Tropospheric Injection of Diatoms

[Michael Hayes]

Hi Folks,

This is a conceptual sketch on the use of a biological aerosol. It is a very raw concept, yet I found it an interesting thought.

Tropospheric Injection of Micro Diatoms

A Combined SRM/CCS Proposal with Long Term Implications for

Enhanced Hydrate Burial and General Ocean Acidification Mitigation

A Brief Conceptual Sketch Offered to the Google Geoengineering Group

Diatoms are ubiquitous to the waters of this planet and they all have self regulating biological features which makes them ideal for GE use on a regional or global scale. It is estimated that there are approximately 2 million species, yet only a fraction have been studied. This proposal does not call out for any particular species. I leave that determination to others. In general, they play an important role on many different levels. Diatoms offer O2 production, CO2 capture and sequestration along with long term hydrate burial. The potential for diatoms to produce biofuel is well known but that issue is outside of this proposal.

Through my discussions with M.V. Bhaskar, I have become aware that micro diatoms can be prepared in a dry form as a means to seed bodies of water to produce artificial diatom blooms for enhanced O2 saturation. This conceptual sketch proposes that this type of material be considered for atmospheric aerosol injection as a form of combined SRM/CCS/Enhanced Hydrate Burial and Ocean Acidification Mitigation.

:A minimum of seven main technical issues concerning this type of biological aerosol medium can be anticipated.

1. Will this form of aerosol stay suspended for a reasonable time? The size of micro diatoms are such that proper dispersal could produce an aerosol which would stay suspended for a significantly reasonable periods of time. The engineering of the dispersal method is similar to previous aerosol concepts. The suspension time will depend on many factors ranging from altitude of injection, latitude of injection (atmospheric cell characteristics) and general tropospheric weather conditions. The rate (if any) of atmospheric moisture absorption needs further understanding. If it is found that this medium does absorb atmospheric moisture, this could represent a means to reduce that primary green house gas, as well as, possibly providing a means for cloud nucleation/brightening.

2. Will the diatom aerosol reflect SR? Typically, this diatom preparation is brown. I believe it may be possible that the diatom material can be engineered to be reflective. This might be done through laminating the dried preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white powdered sugar?). Finding the right laminating material which does not substantially degrade suspension time, seed viability or produce accumulated environmental adverse effects will need investigating along with the associated high volume production needs.

3. Will the diatom material remain viable through the aerosol phase into the aquatic environment? Tropospheric injection avoids the higher altitude environmental stress issues. Such as, high UV, low ambient pressure and extreme low temperatures, which may effect seed viability. However, the possibility of laminating the material to address the high altitude concerns may also be possible in the future and will need further investigation. The added complications, relative to seed survival, of stratospheric injection indicates that tropospheric injection should be the initial deployment consideration. Stratospheric injection may be avoided if coordinated and tailored regional tropospheric efforts can be developed.

4. Will this method address arctic ocean methane release? ESAS based tropospheric injection of this medium can have three significant benefits. The first is the immediate SRM benefit (with proper seed lamination, possible cloud nucleation/brightening). Second is the potential enhanced dissolved methane oxidation rate. Third is the enhanced wide area increase in the sediment build up rate over the shallow water hydrate fields.. The ESAS is at a critical edge of the GHSZ envelope. A rapid build up of diatom debris could expand the envelope significantly with just one added meter of diatom sediment ooze (insulation against warming waters, as well as, decreasing the porosity of the existing sediment). That will obviously take a few years to achieve. However, no other practical means to achieve this needed large area effect seems available. Also, can the resident AOM adapt to a marked increase in diatom rain?

5. Will this method address tundra methane release? Not completely, however this method could seed even the smallest body of standing water within a tundra region and thus provide added O2 saturation and the associated methane oxidation. As the tundra continues to warm, more standing water will emerge and thus this potential enhanced oxidation will become more important.

6. Will this method have a meaningful/measurable effect on ocean pH levels? Diatoms consume dissolved CO2 and thus it is a matter of scale. There is a need to determine the seed mass ratio to the total CO2 consumption that can be attributed to that seed mass. This will determine the cost effectiveness/scalability of this aspect of the concept. The current use of this diatom seed material does not take into account the aerosol phase being proposed. Seed survival rates during the aerosol phase might be determined through table top experiments, yet field test would be needed to verify any lab data. Field trials for this overall concept should not trigger significant protests as the diatom species which will be used pose no known toxic hazards and are widely considered to be ecologically beneficial.

7. Will this method be financially competitive with other aerosol concepts? The cost of diatom medium preparation and injection can be expected to be somewhat greater than sulfate/aluminum aerosols. This is due to the potential beneficial aspects of this biological medium after precipitation. The more material used, the greater the overall beneficial effect. That aspect represents a principal departure from that of the prior art. The prior methods seek to minimize cost through use of long lasting aerosols (which have no secondary environmental benefit). The less aerosol used, the less cost (and less potential adverse effects). This proposed method represents a means which generates second and third order ecological benefits once the aerosol precipitates. The added cost of the expected large volume of material to be used should be justifiable due to these important interrelated secondary benefits. This is not just a mitigation effort, it is potentially also a general regional ecological enhancement.

This GE approach offers at least two non global warming mitigation related benefits to society. First would be the overall water quality improvement in the operational area due to the increase in saturated O2 levels provided by the seeded diatom blooms. Second would be that fisheries may improve due to the increase in the marine food production rates at the micro level. If only those two ancillary, yet fundamentally important benefits, can be proven, the debate surrounding GE can be expected to take a new direction.

Note: If this proposal finds any acceptance, M.V. Bhaskar deserves ample credit. I have simply tried to craft his input into conventional GE terms. If it finds no acceptance, I take full credit.

Michael Hayes 6/21/11          

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi Micheal

Thanks.

Your proposal is quite interesting.

A clarification - We are not advocating use of micro Diatoms, we are
advocating use of Nano Silica based micro nutrients in waterways,
these cause naturally present Diatoms to bloom.

Since atmosphere would not contain Diatoms, Pico Diatoms can perhaps
be used along with our nano powder.

The biggest advantage is that whatever falls onto oceans unconsumed in
the atmosphere, will bloom in the oceans, so nothing is wasted.

This would be a sort of SRM + Ocean Fertilization scheme.

> This might be done through laminating the dried
>    preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white powdered
>    sugar?).

Diatomaceous Earth may be the best solution.
There are mountains of these all over the world.

http://www.squidoo.com/fossilflour
Scroll down for some very good photos.

regards

Bhaskar

On Jun 22, 3:11 am, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> This is a conceptual sketch on the use of a biological aerosol. It is a very
> raw concept, yet I found it an interesting thought.
>

> *Tropospheric Injection of Micro Diatoms *
>
> *A Combined SRM/CCS Proposal with Long Term Implications for*
>
> *Enhanced Hydrate Burial and General Ocean Acidification Mitigation*
>
>  *A Brief Conceptual Sketch Offered to the Google Geoengineering Group*

>
>  Diatoms are ubiquitous to the waters of this planet and they all have self
> regulating biological features which makes them ideal for GE use on a
> regional or global scale. It is estimated that there are approximately 2
> million species, yet only a fraction have been studied. This proposal does
> not call out for any particular species. I leave that determination to
> others. In general, they play an important role on many different levels.
> Diatoms offer O2 production, CO2 capture and sequestration along with long
> term hydrate burial. The potential for diatoms to produce biofuel is well
> known but that issue is outside of this proposal.
>
>  Through my discussions with M.V. Bhaskar, I have become aware that micro
> diatoms can be prepared in a dry form as a means to seed bodies of water to
> produce artificial diatom blooms for enhanced O2 saturation. This conceptual
> sketch proposes that this type of material be considered for atmospheric
> aerosol injection as a form of combined SRM/CCS/Enhanced Hydrate Burial and
> Ocean Acidification Mitigation.
>
>  :A minimum of seven main technical issues concerning this type of
> biological aerosol medium can be anticipated.
>

>    1.
>
>    *Will this form of aerosol stay suspended for a reasonable time?* The

>    size of micro diatoms are such that proper dispersal could produce an
>    aerosol which would stay suspended for a significantly reasonable periods of
>    time. The engineering of the dispersal method is similar to previous aerosol
>    concepts. The suspension time will depend on many factors ranging from
>    altitude of injection, latitude of injection (atmospheric cell
>    characteristics) and general tropospheric weather conditions. The rate (if
>    any) of atmospheric moisture absorption needs further understanding. If it
>    is found that this medium does absorb atmospheric moisture, this could
>    represent a means to reduce that primary green house gas, as well as,
>    possibly providing a means for cloud nucleation/brightening.
>

>    2.
>
>    *Will the diatom aerosol reflect SR?* Typically, this diatom preparation

>    is brown. I believe it may be possible that the diatom material can be
>    engineered to be reflective. This might be done through laminating the dried
>    preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white powdered
>    sugar?). Finding the right laminating material which does not substantially
>    degrade suspension time, seed viability or produce accumulated environmental
>    adverse effects will need investigating along with the associated high
>    volume production needs.
>

>     3.
>
>    *Will the diatom material remain viable through the aerosol phase into
>    the aquatic environment?* Tropospheric injection avoids the higher

>    altitude environmental stress issues. Such as, high UV, low ambient pressure
>    and extreme low temperatures, which may effect seed viability. However, the
>    possibility of laminating the material to address the high altitude concerns
>    may also be possible in the future and will need further investigation. The
>    added complications, relative to seed survival, of stratospheric injection
>    indicates that tropospheric injection should be the initial deployment
>    consideration. Stratospheric injection may be avoided if coordinated and
>    tailored regional tropospheric efforts can be developed.
>

>    4.
>
>    *Will this method address arctic ocean methane release?* ESAS based

>    tropospheric injection of this medium can have three significant benefits.
>    The first is the immediate SRM benefit (with proper seed lamination,
>    possible cloud nucleation/brightening). Second is the potential enhanced
>    dissolved methane oxidation rate. Third is the enhanced wide area increase
>    in the sediment build up rate over the shallow water hydrate fields.. The
>    ESAS is at a critical edge of the GHSZ envelope. A rapid build up of diatom
>    debris could expand the envelope significantly with just one added meter of
>    diatom sediment ooze (insulation against warming waters, as well as,
>    decreasing the porosity of the existing sediment). That will obviously take
>    a few years to achieve. However, no other practical means to achieve this
>    needed large area effect seems available. Also, can the resident AOM adapt
>    to a marked increase in diatom rain?
>

>     5.
>
>    *Will this method address tundra methane release?* Not completely,

>    however this method could seed even the smallest body of standing water
>    within a tundra region and thus provide added O2 saturation and the
>    associated methane oxidation. As the tundra continues to warm, more standing
>    water will emerge and thus this potential enhanced oxidation will become
>    more important.
>

>    6.
>
>    *Will this method have a meaningful/measurable effect on ocean pH levels?
>    * Diatoms consume dissolved CO2 and thus it is a matter of scale. There

>    is a need to determine the seed mass ratio to the total CO2 consumption that
>    can be attributed to that seed mass. This will determine the cost

>    effectiveness/scalability *of this aspect* of the concept. The current

>    use of this diatom seed material does not take into account the aerosol
>    phase being proposed. Seed survival rates during the aerosol phase might be
>    determined through table top experiments, yet field test would be needed to

>    verify any lab data. *Field trials for this overall concept should not

>    trigger significant protests as the diatom species which will be used pose
>    no known toxic hazards and are widely considered to be ecologically

>    beneficial.*
>
>    7.
>
>    *Will this method be financially competitive with other aerosol concepts?
>    * The cost of diatom medium preparation and injection can be expected to

>    be somewhat greater than sulfate/aluminum aerosols. This is due to the
>    potential beneficial aspects of this biological medium after precipitation.
>    The more material used, the greater the overall beneficial effect. That
>    aspect represents a principal departure from that of the prior art. The
>    prior methods seek to minimize cost through use of long lasting aerosols
>    (which have no secondary environmental benefit). The less aerosol used, the
>    less cost (and less potential adverse effects). This proposed method
>    represents a means which generates second and third order ecological
>    benefits once the aerosol precipitates. The added cost of the expected large
>    volume of material to be used should be justifiable due to these important
>    interrelated secondary benefits. This is not just a mitigation effort, it is
>    potentially also a general regional ecological enhancement.
>

>  *This GE approach offers at least two *non* global warming mitigation
> related benefits to society. *First would be the overall water quality

> improvement in the operational area due to the increase in saturated O2
> levels provided by the seeded diatom blooms. Second would be that fisheries
> may improve due to the increase in the marine food production rates at the
> micro level. If only those two ancillary, yet fundamentally important
> benefits, can be proven, the debate surrounding GE can be expected to take a
> new direction.
>

>  *Note:* If this proposal finds any acceptance, M.V. Bhaskar deserves ample

[Sam Carana]

Thanks for this. I do hope the IPCC will take this on board as well,
realizing that geoengineering also encompasses such ways to tackle
methane.

Cheers!
Sam Carana

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>

[Michael Hayes]

Hi Folks,

Bhaskar, Thanks for the clarification(s). I was hoping to encourage you to give us more information. The list of questions you posted is a challenge. Can you venture a "guess" as to the answers. I know you would prefer "proof" backing any ventured comment, yet your questions are far reaching and thus would take years to establish the many "facts" sought out by your questions. 

This forum is not a "Formal" Peer Review Journal. You have the freedom to speculate. Trust me, being "wrong" is not that painful with this group. I have yet to be "right". I personally would like to hear your..... opinions..... concerning the possible answers to your questions.

Thanks,

Michael       

--

Michael Hayes

360-708-4976

http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site 

 

[John Gorman]

I am not clear as to whether live diatoms are being suggested or just diatoms because they are nano silica particles as in diatomous earth.

 

If the latter then Gregory Benford suggested the spreading of diatomous earth as diatoms  in the stratosphere, about four years ago (1)  as an SRM method.  From a separate direction I suggested that the particles could be produced by adding tetra ethyl silicate to aviation fuel.(2) This might have various practical advantages such as exact control of particle size.

 

Such particles in the  troposphere would have very short lifetime -rather like the Icelandic ash clouds so limited SRM effect and all the disadvantages to air travel etc wouldn't they?

 

john gorman

 

(1) Search for "saving the Arctic" in this group- I cant make teh link work!

(2) http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/grantproposal09.htm

> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to

geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

[Michael Hayes]

Dr. Gorman,

My conceptual sketch was just that...a sketch of an idea. If diatom blooms can be triggered at long range and at low cost, it would be a useful tool on a number of levels. I do need to admit to a serious lack of background research before offering the sketch. I made an assumption which has proven out to be wrong. I have, today, found that DE has significant lung cancer implication.

I withdraw the conceptual sketch.

Thanks for your patience,

Michael 

  

        

[BHASKAR M V]

Dr Gorman

I am referring to all three -

Diatomaceous Earth and live diatoms as a SRM solution.

Nano silica with micro nutrients to keep the live diatoms alive and cause further bloom after they fall into the oceans.

DE is NOT in nano size. Is is in microns.

Michael

I understand that Crystalline silica of 1 micro or more is carcenogenic and amorphous silica is not. 

Diatoms are amorphous silica.

DE is approved by EPA for human contact use and indirect consumption - water filters, grain silos. It can be sprinkled on beds to kill bed bugs, rubbed into pet fur to kill bugs, etc.

regards

Bhaskar

[John Nissen]

Dear Michael and Bhaskar,

Thanks for these thoughts - they could become the basis of something useful in the Arctic to suppress methane:

5. Will this method address tundra methane release? Not completely, however this method could seed even the smallest body of standing water within a tundra region and thus provide added O2 saturation and the associated methane oxidation. As the tundra continues to warm, more standing water will emerge and thus this potential enhanced oxidation will become more important.

It would be simple to experiment on ponds which are producing methane, and see if a spray of diatoms, with or without nutrients, could have a significant effect. 

BTW, I would expect that such an experiment has been done already - does anybody know?

Cheers,

John

P.S.  Any brainstorming ideas like this for the methane-busting workshop, London 3-4 September, are most welcome.

---

[Andrew Lockley]

It is not a safe assumption that anoxia in the water column is a factor in most methane emissions from water bodies. With fossil methane release, oxygenation is unlikely to be of much assistance. Only where methane is produced in the water column in anoxic or hypoxic conditions would this method be likely to assist significantly.

In practical terms, hypoxia is best addressed indirectly, e.g. by controlling fertilizer runoff

Only in stagnant bodies, such as the black sea, would oxygenation be likely to be beneficial. Methanogenesis usually occurs below the photic zone and mixed layer -  and mixing of co2 could also be a limiting factor. Therefore biological methods would be unlikely to be effective.

A

On 26 Jun 2011 11:19, "John Nissen" <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Michael and Bhaskar,
>
> Thanks for these thoughts - they could become the basis of something useful
> in the Arctic to suppress methane:
>

> 5. *Will this method address tundra methane release?* Not completely,

> however this method could seed even the smallest body of standing water
> within a tundra region and thus provide added O2 saturation and the
> associated methane oxidation. As the tundra continues to warm, more standing
> water will emerge and thus this potential enhanced oxidation will become
> more important.
>

>>>> **

>>> *Michael Hayes*
>>> *360-708-4976*

>>> http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>
>

[BHASKAR M V]

Andrew

>In practical terms, hypoxia is best addressed indirectly, e.g. by controlling fertilizer runoff 

This is as practical as reducing CO2 emissions.

>Methanogenesis usually occurs below the photic zone and mixed layer -  and mixing of co2 could also be a limiting factor. Therefore biological methods would be unlikely to be effective.

Biological methods can remove nutrients close to the source and in the photic layer of the tail end water body. It only when nutrients are not removed that they sink to the depths of the water.

regards

Bhaskar

[BHASKAR M V]

John

>It would be simple to experiment on ponds which are producing methane, and see if a spray of diatoms, with or without nutrients, could have a significant effect.  

>BTW, I would expect that such an experiment has been done already - does anybody know?

I have been trying for past few years to find anyone else who has done this type of experiment. 

We use Diatoms to increase dissolved oxygen level but have never checked for Methane emissions. 

You can't grow Diatoms elsewhere and put them in lakes, they release O2 as they grow.

All water bodies have Diatoms, the problem is to make them dominate.

If left to nature Cyanobacteria dominates over time - this is called eutrophication.

This is the problem being witnessed world over, please check for reports of algal blooms and dead zones.

regards

Bhaskar

[Andrew Lockley]

I'm not against biological methods, you just can't easily use them for oxygenation - as nature is pretty good this way anyhow.

There are many practical ways to reduce fertilizer use. Stopping perverse farming subsidies is one, taxing fertilizer use is another.

Reducing nox from fertilizer may increase methane residency times

A

[John Nissen]

I'm looking for things (anything!) that will work in the Arctic. 

John

---

[BHASKAR M V]

Andrew

>"..you just can't easily use them for oxygenation .."

We can.

We have increased the Dissolved Oxygen level of a 100 acre lake by 4.78 mg / liter in 5 days time (from 1.22 mg / liter to 7 mg / liter).

The increase starts in minutes and saturation point of 9 mg / liter can be reached in days and maintained forever.

>"..as nature is pretty good this way anyhow."

Human action is resulting in slow down of nature's ability to oxygenate water.

Please read about all the electric aerators being used to aerate water.

I estimated that 1% of all electricity consumed in USA is for aeration in WWTPs, i.e., merely to mix air into water to increase the dissolved oxygen level of water.

1 kWh of electricity results in about 1 kg of oxygen increase in Dissolved Oxygen (Oxygen Transfer Rate of large surface aerators).

1 kWh of electricity results in emission of about 1 kg of CO2 (if the electricity is from coal fired power plant).

Polluting air to treat sewage is not the ideal solution.

 

Diatom biomass may have declined dramatically in the past few decades, this is NOT being monitored. Increase in HABs are being monitored but not decrease in Diatoms.

Whale decimation may have contributed to decline in Diatom biomass.

Nutrient pollution of lakes has caused a shift in phytoplankton from Diatoms to other types which decrease dissolved oxygen levels.

There are now 400 dead zones in coastal waters all over the world mostly off the coasts of Europe and USA, this is mainly due to nutrient and sewage flow.

Incidentally our solution also helps reduce fertilizer use.

Diatoms and plants have a lot in common.

Diatoms and plants use C4 photosynthesis other phytoplantkon use C3 photosynthesis.

Both require SILICA.

Plants too require silica and proper silica fertilization will help reduce fertilizer consumption.

Soil is made of silica but this is not bioavailable since plants can only take up soluble silica.

Netherlands

http://silife.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=63

OSAB₃ increases the harvest of different crops (rice: 10 - 40%), reduce the use of pesticides and reduces the water demand of the plant; all in a substantial amount.

Singapore

http://www.agro-genesis.com/product_cropscience_minerals.html#AS

How does Agro-Silica benefit plants

Agro-Silica makes plants stronger and healthier 
Silica is a primary fertilizing element for rice and grass crops. To produce 100kg of rice yield, rice demands 14.8kg of silica which is 8 times more than nitrogen which is required at 1.8 kg. Most paddy soils have silica deficiencies and require silica to be replenished regularly into the soil. The ideal silica concentration in paddy soil is 130~180 ppm. Research has shown that paddy soil containing silica less than 60 ppm produces unhealthy rice.

Australia

http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/blog/2010/06/silica-the-hidden-cost-of-chemicals/

But There’s More

Not only does silicon offer increased pest and stress resistance. It can also provide a major fertilising response and substantial yield increases. In a paper by J Bernal, involving research with rice and sugarcane in Columbia, just 100 to 200 kg of magnesium silicate per hectare achieved yield increases of 14.63% in sugar cane and the increases in rice ranged from 21% to 33% (depending upon the application rate).

100 million tons of Urea is manufactured worldwide, this is causing a huge damage - 

NOx emissions, algal (cyanobacteria) blooms resulting in low DO in water and consequent Methane emission, etc.

regards

Bhaskar

[Andrew Lockley]

I'm not doubting that biological methods can produce oxygen.

I'm simply saying that they won't be readily applicable to the dark, still waters where methane is produced.

There are also a lot more efficient mechanical methods than you suggest to oxygenation water. Wave making, flow diversions and impellers are but a few.

A

On 26 Jun 2011 14:26, "BHASKAR M V" <bhaska...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew
>

> *OSAB3* increases the harvest of different crops (rice: 10 - 40%), reduce

> the use of pesticides and reduces the water demand of the plant; all in a
> substantial amount.
>
> Singapore
> http://www.agro-genesis.com/product_cropscience_minerals.html#AS
>

> *How does Agro-Silica benefit plants*
>
> *Agro-Silica makes plants stronger and healthier*

> Silica is a primary fertilizing element for rice and grass crops. To produce
> 100kg of rice yield, rice demands 14.8kg of silica which is 8 times more
> than nitrogen which is required at 1.8 kg. Most paddy soils have
> silica deficiencies
> and require silica to be replenished regularly into the soil. The ideal
> silica concentration in paddy soil is 130~180 ppm. Research has shown that
> paddy soil containing silica less than 60 ppm produces unhealthy rice.
>
> Australia
>
> http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/blog/2010/06/silica-the-hidden-cost-of-chemicals/
>

> *But There’s More*

> Not only does silicon offer increased pest and stress resistance. It can

> also provide a major fertilising response and substantial *yield increases*.

> In a paper by J Bernal, involving research with rice and sugarcane in
> Columbia, just 100 to 200 kg of magnesium silicate per hectare achieved

> yield increases of *14.63%* in sugar cane and the increases in rice ranged
> from *21%* to *33%* (depending upon the application rate).

[vogle...@gmail.com]

Andrew,

First, the conceptual sketch I proposed in this thread has turned into a bucket of worms and I need to admit failure. Bhaskar may be able to further carry the ball with his knowledge on the use of diatom nutritional enhancement, however I can not give any further support to the conceptual sketch. I simply do not have the knowledge. If a means to deliver diatom enhancement at long range/low cost is ever developed, I can see how it would have a broad benefit. However, my proposal does not and, on the face of it, will not provide that. Again, Bhaskar would need to take it forward.

As to mechanical methods, yes, I agree in that for a focused/small (critical) area enhancement, the use of mixing does seem workable. In my learnings about diatoms/surface oxygenation/methane oxygenation etc, the use of not just downward mixing but also upward mixing is starting to become an interesting concept. Downward mixing will give a better methane oxidation rate and the upward mixing (from the thermolcline to the surface) can increase surface diatom activity and thus natural surface O2 production. One enhancing the other.

Now, how can we produce both? If you take a spinning Salter Tethered Ship configuration and have the pivoting ship providing the downward mixing and the other orbiting ship(s) producing the upward mixing, and spin the tethered ships over a methane field, a localized diatom/O2 /dissolved methane oxidation enhancement can be expected...... without artificial fertilization. The upward impellers can be a modified PICO like systems towed by the orbiting ship(s) (which deploys an upward mixer within the thermolcline where dormant diatoms reside along with natural nutrients). In short, this localized artificial upper surface circulation (mixing) may be able to stimulate meaningful methane mitigation without the logistics of supplying nutrients.

This is just another loosely considered concept of mine and I am open to being shot down. It would require many ships to cover a meaningful area. Also, powered ships would seem to be needed and that is a major consideration on the cost factors. Can Dr. Salter offer advise on the mechanics? If this concept is reasonable, he would be the one to solve for the propulsion issue. Bright water deployment could be brought to the system as well as cloud brighting. I would not rule out the incorporation of a tropospheric direct SRM injection means (located on the pivot ship) also being brought aboard.

Harvesting the methane to power this type of concept is a possibility as it is meant to function over a methane hydrate field. Suction pillions (as both an pivot ship anchoring and methane harvesting means) can be considered. Water cooling methods would seem useful....if.....the methane can be harvested to power that aspect.

Again, this is a loosely considered sketch.

Thanks for the kindly offered input and observations. Your moderation efforts are important.

Michael

&

[John Nissen]

Hi Bhaskar,

 

The conversation had turned to fertilizer run-off, which is not relevant to the Arctic.

 

My rather brief and hurried email earlier today was intended to query whether the methods that you espouse would work in the Arctic - especially for (a) wetlands, where pools and lakes produce much of the methane in the atmosphere (b) shallow seas, such as ESAS [1] where the methane has already supersaturated most of bottom water and now could suddenly be emitted into the atmosphere in vast quantities [2].  Could diatoms, sprayed onto the water surface, produce oxygen that then filters down to methane-digesting microbes to increase their productivity?  If so, could the microbial productivity (for digestion of methane) be further enhanced by mixing nutrients with the diatoms in the spray?

Cheers,

 

John

 

[1] ESAS = East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

 

[2] Shakhova et al:  https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=0e7777dba1&view=att&th=130c25f978c4a48b&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw

 

---

 

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:32 PM, BHASKAR M V <bhaska...@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew

Water flows with Nitrogen and Oxygen in it.

These do not originate in the depths of the oceans.

These originate on the surface of earth and oceans and sinks to the depths.

So the biological methods would remove the Nitrogen and increase oxygen at the surface not in the depths.

Any mechanical means would require equipment and energy, this would add to GHG emissions even when solar, wind and wave energy are partly used.

How do you propose to install mechanical devices in the depths of the oceans?

http://epa.gov/methane/reports/05-manure.pdf

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/805296-PRAO0M/native/805296.pdf

A lot of methane is generated due to human activity on land.

Manure, sewage, garbage land fills, rice fields, reservoirs behind dams, etc.

Please suggest a solution to this. 

>Wave making, flow diversions and impellers are but a few.

These are used only in ponds and small WWTPs.

They are more expensive or require more maintenance or require more land, for e.g., fine bubble diffuser aerators are very energy efficient but the ceramic plates or membranes used are expensive. 

regards

Bhaskar

[Nathan Currier]

John, Andrew -

>P.S. Any brainstorming ideas like this for the methane-busting workshop,
London 3-4 September, are most welcome.

Try to get Euan Nisbet, who lives there in London & and deals with
methane emissions, to take part. But if you specifically want to try
to exploit methanotrophy, as in this chain, I'd also suggest trying to
get microbiologists involved - try calling Lynn Margulis' lab, or
emailing her at ly...@sagantechnology.com (you can say I suggested you
write her) - she knows so many people.

My guess would be that there are all kinds of things that would also
need to be considered: oxygen might be the limiting
factor for many methanotrophs, but hardly the only one. Methanotrophy
involves the MMO enzymes - pMMO or sMMO -
and the active sites involve metallic complexes - copper and iron, so
probably their availability would be important as well. I've read of
bioremediation projects attempting to use methanotrophs that have
proven frustratingly limited in effect. I think in soils the majority
of the methanotrophy is 'low affinity' - so it occurs where the
concentration is high near where the methanogenesis takes place but
right around the border of the aerobic/anaerobic zones. Are there such
divisions as low & high affinity with oceanic methanotrophs? Also, if
AOM (anaerobic oxidation) is also going on, too, that would be
inhibited by the oxygenation proposed.

In a totally different direction, since there are lots of proposals
here that deal with potentially large negative side effects, the
reaction of methane with atomic chlorine is very strong - I remember
an atmospheric chemist once telling me how it was something like 60x
more intense than methane with OH. If you could find a way to exploit
that without making a total mess of everything, perhaps it would be of
interest?
And perhaps in a great enough emergency, what's acceptable might have
to shift? Have you read Planetquake, a novel dealing with a large
methane release, written under a pseudonym by a scientist involved
with this issue?

In a more political direction, what about trying to pressure the
Arctic Council to demand that the big dirty oil companies
have some kind of group emergency program in place, with various
outsiders on its board, in exchange for their leasing rights on
hydrate and other arctic fossil sources? There could be an arrangement
where the companies together share the spoils of any trapped methane’s
profits, but have the burden of maximally preventing atmospheric
releases. They do have money and expertise, at least.......

On Jun 26, 6:05 pm, John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bhaskar,
>
> The conversation had turned to fertilizer run-off, which is not relevant to
> the Arctic.
>
> My rather brief and hurried email earlier today was intended to query
> whether the methods that you espouse would work in the Arctic - especially
> for (a) wetlands, where pools and lakes produce much of the methane in the
> atmosphere (b) shallow seas, such as ESAS [1] where the methane has already
> supersaturated most of bottom water and now could suddenly be emitted into
> the atmosphere in vast quantities [2].  Could diatoms, sprayed onto the
> water surface, produce oxygen that then filters down to methane-digesting
> microbes to increase their productivity?  If so, could the microbial
> productivity (for digestion of methane) be further enhanced by mixing
> nutrients with the diatoms in the spray?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> [1] ESAS = East Siberian Arctic Shelf.
>

> [2] Shakhova et al:https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=0e7777dba1&view=att&th=130c25f9...
>
> ---

>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:32 PM, BHASKAR M V <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Andrew
>
> > Water flows with Nitrogen and Oxygen in it.
> > These do not originate in the depths of the oceans.
> > These originate on the surface of earth and oceans and sinks to the depths.
> > So the biological methods would remove the Nitrogen and increase oxygen at
> > the surface not in the depths.
>
> > Any mechanical means would require equipment and energy, this would add to
> > GHG emissions even when solar, wind and wave energy are partly used.
> > How do you propose to install mechanical devices in the depths of the
> > oceans?
>
> >http://epa.gov/methane/reports/05-manure.pdf
> >http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/805296-PRAO0M/native/805296.pdf
>
> > A lot of methane is generated due to human activity on land.
> > Manure, sewage, garbage land fills, rice fields, reservoirs behind dams,
> > etc.
>
> > Please suggest a solution to this.
>
> > >Wave making, flow diversions and impellers are but a few.
> > These are used only in ponds and small WWTPs.
> > They are more expensive or require more maintenance or require more land,
> > for e.g., fine bubble diffuser aerators are very energy efficient but the
> > ceramic plates or membranes used are expensive.
>
> > regards
>
> > Bhaskar
>

> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> I'm not doubting that biological methods can produce oxygen.
>
> >> I'm simply saying that they won't be readily applicable to the dark, still
> >> waters where methane is produced.
>
> >> There are also a lot more efficient mechanical methods than you suggest to
> >> oxygenation water. Wave making, flow diversions and impellers are but a few.
>
> >> A

> >>http://silife.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Item...

>
> >> > *OSAB3* increases the harvest of different crops (rice: 10 - 40%),
> >> reduce
> >> > the use of pesticides and reduces the water demand of the plant; all in
> >> a
> >> > substantial amount.
>
> >> > Singapore
> >> >http://www.agro-genesis.com/product_cropscience_minerals.html#AS
>
> >> > *How does Agro-Silica benefit plants*
>
> >> > *Agro-Silica makes plants stronger and healthier*
> >> > Silica is a primary fertilizing element for rice and grass crops. To
> >> produce
> >> > 100kg of rice yield, rice demands 14.8kg of silica which is 8 times more
> >> > than nitrogen which is required at 1.8 kg. Most paddy soils have
> >> > silica deficiencies
> >> > and require silica to be replenished regularly into the soil. The ideal
> >> > silica concentration in paddy soil is 130~180 ppm. Research has shown
> >> that
> >> > paddy soil containing silica less than 60 ppm produces unhealthy rice.
>
> >> > Australia
>

> >>http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/blog/2010/06/silica-the-hidden-cost-of-c...

>
> >> > *But There’s More*
> >> > Not only does silicon offer increased pest and stress resistance. It can
> >> > also provide a major fertilising response and substantial *yield
> >> increases*.
> >> > In a paper by J Bernal, involving research with rice and sugarcane in
> >> > Columbia, just 100 to 200 kg of magnesium silicate per hectare achieved
> >> > yield increases of *14.63%* in sugar cane and the increases in rice
> >> ranged
> >> > from *21%* to *33%* (depending upon the application rate).
>
> >> > 100 million tons of Urea is manufactured worldwide, this is causing a
> >> huge
> >> > damage -
> >> > NOx emissions, algal (cyanobacteria) blooms resulting in low DO in water
> >> and
> >> > consequent Methane emission, etc.
>
> >> > regards
>
> >> > Bhaskar
>
> >> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Andrew Lockley <

> >> andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >> >> I'm not against biological methods, you just can't easily use them for
> >> >> oxygenation - as nature is pretty good this way anyhow.
>
> >> >> There are many practical ways to reduce fertilizer use. Stopping
> >> perverse
> >> >> farming subsidies is one, taxing fertilizer use is another.
>
> >> >> Reducing nox from fertilizer may increase methane residency times
>
> >> >> A

> >> >> On 26 Jun 2011 11:53, "BHASKAR M V" <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Andrew
>
> >> >> >>In practical terms, hypoxia is best addressed indirectly, e.g. by
> >> >> > controlling fertilizer runoff
>
> >> >> > This is as practical as reducing CO2 emissions.
>
> >> >> >>Methanogenesis usually occurs below the photic zone and mixed layer -
> >> and
> >> >> > mixing of co2 could also be a limiting factor. Therefore biological
> >> >> methods
> >> >> > would be unlikely to be effective.
>
> >> >> > Biological methods can remove nutrients close to the source and in
> >> the
> >> >> > photic layer of the tail end water body. It only when nutrients are
> >> not
> >> >> > removed that they sink to the depths of the water.
>
> >> >> > regards
>
> >> >> > Bhaskar
>
> >> >> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Lockley <

> >> >> andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> >> >> >> It is not a safe assumption that anoxia in the water column is a
> >> factor
> >> >> in
> >> >> >> most methane emissions from water bodies. With fossil methane
> >> release,
> >> >> >> oxygenation is unlikely to be of much assistance. Only where methane
> >> is
> >> >> >> produced in the water column in anoxic or hypoxic conditions would
> >> this
> >> >> >> method be likely to assist significantly.
>
> >> >> >> In practical terms, hypoxia is best addressed indirectly, e.g. by
> >> >> >> controlling fertilizer runoff
>
> >> >> >> Only in stagnant bodies, such as the black sea, would oxygenation be
> >> >> likely
> >> >> >> to be beneficial. Methanogenesis usually occurs below the photic
> >> zone
> >> >> and
> >> >> >> mixed layer - and mixing of co2 could also be a limiting factor.
> >> >> Therefore
> >> >> >> biological methods would be unlikely to be effective.
>
> >> >> >> A

> >> >> >> On 26 Jun 2011 11:19, "John Nissen" <johnnissen2...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Dear Michael and Bhaskar,
>
> >> >> >> > Thanks for these thoughts - they could become the basis of
> >> something
> >> >> >> useful
> >> >> >> > in the Arctic to suppress methane:
>
> >> >> >> > 5. *Will this method address tundra methane release?* Not
> >> completely,
> >> >> >> > however this method could seed even the smallest body of standing
> >> >> water
> >> >> >> > within a tundra region and thus provide added O2 saturation and
> >> the
> >> >> >> > associated methane oxidation. As the tundra continues to warm,
> >> more
> >> >> >> standing
> >> >> >> > water will emerge and thus this potential enhanced oxidation will
> >> >> become
> >> >> >> > more important.
>
> >> >> >> > It would be simple to experiment on ponds which are producing
> >> methane,
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> > see if a spray of diatoms, with or without nutrients, could have a
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[vogle...@gmail.com]

Bhaskar,

You state reasonable points. However, there may be a need for multiple approaches which use multiple means. Tundra based pools/lakes would have no practical use for mechanical mixing, where as, open ocean areas with strong currents would possible better benefit from a focused mechanical mixing means (with additional diatom nutritional support as a possible ancillary components).

I am leaning towards a collection of techniques which can be tailored to the regional needs. As far as ocean methane and anoxic conditions are concerned, the ESAS is critical, yet the GMEX and North Pacific also pose significant issues. Being able to customize a response, through combining different techniques for each environment, will most likely give a more effective and reliable response. The cost of mechanical mixing means does add up yet that cost does mean job creation within the region, as well as elsewhere. Lowest cost should not be the primary consideration. Reliable effectiveness with the greatest good for the greatest number should be given the heaviest weight (IMHO).

You asked how we can install mechanical devices in the depths of the ocean. There are many ways to install long life ocean instillations and carry out wide area operations. It is not a matter of how, just how much($).

I believe we need to simply find technically workable methods, without comparison to others, and get them evaluated for technical effectiveness. Only when we have a detailed knowledge of the technical usefulness of these different techniques, and can truly see how they may be combined for enhanced effectiveness/cost savings, can we truly evaluate the overall cost aspect. I feel as though we are trying to evaluate the usefulness of a cow by simply trying on a pair of leather shoes. Cows offer much more than leather.

Also, the general anthropogenic production of methane will be dwarfed if the arctic exceeds the GHSZ envelope. The anthropogenic production of methane does need attention (for centuries to come) and your work may be very important to that broader issue. However, if we can not prevent an arctic methane tipping point, anthropogenic....anything.....will be a moot point.

Michael

> >> >> >>>> >%2

[BHASKAR M V]

John

Yes the method I am suggesting of using Diatoms to increase DO will work very well in the wetlands and shallow seas.

You have to cause diatoms to bloom in the wetlands and seas, you need not spray Diatoms. It would be adequate to spray the nutrients required by Diatoms.  

Sprayed diatoms would probably die off in a day or two and the cost of culturing these in tanks elsewhere and transporting them to various sites and spraying cost would be very high. 

Another option would be to grow diatoms in a large lake and pump the oxygenated water to other locations. This would be cheaper than spraying.

In shallow water the entire water body would be oxygenated and in deep seas the solution may work by the nutrients being consumed at the surface by the Diatoms and aerobic bacteria and not by oxygen filtering down, i.e., you just starve out the methanogenous bacteria.

regards

Bhaskar

[BHASKAR M V]

Michael

Harvesting methane would be very useful.

Installing any hardware in lakes and oceans would interfere with the water ecology and what would you do with these after the life ends in say 50 years.

After all global warming started since 50 or 100 years ago no one thought of what would be the impact of the CO2 from the steam and IC engines.

50 years from now people would be debating who will bear the cost of removing the devices, just as we are now debating who will bear the cost of removing excess CO2 from atmosphere.

Nitrogen and Carbon Cycles are biological cycles, so using biological means should be given first priority.

regards

Bhaskar

[BradGuth]

Don't give up so early or easy.

Earth is down to perhaps less than 0.1% diatom saturation it once
had. Forced or directed panspermia of cloned diatoms may need to be
applied, if nothing else just to see which ones are tough enough to
survive their acidic plus heavy metals, chemical toxins and otherwise
soot polluted, as well as O2 depleted environment that we've created
for them.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

> On , Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm not doubting that biological methods can produce oxygen.
> > I'm simply saying that they won't be readily applicable to the dark,  
> > still waters where methane is produced.
> > There are also a lot more efficient mechanical methods than you suggest  
> > to oxygenation water. Wave making, flow diversions and impellers are but  
> > a few.
> > A

> > On 26 Jun 2011 14:26, "BHASKAR M V" bhaskarmv...@gmail.com> wrote:> Andrew

>
> > >>"..you just can't easily use them for oxygenation .."
>
> > > We can.
> > > We have increased the Dissolved Oxygen level of a 100 acre lake by 4.78  
> > mg /
> > > liter in 5 days time (from 1.22 mg / liter to 7 mg / liter).
> > > The increase starts in minutes and saturation point of 9 mg / liter can  
> > be
> > > reached in days and maintained forever.
>
> > >>"..as nature is pretty good this way anyhow."
>
> > > Human action is resulting in slow down of nature's ability to oxygenate
> > > water.
> > > Please read about all the electric aerators being used to aerate water.
> > > I estimated that 1% of all electricity consumed in USA is for aeration  
> > in

> > > WWTPs, ie, merely to mix air into water to increase the dissolved oxygen

> >http://silife.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Item...

>
> > > *OSAB3* increases the harvest of different crops (rice: 10 - 40%),  
> > reduce
> > > the use of pesticides and reduces the water demand of the plant; all in  
> > a
> > > substantial amount.
>
> > > Singapore
> > >http://www.agro-genesis.com/product_cropscience_minerals.html#AS
>
> > > *How does Agro-Silica benefit plants*
>
> > > *Agro-Silica makes plants stronger and healthier*
> > > Silica is a primary fertilizing element for rice and grass crops. To  
> > produce
> > > 100kg of rice yield, rice demands 14.8kg of silica which is 8 times more
> > > than nitrogen which is required at 1.8 kg. Most paddy soils have
> > > silica deficiencies
> > > and require silica to be replenished regularly into the soil. The ideal
> > > silica concentration in paddy soil is 130~180 ppm. Research has shown  
> > that
> > > paddy soil containing silica less than 60 ppm produces unhealthy rice.
>
> > > Australia
>

> >http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/blog/2010/06/silica-the-hidden-cost-of-c...

>
> > > *But There's More*
> > > Not only does silicon offer increased pest and stress resistance. It can
> > > also provide a major fertilising response and substantial *yield  
> > increases*.
> > > In a paper by J Bernal, involving research with rice and sugarcane in
> > > Columbia, just 100 to 200 kg of magnesium silicate per hectare achieved
> > > yield increases of *14.63%* in sugar cane and the increases in rice  
> > ranged
> > > from *21%* to *33%* (depending upon the application rate).
>
> > > 100 million tons of Urea is manufactured worldwide, this is causing a  
> > huge
> > > damage -
> > > NOx emissions, algal (cyanobacteria) blooms resulting in low DO in  
> > water and
> > > consequent Methane emission, etc.
>
> > > regards
>
> > > Bhaskar
>
> > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Andrew Lockley  

> > andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> > >> I'm not against biological methods, you just can't easily use them for
> > >> oxygenation - as nature is pretty good this way anyhow.
>
> > >> There are many practical ways to reduce fertilizer use. Stopping  
> > perverse
> > >> farming subsidies is one, taxing fertilizer use is another.
>
> > >> Reducing nox from fertilizer may increase methane residency times
>
> > >> A

> > >> On 26 Jun 2011 11:53, "BHASKAR M V" bhaskarmv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Andrew
>

> > >> >>In practical terms, hypoxia is best addressed indirectly, eg by

> > >> > controlling fertilizer runoff
>
> > >> > This is as practical as reducing CO2 emissions.
>
> > >> >>Methanogenesis usually occurs below the photic zone and mixed layer  
> > - and
> > >> > mixing of co2 could also be a limiting factor. Therefore biological
> > >> methods
> > >> > would be unlikely to be effective.
>
> > >> > Biological methods can remove nutrients close to the source and in  
> > the
> > >> > photic layer of the tail end water body. It only when nutrients are  
> > not
> > >> > removed that they sink to the depths of the water.
>
> > >> > regards
>
> > >> > Bhaskar
>
> > >> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Lockley >>  

> > andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> > >> >> It is not a safe assumption that anoxia in the water column is a  
> > factor
> > >> in
> > >> >> most methane emissions from water bodies. With fossil methane  
> > release,
> > >> >> oxygenation is unlikely to be of much assistance. Only where  
> > methane is
> > >> >> produced in the water column in anoxic or hypoxic conditions would  
> > this
> > >> >> method be likely to assist significantly.
>

> > >> >> In practical terms, hypoxia is best addressed indirectly, eg by

> > >> >> controlling fertilizer runoff
>
> > >> >> Only in stagnant bodies, such as the black sea, would oxygenation be
> > >> likely
> > >> >> to be beneficial. Methanogenesis usually occurs below the photic  
> > zone
> > >> and
> > >> >> mixed layer - and mixing of co2 could also be a limiting factor.
> > >> Therefore
> > >> >> biological methods would be unlikely to be effective.
>
> > >> >> A

> > >> >> > PS Any brainstorming ideas like this for the methane-busting

> > >> workshop,
> > >> >> > London 3-4 September, are most welcome.
>
> > >> >> > ---
>
> > >> >> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:16 AM, BHASKAR MV  

> > bhaskarmv...@gmail.com

> > voglerl...@gmail.com

> > >> >> >wrote:
>
> > >> >> >>> Dr. Gorman,
>
> > >> >> >>> My conceptual sketch was just that...a sketch of an idea. If  
> > diatom
> > >> >> blooms
> > >> >> >>> can be triggered at long range and at low cost, it would be a  
> > useful
> > >> >> tool on
> > >> >> >>> a number of levels. I do need to admit to a serious lack of
> > >> >> >>> background research before offering the sketch. I made an  
> > assumption
> > >> >> which
> > >> >> >>> has proven out to be wrong. I have, today, found that DE has
> > >> >> significant
> > >> >> >>> lung cancer implication.
>
> > >> >> >>> I withdraw the conceptual sketch.
>
> > >> >> >>> Thanks for your patience,
>
> > >> >> >>> Michael
>
> > >> >> >>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:57 AM, John Gorman  

> > gorm...@waitrose.com

> > >> >> >>>> (2)http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/grantproposal09.htm

> > >> >> >>>> > Through my discussions with MV Bhaskar, I have become aware

[BradGuth]

As you already know, there's nothing bad about diatoms. After all,
they were here first, and without them we certainly couldn't have
emerged as the human species that we are. Most O2 dependent life on
Earth owes everything to those diatoms.

There's more science about Earth that's restricted, withheld or
obfuscated to suit, than science made public.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jun 23, 3:16 am, BHASKAR M V <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dr Gorman
>
> I am referring to all three -
> Diatomaceous Earth and live diatoms as a SRM solution.
> Nano silica with micro nutrients to keep the live diatoms alive and cause
> further bloom after they fall into the oceans.
>
> DE is NOT in nano size. Is is in microns.
>
> Michael
>
> I understand that Crystalline silica of 1 micro or more is carcenogenic and
> amorphous silica is not.
>
> Diatoms are amorphous silica.
>
> DE is approved by EPA for human contact use and indirect consumption - water
> filters, grain silos. It can be sprinkled on beds to kill bed bugs, rubbed
> into pet fur to kill bugs, etc.
>
> regards
>

> BhaskarOn Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dr. Gorman,
>
> > My conceptual sketch was just that...a sketch of an idea. If diatom blooms
> > can be triggered at long range and at low cost, it would be a useful tool on
> > a number of levels. I do need to admit to a serious lack of
> > background research before offering the sketch. I made an assumption which
> > has proven out to be wrong. I have, today, found that DE has significant
> > lung cancer implication.
>
> > I withdraw the conceptual sketch.
>
> > Thanks for your patience,
>
> > Michael
>

> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:57 AM, John Gorman <gorm...@waitrose.com>wrote:
>
> >> **

> >> I am not clear as to whether live diatoms are being suggested or just
> >> diatoms because they are nano silica particles as in diatomous earth.
>
> >> If the latter then Gregory Benford suggested the spreading of diatomous
> >> earth as diatoms  in the stratosphere, about four years ago (1)  as an SRM
> >> method.  From a separate direction I suggested that the particles could be
> >> produced by adding tetra ethyl silicate to aviation fuel.(2) This might have
> >> various practical advantages such as exact control of particle size.
>
> >> Such particles in the  troposphere would have very short lifetime -rather
> >> like the Icelandic ash clouds so limited SRM effect and all the
> >> disadvantages to air travel etc wouldn't they?
>
> >> john gorman
>
> >> (1) Search for "saving the Arctic" in this group- I cant make teh link
> >> work!

> >> (2)http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/grantproposal09.htm