Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...k_3105131.html
-- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
Well yes that would be so, but the point is nobody trusts those who tell
them its OK as so often they have been proved wrong. One needs to have confidence in the outcome after all. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...k_3105131.html -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
Well what I mean is that ground water at the moment is being affected by
the melted down core. No say the authorities, there is just not enough radiation where the ground water is.. Well they would say that of course. You also have to remember that Japan has still very much to fear from radiation and some families are still blighted by what happened at the end of the wr. Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... In article , "Brian Gaff" wrote: Well yes that would be so, but the point is nobody trusts those who tell them its OK as so often they have been proved wrong. When's that then - that they have been proved wrong, I mean? And about what? -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689 |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/13 05:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well what I mean is that ground water at the moment is being affected by the melted down core. No say the authorities, there is just not enough radiation where the ground water is.. which is essentially correct. Well they would say that of course. You also have to remember that Japan has still very much to fear from radiation and some families are still blighted by what happened at the end of the wr. Odd that outside France, Japan is the most 'nuclear' electricity industry in the world IIRC. And the post Hirsohima and Nagasaki figures are also a nail in the coffin of 'long term low level radiation gives you cancer' If you want to believe that there is some vast global conspiracy to conceal deaths from radiation, be my guest. There is FAR more evidence for a vast global conspiracy to demonise nuclear power... Brian -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On May 31, 10:46*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi... -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.Ads not by this site If that were so why is the area still depopulated? Just the nuclear industry propaganda trying to cover it's arse and retrieve the situation. http://news.malaysia.msn.com/regiona...ns-fukushima-1 |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/13 06:44, harry wrote:
On May 31, 10:46 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi... -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.Ads not by this site If that were so why is the area still depopulated? because the authorities pander to people like you harry. Just the nuclear industry propaganda trying to cover it's arse and retrieve the situation. http://news.malaysia.msn.com/regiona...ns-fukushima-1 More ;lefty ********. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 31/05/2013 10:46 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...k_3105131.html +1 And so it should be brought to the public. It was the same with Chernobyl. It was concluded that life around the exploded plant was actually thriving. That, the only evidence of casualties of fallout was a small increase in Thyroid cancer victims. Nuclear power is cheaper and cleaner. However, there are those who do not want cheap. Therefore, the information you receive will be negative. -- One click voting to change the world. https://secure.avaaz.org/en/ Join Now! Be a part of people power. http://www.theregister.co.uk/ Biting the hand that feeds IT |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 02/06/2013 16:17, RayL12 wrote:
.... And so it should be brought to the public. It was the same with Chernobyl. It was concluded that life around the exploded plant was actually thriving. That, the only evidence of casualties of fallout was a small increase in Thyroid cancer victims. .... One report pointed out that those appeared sooner than would normally be expected from radiation exposure and postulated that part, possibly a significant part, of the apparent increase might be due to increased surveillance and detection. Colin Bignell |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 02/06/13 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/06/2013 16:17, RayL12 wrote: ... And so it should be brought to the public. It was the same with Chernobyl. It was concluded that life around the exploded plant was actually thriving. That, the only evidence of casualties of fallout was a small increase in Thyroid cancer victims. ... One report pointed out that those appeared sooner than would normally be expected from radiation exposure and postulated that part, possibly a significant part, of the apparent increase might be due to increased surveillance and detection. Colin Bignell I think thyroid cancer due to I-131 is almost instant in disease terms. There is no real doubt that the massive doses of I 131 did cause a lot of thyroid cancers, which equally could have been prevented by issuing iodine pills as was done instantly at Fukushima. I 131 is gone in days, or at most weeks. That, plus radon for natural sources, remains about the only two routes where the data supports cancer-from-radiation apart from medical uses: radiotherapy ihas been statistically linked to secondary cancers up to 20 years later. And of course heavy chronic doses in industry as in the girls who used to lick the radium tipped paintbrushes when painting luminous dials etc.. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 02/06/2013 21:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/06/13 18:43, Nightjar wrote: On 02/06/2013 16:17, RayL12 wrote: ... And so it should be brought to the public. It was the same with Chernobyl. It was concluded that life around the exploded plant was actually thriving. That, the only evidence of casualties of fallout was a small increase in Thyroid cancer victims. ... One report pointed out that those appeared sooner than would normally be expected from radiation exposure and postulated that part, possibly a significant part, of the apparent increase might be due to increased surveillance and detection. Colin Bignell I think thyroid cancer due to I-131 is almost instant in disease terms. It still takes time for the cancer to grow to a detectable size. Presumably the point was that some of the cancers detected were more advanced than they should have been had they been due to the Chernobyl accident. Exposure to radioactive iodine is not the only cause of thyroid cancer. In the UK the a lifetime risk of developing thyroid cancer is 1.7 per 100,000 population for males and 4.7 per 100,000 for females. There is no real doubt that the massive doses of I 131 did cause a lot of thyroid cancers, which equally could have been prevented by issuing iodine pills as was done instantly at Fukushima. Indeed. Colin Bignell |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...kushima_radiat ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 31/05/13 23:32, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...kushima_radiat ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. Of course if you start from bigotry, everything proves the case. No one died after Chernobyl? Obviously its being covered up... -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On Jun 1, 3:30*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: On 31/05/13 23:32, Farmer Giles wrote: On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi.... ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. Of course if you start from bigotry, everything proves the case. No one died after Chernobyl? Obviously its being covered up... You are a lying toad TurNiP' Full of ****. Are you in the pay of someone? Thirty one people died shorty after the disaster and many more will die. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects As usual the disaster was not reported it was covered up. Evacuation did not start until 36 hours after the disaster. (Ha Ha As if they thought they could deny it! But it was the instinctive response of the nuclear industry. Denial), It was detected in Sweden first, they thought they had a leak in their own reactors |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 07:04, harry wrote:
.... As usual the disaster was not reported it was covered up. Evacuation did not start until 36 hours after the disaster. (Ha Ha As if they thought they could deny it! But it was the instinctive response of the nuclear industry. Denial),... It was the instinctive response of people who had grown up under Stalin. Even under Gorbachov, both the Chief Engineer and the Plant Director were sentenced to labour camps. Colin Bignell |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/13 07:04, harry wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:30 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 31/05/13 23:32, Farmer Giles wrote: On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi... ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. Of course if you start from bigotry, everything proves the case. No one died after Chernobyl? Obviously its being covered up... You are a lying toad TurNiP' Full of ****. Are you in the pay of someone? Thirty one people died shorty after the disaster and many more will die. 78 people have died. Thatsit. over 100,000 were preduicted/. http: The same people who write global warmning ****e in wiki write anti nuclear ****e. Show me the hundred thousand corpses harry. The final chernobyl death toll is 78 confirmed deaths from radiation. Mostly firefighters. The AVERAGE radiation level in Pripyat is similar to Dartmoor. As usual the disaster was not reported it was covered up. oh harry can i sell you a tinfoil hat? Even the russians cant cover up 100,000 + deaths spread out across NW Europe. Evacuation did not start until 36 hours after the disaster. (Ha Ha As if they thought they could deny it! But it was the instinctive response of the nuclear industry. Denial), It was detected in Sweden first, they thought they had a leak in their own reactors And that's why 3000 non fatal thyroid cancers were caused. No iodine pills and no temporary evacuation. However I-131 is gone in weeks. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On Saturday, June 1, 2013 12:42:17 PM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And that's why 3000 non fatal thyroid cancers were caused. No iodine pills and no temporary evacuation. However I-131 is gone in weeks. Interestingly they dished out Iodine pills in Romania. My wife (Romanian) remembers it. Robert |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 12:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/06/13 07:04, harry wrote: On Jun 1, 3:30 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 31/05/13 23:32, Farmer Giles wrote: On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi... ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. Of course if you start from bigotry, everything proves the case. No one died after Chernobyl? Obviously its being covered up... You are a lying toad TurNiP' Full of ****. Are you in the pay of someone? Thirty one people died shorty after the disaster and many more will die. 78 people have died. Thatsit. over 100,000 were preduicted/. http: The same people who write global warmning ****e in wiki write anti nuclear ****e. Show me the hundred thousand corpses harry. The final chernobyl death toll is 78 confirmed deaths from radiation. Mostly firefighters. The AVERAGE radiation level in Pripyat is similar to Dartmoor. As usual the disaster was not reported it was covered up. oh harry can i sell you a tinfoil hat? Even the russians cant cover up 100,000 + deaths spread out across NW Europe. Evacuation did not start until 36 hours after the disaster. (Ha Ha As if they thought they could deny it! But it was the instinctive response of the nuclear industry. Denial), It was detected in Sweden first, they thought they had a leak in their own reactors And that's why 3000 non fatal thyroid cancers were caused. No iodine pills and no temporary evacuation. However I-131 is gone in weeks. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2013;2013:965212. doi: 10.1155/2013/965212. Epub 2013 May 7. Worldwide increasing incidence of thyroid cancer: update on epidemiology and risk factors. Pellegriti G, Frasca F, Regalbuto C, Squatrito S, Vigneri R. Endocrinology, Garibaldi-Nesima Hospital, Via Palermo, 636, 95122 Catania, Italy. Abstract Background. In the last decades, thyroid cancer incidence has continuously and sharply increased all over the world. This review analyzes the possible reasons of this increase. Summary. Many experts believe that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer is apparent, because of the increased detection of small cancers in the preclinical stage. However, a true increase is also possible, as suggested by the observation that large tumors have also increased and gender differences and birth cohort effects are present. Moreover, thyroid cancer mortality, in spite of earlier diagnosis and better treatment, has not decreased but is rather increasing. Therefore, some environmental carcinogens in the industrialized lifestyle may have specifically affected the thyroid. Among potential carcinogens, the increased exposure to medical radiations is the most likely risk factor. Other factors specific for the thyroid like increased iodine intake and increased prevalence of chronic autoimmune thyroiditis cannot be excluded, while other factors like the increasing prevalence of obesity are not specific for the thyroid. Conclusions. The increased incidence of thyroid cancer is most likely due to a combination of an apparent increase due to more sensitive diagnostic procedures and of a true increase, a possible consequence of increased population exposure to radiation and to other still unrecognized carcinogens. PMID: 23737785 So "they" still cannot ascribe increases to general radiation with any certainty. And other sources of electricity might actually being more dangerous. -- Rod |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On May 31, 11:40*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , *Farmer Giles wrote: On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi.... iat ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors (and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years. The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem. But it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors. What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits. -- Tim If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done? Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a clue what to do with all this waste. As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted. As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more. |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harry wrote: On May 31, 11:40 pm, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Farmer Giles wrote: On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi... iat ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors (and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years. The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem. But it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors. What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits. If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done? What part of "This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years" is hard for you to understand? Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a clue what to do with all this waste. As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted. What part of "The waste from bomb production is another matter" is hard for you to understand? As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more. No there haven't. Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I thought possible. Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy passed on to future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition, then I happily plead guilty. However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as demonstrated by you here - gives a much better indication of the inability to reason logically and sensibly. |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/13 16:59, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote: In article , harry wrote: On May 31, 11:40 pm, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Farmer Giles wrote: On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi... iat ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors (and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years. The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem. But it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors. What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits. If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done? What part of "This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years" is hard for you to understand? Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a clue what to do with all this waste. As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted. What part of "The waste from bomb production is another matter" is hard for you to understand? As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more. No there haven't. Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I thought possible. Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy what toxic legacy? passed on to future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition, then I happily plead guilty. However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as demonstrated by you here - gives a much better indication of the inability to reason logically and sensibly. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 4:59 PM, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote: In article , harry wrote: On May 31, 11:40 pm, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Farmer Giles wrote: On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi... iat ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors (and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years. The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem. But it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors. What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits. If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done? What part of "This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years" is hard for you to understand? Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a clue what to do with all this waste. As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted. What part of "The waste from bomb production is another matter" is hard for you to understand? As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more. No there haven't. Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I thought possible. Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy passed on to future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition, then I happily plead guilty. However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as demonstrated by you here - gives a much better indication of the inability to reason logically and sensibly. +1 Agreed, I stopped name calling a long while back. -- One click voting to change the world. https://secure.avaaz.org/en/ Join Now! Be a part of people power. http://www.theregister.co.uk/ Biting the hand that feeds IT |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 17:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Farmer Giles wrote: On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote: Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I thought possible. Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy passed on to future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition, then I happily plead guilty. What toxic legacy is that then? 1) Waste from power reactors. I've already pointed out a number of times how that is being handled TODAY and has been so for the last 20 years. The result of that process can safely be stored underground without leakage. I fail to see how you can describe it as "toxic". Unless you're in the habit of eating glass, perhaps. What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above - which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere, however unlikely it may appear from past history), terrorist attacks, etc? These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to detoxify them. Why are you so happy to see this problem handed down to your children and grandchildren? 2) Waste from the bomb program of, presumably, the 50s and 60s or so. This is a more serious problem which can probably only be handled by spending money. The spending of this money will happen WHETHER OR NOT we build new power reactors. However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as demonstrated by you here - gives a much better indication of the inability to reason logically and sensibly. You'll get what you deserve. As in disagreeing with you. |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
.... What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above - which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere, however unlikely it may appear from past history), Fukushima was hit by an earthquake that was many times more powerful than it was designed for and suffered no damage from the earthquake itself. That earthquake was about 30,000 times more severe than Britain's most powerful recorded earthquake, which knocked the head off a waxwork in Madam Tussauds. terrorist attacks, etc? If those are going to bother you, you may as well go and live in a deep cave in the middle of nowhere. These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to detoxify them. We have known how to do that for more than half a century. Storing them is cheaper. Colin Bignell |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/13 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 17:36, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Farmer Giles wrote: On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote: Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I thought possible. Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy passed on to future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition, then I happily plead guilty. What toxic legacy is that then? 1) Waste from power reactors. I've already pointed out a number of times how that is being handled TODAY and has been so for the last 20 years. The result of that process can safely be stored underground without leakage. I fail to see how you can describe it as "toxic". Unless you're in the habit of eating glass, perhaps. What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above - which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere, however unlikely it may appear from past history), terrorist attacks, etc? These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how to detoxify them. Why are you so happy to see this problem handed down to your children and grandchildren? shows how very little you understand about radioactivity. What about - lets say - the mercury used in eco lightbulbs. That will have to be stored forever. It never decays. 2) Waste from the bomb program of, presumably, the 50s and 60s or so. This is a more serious problem which can probably only be handled by spending money. The spending of this money will happen WHETHER OR NOT we build new power reactors. However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as demonstrated by you here - gives a much better indication of the inability to reason logically and sensibly. You'll get what you deserve. As in disagreeing with you. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 11:16 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harry wrote: On May 31, 11:40 pm, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Farmer Giles wrote: On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi... iat ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors (and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years. The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem. But it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors. What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits. If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done? What part of "This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years" is hard for you to understand? Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a clue what to do with all this waste. As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted. What part of "The waste from bomb production is another matter" is hard for you to understand? As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more. No there haven't. Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than even I thought possible. Not necessarily thick, ..misinformed. Everything is big business and anything that may provide a cheaper means of achieving something is quickly stifled by 'Them'. 'They' that control the puppets that are the government want you dead in the head and, they want your money. Mass emissions may well be dangerous but, like many explosions, once over, are less so. In ignorance, what to do with the populace is the concern? To know the truth, let those who want to, move back into the areas of concern. Then we will know. After all, many nice things grow in ****. -- One click voting to change the world. https://secure.avaaz.org/en/ Join Now! Be a part of people power. http://www.theregister.co.uk/ Biting the hand that feeds IT |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 31/05/2013 23:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Farmer Giles wrote: On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS..._Fukushima_rad iat ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors (and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years. The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem. But it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors. What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits. Yep, just as I thought, more lies. If it's all so simple perhaps you could advise Sellafield, they seem to be having a spot of bother. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117# |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/13 08:07, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 31/05/2013 23:40, Tim Streater wrote: In article , Farmer Giles wrote: On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS..._Fukushima_rad iat ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their ability to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've solved the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear waste. Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no problem. You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's reactors (and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years. The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem. But it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors. What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits. Yep, just as I thought, more lies. If it's all so simple perhaps you could advise Sellafield, they seem to be having a spot of bother. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117# 1/. That is a legacy from the bomb era. 2/. That is the BBC, chief organ of the "we love windmills/hate nuclear" lobby. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 08:07:45 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:
If it's all so simple perhaps you could advise Sellafield, they seem to be having a spot of bother. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117# The problem at Sellafield is mainly of the making of succesive governments giving into the fing greenie lobby and not getting on with the hard decisions that need to made as consequence of previous governmental decisions, like making material for bombs. On the repository, they went about that arse about face find some where that may host it and hope they could find the correct geology there. Rather than look for the geology, then build it. The goverment seem quite happy to bash HS2 through the countryside... -- Cheers Dave. |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01.06.2013 00:40, Tim Streater wrote:
What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits. Those who want to know more about radiation should buy this book: http://www.radiationandreason.com/index.php?faq Why is radiation not dangerous at low doses? Biology is very clever. Through evolution it has learnt to repair and clean up after a low dose of radiation, using the same mechanisms that protect against chemical damage to cells. This is known from laboratory studies. -- jo "We should never so entirely avoid danger as to appear irresolute and cowardly. But, at the same time, we should avoid unnecessarily exposing ourselves to danger, than which nothing can be more foolish. [Cicero]" |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 15:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:18:04 +0200, Jo Stein wrote: On 01.06.2013 00:40, Tim Streater wrote: What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits. Those who want to know more about radiation should buy this book: http://www.radiationandreason.com/index.php?faq Why is radiation not dangerous at low doses? Biology is very clever. Through evolution it has learnt to repair and clean up after a low dose of radiation, using the same mechanisms that protect against chemical damage to cells. This is known from laboratory studies. +1 Wade Allison makes a very credible, science based argument for re-assessing the current safety levels for human radiation exposure. These were set decades ago, when little was known about the effects of exposure to low levels of radiation, and the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model was assumed, to be on the safe side. The evidence against the LNT model is now substantial, with plenty of examples proving that the human body is quite capable of tolerating and repairing any damage done by radiation doses about a thousand times higher than the current safety limits. See also http://www.radiationandreason.com/ Get a copy and read it, Harry! (I bet you won't). And as I have pointed out before, lower doses might be worse than slightly higher ones. This has been one of the lessons of radio-active iodine ablation of thyroid glands. Never as simple as it first seems. -- Rod |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01.06.2013 17:29, polygonum wrote:
And as I have pointed out before, lower doses might be worse than slightly higher ones. This has been one of the lessons of radio-active iodine ablation of thyroid glands. Never as simple as it first seems. It is very simple. A dose of 7 sievert during 30 days will kill 50% of rats. A dose of 8 sievert will kill all the rats. When the dose is 3.5 sievert more than 99% of the rats are still alive. Some people study theology. They get a job as a priest with salary from the government. If the priest one day discover that there is no God, he may have a problem. I think he solves the problem by continuing his job as a priest. Some people study environmental physics. They get a job in a radiation protection agency with their salary paid by the government. One day they discover that the LNT theory is wrong. I think they continue their job and do not talk loud about their new discovery. -- jo "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 17:09, Jo Stein wrote:
On 01.06.2013 17:29, polygonum wrote: And as I have pointed out before, lower doses might be worse than slightly higher ones. This has been one of the lessons of radio-active iodine ablation of thyroid glands. Never as simple as it first seems. It is very simple. A dose of 7 sievert during 30 days will kill 50% of rats. A dose of 8 sievert will kill all the rats. When the dose is 3.5 sievert more than 99% of the rats are still alive. Some people study theology. They get a job as a priest with salary from the government. If the priest one day discover that there is no God, he may have a problem. I think he solves the problem by continuing his job as a priest. Some people study environmental physics. They get a job in a radiation protection agency with their salary paid by the government. One day they discover that the LNT theory is wrong. I think they continue their job and do not talk loud about their new discovery. It is not so very simple. In the case of RAI attempts to reduce the dose to the absolute minimum have been associated with increased harm to the patients. "Properly administered, radioactive iodine remains an ideal form of treatment for Graves disease in the pediatric population. Because of the increased risk of thyroid cancer associated with low-dose thyroid irradiation in children, larger, rather than smaller, doses of 131I should be given." http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/3/797.long -- Rod |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 5:09 PM, Jo Stein wrote:
On 01.06.2013 17:29, polygonum wrote: And as I have pointed out before, lower doses might be worse than slightly higher ones. This has been one of the lessons of radio-active iodine ablation of thyroid glands. Never as simple as it first seems. It is very simple. A dose of 7 sievert during 30 days will kill 50% of rats. A dose of 8 sievert will kill all the rats. When the dose is 3.5 sievert more than 99% of the rats are still alive. Some people study theology. They get a job as a priest with salary from the government. If the priest one day discover that there is no God, he may have a problem. I think he solves the problem by continuing his job as a priest. Some people study environmental physics. They get a job in a radiation protection agency with their salary paid by the government. One day they discover that the LNT theory is wrong. I think they continue their job and do not talk loud about their new discovery. +1 -- One click voting to change the world. https://secure.avaaz.org/en/ Join Now! Be a part of people power. http://www.theregister.co.uk/ Biting the hand that feeds IT |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all.
Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...kushima_radiat ion_risk_3105131.html And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben there with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch" because she floated when they dunked her. -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689 |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote:
But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all. Brian What potential danger would that be then? You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic because you discover its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions zone? -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On Jun 1, 3:32*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote: But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all. * Brian What potential danger would that be then? You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic because you discover *its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions zone? The predicted number of people to die is 4000 due to the Chernobyl disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...l_Forum_report |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
In article
..com, harry scribeth thus On Jun 1, 3:32*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote: But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all. * Brian What potential danger would that be then? You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic because you discover *its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions zone? The predicted number of people to die is 4000 due to the Chernobyl disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...l_Forum_report I expect thats less than what the death rate is on Russia's roads for a week!;!. Nothing quite like Ivan with a drop of pop toi warm him up;!(.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C_yVh-OqYw -- Tony Sayer |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/2013 07:26, harry wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:32 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote: But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all. Brian What potential danger would that be then? You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic because you discover its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions zone? The predicted number of people to die is 4000 due to the Chernobyl disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...l_Forum_report It is predicted that *up to* 4000 people will die or suffer early deaths as a result of the radiation. However: Known deaths that can be directly attributed to radiation are 47 emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome and 9 children who died of thyroid cancer. The latter could have been avoided had the Soviet authorities admitted to the accident sooner and distributed iodine tablets immediately. There has been no statistically significant change in the number of cancer deaths in the area to support the estimate. The estimate is based upon the linear no-threshold model, which is always used because it gives the worst possible case. However; The French Academy of Science report in 2005 states: 'In conclusion, this report raises doubts on the validity of using LNT for evaluating the carcinogenic risk of low doses ( 100 mSv) and even more for very low doses ( 10 mSv)' The Health Physics Society's position stated in 1996 and restated in 2010 is: 'In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem (50 mSv) in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem (100 mSv) above that received from natural sources.' The American Nuclear Society states: 'There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high dose. Below 10 rem or 100 mSv (which includes occupational and environmental exposures) risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent.' Taking 100mSv as the threshold will approximately halve the number in the estimate, as it will only leave the 2,200 early deaths that might occur among the liquidators, who are estimated to have received doses averaging around 165mSv. Even those are far from certain. Note that 'early death' includes a fairly high proportion who are statistically likely to lose a few months off their lives, rather than years. The same WHO report also found that 'Poverty, “lifestyle” diseases now rampant in the former Soviet Union and mental health problems pose a far greater threat to local communities than does radiation exposure.' and 'Persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation have resulted in “paralyzing fatalism” among residents of affected areas.' In other words, the fear of radiation is far worse than the radiation itself. Even including 4,000 deaths from Chernobyl, a one off event that was due to a design flaw that will never be repeated, nuclear energy is still the safest form of energy generation by far. Colin Bignell |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation...
On 01/06/13 11:58, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar wrote: On 01/06/2013 07:26, harry wrote: On Jun 1, 3:32 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote: But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all. What potential danger would that be then? You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic because you discover its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions zone? The predicted number of people to die is 4000 due to the Chernobyl disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...byl_Forum_repo rt It is predicted that *up to* 4000 people will die or suffer early deaths as a result of the radiation. However: [snip analysis] In short, harry cherry-picks a quote without having a ****ing clue what he's talking about. Standard tactics of bigots. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Official. Fear of radiation kills more people than radiation | UK diy | |||
OT Radiation | UK diy | |||
Microwave radiation - thanks! | Electronics Repair | |||
Microwave radiation | Electronics Repair |