There are a million post pointing every which way about radiation dangers and it may be a little hard to ferret out what and whom to believe and where
to turn to for answers.
It is clear that the Nuclear industry has a long standing first response policy of non-transparency until the obvious can no longer be hidden , and at
that point the policy seems to endorse "massaging" public opinion with overly re-assuring , at best optimistic and at worst dis-information.
How are we to know when and where the truth and the spin separate?
Obviously the cost of millions of radiation lawsuits would end the atomic energy companies as we know them, and by extension upset a lot of
governments trying to find places for "surplus" weapons grade plutonium, so information directly from them simply cannot be trusted even if the two
did not have a questionable relationship and provable history.
But racing down the corridor into hysteria and mis or under informed fear is absolutely no answer either, so what is one to do ?
Since most of the radioactive problems ( radiant energy and radioactive particles ) are not normally ( or in some cases ever) found in nature I would
suggest that if you have radiation fears in your area look to nature first.
For example if this German website is showing you a radioactive cloud that covers almost the whole US and this
even more drastic 'projected fall-out' map shows this dire scene:
Should they be believed over the say fox news, that Radiation is good for you ( a new low even for them )?
One can say I don't' have a Geiger counter and if I did I wouldn't know when where or what were dangerous readings, but as these events are not
exactly natural by nature (ha cough ha) we can take a page from the coal miners hand book and look to birds:
( birds have learned to survive with radiation after years at Chernobyl , but thesmaller
brain size may have something to do with it )
So it's a good bet that birds will avoid clouds of radioactive material. Granted, levels that would kill them offer less of a problem to humans, but
if the animals have fled one might want to re-consider going for a jog until they come back.
For example I live in Wisconsin and it is a beautiful sunny Spring day, normally I would have so many birds of so many types here there and everywhere
I couldn't hear my self think, but today when the sound of cars quiets down it is SILENT, DEATHLY SILENT as quiet as a tomb in fact...and I will
listen to that silence way before the hot puss from Ann the INES, Tepco, or the EPA
I am not saying that this will cause mass bird deaths...
What I am saying is that birds will fly away from radiation clouds, because they are much more sensitive to them than we are , ergo;
If you normally have birds everywhere and you suddenly have few or none you may want to investigate about why they are choosing to be somewhere
On that matter I would bet that even the seagulls are staying away from fukushima and honshu right now:
A cautious but careful study [ref] in northern Sweden polluted by Caesium and Uranium fuel particles showed cancer increased by 11% in the ten
years following the accident. The level of fallout in that part of Sweden was 0.1 kBq MBq/m2. If we assume that cancer increases linearly with the
level of fallout, the areas of Japan affected at 0.9 MBq/m2 may experience increases of 90%. We recommend that the public within 150km should leave
the area immediately.
Fukushima 70 kilometre contamination levels twice as high as Chernobyl Permanent Control Zone. Honshu should be evacuated. The IAEA website
yesterday revealed beta-gamma contamination measurements taken between 35 and 68 km from Fukushima. The results ranged from 0.08 to 0.9 MegaBecquerels
per square metre (MBq/m2). The Chernobyl Permanent Control Zone was contaminated up to 0.55 MBq/m2. The highest level of contamination classified
after Chernobyl was greater than 1.48 MBq/m2. The data for Chernobyl were for Caesium and the same is probably true for the Fukushima data. All
official agencies are conspicuously silent about the alpha-emitters Plutonium and Uranium. We remain deeply concerned about this lack of information.
And I think fox news is EXTREMELY irresponsible at best for even putting unsubstantiated garbage like 'radiation is good for ' on the air at all, let
alone letting her go on about it at length, and his rebuttal is weak.
At least ATS doesn't pretend to be anything else but sketchy ;-)
edit on 24-3-2011 by Silverlok because: snakish ann
So Ann it's been a couple of years where are these "stunning number of physicists" whom are commenting on MEDICAL REACTIONS TO RADIATION??. You do
know that a P.H.D. in physics is not the same as a P.H.D. in medicine ...er, right....or is that infotainment channel you work for trying to make all
'reality assessment' into a daytime soap where little things like knowledge and facts are transmutable and interchangeable like magic or
And how come you are not in Japan rolling around in the dirty topsoil that is being thrown just a little farther off the roads?
And seriously O'Rielly "...glowing and radiation ..haha...haha...good, good....", no wonder Madddox sent you no more tears shampoo when your first
book didn't sell for # ( and you blamed the public for being stupid ), you live in a giant metaphysical bounce tent.
so both of you the next few times you sit down to dine on the MOST TRANSIENT ,thus most exposed, flying foul perhaps you could put a geiger counter on
them ast the dinner table to see how that bio accumulation is coming along
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.