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
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
|
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
"harry" wrote in message ... http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-f...m_campaign=rss It isn't a wildlife haven because it's a built up area, stupid. Plenty of wildlife around Chernobyl. |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Yes I heard from a person who has been on the tour that there are indeed
lots of animals there. However it kind of makes you wonder if they survive and then move to other areas, do they take the radioactivity with them in their dung? Incidentally why do these sort of events nearly always happen in places which are hard to spell or pronounce? Brian -- ----- - This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please! "Rod Speed" wrote in message ... "harry" wrote in message ... http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-f...m_campaign=rss It isn't a wildlife haven because it's a built up area, stupid. Plenty of wildlife around Chernobyl. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Brian Gaff wrote
Yes I heard from a person who has been on the tour that there are indeed lots of animals there. However it kind of makes you wonder if they survive They do, the death rate of animals hasn’t changed. and then move to other areas, do they take the radioactivity with them in their dung? Not enough to matter. Incidentally why do these sort of events nearly always happen in places which are hard to spell or pronounce? That's because its those foreigners that **** up most of the time. But then they did at 3 mile island too. Just foreigners that don’t spell quite so badly. "Rod Speed" wrote in message ... "harry" wrote in message ... http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-f...m_campaign=rss It isn't a wildlife haven because it's a built up area, stupid. Plenty of wildlife around Chernobyl. |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On 11/03/2016 09:27, Rod Speed wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote Yes I heard from a person who has been on the tour that there are indeed lots of animals there. However it kind of makes you wonder if they survive They do, the death rate of animals hasn’t changed. I bet you actually have a reliable source to prove that? |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
GB wrote
Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff wrote Yes I heard from a person who has been on the tour that there are indeed lots of animals there. However it kind of makes you wonder if they survive They do, the death rate of animals hasn’t changed. I bet you actually have a reliable source to prove that? Yes, someone did do a proper survey. shouldn’t be hard to find. |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On 11/03/2016 23:02, Rod Speed wrote:
GB wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff wrote Yes I heard from a person who has been on the tour that there are indeed lots of animals there. However it kind of makes you wonder if they survive They do, the death rate of animals hasn’t changed. I bet you actually have a reliable source to prove that? Yes, someone did do a proper survey. shouldn’t be hard to find. Off you go, then. |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On 12/03/16 14:24, GB wrote:
On 11/03/2016 23:02, Rod Speed wrote: GB wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff wrote Yes I heard from a person who has been on the tour that there are indeed lots of animals there. However it kind of makes you wonder if they survive They do, the death rate of animals hasnt changed. I bet you actually have a reliable source to prove that? Yes, someone did do a proper survey. shouldnt be hard to find. Off you go, then. Anti Nuclear Lazy**** http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE...y-6101501.html -- To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On 12/03/2016 15:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/16 14:24, GB wrote: On 11/03/2016 23:02, Rod Speed wrote: GB wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff wrote Yes I heard from a person who has been on the tour that there are indeed lots of animals there. However it kind of makes you wonder if they survive They do, the death rate of animals hasnt changed. I bet you actually have a reliable source to prove that? Yes, someone did do a proper survey. shouldnt be hard to find. Off you go, then. Anti Nuclear Lazy**** No, I'm none of those. The link in the OP says: "Wildlife havens? Since the disasters, both sites have been devoid of human activity. Images of these ghost towns slowly being taken over by nature has led to many reports of the idea they have become wildlife havens. And indeed, research in Chernobyl has shown some select populations are rebounding in terms of their numbers. But the absence of people does not make up for the radiation and its effect on wildlife. Mousseau explained: "We realise - even more starkly - the impact of human disturbance on natural populations when it seems like even following a nuclear disaster, some of the populations have rebounded and are doing better in the absence of humans. But the problem with some of that kind of coverage is that it ignores the bigger pictures and it obscures the more important question of the impacts on these populations." http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE...y-6101501.html This starts off by saying: "Several previous studies of the Chernobyl exclusion zone indicated major radiation effects and pronounced reductions in wildlife populations at dose rates well below those thought to cause significant impacts. In contrast, our long-term empirical data showed no evidence of a negative influence of radiation on mammal abundance," So, the evidence is mixed, to say the least. |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On 12/03/16 15:49, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2016 15:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 12/03/16 14:24, GB wrote: On 11/03/2016 23:02, Rod Speed wrote: GB wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff wrote Yes I heard from a person who has been on the tour that there are indeed lots of animals there. However it kind of makes you wonder if they survive They do, the death rate of animals hasnt changed. I bet you actually have a reliable source to prove that? Yes, someone did do a proper survey. shouldnt be hard to find. Off you go, then. Anti Nuclear Lazy**** No, I'm none of those. The link in the OP says: "Wildlife havens? Since the disasters, both sites have been devoid of human activity. Images of these ghost towns slowly being taken over by nature has led to many reports of the idea they have become wildlife havens. And indeed, research in Chernobyl has shown some select populations are rebounding in terms of their numbers. But the absence of people does not make up for the radiation and its effect on wildlife. Mousseau explained: "We realise - even more starkly - the impact of human disturbance on natural populations when it seems like even following a nuclear disaster, some of the populations have rebounded and are doing better in the absence of humans. But the problem with some of that kind of coverage is that it ignores the bigger pictures and it obscures the more important question of the impacts on these populations." http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE...y-6101501.html This starts off by saying: "Several previous studies of the Chernobyl exclusion zone indicated major radiation effects and pronounced reductions in wildlife populations at dose rates well below those thought to cause significant impacts. In contrast, our long-term empirical data showed no evidence of a negative influence of radiation on mammal abundance," So, the evidence is mixed, to say the least. No. the evidence is clear, especially when you look at who conducted those early surveys that oh so conveniently coincided with their prejudice and bigotry. -- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? Josef Stalin |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
"GB" wrote in message ... http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE...y-6101501.html So, the evidence is mixed, to say the least. Indeed. quote Illegal activities The poaching of game, illegal logging, and metal salvage have been problems within the zone. [27] Despite police control, intruders started infiltrating the perimeter to remove potentially contaminated materials, from televisions to toilet seats, especially in Pripyat, /quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone So that basically while the fencing around the exclusion zone can't keep out pikeys lugging TV sets, it can nevertheless keep out foxes, wolves, wild boar and presumably mice etc. Very convincing I must say. Basically if all these wild boars etc. from outside have been digging under the fence to get at all the acorns etc. on the inside, whether radioactive or not, then the only real test would be to shoot one, butcher it, and run a Geiger counter over the rashers. All else is pure speculation, IMO. michael adams .... |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
GB wrote
Rod Speed wrote GB wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff wrote Yes I heard from a person who has been on the tour that there are indeed lots of animals there. However it kind of makes you wonder if they survive They do, the death rate of animals hasn’t changed. I bet you actually have a reliable source to prove that? Yes, someone did do a proper survey. shouldn’t be hard to find. Off you go, then. You're the one that wants to see it, you get to do that. |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
"GB" wrote in message ... On 12/03/2016 15:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 12/03/16 14:24, GB wrote: On 11/03/2016 23:02, Rod Speed wrote: GB wrote Rod Speed wrote Brian Gaff wrote Yes I heard from a person who has been on the tour that there are indeed lots of animals there. However it kind of makes you wonder if they survive They do, the death rate of animals hasnt changed. I bet you actually have a reliable source to prove that? Yes, someone did do a proper survey. shouldnt be hard to find. Off you go, then. Anti Nuclear Lazy**** No, I'm none of those. You clearly were that time, too lazy to check that yourself, only interested in demanding someone else do what you can easily do yourself. The link in the OP says: "Wildlife havens? Irrelevant. If the wildlife are doing fine in the much bigger area then just wildlife havens, they will clearly do fine in the wildlife havens too given those are a proper subset. Since the disasters, both sites have been devoid of human activity. Images of these ghost towns slowly being taken over by nature has led to many reports of the idea they have become wildlife havens. That is one way of describing how things have ended up. And indeed, research in Chernobyl has shown some select populations are rebounding in terms of their numbers. Not just 'some select populations', the evidence shows that all of the animals are doing fine there. But the absence of people does not make up for the radiation and its effect on wildlife. Mousseau explained: "We realise - even more starkly - the impact of human disturbance on natural populations when it seems like even following a nuclear disaster, some of the populations have rebounded and are doing better in the absence of humans. But the problem with some of that kind of coverage is that it ignores the bigger pictures and it obscures the more important question of the impacts on these populations." Irrelevant to whether the radiation levels there have had any deleterious effects on any of the animals there. They haven't. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE...y-6101501.html This starts off by saying: "Several previous studies of the Chernobyl exclusion zone indicated major radiation effects and pronounced reductions in wildlife populations at dose rates well below those thought to cause significant impacts. In contrast, our long-term empirical data showed no evidence of a negative influence of radiation on mammal abundance," So, the evidence is mixed, to say the least. Or there were at most some short term effects. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
"Tim Streater" wrote in message .. . In article , michael adams wrote: Basically if all these wild boars etc. from outside have been digging under the fence to get at all the acorns etc. on the inside, whether radioactive or not, then the only real test would be to shoot one, butcher it, and run a Geiger counter over the rashers. Like it, like it. Er, mine's streaky please. Not enough fat on the back. Fair enough. To save using the geiger counter on the rashers, maybe you could be supplied with free bacon for a year instead. And then the geiger counter could be used on you. michael adams .... |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On 12/03/2016 19:13, Rod Speed wrote:
Off you go, then. Anti Nuclear Lazy**** No, I'm none of those. You clearly were that time, too lazy to check that yourself, only interested in demanding someone else do what you can easily do yourself. You were the one contradicting the OP. It's just normal common sense that you should back that up in some way. You apparently don't think so. |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
GB wrote
Rod Speed wrote Off you go, then. Anti Nuclear Lazy**** No, I'm none of those. You clearly were that time, too lazy to check that yourself, only interested in demanding someone else do what you can easily do yourself. You were the one contradicting the OP. I didnt contradict anyone. Brian wondered about that and I provided the facts on what has happened with the animals there, the death rate of the wild animals there hasnt changed due to Chernobyl. They have in fact thrived because there is much less predation by humans there now. It's just normal common sense that you should back that up in some way. Not when it is so easy to check what I said if you doubt that. You apparently don't think so. I know so. Even you dont bother to back up a statement about which major party won the most recent British election, because it is so easy for anyone to check that if they doubt it. |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
"Tim Streater" wrote in message .. . In article , michael adams wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... In article , michael adams wrote: Basically if all these wild boars etc. from outside have been digging under the fence to get at all the acorns etc. on the inside, whether radioactive or not, then the only real test would be to shoot one, butcher it, and run a Geiger counter over the rashers. Like it, like it. Er, mine's streaky please. Not enough fat on the back. Fair enough. To save using the geiger counter on the rashers, maybe you could be supplied with free bacon for a year instead. And then the geiger counter could be used on you. Film badges, changed annually. That's what we had at SLAC. Bit of a sneaky one there. Providing this was issued at the end of your first year, after you'd eaten your first year's supply of rashers, then that would be no problem. As if you've really got the courage of your convictions, then there'd clearly be no need for you to monitor your condition right from day one, now would there ? michael adams .... |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On 12/03/2016 23:30, Rod Speed wrote:
GB wrote Rod Speed wrote Off you go, then. Anti Nuclear Lazy**** No, I'm none of those. You clearly were that time, too lazy to check that yourself, only interested in demanding someone else do what you can easily do yourself. You were the one contradicting the OP. I didnt contradict anyone. Brian wondered about that and I provided the facts on what has happened with the animals there, the death rate of the wild animals there hasnt changed due to Chernobyl. They have in fact thrived because there is much less predation by humans there now. It's just normal common sense that you should back that up in some way. Not when it is so easy to check what I said if you doubt that. You apparently don't think so. I know so. Even you dont bother to back up a statement about which major party won the most recent British election, because it is so easy for anyone to check that if they doubt it. |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On 12/03/2016 23:30, Rod Speed wrote:
I didnt contradict anyone. Brian wondered about that and I provided the facts on what has happened with the animals there, the death rate of the wild animals there hasnt changed due to Chernobyl. They have in fact thrived because there is much less predation by humans there now. There seems to have been a significant effect on fertility from the radiation, according to some of the sources cited. However, as you say, there are other factors in play that influence overall animal population levels there. I don't think you can conclude from thriving populations that radiation is completely harmless. The animals could be dropping like flies, but reproduction may be fast enough to fill in the gaps as fast as the animals die. |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On 13/03/16 14:26, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2016 23:30, Rod Speed wrote: I didnt contradict anyone. Brian wondered about that and I provided the facts on what has happened with the animals there, the death rate of the wild animals there hasnt changed due to Chernobyl. They have in fact thrived because there is much less predation by humans there now. There seems to have been a significant effect on fertility from the radiation, according to some of the sources cited. However, as you say, there are other factors in play that influence overall animal population levels there. I don't think you can conclude from thriving populations that radiation is completely harmless. The animals could be dropping like flies, but reproduction may be fast enough to fill in the gaps as fast as the animals die. Don't be silly. No one claims either that radiation is completely harmless (in all cases) or that animals are dropping like flies. The evidence from those life forms that didn't leave (humans included) is that below a fairly high threshold, radiation effects are un measurable. Which is borne out by cell experiments and most of the data from other chronic low level exposure from eg Ramsar. The LNT model is simply wrong, and that's the end of it, which means there is a massive disjunct between 'over regulatory limits' and 'is actually measurably dangerous'. Something like 100 to 1000:1 in fact. -- He who ****s in the road, will meet flies on his return. "Mr Natural" |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On 13/03/16 17:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg wrote: Wade Allison suggests 100mSv/month as a sensible regulatory limit for exposure, up by over 1000-fold from the current figure of 0.08mSv/month (your link in an earlier thread). Jew mean 100milliSv/month or 100microSv/month? I ask because xkcd.com/radiation has 100milliSv/*year* as "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk". A lot depends on how its actually recieved I would say 100mSV/years is 'about right'. But its a shade dependent on who you are, how its received, and what it consists of. 100mSv/year puts the whole of Fukushima exclusion zone and most of the Chernobyl exclusion zones back into the fully habitable mode. And allows us to live on Dartmoor again. -- A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
GB wrote
Rod Speed wrote I didnt contradict anyone. Brian wondered about that and I provided the facts on what has happened with the animals there, the death rate of the wild animals there hasnt changed due to Chernobyl. They have in fact thrived because there is much less predation by humans there now. There seems to have been a significant effect on fertility from the radiation, according to some of the sources cited. But the latest by far the most rigorous study puts a lie to that claim. However, as you say, there are other factors in play that influence overall animal population levels there. I don't think you can conclude from thriving populations that radiation is completely harmless. The animals could be dropping like flies, If they were, there would be lots of animal skeletons around to prove that. There aren't. but reproduction may be fast enough to fill in the gaps as fast as the animals die. You'd have all those skeletons. They dont exist, so they can't be dying like flys. |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On Sunday, 13 March 2016 19:22:45 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
GB wrote but reproduction may be fast enough to fill in the gaps as fast as the animals die. You'd have all those skeletons. They don't exist, so they can't be dying like flys. we don't see your brain cell skeletons and yet |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
wrote
Rod Speed wrote GB wrote However, as you say, there are other factors in play that influence overall animal population levels there. I don't think you can conclude from thriving populations that radiation is completely harmless. The animals could be dropping like flies, If they were, there would be lots of animal skeletons around to prove that. There aren't. but reproduction may be fast enough to fill in the gaps as fast as the animals die. You'd have all those skeletons. They don't exist, so they can't be dying like flys. we don't see your brain cell skeletons and yet You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag. |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
On Monday, 14 March 2016 08:45:25 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote Rod Speed wrote GB wrote However, as you say, there are other factors in play that influence overall animal population levels there. I don't think you can conclude from thriving populations that radiation is completely harmless. The animals could be dropping like flies, If they were, there would be lots of animal skeletons around to prove that. There aren't. but reproduction may be fast enough to fill in the gaps as fast as the animals die. You'd have all those skeletons. They don't exist, so they can't be dying like flys. we don't see your brain cell skeletons and yet You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag. I've never tried to |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
wrote
Rod Speed wrote tabbypurr wrote Rod Speed wrote GB wrote However, as you say, there are other factors in play that influence overall animal population levels there. I don't think you can conclude from thriving populations that radiation is completely harmless. The animals could be dropping like flies, If they were, there would be lots of animal skeletons around to prove that. There aren't. but reproduction may be fast enough to fill in the gaps as fast as the animals die. You'd have all those skeletons. They don't exist, so they can't be dying like flys. we don't see your brain cell skeletons and yet You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag. I've never tried to Obvious lie. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Officail: fear of radiation kills more people than radiation. | UK diy | |||
Fear of radiation worse than radiation... | UK diy | |||
Official. Fear of radiation kills more people than radiation | UK diy | |||
OT Fukushima. The truth is coming out? | Home Repair | |||
OT Truth emerging about Fukushima. | UK diy |