http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Of course, I'm sure there are some who won't see beyond their own
prejudices.....


--
The Wanderer

The highest result of education is tolerance.

The Wanderer wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Of course, I'm sure there are some who won't see beyond their own
prejudices.....


the media is desperately trying to make the whole thing a Really Scary
Event.

And ignoring the really scary event: that not uncommon geological event
can cause a lot more havoc than all the global warming to date and give
rise to death tolls bigger than even the annual NHS infections and road
deaths combined.

And damage to property and business nearly as great as the Labour Party.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:35:00 +0100, The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Of course, I'm sure there are some who won't see beyond their own
prejudices.....

a user friendly?! comparison of does amounts and their effects from the
'amount sleeping next to someone' up to the fatal 4-8Sv range that a few
workers at chernobyl died from

http://xkcd.com/radiation/
--
(º€¢.¸(¨*€¢.¸ ¸.€¢*¨)¸.€¢Âº)
.€¢Â°€¢. Nik .€¢Â°€¢.
(¸.€¢Âº(¸.€¢Â¨* *¨€¢.¸)º€¢.¸)

In message , Ghostrecon
writes
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:35:00 +0100, The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Of course, I'm sure there are some who won't see beyond their own
prejudices.....

a user friendly?! comparison of does amounts and their effects from the
'amount sleeping next to someone' up to the fatal 4-8Sv range that a few
workers at chernobyl died from

http://xkcd.com/radiation/


Anyone else not actually posted that link?


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , Ghostrecon
writes
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:35:00 +0100, The Wanderer wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Of course, I'm sure there are some who won't see beyond their own
prejudices.....

a user friendly?! comparison of does amounts and their effects from the
'amount sleeping next to someone' up to the fatal 4-8Sv range that a few
workers at chernobyl died from

http://xkcd.com/radiation/


Anyone else not actually posted that link?


I certainly have

geoff wrote:
In message , Ghostrecon
writes

http://xkcd.com/radiation/


Anyone else not actually posted that link?


Me, d'you think I should?

It's so handy, I downloaded it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , John Williamson
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ghostrecon
writes

http://xkcd.com/radiation/
Anyone else not actually posted that link?

Me, d'you think I should?

Yeah, go on then ..


It's so handy, I downloaded it.

What, the whole link ?


--
geoff

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Of course, I'm sure there are some who won't see beyond their own
prejudices.....

I'm sorry but the comparison in the first line is ridiculous.

Almost no-one dies of the effects of radiation today, they all die next year
or the year after etc

(and dieing of radiation poisoning is reasonable avoidable, dieing from the
effect of an earthquake is not, unless we are going to leave half the globe
unpopulated)

And no, that comment wasn't governed by my prejudice

tim

tim.... wrote:
"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Of course, I'm sure there are some who won't see beyond their own
prejudices.....

I'm sorry but the comparison in the first line is ridiculous.

Almost no-one dies of the effects of radiation today,

They do if the dose is high enough.


they all die next year
or the year after etc


Who doesn't? Standards are set so that at the worst possible
interpretation of the data, you have less than one in 10,000 chance of
dying earlier from radiation than any other cause. Those are the
industry standards.


(and dieing of radiation poisoning is reasonable avoidable, dieing from the
effect of an earthquake is not, unless we are going to leave half the globe
unpopulated)

Actually, it wasn't the earthquake that got em, it was the tsunami.

Earthquakes are pretty survivable in buildings designed to take them.
Unless the ground literally cracks underneath, a bit of shaking is not
necessarily that destructive.

I suspect a lot of fluid dynamics labs will also now be examining
structures that may just be able to survive and mitigate large tsunamis
as well.



And no, that comment wasn't governed by my prejudice

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:
"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Of course, I'm sure there are some who won't see beyond their own
prejudices.....

I'm sorry but the comparison in the first line is ridiculous.

Almost no-one dies of the effects of radiation today,

They do if the dose is high enough.

I know.

they all die next year or the year after etc


Who doesn't? Standards are set so that at the worst possible
interpretation of the data, you have less than one in 10,000 chance of
dying earlier from radiation than any other cause. Those are the industry
standards.

What is the relevence of quoting "standards" when we don't YET know who has
been affected and how long they might be affected for?


(and dieing of radiation poisoning is reasonable avoidable, dieing from
the effect of an earthquake is not, unless we are going to leave half the
globe unpopulated)

Actually, it wasn't the earthquake that got em, it was the tsunami.

Which was why I said "effect of"


tim

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"tim...." wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:
"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

Of course, I'm sure there are some who won't see beyond their own
prejudices.....

I'm sorry but the comparison in the first line is ridiculous.

Almost no-one dies of the effects of radiation today,

They do if the dose is high enough.

I know.

they all die next year or the year after etc


Who doesn't? Standards are set so that at the worst possible
interpretation of the data, you have less than one in 10,000 chance of
dying earlier from radiation than any other cause. Those are the
industry standards.

What is the relevence of quoting "standards" when we don't YET know
who has been affected and how long they might be affected for?

If that's the case, why did you say "they all die next year or the year
after etc" ?

Cos it sounds SCARY!!!

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"tim...." wrote:

What is the relevence of quoting "standards" when we don't YET know
who has been affected and how long they might be affected for?
If that's the case, why did you say "they all die next year or the
year after etc" ?
Cos it sounds SCARY!!!

Then he's a dope. He can't say "they all die next year or the year after
etc" and then say " ... when we don't YET know ... how long they might
be affected for".

Well, he can I suppose but that just confirms him as a fathead.

Say No to Nuclar Power! Turn Off the Sun!

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

(and dieing of radiation poisoning is reasonable avoidable, dieing

It's 'dying'.