On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Friday 23 December 2011 10:49:57 jdow wrote:That's not exactly true. The radiation is quite easy to measure, and there is
> On 2011/12/23 08:57, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > On 12/23/2011 12:44 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> >> Also, give it time...
> >
> > How much? We're still waiting for signs of major mutations from
> > Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show up.
> >
> >> Fukushima radiation mapped
> >
> > Yeah. What they don't tell you, probably because the reporters don't
> > know it, is that much of the reason we're finding so much radiation is
> > because our detectors are a lot better than they were back in the days
> > of Chernobyl.
no need for increased sensitivity of the detectors. It is true that todays
technology of making those detectors is better than it was in the time of
Chernobyl, but the detectors used back then were equally precise for the
purpose of measuring the excess radiation. If a detector can measure properly
the natural background radiation, it's good enough for everything stronger as
well.
Are talking about Fukushima or Chernobyl?
> What they are also not teaching you about is the number of now ripe old
> people who have been living in the exclusion (high radiation) zone after
> refusing to move out. They seem to live quite normal and healthy lives as
> do the herds of wildlife, horses and so forth.
AFAIK, those are just old people who refused to leave the Chernobyl exclusion
zone (or rather kept coming back after being removed). But there are no young
people living there. There are no children there either (nor living nor being
born). And there probably shouldn't be any, for a long time to come. I am not
so sure how "normal and healthy" that can be.
I am sometimes quite surprised about people downplaying the seriousness of
nuclear pollution. The common argument that "nobody has died yet" is
irrelevant --- it takes a fairly large amount of exposure to actually kill a
human by radiation. However, it takes a rather smaller amount of radiation to
contaminate the human DNA to the point of problems in reproduction. In
addition, it's a matter of future planning --- the "hot spots" in the
contaminated zone are dangeorous now, and they are going to stay dangeorous
for a very very long time. If the hot spots are not cleaned out (which may be
impossible in some cases), the pollution in those areas is to be considered
*permanent* for all intents and purposes, on the scale of the lifetime of
human civilization. Noone can faithfully claim to be able to keep those areas
"off limits to population" for the next 10 000 years or so.
I'd say that uncontrolled nuclear pollution is the single most irresponsible
thing that humans could ever do to this planet (bar a global thermonuclear
war). Oil spills, CO2 emmision and other "environmental" stuff that people are
talking about these days are a complete childsplay compared to this.
Best, :-)
Marko
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
