posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by FyreByrd
First of all this is a gross exaggeration.
I am just trying to be blunt about a very complex situation with a lot of factors and repercussions. It is well know that corporate decisions are
based on economic factors in which human life is not priceless, but has a varying value. So while the government may have some say in what is the
acceptable level of radioactive contamination, in the end it is a corporate decision as governments around the world remain divided and exploitable.
I am no expert on the genetic effects of radiation, but do have a mild interest and have taken some note of various papers and results over the
years, as for where these papers are now I am not sure and will leave the technical discussion for those more experienced in the issues. One thing I
do expect on the topic is that there is a lot of complexity, debate and many generations involved to define a clearer picture on the situation.
You may very well be right and humans cannot be a part of a world with higher radiation level, similar to what is happening to many ocean species as
they cannot adapt fast enough to cope with the plastic rubbish in the oceans. As for what exact level and what kind of exposure defines the difference
between evolutionary adaption and extinction is beyond my expertise.
There is also the history of the grey aliens (for those open to such theories) and how they adapted after they had a global thermonuclear war on their
planet. This also supports your theory as now they are also a species in decline as their reproductive cloning is becoming stale. Considering that the
story goes that they where once more human like, anything that does thrive in such a highly radiated environment would be deserving of a new species
title. The size of the worms growing in Chernobyl is quite impressive, but as for this being because of reduced predators or some nuclear energy
effect is still being investigated as far as I know.
What good are increased crop yields it the food doesn't norish you and may in fact kill you 20, 30 years down the road.
While GMO may not kill you in 20 or 30 years, some generational studies are raising serious alarms bells with your grand kids. Unless you grow all
your own food, chances are you are eating it. The good of it is that it is meeting the food supply demands in a cost effective manner, as it is
claimed. So despite radiation exposure being overall good or bad, it is the reality and consequence of industrialization. As our scientist make new
things, our bodies have to cope with them with some people doing better than others.
Personally I would rather pay an extra $20 for a non radiated belt buckle, but metals are used everywhere around the home and work place. If a car or
house can be made a few $100- cheaper as further refining does not have to be done to remove a 'safe' level of cobalt, the corporate decision is
already made. As a consumer, the idea going shopping with a geiger counter sounds quite wise for your own personal protection. I would not at be
surprised to learn that there is already some radioactive consumables in the marketplace, some granite bench tops is one example that quickly comes to