On 13/03/16 14:26, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2016 23:30, Rod Speed wrote:

I didnt contradict anyone. Brian wondered about
that and I provided the facts on what has happened
with the animals there, the death rate of the wild
animals there hasnt changed due to Chernobyl.

They have in fact thrived because there is
much less predation by humans there now.

There seems to have been a significant effect on fertility from the
radiation, according to some of the sources cited.

However, as you say, there are other factors in play that influence
overall animal population levels there. I don't think you can conclude
from thriving populations that radiation is completely harmless. The
animals could be dropping like flies, but reproduction may be fast
enough to fill in the gaps as fast as the animals die.

Don't be silly.

No one claims either that radiation is completely harmless (in all
cases) or that animals are dropping like flies.
The evidence from those life forms that didn't leave (humans included)
is that below a fairly high threshold, radiation effects are un measurable.

Which is borne out by cell experiments and most of the data from other
chronic low level exposure from eg Ramsar.

The LNT model is simply wrong, and that's the end of it, which means
there is a massive disjunct between 'over regulatory limits' and 'is
actually measurably dangerous'.

Something like 100 to 1000:1 in fact.


--
He who ****s in the road, will meet flies on his return.

"Mr Natural"