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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,066
Default OT The truth about radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-f...m_campaign=rss
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,998
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
GB GB is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,768
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
GB GB is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,768
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
GB GB is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,768
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,257
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,257
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
GB GB is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,768
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,257
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
GB GB is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,768
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
GB GB is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,768
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Officail: fear of radiation kills more people than radiation. The Natural Philosopher[_2_] UK diy 68 September 12th 13 06:18 PM
Fear of radiation worse than radiation... The Natural Philosopher[_2_] UK diy 196 June 11th 13 05:53 PM
Official. Fear of radiation kills more people than radiation The Natural Philosopher[_2_] UK diy 22 August 30th 12 11:54 PM
OT Fukushima. The truth is coming out? harry Home Repair 36 May 3rd 12 12:14 PM
OT Truth emerging about Fukushima. harry UK diy 188 April 20th 12 08:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"