reply to post by thorfourwinds
We are truly amazed that presenting what is a pure fact - without any spin associated to it - can generate such an outbreak of insecurity and
outright fear-driven responses.
Pure fact and spin are two different things. It's a fact that bananas are radioactive. It's also a fact that the potassium isotopes decay as alpha
radiation, which doesn't even penetrate the epidermis. Simply saying that bananas are radioactive is a form of 'spin' - the facts
presented/omitted and the order in which they are presented are all a form of 'spin.' I deliberately placed that fact first to draw interest and
attention to my statement. I omitted the fact that bananas are eaten (and the radioactive potassium therefor ingested) and this changes radiation
However, people have been eating bananas for a long damned time (as well as other potassium-rich produce) and no problems have, to my knowledge, ever
been associated to the radiological concerns of potassium uptake. Plenty of problems with a particular isotope of Cesium (chemically similar to
Potassium) being concentrated in the fruits of regions used for testing of fusion-class warheads - but that's a different issue, entirely.
Government Radiation Expert Deconstructs Myth Of “Safe” Radiation Levels
Nuclear radiation expert and renowned Government radiation expert, Chris Bubsy, deconstructs the myths and propaganda of so-called “safe” levels
of nuclear radiation.
We run into the same problems all the time with radar and other forms of high-energy emissions. There is really no "safe" amount of exposure - as
the circumstances of each exposure are very unique and dependent upon a number of factors that are difficult and even impossible to control (or
determine after the fact).
Wireless routers? Probably not a good idea to sleep next to one. It's probably not going to give you skin cancer or fry your brain - but a number
of our sexual processes are adversely effected by RF emissions - it's anecdotal, but it's fairly common safety advise in the industry that, for
whatever reason - the y-chromosome carrying sperm are rather sensitive to RF.
I still own and use a wireless router. I just don't cuddle with it before bed.
The same goes for any radiation. In beta and gamma radiation resulting from spontaneous fission - each atom can be considered to be an emitter of
radiation, and while weak - we know that local field equations still apply and the amplitude of any given wave-form increases with locality by a
squared ratio (more commonly inverted to show that amplitude is an inverse-square function of distance). So - the radiation applied to any given
molecule in your body by being near radioactive fallout is going to be rather extreme by comparison to the net average.
So - in this sense - radioactive fallout is never "at safe levels" when it comes to preventing cellular damage that could potentially lead to
However - the amount of radioactive fallout from the Japanese incident is negligible in the extremes by comparison to naturally occurring sources
of background radiation
. These include radon gas, carbon isotopes, your partner (people are radioactive), and several dozen other isotopes that
are quite common, occur naturally, and are several orders of magnitude more prevalent than any particles associated with the nuclear power
As has already been demonstrated - the amount of U-238 put off by coal combustion, alone, releases more uranium freely into the atmosphere as fly-ash
than is used to fuel the world's nuclear reactors for that year. That doesn't even begin to address the radioactive carbon isotopes released,
thorium, radon, radioactive lead isotopes, and a host of other radiological nasties released by coal combustion. Straight into our atmosphere or
stacked in heaps of ash and slag collected from power plants.
Traces of radiation from the crippled nuclear plant in Japan are being detected in states from California to Massachusetts, carried across the
Pacific on broad rivers of wind. But state officials say there is no public health risk.
I can't help but wonder how it can be verified that these 'traces of radiation' are being causally linked to the Japanese incident when, as has
already been demonstrated, we practically shower ourselves in a host of radioactive isotopes from coal power plants....
The corporate media in the West is downplaying and basically ignoring the threat. On the one hand, the EPA tells us Cesium-137 is appearing in milk
and water around the country, while on the other telling us not to worry.
The EPA said in March that “while they were above the historical and background norm, the levels weren’t considered harmful to human health.”
The agency sounds the alarm about radioactivity in cigarette smoke while minimizing the risk from an out-of-control nuclear plant that continues to
spew radioactivity on an hourly basis... continuously!
There's a considerable difference between breathing in smoke from the local fireworks display and sticking a bottle-rocket in your mouth.
The nuclear facility is now contained - much like a fireworks display ends - people endure the smoke from it (or evade it, because of obvious
concerns). People who continually ingest radioactive isotopes as part of a habit would be like the guy taking hits off of his bottle rocket or
something along those lines - silly as the idea may sound - the point is that it's a continual habit/ritual as opposed to a rather limited and
As for Cesium 137 - again, while nothing is ever "safe" - even getting out of bed in the morning (or staying in it, for that matter) - the levels
are very low; lower than the natural occurring levels in other regions of the globe. There's no cause for -alarm- over the issue.
Austria, Germany, Canada and Australia have banned eight episodes of The Simpsons dealing with nuclear crisis.
Care to compare that to the list of other things they ban regarding religious content and other matters of contentious nature to many?
The Simpsons, now in its 24th season with 480 episodes, has been one of the few outlets to show the greed of nuclear operators, groveling
toadies and a complacent public to a mainstream television audience — meltdowns caused by jelly doughnuts!
I'm reminded of a David LaMotte song:
"Our side appears to be up for the moment
They taste defeat we decide they deserve
We shoot the horizon and catch our own bullets
And find it is only the hatred we serve
Give me the update, tell me again
Show me the difference between us and them
Give it a number between one and ten
Give me the headline
Give me the spin"
, David LaMotte
According to EU bylaws, radiation limits may be raised during a nuclear emergency
to prevent food shortages.
I thought you just made the claim that this was all done "secretly." Yet it's a public law.
Anyway - radiation restrictions are softened during such times because - interestingly enough - food is a rather important commodity. People tend to
get rather... unreasonable... when faced with shortages thereof. While higher amounts of radiation may be undesirable and completely unreasonable
during normal conditions - the human body tends to be much more tolerant of radiation than starvation.
But, you know, if you want to have thousands of metric tons of crops sit and rot while hundreds of millions see food prices jump by orders of
magnitude and starve in the streets.... by all means - make your government ban all the food.
Fukushima Meltdown Could Trigger Atomic Explosion
Anyone who knows the slightest bit about nuclear reactors knows how absolutely -stupid- this claim is. Critical mass is impossible to achieve in
nuclear reactors. Not implausible. Not unlikely. Impossible. Arguing about Chernobyl being one is only remotely acceptable because the KGB was
doing all kinds of "experiments" with the reactor that no sane nuclear physicist would have done near a populated region. Though, again, all
evidence points to a hydrogen explosion in Chernobyl - and the notion that critical mass was achieved at the Fukishima plant is, to put it bluntly,
It is a claim completely unbecoming of anyone even briefly educated on the matter. It really doesn't need to be discussed any further than that.
That's right, it shows the Northern Hemisphere getting absolutely plastered with radioactive Cesium-137. If this is incorrect, why is it kept
on file and not the public one? If it is the real version, why is it not publicly released?
At one point, I thought the SAT and ACT were absolutely retarded because the "science" portion involved one's capacity to read and interpret a
graph/table/etc. Asking me questions about something that had the answers blatantly printed in front of me seemed rather ... counter-productive.
Sadly, I'm something of a prodigy and can actually read these things. The answer to your question simply lay in the two graphs. While I cannot
locate larger versions - it is quite obvious, even from the low-resolution thumbnails that the gradients presented are quite different between the two
maps. It appears as though they are two completely different metrics, to begin with.
You have the gradient at the right-hand side of the map. The numbers presented off to the right indicate what a given hue represents in terms of some
metric (exactly what, I can't tell - it's too small). However - the map that "isn't plastered" has considerably fewer digits along the
right-hand column. The map that "is plastered" has a completely different numbering to go along with it. I'm not even certain the two graphs are
intended to represent the same measurement.
At the very least, what has been done in the "plastered" map is the gradient adjusted to show the distribution of fallout as opposed to indicate
where fallout was going to present a health hazard.
For example - I am going to spray some cleaners in my bathroom - and I place some sensors around the house and outside to pick up where all those
chemicals go, and then I create a series of graphs from the data. On one graph - I'm only going to be concerned about where enough of the chemicals
are detected to be hazardous to breathe. For that, It's going to take much larger values to begin to indicate a "red zone." However, for another
graph, I'm merely interested in showing where all the chemical has been detected. For this, I'm worried about much smaller concentrations - so
small that I can't even smell them (but the sensors pick them up).
The two graphs have much different uses - though they are based around the same information.
Poorly-regulated nuclear power plants had 13 'near-misses' in 2010.
Not an industry person, are you?
A "Near Miss" is when an accident is averted. It can be from something as simple as the idiot driving the fork-lift nearly cleaving someone in half
as he flies around a corner to a spent fuel rod container dropping on the ground because it didn't get secured properly.
Without knowing the details - making any kind of judgment is impossible. For either of us.