 |
So it's now a level 7, although people are still arguing about just how serious it actually is:
BBC News - Japan: Nuclear crisis raised to Chernobyl level
So, just what are we supposed to eat? :
Europeans warned to avoid drinking milk or eating vegetables due to high radiation levels
I'll add some tempering thoughts to this one,
Mummy, mummy, there's a nuclear monster! ? The Register
Notice the url ;)
Ok, you can have a good laugh at this question Ben, but what IS a url? :o I did look it up but didn't understand a word of the explanation...Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
URL = Universal Resource Locator = Address ;)
It's the bit on the end that raise a rye smile..
Oh, ffs on your link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
My smile was whole wheat. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
Should have known you'd pick that one up ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by WondergirlMy smile was whole wheat. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
It's wry, by the way. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
TomatoEs, tomatoes :p
e!!Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyben
Eggszachary ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirle!!Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyben
Whew!!
Yes this is bad . You know it's bad when a French agency warns us of the dangers of eating cheese.
However to put it in perspective the emissions from your typical coal burning power plant (according to Scientific American)
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific AmericanQuote:
.. is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
Last summer the US nuclear regulatory Administration fined a coal fired plant for exposing their workers to high doses of cesium 137.
Coal Plant Owner Is Fined Over Cesium Radiation Exposure - NYTimes.com
As you know ;coal is burned to convert to electricity all over the world ,and in many nations there is no control on the emissions.
The unanswered question is what is the real effect of low level radiation exposure ? Let's face the facts . We are exposed to it on a daily basis with the products we routinely use.
Jenkins, Jr.: Coal Is More Dangerous Than Nuclear - WSJ.comQuote:
For 60 years, the hunt has been on for handfuls of "excess" cancers in populations subjected to unnatural doses of radiation. The findings have been more politically vexing than scientifically satisfying...
Meeting in Vienna in 1986, experts expressed a hope that Chernobyl would finally resolve the debate. "In 20 to 30 years' time we're going to know whether the linear dose hypothesis [is correct]," predicted one, "at least for leukemia and maybe for lung cancer."
It was not to be. For the record, aside from a serious uptick in curable thyroid cancer among those exposed as children (which faster action at the time would have avoided), a U.N. monitoring project finds "no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates" among residents of the Chernobyl region. But that hasn't stopped other studies from predicting tens of thousands of "excess" cancer deaths across Europe over many decades based on the same linear, no-threshold modeling that governments everywhere have adopted as a regulatory standard.
The WSJ article goes on to restate the dangers inherent in the burning of coal (which as been an energy source for over 100 years ) .
Ann Coulter was mocked last month for pointing out that there is a hypothesis in the scientific community called radiation hormesis,that surmises that low levels of radiation exposure helps the human immune system protect the body from diseases related to radiation exposure.Quote:
Start with deaths that aren't the product of statistical imagination: Thousands more die in coal mining accidents each year (especially in China) than have been killed in all nuclear-related accidents since the beginning of time. What's more, coal plants spew toxins like mercury and other metals—along with more radioactive thorium and uranium than a nuclear plant—
I for one hope they are right.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ann Coulter should be mocked at every opportunity, and even some occasions when there isn't an opportunity.
excon
http://cdn1.iconfinder.com/data/icon.../Thumbs_Up.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Sorry QLP . I tried to turn this into a serious discussion.
You mean you're *not* going to post the standings of your rotisserie league in this thread? Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Again ,your contribution is insignificant and irrelevant .
You're such a nice person.But you don't seem to like others pointing out inconsistencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
All you do is snipe . Rarely do you add anything to a conversation. I'll gladly reply and exchange ideas when you add something useful to a discussion .
And rotisserie league scores are good additions to conversations? I'm trying to learn here.
And just because you don't like my opinions doesn't mean I have to keep them to myself. You're not going to bully me around - sorry to burst your bubble sport.
OK another attempt at posting something relevant
https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...borg71/EnglishQuote:
During the round-the-clock coverage of the nuclear drama, the specter of Chernobyl has been raised repeatedly. It is worth noting that the worst nuclear disaster in history directly caused only 31 fatalities. The World Health Organization estimates that 4,000 deaths could be linked to the disaster over 70 years, whereas the OECD projects a range of 9,000-33,000 deaths during this period.
That is substantial. But consider that, according to the OECD, every year nearly one million people die from fine-particle outdoor air pollution. Yet this massive death toll provokes no discernible fear in the developed world, and receives virtually no news coverage.
Put it down to the media, they can shout disaster, outrage but particulate pollution? It's not something that happens here, is it?
82% of Aussie power generation comes from coal fired plants.
Hi Tom I was not speaking about my country but a general attitude throughout the world that what ever is happening it isn't happening in my backyard.
Our coal fired plants are properly regulated and the only sign of their operation is a steam cloud, this is dramatic contrast to some parts of the world like China, also a place which has a high concentration of coal fired plants, and which has a high degree of particulate pollution
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:27 PM. |