The green movement has misled the world about the dangers of radiation.

Wow you make it sound like a statistical improbability
It is. Mainly becuase the exposure hasn't been long enough at high enough level and affecting a large enough of the population to have a high statistical probability of affecting a random mutation that would cause a change in a given allele frequency within that population over time....but hey, anythings possible! :)
 
I would say that what happened in Japan demonstrates the central issue of nuclear power technology. For the most part they are operated with an exquisite levels of control and safety and when operated properly produce little in the way of pollution but when something goes wrong, as happened in Chernobyl and Japan, the consequences are catastrophic and disastrous on a very large scale.

Fukushima was caused by an event that happens once in a millennium at best, having said that the whole thing could have been avoided by not siting the reactor facing the Pacific Ocean. As for Chernobyl, a first generation '50s reactor that shouldn't even been in service, George Monbiot quite rightly states that there have been no deaths from radiation since the meltdown occurred.
 
What do you think about the nuclear disater Mott? Should I becomne a vegan?

I eat a bit of fish and chicken and I am concerned that might not be a good idea any longer, if it ever was. Am I just worried about nothing?

I would advise you to not eat Brazil nuts or bananas as they contain potassium 40. By the way, I am being facetious. I find that I have to put in that proviso as there are too many zealots on here without a shred of irony in their bones!!

http://www.raw-food-health.net/Natural-Radiation.html

http://www.raw-food-health.net/Natural-Radiation.html
 
Sorry Tom. I'll take the peer reviewed literature over the Guadian. It's a fine news paper I'm sure but it is just a newspaper and to be honest with you, journalist really aren't all that bright.

Did you actually read the article? Are you saying that Unscear is not to be trusted? Mott, I admire you for being one of the few on here who has a scientific training and doesn't spout a load of uninformed bollocks, mostly anyway.

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (Unscear) is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Like the IPCC, it calls on the world’s leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview. Here is what it says about the impacts of Chernobyl.

Of the workers who tried to contain the emergency at Chernobyl, 134 suffered acute radiation syndrome; 28 died soon afterwards. Nineteen others died later, but generally not from diseases associated with radiation(6). The remaining 87 have suffered other complications, included four cases of solid cancer and two of leukaemia. In the rest of the population, there have been 6,848 cases of thyroid cancer among young children, arising “almost entirely” from the Soviet Union’s failure to prevent people from drinking milk contaminated with iodine 131(7). Otherwise, “there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure.”(8) People living in the countries affected today “need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident.”(9)
 
Last edited:
Fukushima was caused by an event that happens once in a millennium at best, having said that the whole thing could have been avoided by not siting the reactor facing the Pacific Ocean. As for Chernobyl, a first generation '50s reactor that shouldn't even been in service, George Monbiot quite rightly states that there have been no deaths from radiation since the meltdown occurred.
True but you need to be patient. The long term impact on the health and safety of those affected are not known yet and neither are the long term environmental consequences. As for the alarmism. You're blaming the wrong people. It's the journalist who don't grasp the issues and thus communicate it poorly who are at fault for any excessive alarmism. Not that we shouldn't be alarmed.
 
Did you actually read the article? Are you saying that Unscear is not to be trusted? Mott, I admire you for being one of the few on here who has a scientific training and doesn't spout a load of uninformed bollocks, mostly anyway.
Nope. I didn't reat it. I figured it was just another blow hard journalist writing about something they don't fully understand.
 
True but you need to be patient. The long term impact on the health and safety of those affected are not known yet and neither are the long term environmental consequences. As for the alarmism. You're blaming the wrong people. It's the journalist who don't grasp the issues and thus communicate it poorly who are at fault for any excessive alarmism. Not that we shouldn't be alarmed.

I trust in Geiger counters not greenwash from loony blogs.
 
Chernobyl
Yes, when your purposely shut down critical safety systems, and don't tell the workers, bad things might happen. Like If I cut your brake lines and you smashed into a building. Clearly that'd be a fault of brake lines.

Yup, building a power plant on a fault line and having it survive the largest earthquake in forever is a standard we need to achieve. Similarly, cars that can survive 5 meter diameter meteors.
 
It's possible but unlikely. First it would have to affect a large number within a given population. Second it would have to affect a specific allele within that population, third that specific allele change within in that population would have to be very widely reproduced within that population over time and fourth the change in allele frequency would have to provide some sort of reproductive or survival advantage or it would not be widely reproduced within that population over time. Given enough time and exposure then the odds of such a change in an allele frequency accuring that meet these conditions would increase significantly. So it is possible but again unlikely.

When an OHIOAN has more knowledge of since than you, it's a fair assumption that you are a retard.
 
Yes, when your purposely shut down critical safety systems, and don't tell the workers, bad things might happen. Like If I cut your brake lines and you smashed into a building. Clearly that'd be a fault of brake lines.


Yup, building a power plant on a fault line and having it survive the largest earthquake in forever is a standard we need to achieve. Similarly, cars that can survive 5 meter diameter meteors.
Kind of beside the point. Yea sure human error played a large roll in the disasters of both but the point is, when disaster occurred it was catastrophic. That's a problem with nuclear power.
 
It is. Mainly becuase the exposure hasn't been long enough at high enough level and affecting a large enough of the population to have a high statistical probability of affecting a random mutation that would cause a change in a given allele frequency within that population over time....but hey, anythings possible! :)

I have a black male cat, that has 6 toes on each front paw and a white star on it's chest.
He has sired identical black offspring, with two different females.
 
Nope but the consequences there too would be disastrous. What's your point?

My point is very simple, what design criteria do we implement bearing in mind costs and benefits? Fine, don't build nuclear reactors on fault lines yet the Fukushima reactors survived a 9.0 earthquake, the biggest one in that area in a thousand years, only to be inundated with a 35 foot tsunami. The stupid Japanese only built the walls around the complex to a height of 24 feet, how could they be so short sighted? 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, I wonder if any of the health and safety bods, armed with their superior knowledge, could pinpoint the next accident waiting to happen?
 
I wonder if anyone who actually gave a damn would realize that we're dealing with an industry that has very real safety issues? They have no idea what to do with the plant in Japan. There are way too many problems. I'd love to say otherwise and go for it but it's very expensive and there are way to many unsolved problems. I'm not convinced...
 
I wonder if anyone who actually gave a damn would realize that we're dealing with an industry that has very real safety issues? They have no idea what to do with the plant in Japan. There are way too many problems. I'd love to say otherwise and go for it but it's very expensive and there are way to many unsolved problems. I'm not convinced...

How many died at Chernobyl? How many died at Fukushima? How many have died from wind turbines? How many have died from the radiation from coal?

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate...rgy-wind-power-deemed-far-more-dangerous.html
 
Back
Top