Reply With Quote
Speaking of buzzed:
http://www.viddler.com/explore/failblog/videos/1974/
(actually has some basketball footage)
Speaking of gay...
Speaking of buzzed:
http://www.viddler.com/explore/failblog/videos/1974/
(actually has some basketball footage)
I am so glad to not know that.
So what you're saying is that everyone should start absorbing radiation in stead of drinking water? Thanks!
Apparently so mouse........
Accordingly to you they're intimately linked.
No, I'm saying it's obscene to be obsessing about this nuclear plant when thousands of dead bodies at a time are washing ashore and thousands more are missing, probably buried under mountains of debris.
You make a good argument here. Unfortunately I'm not versed enough about the economics of nuclear power to make a good counter argument so I'll have to leave it alone. I am interested in the numbers though.
The reactors of tomorrow will continue a trend of being much safer than those of today. This will come about primarily as a result of the development of less toxic fuels, better disposal methods and more sophisticated disposal methods. Know that, I have a hard time simply walking away from this technology all together.
How long will it take to implement those technologies, and how much risk we assume in the meantime is something that will continue to be a contentious point IMO.
Uhmm who shouldn't care about this? Us? The Japanese people?
A lot of people died; it's tragic. But they don't have time to grieve, enough time for that AFTER they solve this meltdown problem.
That's what people do Darrin. They do what needs to be done, and think about it after.
It's pretty clear from this statement that you don't understand the consequences of a full meltdown.
And also, it's not like everyone in Japan is working on the reactor. They do have people going on searches for the missing.
But the tsunami/quake is over. What's done is done. The meltdown, that's something the Japanese can do something about.
Has that happened?
Not yet, due to the actions of the workers. But if they had not worried about it, good chance it might have.
Yes, your not understanding has happened.
Of course they should be worried about it. I'm just saying that the media attention on the nuclear part of this trajedy is disproportionate.
According to you? You would rather they be showing the destruction over and over? That happened. This is happening. Its not hard to see whats going to get coverage.
So one expert thinks it might not be bad, and you're willing to take his word for it? Not only that, but think that the media should take his word for it too?
What about the opinions of other experts? Do those not matter?
He curiously fails to mention the thousands who received ill effects after drinking/eating local food and water that was contaminated. And the heightened incidence rate of cancer in that area.Dr. Henry Royal is a professor of radiation at Washington University. He studied the after-effects of radiation in the Chernobyl disaster. He says even in that case, the only significant radiation exposure was to those employees and workers at the plant. He says even in the closest town to the plant, the radiation levels were equal to what you would experience by having 5 CT scans. And this case in Japan, it's significantly less.
Note: I'm not saying the guy is a quack, but it's strange that he left that part out.
Dr. Henry Royal is a professor of radiation at Washington University. He studied the after-effects of radiation in the Chernobyl disaster. He says even in that case, the only significant radiation exposure was to those employees and workers at the plant. He says even in the closest town to the plant, the radiation levels were equal to what you would experience by having 5 CT scans. And this case in Japan, it's significantly less.
Significant in this context means those people who experienced a dose sufficient to cause either hematopoietic or gastrointestinal syndromes. More generally, he's referring to the onset of non-stochastic syndromes early on in the crisis which proved to be fatal.
Yes, I know the term "significant" can have very different meanings and one might think that it should include cases of foodborne radiation sickness and induced cancers. I'm just clarifying how he used the term in his paper.
This is simply a case of what cutoff you use to define the term "significant".
Doesn't really need to in order to be newsworthy. Millions more stand a good chance of being affected for generations to come due to the nuclear crisis. that should prompt a lot of discussion and coverage IMO.
I assumed it might be something along those lines. While deaths due purely to radiation might be low, that doesn't mean that everything is hunky-dory.
yes, radiation from those "tests" made it's way to the food supply and tap water 100 miles away
Even better question:
Had there been no radiation would there have been evacuation orders?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
