On Aug 7, 4:54 am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

What it needs is for a few members of endangered or protected bird species
to get ****ted by the things.

We've got lots of endangered birds in NZ, like the Kiwi, Weka and Moa.
I think they are all quite safe from those nasty wind turbines

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Aug 7, 4:54 am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

What it needs is for a few members of endangered or protected bird
species
to get ****ted by the things.

We've got lots of endangered birds in NZ, like the Kiwi, Weka and Moa.
I think they are all quite safe from those nasty wind turbines

Well, yes, they would be ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

Jonathan Livingstone Seagull comes to mind ...

Only as an example of a truly dreadful book.

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths

I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.

My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty)
at the WHO.

Matty F wrote:
On Aug 6, 4:24 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

These are the smallest I know of
https://energy.wesrch.com/User_image...1215930225.pdf
Colin Bignell
You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.
I think that is the sort of micro power I like.

60 years of electricity, the size of container, then onto a truck and
back for recycling...:-)

With a special remote control so that all the ones in the Western
world melt down simultaneously on instruction from the commie
manufacturers

Interesting thought.

Matty F wrote:
On Aug 7, 4:54 am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

What it needs is for a few members of endangered or protected bird species
to get ****ted by the things.

We've got lots of endangered birds in NZ, like the Kiwi, Weka and Moa.
I think they are all quite safe from those nasty wind turbines
Allegedly not.

In the USA there is anecdotal evidence that all the wildlife simply
deserted any areas that were occupied by turbines. The proposed reason
was the subsonic thump-thump-thump you get as the blades pass the
support pillar. They feel it through the ground. Drives em nuts.

Well, you only need look at the Danes to see what long term exposure does..

On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 01:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Matty F wrote:

On Aug 7, 4:54 am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

What it needs is for a few members of endangered or protected bird species
to get ****ted by the things.

We've got lots of endangered birds in NZ, like the Kiwi, Weka and Moa.
I think they are all quite safe from those nasty wind turbines

come Fall... - or crash and burn, as these fans do at times.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
(Steve Firth) wrote:

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll
from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths
I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.

The real question to ask is what is meant by "early death". According to
James Lovelock in one of his books I read recently, the WHO could only
find evidence for some 75 deaths from Chernobyl, some 19 years after the
event.


That is in fact correct: those are the only deaths DIRECTLY attributable
to Chernobyl.

But of course it doesnt take into account the case of Frau
Panickstricken, whose children say she fainted from the shock of hearing
the word 'Nuclear' on the news, and never recovered, or Ivan Overactiv
whose three bottle of vodka and 60 malborough habit was so rudely cut
short by heart failure, which they attribute to being 'somewhere near
Chernobyl, once'.

Any predictions beyond that are horrendously suspect. To be fair.

Chernobyl residents have been uprooted and moved, and it wasn't the best
of places anyway..and so any statistics are already poorly controlled.

As with nearly all these studies of low level radiation death increases,
any differences are right down in the noise: there simply is no clear
unequivocal blip on the graphs that is big enough not to be..well. just
a blip.

The same thing happened post some release of radiation at sellafield.
Some doctor claimed that there had been a blip of cancers, and his maths
exactly coincided with a radiation release that was subsequently
admitted to. However, the mere fact that it EXACTLY coincided is in
itself deeply suspicious. Then you look at the size of the blip, and see
there are blips like that all the time everywhere.

As far as I can tell there is good evidence from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and
now Chernobyl. as to how much radiation will kill you within days or weeks.

There is evidence from the rest of the world as to what the normal
background radiation that we have evolved under, is.

The safety people have connected the few points with a straight line,
and declared the nuclear industry must be something like less than 1% of
background overall to be safe: Any release worse than that is a 'nuclear
accident'.

Using that straight line, they predicted 30,000-50,000 deaths (IIRC)
from Chernobyl, over a period of 10-15 years.

Those deaths have not happened. That some deaths have, is a certainty.
People die all the time.

More people die from skin cancer, each year from the great nuclear
reactor in the sky, than have ever died from radiation sickness and
radiation induced cancer,altogether, probably.(if you exclude the people
who were simply vaporised at Hiroshima etc)

Its an example of a laudable standard being set, in the absence of
certain knowledge, by responsible people, to ensure that any cancer
increase from the nuclear industry was immeasurably small, being taken
by irresponsible people and used as a predictive tool, claiming
predictive FACT, to frighten people away from nuclear power.

what we do know, is that intense radiation kills quickly.

Exposure to certain medium half life radioactive nucleides, like iodine
and ceasium, does when they enter the food chain, give rise to thyroid
and bone cancers respectively.

inhalation of radioactive heavy particles, like uranium or plutonium,
does lead to lung cancer, as does exposure to Radon (which occurs
naturally). However uranium and plutonium are heavy, and do not travel far.

There is almost no evidence at all that prolonged exposure to low level
radiation does much at all. Such evidence as there is, which correlate
radon emitting areas to lung cancer clusters, is persuasive, but of
surprisingly low value. Radon accounts for the largest part of our
exposure, and it may be 2-3 times normal on e.g. Dartmoor. That is, the
danger from radon on Dartmoor is 2-300 times greater than the danger of
the whole nuclear industry, if straight lines rule. And there is
considerable evidence that straight lines do NOT rule. That in fact up
to a point the body repairs radiation damage: Only if its too much to
deal with, does the cancerous process start, as more mutations take
over and start to run a localised area of the body.

In short as I understand it, the position is that the sorts of
'accidents' that get headlines and cause power stations to be shut in
Germany, are of the order of 100 times less than a holiday in Dartmoor
would do to you.

Chernobyl itself is almost the worst nuclear accident imaginable. No
Western reactor in use could have failed the same way, they have
secondary containment that Chernobyl does not. The whole three mile
island incident is a tribute to how WELL those sorts of secondary
containments work. No third party deaths have ever been attributed to
three mile island.

In short in 50 plus years of reactor operation, we have had off the top
of my head three cases where things have gone badly wrong. Windscale
which was a disgrace, and utterly politically inspired, which led to a
huge release of radioactivity. Masses of people did not die.

Three Mile Island, where again the worst happened, but the secondary
safety systems held up, and although the site will be hot for many
years, nearly all the radiation was confined.

And Chernobyl, the worst ever possible accident. A complete pile blowing
its containment vessel and catching fire, and throwing clouds of
radioactive smoke up into the air. Short of detonating a bomb under a
reactor, its hard to see what could be worse. And 75 people died, about
10,000 thyroid cancers IIRC were caused, treatable by removal of the
thyroid and a daily pill of thyroxine..which is not nice, but its not
death either, and that's really it.

Apart from that its a minor catalogue of minor spills..a door left open,
a fuel rod dropped, a leak in a pipe somewhere..inexcusable, yes, but
not a reason to close down a whole industry.

14 million people in Pakistan affected by flooding. possibly laid at the
door of global warming.

75 dead on an oil rig, and a gulf of Mexico ecosystem laid waste to
some extent,. That's oil. How many die each year in tanker fires and oil
and gas explosions? A lot more than do in nuclear accidents. How many
people die in the wind farm industry. Rather a lot actually. Someone
killed at Felixstowe last month when a turbine blade fell on
him,..collapsing towers and so on kill a few people every year.

How many died at Bhopal? In Chinese coal mines every year?

I cant answer for you guys, but when I look at the worst that not using
nuclear power can do, and the worst that using it can, its a no brainer.

CO2 will hang around a LOT longer in the atmosphere than a hot pair of
gloves will twitter on a Geiger counter. And we can seal the gloves
cheaply and simply, if it worries you.

All human activity produces waste. Nuclear waste is actually one of the
more easily handled and contained of them.

The public PERCEPTION is the that nuclear power is dirty, expensive and
deeply dangerous. The reality is that it is actually not. Its very very
safe. Its been FORCED to be, by regulations, which if applied to ANY
OTHER INDUSTRY would make that industry completely uneconomic. The
public perception is that windpower is cheap clean safe non polluting
and the power comes carbon free. Its none of them.





























As Lovelock says, if the 4k people die a week after the accident, that
would be terrible. But they don't. They die, on average, a few days
before they would otherwise.

I quote:

"The exposure of all those living in Northern Europe to Chernobyl's
radiation on average reduced their lifespan by one to three hours. For
comparison, a life-long smoker will lose seven years of life.

No wonder the media and the anti-nuclear activists prefer to talk of the
risk of cancer death. It makes a better story than the loss of a few
hours of life expectation. If a lie is defined as a statement that
purposefully intends to deceive, the persistent repetition of the huge
Chernobyl death toll is a powerful lie."

Lovelock's Gaia ideas were unfortunately pounced on by the new-age
twerps, which has annoyed him intensely - he is actually a sensible chap
who has stated that he'd be happy to have a year's worth of UK
high-level waste suitably encased in concrete, buried in his back
garden. He'd then use it for energy generation.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Arfa Daily wrote:

Jonathan Livingstone Seagull comes to mind ...

Only as an example of a truly dreadful book.

Ah, you didn't understand it then, Steve ... ? :-)

Arfa

Steve Firth wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths

I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.

My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty)
at the WHO.

The WHO estimate is based upon the number of people who suffered from
thyroid cancer as a direct result of exposure to radiation. While all
but nine recovered, the probability is that the majority will have a
reduced life expectancy. However, the real point was that, even
including the highest number of deaths that anyone can come up with,
nuclear power still comes out as by far the safest form of energy.

Colin Bignell

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Owain
saying something like:

Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.

Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All Glow With
Happiness.

World Beautiful Arrive.

I saw a car advert on China News yesterday - I haven't a clue what the
copywriters had been smoking.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

Only in the movies to petrol tankers normally go up like napalm.

Tell that to those poor ****ers in Africa a few weeks back.

On 07/08/2010 16:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths

I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.

My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty)
at the WHO.

The WHO estimate is based upon the number of people who suffered from
thyroid cancer as a direct result of exposure to radiation. While all
but nine recovered, the probability is that the majority will have a
reduced life expectancy. However, the real point was that, even
including the highest number of deaths that anyone can come up with,
nuclear power still comes out as by far the safest form of energy.

Colin Bignell


In the latest New Scientist there's an article about the effect of
radiation on health. Well worth reading. In summary single large doses
are invariably bad for you. Slightly smaller doses spaced out to allow
the cells to recover (as in radio-therapy) need not be bad. Lower level
up to about 1000 times current 'safe levels' seem to do little or no
harm. Our cells have evolved with an ability to recover from background
and cosmic radiation. Once the initial high levels of radiation fell
away in Nagasaki the population actually turned out to have only
slightly higher levels of illness than similar cities elsewhere in Japan.

Peter Scott

On 6 Aug, 12:18, Owain wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:18*pm, Peter Scott *wrote:

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.

Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.

Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All Glow With
Happiness.

Owain

There is no such device. Nor will there be.

harry wrote:

On 6 Aug, 12:18, wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott wrote:

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out.

Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.

Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All Glow With
Happiness.

There is no such device. Nor will there be.

The Toshiba 4S, Babcock & Wilcox mPower, and Hyperion Power Generation
designs are all *considerably* smaller than an old town gas works site.

Granted, the various "fits on a lorry" designs are likely to remain
marketing dreams ...

harry wrote:
On 6 Aug, 12:18, Owain wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott wrote:

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.
Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.

Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All Glow With
Happiness.

Owain

There is no such device. Nor will there be.

There are, more or less, such devices. You or I cannot by one though.

It's pretty much what goes in a nuclear sub.

Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:

On 6 Aug, 12:18, wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott wrote:

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out.

Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.

Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All Glow With
Happiness.

There is no such device. Nor will there be.

The Toshiba 4S, Babcock & Wilcox mPower, and Hyperion Power Generation
designs are all *considerably* smaller than an old town gas works site.

Granted, the various "fits on a lorry" designs are likely to remain
marketing dreams ...

Fits in a nuclear sub is not.

I don't say you could get the genny in the lorry, but you might get a
complete reactor in there.

An actual reactor is very small. Whats big is the shielding and the
cooling..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

How many died at Bhopal? In Chinese coal mines every year?


This is a UK group.

Remember Aberfan.

Andy

Peter Scott wrote:
On 07/08/2010 16:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll
from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths

I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.

My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty)
at the WHO.

The WHO estimate is based upon the number of people who suffered from
thyroid cancer as a direct result of exposure to radiation. While all
but nine recovered, the probability is that the majority will have a
reduced life expectancy. However, the real point was that, even
including the highest number of deaths that anyone can come up with,
nuclear power still comes out as by far the safest form of energy.

Colin Bignell


In the latest New Scientist there's an article about the effect of
radiation on health. Well worth reading. In summary single large doses
are invariably bad for you. Slightly smaller doses spaced out to allow
the cells to recover (as in radio-therapy) need not be bad. Lower level
up to about 1000 times current 'safe levels' seem to do little or no
harm. Our cells have evolved with an ability to recover from background
and cosmic radiation. Once the initial high levels of radiation fell
away in Nagasaki the population actually turned out to have only
slightly higher levels of illness than similar cities elsewhere in Japan.


Got a link for that?

Cant find it on the new scientist site.


Peter Scott

Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

How many died at Bhopal? In Chinese coal mines every year?


This is a UK group.

Remember Aberfan.

Is it not permissible to discuss the world in the context of how it
relates to the UK?

Should we not discuss the merits of Chinese Angle Grinders.

I do remember Aberfan.


Andy

On 7 Aug, 14:02, PeterC wrote:
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 01:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Matty F wrote:
On Aug 7, 4:54 am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

What it needs is for a few members of endangered or protected bird species
to get ****ted by the things.

We've got lots of endangered birds in NZ, like the Kiwi, Weka and Moa.
I think they are all quite safe from those nasty wind turbines

come Fall... - or crash and burn, as these fans do at times.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

I would interested to know where I can see a Moa.
You are what's known over here as a complete ******.

On 7 Aug, 17:02, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

Only in the movies to petrol tankers normally go up like napalm.

Tell that to those poor ****ers in Africa a few weeks back.

Which ones are they?

On 7 Aug, 19:23, Peter Scott wrote:
On 07/08/2010 16:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:





Steve Firth wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths

I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.

My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty)
at the WHO.

The WHO estimate is based upon the number of people who suffered from
thyroid cancer as a direct result of exposure to radiation. While all
but nine recovered, the probability is that the majority will have a
reduced life expectancy. However, the real point was that, even
including the highest number of deaths that anyone can come up with,
nuclear power still comes out as by far the safest form of energy.

Colin Bignell

In the latest New Scientist there's an article about the effect of
radiation on health. Well worth reading. In summary single large doses
are invariably bad for you. Slightly smaller doses spaced out to allow
the cells to recover (as in radio-therapy) need not be bad. Lower level
up to about 1000 times current 'safe levels' seem to do little or no
harm. Our cells have evolved with an ability to recover from background
and cosmic radiation. Once the initial high levels of radiation fell
away in Nagasaki the population actually turned out to have only
slightly higher levels of illness than similar cities elsewhere in Japan.

Peter Scott- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is complete ********. Radiation exposure is cumulative. The NS
is a political magazine representing entrenched interests in the USA.
(Mainly medical)
No level of radiation exposure is safe.

On 7 Aug, 20:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On 6 Aug, 12:18, Owain wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott *wrote:

You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.
Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.

Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All Glow With
Happiness.

Owain

There is no such device. Nor will there be.

There are, more or less, such devices. You or I cannot by one though.

It's pretty much what goes in a nuclear sub.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Afraid not. The nuclear sub has the sea for cooling pirposes. Not
available to any "portable device".

On 7 Aug, 20:16, Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

How many died at Bhopal? In Chinese coal mines every year?

This is a UK group.

Remember Aberfan.

Andy

Remember Senghenydd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senghenydd#Coal_mining

On 7 Aug, 20:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
On 07/08/2010 16:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll
from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths

I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.

My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty)
at the WHO.

The WHO estimate is based upon the number of people who suffered from
thyroid cancer as a direct result of exposure to radiation. While all
but nine recovered, the probability is that the majority will have a
reduced life expectancy. However, the real point was that, even
including the highest number of deaths that anyone can come up with,
nuclear power still comes out as by far the safest form of energy.

Colin Bignell

In the latest New Scientist there's an article about the effect of
radiation on health. Well worth reading. In summary single large doses
are invariably bad for you. Slightly smaller doses spaced out to allow
the cells to recover (as in radio-therapy) need not be bad. Lower level
up to about 1000 times current 'safe levels' seem to do little or no
harm. Our cells have evolved with an ability to recover from background
and cosmic radiation. Once the initial high levels of radiation fell
away in Nagasaki the population actually turned out to have only
slightly higher levels of illness than similar cities elsewhere in Japan.

Got a link for that?

Cant find it on the new scientist site.



Peter Scott- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You probably won't. It's ********.

On Aug 8, 9:15 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
That is complete ********. Radiation exposure is cumulative. The NS
is a political magazine representing entrenched interests in the USA.
(Mainly medical)
No level of radiation exposure is safe.

Better get your lead underwear on, then. You're exposed to radiation all
the time. Hmmm. cosmic-ray levels are quite high at 30k ft, so all
flying is out, better not go anywhere where there's granite (lots of
radium) or near any coal fired power station (1 part per million of
uranium in coal, lots of Radon emitted).

No place to hide, really, for you :-)

I'm OK - I live in a wooden house, not one of those radioactive brick
or stone houses. And I don't have a basement that's full of
radioactive radon.

On Aug 8, 12:15 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Aug 7, 4:54 am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

What it needs is for a few members of endangered or protected bird species
to get ****ted by the things.

We've got lots of endangered birds in NZ, like the Kiwi, Weka and Moa.
I think they are all quite safe from those nasty wind turbines

Allegedly not.

In the USA there is anecdotal evidence that all the wildlife simply
deserted any areas that were occupied by turbines. The proposed reason
was the subsonic thump-thump-thump you get as the blades pass the
support pillar. They feel it through the ground. Drives em nuts.

There are few Kiwi and Weka on the mainland of NZ. Some morons
introduced predators such as stoats and weasles and cats. Since those
birds don't have usable wings they can't fly away from predators. But
neither can they be hit by wind turbine blades.
The Moa was tall enough to be hit by the blades as it walked
undeneath. So they all died out some time ago.

Well, you only need look at the Danes to see what long term exposure does..

Blond hair, good looks, ability to build ships and weapons and conquer
the barbarian world? Where's the downside?

harry wrote:
On 7 Aug, 19:23, Peter Scott wrote:
On 07/08/2010 16:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:





Steve Firth wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths
I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.
My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty)
at the WHO.
The WHO estimate is based upon the number of people who suffered from
thyroid cancer as a direct result of exposure to radiation. While all
but nine recovered, the probability is that the majority will have a
reduced life expectancy. However, the real point was that, even
including the highest number of deaths that anyone can come up with,
nuclear power still comes out as by far the safest form of energy.
Colin Bignell
In the latest New Scientist there's an article about the effect of
radiation on health. Well worth reading. In summary single large doses
are invariably bad for you. Slightly smaller doses spaced out to allow
the cells to recover (as in radio-therapy) need not be bad. Lower level
up to about 1000 times current 'safe levels' seem to do little or no
harm. Our cells have evolved with an ability to recover from background
and cosmic radiation. Once the initial high levels of radiation fell
away in Nagasaki the population actually turned out to have only
slightly higher levels of illness than similar cities elsewhere in Japan.

Peter Scott- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is complete ********. Radiation exposure is cumulative. The NS
is a political magazine representing entrenched interests in the USA.
Er No.

The NS has been consistently anti nuclear and greenie as long as I gave
uop reading it.

That was why I was surprised to see the article there.

Of course its written by someone else, who happens to be a professor of
nuclear something.


(Mainly medical)
No level of radiation exposure is safe.

Well then life is not safe, because there is a ****load of radiation all
around you naturally.

Its been a long time since we have had a Naive Believer on the group!
Welcome!

Do you think the Jews made the Holocaust up as well?

harry wrote:
On 7 Aug, 20:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On 6 Aug, 12:18, Owain wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott wrote:
You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.
Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.
Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All Glow With
Happiness.
Owain
There is no such device. Nor will there be.
There are, more or less, such devices. You or I cannot by one though.

It's pretty much what goes in a nuclear sub.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Afraid not. The nuclear sub has the sea for cooling pirposes. Not
available to any "portable device".

Are you really as stupid as you seem, or its it just an act?

Matty F wrote:
On Aug 8, 12:15 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Aug 7, 4:54 am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
What it needs is for a few members of endangered or protected bird species
to get ****ted by the things.
We've got lots of endangered birds in NZ, like the Kiwi, Weka and Moa.
I think they are all quite safe from those nasty wind turbines
Allegedly not.

In the USA there is anecdotal evidence that all the wildlife simply
deserted any areas that were occupied by turbines. The proposed reason
was the subsonic thump-thump-thump you get as the blades pass the
support pillar. They feel it through the ground. Drives em nuts.

There are few Kiwi and Weka on the mainland of NZ. Some morons
introduced predators such as stoats and weasles and cats. Since those
birds don't have usable wings they can't fly away from predators. But
neither can they be hit by wind turbine blades.
The Moa was tall enough to be hit by the blades as it walked
undeneath. So they all died out some time ago.

Well, you only need look at the Danes to see what long term exposure does..

Blond hair, good looks, ability to build ships and weapons and conquer
the barbarian world? Where's the downside?

Well they were then, and their descendants are now, parasites. They just
moaned and waved weapons till someone gave them some money. The only way
their women COULD get pregnant was to send them off in a gang for days
on end, and when they came back, get them ****ed and put sacks on their
own heads.

Tyneside is like that to this day.

In message
,
harry writes
On 7 Aug, 14:02, PeterC wrote:
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 01:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Matty F wrote:
On Aug 7, 4:54 am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

What it needs is for a few members of endangered or protected bird species
to get ****ted by the things.

We've got lots of endangered birds in NZ, like the Kiwi, Weka and Moa.
I think they are all quite safe from those nasty wind turbines

come Fall... - or crash and burn, as these fans do at times.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

I would interested to know where I can see a Moa.
You are what's known over here as a complete ******.

I'm starting to wonder if harry and dennis aren't one and the same

Harry - in a 40 mph zone, how fast do you drive ?


--
geoff

In message
,
harry writes
On 7 Aug, 19:23, Peter Scott wrote:
On 07/08/2010 16:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:





Steve Firth wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths

I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.

My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty)
at the WHO.

The WHO estimate is based upon the number of people who suffered from
thyroid cancer as a direct result of exposure to radiation. While all
but nine recovered, the probability is that the majority will have a
reduced life expectancy. However, the real point was that, even
including the highest number of deaths that anyone can come up with,
nuclear power still comes out as by far the safest form of energy.

Colin Bignell

In the latest New Scientist there's an article about the effect of
radiation on health. Well worth reading. In summary single large doses
are invariably bad for you. Slightly smaller doses spaced out to allow
the cells to recover (as in radio-therapy) need not be bad. Lower level
up to about 1000 times current 'safe levels' seem to do little or no
harm. Our cells have evolved with an ability to recover from background
and cosmic radiation. Once the initial high levels of radiation fell
away in Nagasaki the population actually turned out to have only
slightly higher levels of illness than similar cities elsewhere in Japan.

Peter Scott- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is complete ********. Radiation exposure is cumulative.

Radiation expert now, are we?

The NS
is a political magazine representing entrenched interests in the USA.
(Mainly medical)
No level of radiation exposure is safe.

Better build yourself a lead coffin and seal yourself inside it then

Every time you expose yourself to uk.d-i-y, you reinforce the impression
that you are a total ****wit

--
geoff

On 8 Aug, 10:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
That is complete ********. *Radiation exposure is cumulative. *The NS
is a political magazine representing entrenched interests in the USA.
(Mainly medical)
No level of radiation exposure is safe.

Better get your lead underwear on, then. You're exposed to radiation all
the time. Hmmm. cosmic-ray levels are quite high at 30k ft, so all
flying is out, better not go anywhere where there's granite (lots of
radium) or near any coal fired power station (1 part per million of
uranium in coal, lots of Radon emitted).

No place to hide, really, for you :-)

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

Quite right. Why do you suppose there has always been people died of
cancer?
The more you get, the greater chance of getting cancer.

On 8 Aug, 11:16, Matty F wrote:
On Aug 8, 9:15 pm, Tim Streater wrote:





In article
,

*harry wrote:
That is complete ********. *Radiation exposure is cumulative. *The NS
is a political magazine representing entrenched interests in the USA.
(Mainly medical)
No level of radiation exposure is safe.

Better get your lead underwear on, then. You're exposed to radiation all
the time. Hmmm. cosmic-ray levels are quite high at 30k ft, so all
flying is out, better not go anywhere where there's granite (lots of
radium) or near any coal fired power station (1 part per million of
uranium in coal, lots of Radon emitted).

No place to hide, really, for you :-)

I'm OK - I *live in a wooden house, not one of those radioactive brick
or stone houses. And I don't have a basement that's full of
radioactive radon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The answer is not to live in Aberdeen or Cornwall.
The Scots drink themselves to death because they prefer to die of
cirrosis of the liver rather than cancer. In Cornwall it's cider they
use.
The incidence of cancer was higher amongst Concorde crew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord...ation_exposure

In message
,
harry writes
On 8 Aug, 10:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
That is complete ********. *Radiation exposure is cumulative. *The NS
is a political magazine representing entrenched interests in the USA.
(Mainly medical)
No level of radiation exposure is safe.

Better get your lead underwear on, then. You're exposed to radiation all
the time. Hmmm. cosmic-ray levels are quite high at 30k ft, so all
flying is out, better not go anywhere where there's granite (lots of
radium) or near any coal fired power station (1 part per million of
uranium in coal, lots of Radon emitted).

No place to hide, really, for you :-)

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

Quite right. Why do you suppose there has always been people died of
cancer?

Viruses, genes etc

The more you get, the greater chance of getting cancer.

I get plenty - it reduces the chance of prostate cancer ...

you seem firmly entrenched in a previous millennium

-

--
geoff

"harry" wrote in message
...
On 8 Aug, 10:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
That is complete ********. Radiation exposure is cumulative. The NS
is a political magazine representing entrenched interests in the USA.
(Mainly medical)
No level of radiation exposure is safe.

Better get your lead underwear on, then. You're exposed to radiation all
the time. Hmmm. cosmic-ray levels are quite high at 30k ft, so all
flying is out, better not go anywhere where there's granite (lots of
radium) or near any coal fired power station (1 part per million of
uranium in coal, lots of Radon emitted).

No place to hide, really, for you :-)

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

-Quite right. Why do you suppose there has always been people died of
-cancer?
-The more you get, the greater chance of getting cancer.

May I suggest that chemical mutagens in the environment - for example
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines which are produced
when cooking meat (or fish) - may have some small input. Historically
people have tended to die of infectious disease before cancers have had a
chance to get going. Personally I would rather take a chance of cancer at
70+ than TB at 35.

You say above "No level of radiation exposure is safe." If it would not be
too taxing I wonder if you could enlighten us all with the definition of
'safe' that you would like to use. I suspect that you are going to be
missing out on all of the acoutriments of modern (and most historic ones
too) life if you wish to insist on perfect safety - certainly you won't want
to use any form of transport or medicine.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 8 Aug, 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On 7 Aug, 19:23, Peter Scott wrote:
On 07/08/2010 16:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths
I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.
My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty)
at the WHO.
The WHO estimate is based upon the number of people who suffered from
thyroid cancer as a direct result of exposure to radiation. While all
but nine recovered, the probability is that the majority will have a
reduced life expectancy. However, the real point was that, even
including the highest number of deaths that anyone can come up with,
nuclear power still comes out as by far the safest form of energy.
Colin Bignell
In the latest New Scientist there's an article about the effect of
radiation on health. Well worth reading. In summary single large doses
are invariably bad for you. Slightly smaller doses spaced out to allow
the cells to recover (as in radio-therapy) need not be bad. Lower level
up to about 1000 times current 'safe levels' seem to do little or no
harm. Our cells have evolved with an ability to recover from background
and cosmic radiation. Once the initial high levels of radiation fell
away in Nagasaki the population actually turned out to have only
slightly higher levels of illness than similar cities elsewhere in Japan.

Peter Scott- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is complete ********. *Radiation exposure is cumulative. *The NS
is a political magazine representing entrenched interests in the USA.

Er No.

The NS has been consistently anti nuclear and greenie as long as I gave
uop reading it.

That was why I was surprised to see the article there.

Of course its written by someone else, who happens to be a professor of
nuclear something.

(Mainly medical)
No level of radiation exposure is safe.

Well then life is not safe, because there is a ****load of radiation all
around you naturally.

Its been a long time since we have had a Naive Believer on the group!
Welcome!

Do you think the Jews made the Holocaust up as well?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://www.marts100.com/radiation.htm#Q11
There you go. Shouting off your big mouth again on topics you have no
understanding of.

Re the Jews.
Of course the holocaust happened. The Jews learned from this and are
busy re-enacting it in Gaza as we speak.
What they have forgotten is that it will result in another Diaspora.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...Roma n_Empire

It is written..................

On 8 Aug, 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On 7 Aug, 20:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On 6 Aug, 12:18, Owain wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, Peter Scott *wrote:
You (well, one) can buy a black box type reactor. Comes sealed, on a
lorry, effectively with a couple of sockets to allow you take the power
out. Wish I could give a reference but remember it being announced two
or three years back on a reputable medium, probably radio 4, or possibly
New Scientist. When its 20 year life is up the supplier takes it away,
still sealed.
Problems may occur when counterfeit ones start arriving from China.
Lucky Golden Hedgehog Nucurear Power Plant Make All Glow With
Happiness.
Owain
There is no such device. Nor will there be.
There are, more or less, such devices. You or I cannot by one though.

It's pretty much what goes in a nuclear sub.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Afraid not. *The nuclear sub has the sea for cooling pirposes. Not
available to any "portable device".

Are you really as stupid as you seem, or its it just an act?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am a technocrat. Not a feeble minded old retard masquerading as an
oracle.

On 8 Aug, 12:12, geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes





On 7 Aug, 14:02, PeterC wrote:
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 01:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Matty F wrote:
On Aug 7, 4:54 am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

What it needs is for a few members of endangered or protected bird species
to get ****ted by the things.

We've got lots of endangered birds in NZ, like the Kiwi, Weka and Moa.
I think they are all quite safe from those nasty wind turbines

come Fall... - or crash and burn, as these fans do at times.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

I would interested to know where I can see a Moa.
You are what's known over here as a complete ******.

I'm starting to wonder if harry and dennis aren't one and the same

Harry - in a 40 mph zone, how fast do you drive ?

--
geoff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not Dennis, whoever he may be.
I drive at whatever speed seems safe to me under 40mph.
i have passed my advanced driving test.
I have no wish to become a voluntary taxpayer.
i have never had a speeding or parking ticket