It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

130 Mile Trail of Lethal Radiation in UK

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Why do authorities always charge thinkers and whistleblowers with "fear-mongering"?

Before they get to the felony charges I mean?

Like, people just should not recognize that our world is full of seriously dangerous stuff that is transported and handled by tired, often uneducated humans prone to error.




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Why do authorities always charge thinkers and whistleblowers with "fear-mongering"?


I am not an "authority." I am just someone who hates ignorance.


Gamma radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy. I.e. it is like light.

I am assuming form that article that none of the Co-60 escaped the cask, then the following statement:


Radiation levels up to 1,000 times higher than a high dose rate were found a day after the trailer and its 2.6-tonne package reached their destination.


while factually correct, is clearly designed to elicit a fear response along the lines of:

"Oh, my god, it is still high coming out of the cask a day later!"

Well Duh.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Clearly appropriate safety measures weren't followed and people were exposed needlessly. I hope measures have been put in place to double and indeed triple check future transports.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam


What? The article explicitly says:



Radiation levels up to 1,000 times higher than a high dose rate were found a day after the trailer and its 2.6-tonne package reached their destination.


It obviously "hung out", as you put it, for 24 hours.



Kinda quick on the rolleye smiley aren't we?

Yet another misleading statement in the article. You will notice it did not state where the measurement was taken. Since I don't think that the laws of physics were miraculously altered around the area in question, the only logical explanation would be that the impressive-sounding-but-meaningless "1000 times higher than high dose rate" was measured in the proximity of the storage container the day after--not along the road. Gamma particles are a form of EM energy and behave as EM energy, period.

This article is full of misdirection; whether by ignorance or intent (fear mongering), only the author knows. This kind of garbage is put out all the time and only causes the public to get more confused about topics that really aren't that difficult to understand.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tanin
Kinda quick on the rolleye smiley aren't we?

Yet another misleading statement in the article. You will notice it did not state where the measurement was taken. Since I don't think that the laws of physics were miraculously altered around the area in question, the only logical explanation would be that the impressive-sounding-but-meaningless "1000 times higher than high dose rate" was measured in the proximity of the storage container the day after--not along the road. Gamma particles are a form of EM energy and behave as EM energy, period.

This article is full of misdirection; whether by ignorance or intent (fear mongering), only the author knows. This kind of garbage is put out all the time and only causes the public to get more confused about topics that really aren't that difficult to understand.


I'm quoting your entire post, because after doing additional research, I can't disagree with a single thing you said.


I also now better understand Howard's response as well...


Good job making that aspect of the story more clear....really.

I'm still not comforted, however, by the remaining facts of that story. Are you?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

I'm quoting your entire post, because after doing additional research, I can't disagree with a single thing you said.


I also now better understand Howard's response as well...


Good job making that aspect of the story more clear....really.

I'm still not comforted, however, by the remaining facts of that story. Are you?


It's definitely not comforting, although there really is no way to know the extent of real danger involved. Is the shipping truck shielded, for example, against accidental leakage? In that case only the primary radiological barrier was compromised and minimal external hazards existed. The article tends to sensationalize the accident, so I can't really say for sure what dangers were involved.

If this were to happen in the US, the NRC would be on this real quick. In the nuclear power industry, they can be very harsh on the smallest of mistakes, and in the cases of possible public endangerment, they certainly don't take the matter lightly. Plants get their licenses revoked and/or incur major fines for much less than forgetting to put a cap on a storage container. Even though it's in the UK, I would imagine the shipping company is not very happy right now--not to mention the employees involved. You don't often get second chances with a goof of this magnitude.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Maybe there is a little fear mongering going on here but would it be prudent for people everywhere especially those living near nuclear power plants to have a stock of potassium iodide?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Gamma radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy. I.e. it is like light.




Important point.






I am assuming form that article that none of the Co-60 escaped the cask, then the following statement:


Radiation levels up to 1,000 times higher than a high dose rate were found a day after the trailer and its 2.6-tonne package reached their destination.


while factually correct, is clearly designed to elicit a fear response along the lines of:

"Oh, my god, it is still high coming out of the cask a day later!"

Well Duh.




My concern was exposure along the route. I don't think effects and impacts would be immediately apparent.

As I understand it, anyone exposed might end up with cancer or some other chronic disease a few years or decades down the road.




[edit on 2-3-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Fortunately, the narrowly focused beam was directed downwards. Had the rays escaped horizontally, they would have contaminated anyone within 330 yards of the vehicle.


If the opening in the cask was on the bottom, then there would have been no risk to anyone on either side. (not that this make the issue any less of a problem).

Again, note the misuse of the following terms and phrases in the above quote:

”narrowly focused beam,” and ”contaminated”



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
HowardRoark

While I understand your point, I can't help but feel that focuses unduly upon technical inaccuracies. It's kinda like the drunk asserting that because he didn't kill anybody, while operating a vehicle, that it's improper to focus upon what was otherwise a serious potential risk.

Maybe next time, the plug they forget becomes oriented in a more lethal direction....


Don't you find it outrageous that should be a concern at all?


[edit on 2-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
You have voted Tanin for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


I wish everyone could handle a discussion this well! you have a good head on your shoulders & we need more like you in here. nice job. I too had the image of a 150 mile swath of contamination until I read your response. way to get the truth out there.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   
It is fear mongering ..on the backs of a unknowlgeable public easly lead by a ignorant media looking to sell copy.

Tanin got it correct about the difference in contamination and radiation. The article incorrectly interchanges the two as if they were the same thing.

I am curious about the use of the term "1000 times higher than a high dose rate."
I notice they did not plug in any figures as a reference point to illustrate what a high dose rate is so as to give the public a reference point from which to begin the "1000 times higher" position. This is how you tell fear mongering. No real data...since someone obvoiusly knows by the tone of the article..just no real facts..just fear.

I am not downplaying the seriousness of this leak..just making the point of the stupidity and predatory manner of the media here. I call this "public masterbation"
Pardon the crudity...it is the media preying or jerking you off by your fears. Putting you on a emotional string for the ability to sell copy.

I am more worried about radiation from all the cell phone/pager towers going up in many neighborhoods..1000 to 1500 watts of "radiated power in frequencys approaching the radar bands. Think about it.

By the way..when the Communist Chinese exploded some of their nuclear weapons in tests ..some of you would be quite surprised to know how much of contaminated particles went up into the jet stream to be spread all across the globe and landed on the picnic tables of the local parks..ponds, rivers, ..et al.
HOw about after Chernobyl?
Any of you awake yet....HOw about those Redskins?? American Idol..et al.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by HowardRoark
 


But it doesn't say where thye were found the day after, still probabyl under the trailer



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join