On 23/02/2021 15:13, T i m wrote:
On 22 Feb 2021 17:14:19 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

If it has a short half life, then it's already gone, years ago,
decayed to safer stuff. If it has a long half life, it's not that dangerous
anyway.

I believe they were (are) testing welsh lamb for 30 years after
Chernobyl and still often rejecting those grazing on the higher levels
for being over the acceptable levels for radioactivity.

Obviously not sheep that are grazing on Dartmoor, then.

'Obviously'? Back to your binary view of the world left brainer?

Resorting to abuse is the sure sign of a weak argument.

See, you are still desperately and disingenuously trying to conflate
my statement by 1) comparing 'man mage' situations with 'naturally
occurring and 2) any subsequent processes that are (or are not)
applied / required.

eg (for hard of thinking Goblins), 300+ Welsh farms *weren't*
suffering high levels of background radiation contaminating the ground
/ grass (that was then being eaten by their sheep and then potentially
consumed by us) compared with the farmers grazing their sheep in areas
that may well have 'untypically' high levels of background radiation
that has been known about for a long time. Potentially the same tests
(for acquired radiation levels) in all cases, just that the farmers
grazing their stocks on Dartmoor were aware of it previously (before
deciding to farm there) and the Welsh farmers couldn't possibly have
predicted such an event.

I'm not sure what you are saying, apart from that 300+ Welsh farms
*weren't* suffering high levels of background radiation?

And that Welsh farmers couldn't predict *weren't* suffering high levels
of background radiation?

You overlook that there is significant radioactive material all around us,

I do(?) ... and you know that how?

even more so in places like Dartmoor.

And how many people live on Dartmoor?

It's not just Dartmoor. Most of Devon and Cornwall too, and anywhere where the
exposed rock is granite.

Glasgow. But the point is such issues in such locations are a *known*.
Don't want to expose yourself to such abnormally high levels, don't
live there.

Does that choice extend to children? Abnormally high levels are usually
found in mountains, that doesn't make them any more dangerous.

You also overlook that life has been
dealing with radiation since the beginning of life on Earth,

Again, I have have I?

Your casual aquaintance with facts (such as how far away the Sun is from the
Earth), make is a reasonable assumption.

Or what if you were whooshed (by a Vegan), again ... not to mention
that you can't possibly even take the spirit of something, that's how
left brained you (now) are.

Why is it fanatical vegans, when pushed and shown to have a flawed
argument resort to abuse.

and has developed
mechanisms to mitigate the effects of it.

Until the levels are greater than those typical 'background' levels
and then we die or are made very ill by it?

That's right, the moment it goes over the limit we all fall down and die.

Oh, is that a goblin weakness then as I know most other species don't
suffer like that.

This is your no-brainer approach showing again.

And your left brainer constantly missing the points (like I said, the
sad thing is you *really* can't help it / yourself).

The real sadness is you don't recognise your own failings.

You obviously like numbers, they mean a lot to you because they are
black / white, therefore simple therefore easily comprehended by you.
52 v 48 is a 'clear indication of the will of the people' to you and
any number of deaths or levels of sickness and any potential future
risk caused as a result of nuclear energy production is 'ok' by you.

Quite 52 is 8% more than 48. I can't help it if politicians promise to
recognise and honour the result. Yo do vote in General Elections, don't
you? Even if you don't in referendums.

Why do we sign a disclaimer when having any 'radioactive' form of
medical process and have to read the section about 'increased risk'
(when having a medical procedure that is trying to make us *better*)?

So you can't sue them when they x-ray you today to find what is causing that
painful toothache, and then you get cancer is 20 years time.

So, there no increased risk whilst being bombarded with x-rays then?
No chance of a cell becoming damaged and mutating? It's all just
conspiracy theory stuff and they are wasting space, time and money
putting up (and them hiding behind) all the lead shielding (especially
if the maximum 'safe' exposure levels are actually way higher)?

As in my earlier post, the linear relationship between illness and
radiation falls over at low levels. Some studies even say low levels are
beneficial to life expectancy.

Do they quantify
"increased risk"? Do you even understand what the word "risk" means?

Oh the irony. *You* only seem to (stand a chance of understanding)
risk when the negative consequences may apply to you (like you being
Bexit risk proof etc).

The irony will be lost on most, including me.