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.
Zaphod58
Do you know how much radiation you are exposed to on a daily basis? From non-nuclear sources (ie nuclear power, nuclear waste, etc)? Coal plants? Radioactive waste. Granite? Radioactive. The list goes on and on, and some levels are surprising as to how much you're exposed to.
gortex
I would say the damage was done well before the Chernobyl disaster , radioactive jam is the least of our worries .
The United States conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests (by official count) between 1945 and 1992, including 216 atmospheric, underwater, and space tests
The Soviet Union conducted 715 nuclear tests (by official count) between 1949 and 1990, including 219 atmospheric, underwater, and space tests.
The People's Republic of China conducted 45 tests (23 atmospheric and 22 underground
en.wikipedia.org...
Our leaders sealed our fate years ago
edit on 11-11-2013 by gortex because: (no reason given)
That radiation you were exposed to 30 years ago does leave your body it just takes time to purge it. It doesn't leave right away, but eventually it will.
You can't say that "I ate this jam, and it's radioactive, so that's why I got cancer". That's not the only radiation you're exposed to on a daily basis.
All radiation can leave behind mutated cells. It doesn't matter if it's from a nuclear meltdown, or if it's from Granite. The type of radiation is the key.
Zaphod58
reply to post by intrptr
So if my house has an emission source in it that I'm exposed to constantly, that's better than a meltdown?
Once the fallout reaches you, yes.
So that meltdown halfway around the world is worse than any emission source I have in my house?
Sources like that coal plant down the road.
Or say I got something under my house, or even in my house I didn't realize was an emitter, such as sandstone or granite (both of which can contain uranium or other materials), or something else. Fukushima is worse than having those around all the time? I don't think so.
intrptr
The difference is a coal plant burns coal. A plant in meltdown burns fuel rods.
Zaphod58
intrptr
The difference is a coal plant burns coal. A plant in meltdown burns fuel rods.
And have you bothered to look into what comes out of coal? Even so called "clean" coal?
There are allot of directions we could have gone or still could that would be much more beneficial for the planet and organisms but it appears the political will or intelligence/smarts is not there.