag.com/matmanmag_app/jsp/articledisplay.jsp?dcrpath=MATMANMAG/Article/data/11NOV2008/0811MMH_FEA_Purchasing&domain=MATMANMAG

The bright side of energy conservation
Using renewable sources saves money, reduces emissions

By Gina Pugliese and Nick DeDominicis

QUICK TAKE>>>
Hospitals are behind other industries in employing energy conservation initiatives, including the use of renewable energy sources. But times are changing as they realize that wasted energy drains their bottom lines and that they have a responsibility to reduce their carbon footprint for the health of the environment and surrounding communities. Energy-saving initiatives require multidepartmental collaboration within a hospital; and materials managers need to ensure they are a part of that because their expertise can make a difference.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), every dollar a not-for-profit health care organization saves on energy is equivalent to generating $20 in new revenue for hospitals or $10 for medical offices. So why aren’t all hospitals jumping into energy conservation with both feet? There are many reasons. But this is certain: Most hospitals recognize that energy conservation is a priority and are gradually realizing the benefits, both to their bottom line and the environment.

On impact

Energy issues have an impact on virtually every aspect of health care. Demands for energy and the costs for providing it, are escalating rapidly. And those costs are not confined to higher utility, transportation and supply bills, but also the gradual destruction of the environment. Our nation’s dependence on fossil fuels has led to a documented rise in global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions, as well as potentially negative health consequences for patients and workers.

Demand for energy is soaring across all sectors of the American economy. In fact, a recent Department of Energy survey of 20 major companies concluded that global demand for energy resources will rise dramatically—nearly 60 percent—throughout the next 25 years.

Senior executives from 20 major companies attending a 2007 workshop hosted by the EPA and Global Business Network estimated that  electricity demand in the United States alone will grow by at least 40 percent throughout the next 25 years, requiring at least 300 power plants to be built over that time. Such demands have led to an unprecedented rise in energy costs, which have surged dramatically and put a significant financial strain on hospitals. In some areas of the United States, energy costs have grown by more than 60 percent in the past few years.

The Energy Information Administration’s data show that the health care industry spends an estimated $7.4 billion on energy ($5.3 billion for inpatient and $2.1 billion for outpatient facilities). More than 90 percent of hospitals surveyed recently by Healthcare Financial Management magazine reported higher energy costs over the previous year, and more than half cited double-digit increases.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions result from our nation’s reliance on nonrenewable sources of energy—fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas—that accelerate global warming and climate change; and there is much debate about how to curb such trends. GHG emissions, which include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, also are increasingly linked to a host of serious public health consequences such as depletion of our planet’s fresh water supply and respiratory ailments.

Conservation now

Health care is a veritable energy hog. Whether from heating and cooling air and water, lighting spaces or transporting goods and services, the industry is heavily reliant on energy from mostly conventional nonrenewable sources.

According to the EPA, inpatient health care is the second most energy intensive industry in the United States (second only to the food service industry), gobbling up more than twice as much energy per square foot as nonhealth care office buildings. Buildings alone are responsible for almost half of the energy consumed in the United States and 48 percent of all GHG emissions. Hospitals alone use 836 trillion British thermal units (BTUs) of energy annually, have more than 2.5 times the energy intensity and CO2 emissions of commercial office buildings and are consistently within the top 10 water users in their communities.

Second, the calls for change are based on economic survival. Energy costs are soaring in the health care industry. A recent Department of Energy report found that rising energy prices and hospitals’ increasing energy demands have escalated costs so much that hospitals’ energy bills consume up to 3 percent of their total operating budgets, and up to at least 15 percent of their annual profits. Such phenomena are exacerbated by the added cost of running outdated and energy inefficient building systems.

Third, calls for energy conservation in health care are becoming louder because of hospitals’ ethical duty to protect public health. Many observers believe that the health care industry contributes disproportionately to the detrimental public health consequences of climate change. To keep true to its mandate—first, do no harm—hospitals today increasingly are turning their attention to change practices that can potentially jeopardize patient and worker safety. Increasing public concerns about climate change and its potential health, economic and security consequences are helping to shape the industry’s attitude toward climate change.

:}

dot dot dot…as they say…the headlines say it all:

:}

Behind the times

Although hospitals lag behind other industries in implementing energy-efficient strategies, there are numerous national initiatives focusing on health care, including a two-year-old initiative called E2C (Energy Efficient Challenge) that was launched by the American Society for Healthcare Engineering (ASHE) to support the goals of EPA’s Energy Star Challenge Program, says Dale Woodin, ASHE executive director. Woodin explains that this lag is often due to the lack of available capital, expertise and resources, and a need for greater awareness and support from senior health care leaders.

Health care companies in general also spend a smaller portion of their total expenses on energy, meaning fewer dollars are available to make far-reaching improvements. Rising energy costs are squeezing operating margins and diverting money needed for critical health care quality and safety improvements.

In essence, the primary driver is saving money. According to the American College of Healthcare Executives, 67 percent of health care CEOs list financial challenges as their No. 1 concern. However, operating costs and competition for investment and capital improvement funds often restrict available funding for energy improvements.

In addition, alternative energy sources have traditionally been scarce and expensive. For example, only 7 percent of the entire U.S. energy consumption is from renewable energy sources, including biofuels such as ethanol, solar, hydroelectric and wind power.

The health care industry is less open than other industries to the use of renewable energy sources, and few health care organizations have publicly stated carbon reduction goals.

A recent Johnson Controls survey of various industries found that only 38 percent of health care organizations had either invested in or were exploring renewable technologies, compared with 68 percent across other industries.

Catching up

Recently, the health care sector has begun to transform its core practices in response to the scientific confirmation of the link between climate change and health. Health care organizations are placing a growing importance on initiatives such as energy management, and while they are less likely than other industries to achieve green certification, they are more likely to implement green features without pursuing formal certification.

:}

Physician heal thyself.