ubc losing credibility
Highest Yet: Cesium-137 levels in Northern California soil hits post-Fukushima peak — UCB blames nuclear weapons tests 50+ years ago
http://enenews.com/highest-cesium-137-northern-california-soil-26-bqkg-c...
Search
Highest Yet: Cesium-137 levels in Northern California soil hits post-Fukushima peak — UCB blames nuclear weapons tests 50+ years ago
http://enenews.com/highest-cesium-137-northern-california-soil-26-bqkg-c...
Dr. Burzyski....
Uh, someone said we could connect with Dr. B if we all got cancer, not.
Due to a certain (industry) Dr. B's practice has been "limited" and his hands are not as free to cure people as you might think. The cure is there, the (industry) has blocked it.
BB is blocking Dr. B.
I wonder why dollars are more important than human lives and cures for cancer.
Shining Whits
;)
Don't ponder overmuch with the bitter and stupid lies of these shills. They are laughable. Upton Sinclair had their number, long ago.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
•"Fascism is capitalism plus murder."
;)
WRT - West Coast Soil Contamination
;)
With Respect to US West Coast soil radionuclide contamination
Honest SCIENTIFIC endeavor, will:
1st - discount nuclear weapon test sources
2nd - discount Chernobyl sourcing
3rd eliminate volcanic sourcing
4th rule out meteoric radionuclide sourcing
5th seek out (and negate) ANY OTHER possible sources
6th map-out the radionuclide declines BEFORE Fukushima
Conclude that Fukushima appears to be the major contributor
The soil sample I am having
The soil sample I am having analyzed was exposed to nothing prior to Fukushima .I just happened to do bull dozer work prior to meltdowns. so the media I am testing was three feet under ground for weapons test , chernoble ect . I don't expect there to be much radiation deposited from fuku but we will see .
I love your "scientific"
I love your "scientific" method that comes with a baked in the cake conclusion (last line - Conclude that Fukushima appears to be the major contributor).
A few thoughts-
1) Please google Blair Cs-137 and read the thesis. Or just google Cs-137 atomic testing and read a little. More than 25% of the Cs-137 from atomic testing is still out there. That is a fact. It has a ~30 year half life.
2) Chernobyl....25 years later, huge areas remain uninhabitable, with one of the primary culprits being cesium-137. So it is of course safe to say that there is much Cs-137 from Chernobyl still around, with quantities of course being much greater near the accident.
3) Why didn't you know about the Cs-137 or Sr-90 before? Because this disaster has brought the subject to light. But that doesn't mean it wasn't there, not by a damned sight.
fallout distribution / soil snapshots
Only by combining testing of covered soil (undisturbed by and since construction) under houses built at intervals relative to nuclear events with tests of weathered soil in the same areas can conclusions be drawn. To see the plumes of dispersal the tests would also have to be in a grid so they could be combined with historical weather data. This is what the EPA should have been engaged in from the day of its creation.
We would also need the isotope profile for each of the emission events to get the kind of granularity from which conclusions can be drawn. This data is still classified I believe. Again this should be data available from the EPA.
Fukudai had three melts, two different fuels, three separate explosions and numerous 'ventings'. The MOX reactor facility may have also been engaged in weapon development. Given all that the ratio of Cs 134 to 137 emissions would have to have changed a good bit throughout this disaster. Our military probably has very detailed emission information far beyond the data the CTBTO and most others collected.
How much and what radionuclides exactly were blowing where on any given day from Fukudai may never be known. Our military I think has already denied collecting this data and TEPCO and the military / government cabals in which they are embedded have a deeply criminal past and would have likely learned to avoid keeping certain records that could later place them at the scene of a crime.
Currently there are too many missing pieces for more than good guesses at the answers we seek.
Hi Red Mercury, Just to
Hi Red Mercury,
Just to answer one point, where you said "How much and what radionuclides exactly were blowing where on any given day from Fukudai may never be known."
We actually have a very good idea of exactly how much and what radionuclides were created inside the reactor and what were released. Our department has done numerous calculations, simulations, and measurements to verify the isotopic ratios released. For instance, all of our air measurements have almost the exact same ratio for cesium isotopes, and we confirmed this with simulations of the reactor. Not only that, calculations show that the addition of MOX and other variables doesn't change this ratio enough to even be measurable.
With regard to claims that there were nuclear explosions, even if this were true, this would decrease the 137 to 134 ratio, because of the shorter half-life of Cs-134. Our measurements, however, show an increase in this ratio, which is why we are confident it did not come from Fukushima.
Hope that sheds some light on the situation.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
Consistency of Test Data
Thanks for reply on the point of Cs isotope ratios. Your continued interest, consistent testing and general exploration of this ongoing event is invaluable for me.
I will be honest and admit I am afraid for the future still. Managing fear by indulging my curiosity is a daily job for me. Without your work in this forum and in the lab effective inquiry would be much harder or impossible.
Thank you.
:) A ~45 Ton reactor fuel
:)
A ~45 Ton reactor fuel load or a ~1,000 Ton Spent Fuel Pool, producing an equivalent TNT explosion of 4 Tons; is a lousy explosive yield. The Cesium-134 produced in such a small, prompt criticality, is quite trivial, relative to the total Fukushima Daiichi ~ Tera or Peta-Bequerel radiation release.
Whether the actual atomic detonation was purely nuclear or if superheated steam was a significant component; the rub is ...
The MOX fuel in the Fukushima Daiichi Unit-3 appears to have produced an atomic explosion.
Negatable Hypothesis
The global public is commended for their skepticism, following a number of widespread pseudo-scientific frauds. However, this is GOOD SCIENCE at work. Actually the UCB hypothesis appears to be an excellent choice for scientific purposes. The proposition, that the recent rise in soil cesium is due to nuclear weapons testing, is negatable. That is to say the hypothesis can be easily PROVEN false.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_m...
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.
Black Rain
;)
OK, I'll play also...
I posit that:
1) The high readings detected by UCB are related to the atomic explosion in the MOX-fueled Fukushima-3 reactor. This nuclear blast occurred on or about March 14.
2) The Jet stream transported the radionuclides, including Cs to the USA.
3) Black Rain concentrated the radionuclides in a few random locations in California, Idaho and Massachusetts.
-------------
Neither the 50 year old nuclear test theory, nor my theory have been ruled-in or ruled-out.
But hey, that's what preliminary scientific method hypothesis formulation is all about. Might take a while to determine if either theory is correct.
Having a 'pet theory' does not undermine our scientific integrity. It is merely a working assumption, until the evidence is gathered and analyzed.
INCREASED EXPOSURE TO RADIATION
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The problem is this. Humans were never meant to be exposed to man-made radiation.
But now due to atomic testing, nuclear meltdowns and medical uses, we are told that the radiation-exposure-ratio for humans is this:
80% exposure to natural radiation
20% exposure to man-made radiation
And this equals 100%
However, this ratio is based on a false premise, because humans are already being exposed to the same 100% background radiation that was there before nuclear testing/energy, but now we're being exposed to an additional 20% of man-made radiation.
Therefore, our exposure is now 120% exposure to radiation.
Our new exposure to the 20% man-made radiation doesn't bump out 20% of our exposure to natural radiation, it ADDS to it.
That's why it's dangerous.
Evacuate Denver??
You also have to remember that these background exposures are averages. Some people get more because of where they live - at high altitudes, like Denver.
People living in Denver get a LOT more radiation from cosmic rays than they do from nuclear weapons fallout or nuclear power.
So if you think that we should eliminate nuclear weapons or nuclear power because of the added radiation exposure, you could cut down on radiation exposure even more by evacuating Denver and outlawing Denver as a place to live.
How ridiculous do you want to get in an ill-considered campaign against nuclear technology?
&&&
The only thing ridiculous is your comment.
Not riduculous at all.
Not riduculous at all.
Courtesy of the Physics Dept at Idaho State University:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/radrus.htm
Nuclear weapons fallout and the nuclear fuel cycle are both 0.03% of the typical 360 mrem annual dose of radiation. Together they total 0.06% of 360 mrem = 0.0006 * 360 mrem = 0.216 mrem.
According to the Dept of Health for the State of Washington:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm
Under "Cosmic Radiation" we see:
The exposure of an individual to cosmic rays is greater at higher elevations than at sea level. The cosmic radiation dose increases with altitude, roughly doubling every 6,000 feet. Therefore, a resident of Florida (at sea level) on average receives about 26 mrem, one-half the dose from cosmic radiation as that received by a resident of Denver, Colorado,
So the resident of Denver gets 52 mrem of cosmic radiation, or 26 mrem more than someone at sea level.
That additional radiation from living in Denver is 120 times more ( 26 mrem / 0.216 mrem) than the combined total due to nuclear weapons fallout and nuclear power. So if you are concerned about radiation exposure, it's over 100X more effective to outlaw living in Denver than the exposure due to nuclear weapons and nuclear power.
Additionally, if you get rid of nuclear weapons, you don't get rid of the radiation exposure from fallout. All the fallout came from now discontinued atmospheric testing in the 1950s and 1960s. That ship has sailed. A previous generation already decided that fighting the Cold War was worth the extra radiation exposure.
Our new exposure to the 20%
Our new exposure to the 20% man-made radiation doesn't bump out 20% of our exposure to natural radiation, it ADDS to it.
That's why it's dangerous.
==============================
If you look at where the man-made radiation comes from; VERY LITTLE comes from nuclear weapons fallout and nuclear power generation. Courtesy of the Physics Dept at Idaho State University:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/radrus.htm
Only 0.03% is from weapons fallout and 0.03% from the nuclear fuel cycle for nuclear power.
Most of the ~20% man-made radiation that we are exposed to above natural background is due to MEDICAL uses; X-rays and radiation treatments. When we undergo medical radiation, our physicians are making a cost-benefit decision. Is danger due to the radiation outweighed by some benefit? Only when the benefit exceeds the danger is the test prescribed.
If you have a tumor or some other malady; the information garnered from a diagnostic X-ray exceeds the damage due to the test itself. Or do you want to send medicine back to the "dark ages"?
Again, nuclear weapons fallout and nuclear power are a very small component of the man-made radiation.
Incorrect
You wrote: "nuclear weapons fallout and nuclear power are a very small component of the man-made radiation."
Small but the most deadly. For example,hHow small is a grain of Plutonium and yet how deadly and dangerous is it? Extremely.
"Small" does not mean safe.
A small amount can account for a huge risk.
**********
1. X-rays are momentary whereas man-made radioisotopes emit radiation for hundreds to thousands of years as they decay.
2. Nuclear power not only emits nuclear effluent into the environment, but nuclear waste is put in fertilizer, roads, asphalt, commercial airliners, weights & ballasts, etc., thereby further increasing radiological exposure
3. And nuclear meltdowns and atomic testing raised background radiation. X-rays do not.
magic
So should we all crowd into the front row ?
I don't think being a speculator is -where it's at- when it comes to things radioactive. I mean everything is radioactive including people. Of course I stop some distance short of Bill Gates idea of your very own personal backyard reactor.
No, the problem with radiation is in two parts. First there is a nuclear priesthood (and a industry riding on their coattails busy manufacturing consent) instead of a fully educated populace. Second is the hair-brained combination of the use of ANYTHING potentially toxic with the pursuit of the accretion of capital because some capitalist will always ascribe to their actions the foundational elements of 'reasonable and necessary, with an acceptable risk' to what an informed public would call insane or the more honest 'F&$^ my neighbor' perspective.
In combining THE MOST DEADLY FORCE ON THE PLANET with either the naked pursuit of filthy lucre (US/Nippon/et al. style) or military dominance we are rushing toward oblivion just as Japan currently rushes toward the Bronze Age.
Remember it is all in your head.
BTW hot waste is also used in fungicide from you guested it, Japan.
Airliner's need independent of nuclear industry.....
2. Nuclear power not only emits nuclear effluent into the environment, but nuclear waste is put in fertilizer, roads, asphalt, commercial airliners, weights & ballasts, etc., thereby further increasing radiological exposure
==============================
I think you have the arrow of causality backwards. For example, commercial airliner designs require ballast independent of whether or not the nuclear industry exists. The airliner needs a dense ballast; so depleted uranium is used.
Depleted uranium is natural uranium that has most of the fissile U-235 removed. Natural uranium is 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235, which is the fissile and more radioactive of the two isotopes. Depleted uranium is 99.8% U-238 and 0.2% U-235.
Because we need the U-235 for power plants, we use the byproduct depleted uranium for ballast. If we had no nuclear power plants, and no use for U-235; then we'd still use uranium ballast. It would just be natural uranium instead of depleted uranium.
If that were the case, the ballast uranium in airliners would be even more radioactive because it would include more U-235, the more radioactive species. However, because we have a nuclear industry and consequently another use for U-235, we use uranium with a lower percentage of U-235 as ballast, and hence the ballast uranium in airliners is LESS radioactive than it otherwise would be.
But shouldn't airliners be
But shouldn't airliners be using Tungsten for ballast, not Uranium?
Tungsten is denser than Uranium, so Tungsten would make a better ballast.
What exactly is the specific reason that you propose that Uranium should be used as ballast instead of Tungsten if Uranium is not as dense as Tungsten?
Tungsten is roughly 2%
Tungsten is roughly 2% denser than DU, so that is not a major advantage.
The main reason DU was used for trim weights over Tungsten was cost. At the time (prior to the 1980's), DU was considered a waste product with few uses. Therefore, it was really cheap. Today, DU is more expensive, because the enrichment technology has progressed and the residual U-235 can be separated economically.
The use of DU for trim weights was halted in the 1980's (at least at Boeing for commercial planes, anyway).
And this -
And man-made radiation is now in our food, water, and air where it can continue to cause damage until the isotopes fully degrade.
Radioactivity has always been...
Radioactivity has always been in our food. Evidently you've never heard of "Carbon-14 dating" or "radio-carbon dating". The reason we know the ages of the ancient Egyptians so well is that they were eating radioactive food. Food is naturally radioactive due to Carbon-14, Tritium,....
In fact, I recommend to you the book by UC Berkeley Physics Dept. Professor Richard Muller called "The Instant Physicist". On pages 12 and 13; he details how the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms requires alcoholic beverages to be radioactive before they can legally be sold in the USA. The fact that the alcohol is radioactive indicates it was made from recently grown plant material as required by law.
If the alcohol was not radioactive, then it must have come from petroleum where the alcohol is old enough for the radioactivity to have died off.
Check out the Amazon page on "The Instant Physicist". The free preview contains the above pages 12 and 13 that detail the above.
Wrong again
You typed: "Radioactivity has always been in our food."
Radioactivity, yes. Manmade radionucludes, NO!!
Stop comparing radiation that has been in the environment for eons and the human body has adapted to, such as Potassium-40 and Carbon-14, to man-made radionuclides produced in nuclear power plants that the human body has not adapted to and that cause DNA damage and/or cancer.
From the EPA:
"Unavoidable, Low Risk --
The human body is born with potassium-40 in its tissues and it is the most common radionuclide in human tissues and in food. We evolved in the presence of potassium-40 and our bodies have well-developed repair mechanisms to respond to its effects. The concentration of potassium-40 in the human body is constant and not affected by concentrations in the environment."
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/basic.html
We have NOT evolved to repair damage from radionuclides such as iodine-131, cesium-137, etc. that are made in a nuclear reactor.
That's already taken into account.
The dose takes that into account. Dose is "damage".
The dose is the total damage that the radioisotopes are causing.
The damage done by the continuous exposure to the radioisotopes gives you the dose due to the radioisotopes.
The damage due to the momentary exposure to the X-rays is the dose due to X-rays.
In fact, for a given dose - it is actually WORSE to get it in one momentary pulse than to have it spread out over a year.
Sorry - it works the OTHER way.
Global cancer cases rise 20 per cent in a decade
Yep.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2034746/Global-cancer-cases-ri...
if we all get the cancer, at
if we all get the cancer, at least we can go see dr. burzynski.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac
Can you not fathom that any
Can you not fathom that any Cs-137 from Fukushima will be accompanied by a similar level of Cs-134?
Nope, guess not.
chain of custody
First off I do not care for the title of the thread. enenews DOES sensationalize the bits they offer up with their creative headlines / snippet choice. There is always a very active discussion attached to these enenews creations and that it seems would be a great place to work out ....stuff. Bringing the often jaundiced ( MHO ) here without due consideration is not thoughtful.
Anyway I was thinking about how (short of intense sampling and testing) we could explore all the various ways the ratio of 137 to 134 might get out of wack BESIDES the obvious and overwhelmingly likely multiple, time separated deposition events.
While emissions from corium may be not totally predictable I don't think that matters in this case - yet. Besides we have good evidence of the big emission event fitting the model.
So we have transport, weathering, sample medium interaction, collection method to look at.
So do 134 and 137 have any properties that could provide a method to separate in the transport phase? Intense gamma radiation would have what effect?
Are there differences in chemical properties that would account for separation under possible soil/manure environment/agricultural chemical/other pollutant ?
NOPE
So do 134 and 137 have any properties that could provide a method to separate in the transport phase? Intense gamma radiation would have what effect?
=================
Intense gamma radiation does NOT transmute one radionuclide to another species. Think about it. What species a nuclide is, is determined by the number of protons and neutrons in its nucleus. If you want to change the nuclear species, you have to change the number of protons and/or neutrons. Gamma rays don't do that.
(After all, a single neutron or proton represents about 930 MeV of energy, and no gamma ray or even cosmic ray has that much energy )
NO - the ratio of 137 to 134 for is not going to be altered in transport.
Actually, there are such
Actually, there are such things as photonuclear reactions that can and do transmute radionuclides. However, this occurs at low probability and at high gamma-ray energies in what is called the giant dipole resonance (GDR), a collection of overlapping oscillation states within the many-body system of larger nuclei. Photons within this resonance can excite these states producing outgoing particles with some probability (or cross-section).
Resonance phenomena
*
Resonance phenomena are fascinating, in all their manifestations.
Thank you for the enlightening comment Dr. Chivers.
BC, have you seen any
BC, have you seen any baseline data to suggest this Cesium is from weapons testing? Tests from the last 50 years showing these levels of cesium?
There should be lots of data to back this up, no?
If this has been here this whole time, it helps me understand how 43% of the people in this country will get cancer in their lifetime.
WRONG - Mother Nature gives you...
If this has been here this whole time, it helps me understand how 43% of the people in this country will get cancer in their lifetime.
========================
Mother Nature gives you WAY WAY more radiation exposure than weapons fallout!!!
Here's a summary of the average person's radiation exposure courtesy of the
Physics Department at Idaho State University:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/radrus.htm
Under the heading of "Other", you see that fallout from nuclear weapons testing accounts for only 0.03% of your typical radiation exposure. The nuclear fuel cycle for nuclear power plants accounts for another 0.03%.
By a VERY LARGE MARGIN; the bulk of your radiation exposure is due to good old Mother Nature; Radon, Cosmic rays, natural radioactivity, including the naturally radioactive material like Carbon, Potassium, Tritium that are in our bodies naturally and have been ever since people and animals existed.
Mother Nature has been, and still remains the largest source of radiation exposure.
but we get all the good
but we get all the good extra radiation now from weapons testing, Chernobyl / Fukushima, etc etc etc now. As someone else wisely pointed out, logically this additional exposure DOES NOT DISPLACE good ole mother nature, but adds to it.
Man made radiation exposure is dangerous because it significantly increases our risk of disease.
I'm aghast that intelligent people debate this fact.
Intelligent people are not the problem...
I'm aghast that intelligent people debate this fact.
=====================================
Intelligent people are not the problem. It's the unintelligent people who don't realize how trivial the radiation exposure due to nuclear weapons and nuclear power is in comparison to the natural exposure that they accept, and have to accept, every day.
As shown from the other posts, the yearly radiation exposure due to both nuclear weapons fallout and nuclear power is about 0.216 mrem per year. An entire century's ( more than a lifetime ) exposure would be about 21.6 mrem.
You can receive over 20 mrem from a single flight in an airliner.
What good is it to worry about what you get from nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and let's say you do manage somehow to avoid this exposure. A single flight in an airliner will undo all the work and worry attempting to avoid the exposure due to nuclear technology.
Intelligent people can keep radiation and radiation exposure in perspective. It's the unintelligent that go off the deep end with concern for this rather trivial component of your total radiation exposure.
No matter what happens with nuclear weapons policy and nuclear power policy; everyone is still going to be breathing radon, be bombarded by cosmic rays, and irradiated both from without and within.
Keep it in perspective.
Anonymous (not verified) =========
"Keep it in perspective."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, obviously you are not able to "keep it in perspective" because you keep ignoring the ELEPHANT in the room = COMMON SENSE!
***************************************************************************
Definition:
common sense, n.
Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.
[Translation of Latin snsus commnis, common feelings of humanity.]
Examples: "Common sense is not so common"; "he hasn't got the sense God gave little green apples"; "fortunately she had the good sense to run away"
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.
**************************************************************************
Common sense dictates that we are not able to avoid MUCH "naturally-occurring" radiation from Mother Nature, BUT we should be able to avoid adding "man-made" radiation to that existing radiological burden. That, my friend, is just plain common sense.
Anonymous (not verified) =========
I notice that you frequently cite the "Physics Dept at Idaho State University." Is that where you are/were employed?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ~ Upton Sinclair
~~Thanks to "another" Anonymous for the quote. I haven't read Sinclair since high school. I suppose that I should go back and re-read his books. Where are all the good muckrakers today? ;-)
Idaho State, U-Mich,....same info
I notice that you frequently cite the "Physics Dept at Idaho State University." Is that where you are/were employed?
===================================
NOPE - however they do post the table from the National Council on Radiation Protections. I also frequently cite the same information via the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Blogging
;)
We are blogging.
;)
You need to take a genetics class or you are a troll for nucs
"It's the unintelligent that go off the deep end with concern for this rather trivial component of your total radiation exposure."
I guess all us "unintelligent" and "concern for trivial radiation exposure" humans such as pregnant mothers, females who have DNA in their eggs at birth, and others who care about not getting cancer will NOT be ingesting Cs-137 and Cs-134 so that it is not incorporated in their bones and tissues. We won't be irradiating our cells internally. You breath the same air as we do. If you are so intelligent and it's so trivial then why don't you do something about the 3 meltdowns now in the ground water, burning the weapons grade at night, and now criticality again.
If not, then enjoy the CA milk, strawberries and sushi on your airplane ride.
ALARA
;)
The watchword is ALARA, (As Low As Reasonably Achievable).
ALARA is generally sufficient for adult males. Children, pregnant and nursing women, as well as some other vulnerable groups, are advisedly shielded to a greater degree.
Actions to the contrary are foolish. Suggestions to the contrary are, for the most part, irresponsible to criminal in nature. Judas goats serve no useful societal purpose, whatsoever.
The Japanese are 'dealing with' their nuclear shills. The USA should follow the Japanese lead in that regard. Shills are a public health hazard, much like a pack of rabid dogs or an ebola epidemic.
;)
BOY! Did you miss the point...
We won't be irradiating our cells internally.
==============================================
You keep deluding yourself about that!!!
The fact of the matter is - you can't escape having your cells internally irradiated. If it isn't the Cs-134 and Cs-137, it will be something else.
A lot of the elements that your body needs, like the hydrogen in the water, the carbon, the potassium, ....ALL have their naturally radioactive forms.
It's like some stupid pinhead telling me that he's going to live his / her life "germ-free". He / she is going to be totally sterile. The dumb bonehead doesn't realize that germs and pathogens are everywhere, and you can't avoid them. Unfortunately some people are just stupid enough to think that way...
Same thing goes with radiation. You may delude yourself that you are not going to be internally irradiated. However, in spite of all the extreme machinations that you do to avoid the Cs-134 and Cs-137, you are still going to have radioactive elements in your body, as well as encounter them in your environment, and have cosmic rays raining down on you from above.
Give it up - it's useless. Keep it in perspective.
"The dumb bonehead doesn't
"The dumb bonehead doesn't realize that germs and pathogens are everywhere, and you can't avoid them. "
The WHO eliminated the truly vile smallpox pathogen threat back in the 1970's, see Wikipedia for a summary. The US and Russia are still resisting destroying their stockpiles for some reason, but it is otherwise gone. So not only can pathogens be avoided, but with will and persistence and political support they can be eliminated too. If the WHO had had your sort of 'give it up and accept it' attitude back then about smallpox people in this world would still be in danger of getting this truly awful disease. Thankfully the WHO had a very different attitude and we all benefit as a result.
Misplaced and Revolting Online Behavior
Golly you've a violent tone to your posts.
Lets see how you manifest your limited vocabulary, seeming violent and fearful nature with a internal redaction reflex:
stupid: 2 instances
Pinhead : 1 instance
Dumb bonehead : 1 instance
delude (ing) : 2 instances
And this is just one of fifteen or so posts !!!???
Please do not mistake what I am going to say now for trying to be helpful to you as I doubt you have more than one mode of communication.
Whether or not you are a troll you really now appear to be one. Perhaps you simply work in the industry and feel threatened. In any case a different tone would serve your message better as trolls are dismissed as bought and paid for shills. Your time. Our time. Why waste it?
If I was the admin here I'd ask you to work with a more constructive tact or to use your words 'give it up'
The truth hurt???
Sounds like the truth hurts...
Nobody was called stupid, bonehead,... except a hypothetical individual behaving in a non-intelligent way. I think most people would agree with the characterization of this non-intelligent hypothetical individual.
However, this hypothetical individual can serve as a yardstick for analogous actions concerning radiation in lieu of germs.
fancy
Very clever construct and analogy. Original?
"Significant"?????
Man made radiation exposure is dangerous because it significantly increases our risk of disease.
================================
Courtesy of Idaho State University:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/radrus.htm
Nuclear weapons fallout and nuclear power add 0.216 mrem ( 0.03% + 0.03% of 360 mrem)
Tell me how this 0.216 mrem out of a yearly 360 mrem ( a ratio of 1:1667 ) accounts for "significantly increases" our risk. It looks to me like it is way down in the noise; and not "significant" at all.
noise
Based on a well accepted study from Sweden (and I am sure there are at least a few analogous studies here in spite of the death grip the military industrial complex has on nuclear research) our CURRENT LEVEL (it will continue to climb) Cs-137 will increase the rate of West Coast cancer by >.06 percent. Lets add that to your number of .03, OK?
Now let us multiply the .1 percent (and still climbing) times the population on the West Coast.
So that's 49,000 additional cancer patients that the dose happy glow boys should pay for. That's a lot of dough eh?
I get the message from your posts that people as individuals are not THAT important in your world (except maybe you) so we can talk about money instead.