Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dangerish

---

You understand that potassium iodide only offers some protection from a single radioactive isotope don't you?

If you don't you should learn more about what you plan on putting in your body, why, and if there may be unpleasant side effects.

This is not anywhere near a global disaster.

Each reactor has the radioactivity of 1000 Hiroshima bombs

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

---

You realize that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were pretty insignificant in comparison the later devices don't you?
How do you define worse?
More fallout? Higher intensity radiation? Longer half life?

How much fallout from those 100+ atmospheric tests in the Pacific made it to the mainland?
How much fallout from those 100+ atmospheric tests in Nevada made it to the east coast (much less 5,000 miles)?

Short-lived isotopes release their decay energy rapidly, creating intense radiation fields that also decline quickly. Long-lived isotopes release energy over long periods of time, creating radiation that is much less intense but more persistent. Fission products thus initially have a very high level of radiation that declines quickly, but as the intensity of radiation drops, so does the rate of decline.

You're the one who seems to think that the reactors in Japan present more of a risk to North America than the Pacific and Nevada weapons tests.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

---

You're right. I lost track of the conversation from last night. My apologies.
But the context is the danger posed to North America by the reactors in Japan.

edit on 3/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)