On 21 Feb 2021 22:40:00 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 19 Feb 2021 at 12:59:55 GMT, T i m wrote:

Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

A certain amount of radioactive material has been spread, and that only by one
reactor.

I might only need 'one'.

If it has a short half life, then it's already gone, years ago,
decayed to safer stuff. If it has a long half life, it's not that dangerous
anyway.

I believe they were (are) testing welsh lamb for 30 years after
Chernobyl and still often rejecting those grazing on the higher levels
for being over the acceptable levels for radioactivity. How much
further away and how much longer lasting does it have to be before you
might start to consider the risk being greater than alternatives that
do spread the consequences anything like as far and as so long?

And we *are* phasing out many other polluting energy generation forms
for that exact reason.

Potassium-40, for example, causes 4300 radioactive decays in your body
every second.

Interesting (?)

You overlook that there is significant radioactive material all around us,

I do(?) ... and you know that how?

even more so in places like Dartmoor.

And how many people live on Dartmoor?

You also overlook that life has been
dealing with radiation since the beginning of life on Earth,

Again, I have have I?

and has developed
mechanisms to mitigate the effects of it.

Until the levels are greater than those typical 'background' levels
and then we die or are made very ill by it?

Why do we sign a disclaimer when having any 'radioactive' form of
medical process and have to read the section about 'increased risk'
(when having a medical procedure that is trying to make us *better*)?

Oh, and I know about the risk assessment of those two scenarios,
before you think your Goblin brain is superior to mine again. ;-)

For the hard of thinking ... (so yes, that's you), I haven't said I
don't want nukes, all I have said is when / if they go wrong they can
make a big mess that can quickly span the world and last a long long
time. So it doesn't matter how good ours are when we *can* still be
impacted by one 'going wrong' (for whatever reason) 2000 miles away.

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:52:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip twee story and the obvious

Once
people realised how radioactive the world is compared to a nuclear power
station, they would clamour for nuclear power.

Oh yes, I'm sure all those voting for Brexit would also swallow the
'Don't live in the environment, live in a nuclear power station
instead' line in the same way that they would buy a car that has good
ail filtration making the air outside cleaner than the air inside ....
fine while they are inside and not breathing the exhaust on the
outside.

I guess that's why no one
has put one in a phone.

No, it's because few would care / be interested.

Project Fear needs its bogeymen to keep you
believing in windmills....

I'm not sure there are any windmills in the Ukraine tall enough to
fall over and pollute the ground in Wales (for 30+ years).

Maybe if it had made your property uninhabitable for 30+ years you
might have a different opinion on it (when you have come up from your
basement and realised that is).

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 17:52:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

In the case of chernobly it and the hydrogen explosion ruptured te
primary containment and there was no secondary containment. That is
Russia for you.

Shame they don't keep their air / sea water to themselves eh? ;-(

The reactor didnt 'blow up'

It did in the eyes of anyone taking the phrase to mean the overall
scenario, even if it didn't scientifically or ballistically.

Many many people say 'My car has blown up' and they don't live in
Beirut or Afghanistan.

Snip more left brainer confusion and point whooshing

The nuke was working, it blew up, then wasn't working.

'It bowing up' has the potential for a vastly different outcome from
the generator on a wind turbine 'blowing up' or the inverter on a
solar farm 'blowing up', or even a coal fired power station 'blowing
up'.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:43:30 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:22:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In short he is *scared* of nuclear power,

Looks up at sun.

Dangerous.

(Well, this is England, so that part of the sky where the sun should
be ...)

And one reason why it might not be dangerous.

So even looking straight at the sun is dangerous and that's
141,600,000 miles away. Exposing your unprotected skin to it,
especially for prolonged periods is dangerous. Radiation of all types
can be dangerous, even to whole planets.

But that doesn't mean I'm scared of the sun, it means I take
precautions re the impact of the sun on me, including keeping out of
it.

A good few thousand square miles of Wales and the surrounding areas of
England / Scotland weren't able to move away from the radiation
fallout from something that went wrong 2000 miles away.

Am I 'scared' of Chernobyl? Not particularly, but am I right to
question the use of such technologies to produce power rather than to
invest in more research and effort re the development of alternatives,
of course, just as I am keen we look to animal-free sources of food
over the continuation of the pain and suffering some continue to cause
to innocent creatures when there are already alternatives that remove
that.

https://youtu.be/d5wabeFG9pM

But it's obvious the likes of Turnip is terrified of vegans, given the
number of times *he* throws such into the conversation. Guilt maybe?

Cheers, T i m

On 22/02/2021 14:51, T i m wrote:

So even looking straight at the sun is dangerous and that's
141,600,000 miles away.

It might be in your planetary system - would that be Vega?

--
Spike

On 22/02/2021 11:23, T i m wrote:
On 21 Feb 2021 22:40:00 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 19 Feb 2021 at 12:59:55 GMT, T i m wrote:

Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

A certain amount of radioactive material has been spread, and that only by one
reactor.

I might only need 'one'.

If it has a short half life, then it's already gone, years ago,
decayed to safer stuff. If it has a long half life, it's not that dangerous
anyway.

I believe they were (are) testing welsh lamb for 30 years after
Chernobyl and still often rejecting those grazing on the higher levels
for being over the acceptable levels for radioactivity. How much
further away and how much longer lasting does it have to be before you
might start to consider the risk being greater than alternatives that
do spread the consequences anything like as far and as so long?

And we *are* phasing out many other polluting energy generation forms
for that exact reason.

Potassium-40, for example, causes 4300 radioactive decays in your body
every second.

Interesting (?)

You overlook that there is significant radioactive material all around us,

I do(?) ... and you know that how?

even more so in places like Dartmoor.

And how many people live on Dartmoor?

You also overlook that life has been
dealing with radiation since the beginning of life on Earth,

Again, I have have I?

and has developed
mechanisms to mitigate the effects of it.

Until the levels are greater than those typical 'background' levels
and then we die or are made very ill by it?

Why do we sign a disclaimer when having any 'radioactive' form of
medical process and have to read the section about 'increased risk'
(when having a medical procedure that is trying to make us *better*)?

The graph of harm due to radiation against levels of radiation was
produced from data gathered from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That gave a
pretty straight line and because it did not have any data down to zero,
it was simply extended there. Ever since, it has been used to determine
what levels are harmful and to set industry limits.

More recent research (in the last 5 years) has shown that the risks are
not linear, due to the organisms having developed to cope with low
levels and it is now thought that the existing industrial limits may be
up to a 1000x tighter than they need to be.

The industry (and by extension the public paying for it) are therefore
paying massively over the odds to reduce radiation to unnecessarily low
levels, people are far more worried about radiation than they need to be
and existing contamination is being considered harmful and causing
monitoring and restrictions when they are likely totally unnecessary.

On 22/02/2021 16:00, Spike wrote:
On 22/02/2021 14:51, T i m wrote:

So even looking straight at the sun is dangerous and that's
141,600,000 miles away.

It might be in your planetary system - would that be Vega?

I always said T i m lived on a different planet to thinking earthmen.

Perhaps life on Vega has evolved where only the right side of the brain
functions, so it is devoid of logical, rational thought the average
earthman gets to enjoy.

On 22/02/2021 09:40, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:52:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

At my school we had a Geiger counter, The physics master switched it on.
'why is it clicking?' 'There is natural radiation everywhere'. We played
with it for a bit. Some people seemed to be slightly more radioactive
than others.,

Then the physics master unlocked a box and carefully lifted out two lead
pots put them on the bench and told us to gather round. He used tongs to
lift out one silvery disk and put it on the bench. The Geiger counter
perked up a bit. He took another silvery disk out of the other pot, the
Geiger counter got a bit more interested. He slowly and very carefully
slid one disk towards the other, stopping about 1/8" apart. The Geiger
counter went mad.

"I think that will do" he said. "That was a chain reaction, and those
disks were uranium , somewhat enriched with U235"

"What would have happened if they had touched sir?" "We would all have
been in the Royal Free" he said "And I would have been sacked".

They don't do physics like that any more.

Interesting. But I'm surprised he had access to even slightly enriched
uranium, although back in the day I suppose such things may have been
available through lab chemical stockists for just such demonstrations.
Townson and Mercer is a name that comes to mind. I know that depleted
uranium was fairly easily come by, but not enriched.

Phd Physics from Cambridge. I bet he had contacts at the Cavendish...


Its a shame no one makes cheap Geiger counters on smart phones. Once
people realised how radioactive the world is compared to a nuclear power
station, they would clamour for nuclear power. I guess that's why no one
has put one in a phone. Project Fear needs its bogeymen to keep you
believing in windmills....

I have a small Geiger counter - one of these
https://www.amazon.co.uk/RADEX-RD150.../dp/B005ZQ47AS
not particularly cheap, but interesting to use in Cornwall around old
mine sites where pitchblende was mined. I also have some uranium glass
items made in the 1930's that get it quite excited, and alarmable
friends alarmed :-)

Indeed.



--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 17/02/2021 10:03, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Robin
writes
On 17/02/2021 09:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the
tests,* compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)
*I think there was a plume of radiation from Chernobyl which led to
concerns about grazing animals in parts of Scotland and Wales but I
don't remember any actual restrictions on later meat sales.


At first there was a complete ban on some Welsh sheep.* After that
they had to be checked for radioactivity and some couldn't be sold
into the food chain - which lasted for 20+ years.

Ah!

Aging memory!

Its a bugger.


Isn't that what happened to the Sheep;?....

--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 20/02/2021 12:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:22:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In short he is *scared* of nuclear power,

Looks up at sun.

(Well, this is England, so that part of the sky where the sun should
be ...)

the one nuclear reactor he SHOULD be scared of, as it is a radiation
emitting cancer causing killer




Yes it said in the press the other day it will be if the earths magnetic
field reverses!...


--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 22/02/2021 21:20, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 20/02/2021 12:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:22:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In short he is *scared* of nuclear power,

Looks up at sun.

(Well, this is England, so that part of the sky where the sun should
be ...)

the one nuclear reactor he SHOULD be scared of, as it is a radiation
emitting cancer causing killer




Yes it said in the press the other day it will be if the earths magnetic
field reverses!...

I thought the issue was more if Earth loses it's magnetic field. Mars
with the lack of a magnetic field is though to have contributed to the
loss of it's atmosphere. High altitude measurements suggest it is an
ongoing process.

Of course Venus lacks a magnetic field, is smaller than earth yet
retains an atmosphere many times than that of the earth. It's upper
atmosphere is said to be Earth-like.

On 22/02/2021 22:10, Tim Streater wrote:
On 22 Feb 2021 at 21:57:09 GMT, Fredxx wrote:

I thought the issue was more if Earth loses it's magnetic field. Mars
with the lack of a magnetic field is though to have contributed to the
loss of it's atmosphere. High altitude measurements suggest it is an
ongoing process.

Of course Venus lacks a magnetic field, is smaller than earth yet
retains an atmosphere many times than that of the earth. It's upper
atmosphere is said to be Earth-like.

No apo'strophe's needed in any of that.

Agreed, didn't realise I'd put them in.

The magnetic field keeps the solar wind away from the planet. This wind strips
the atmos away, over time.

Venus has/had volcanoes much like the earth, but lacked plate tectonics - not
having been biffed into by a Mars-sized object like the Earth means its crust
is much thicker. So, no life to occupy the non-oceans which meant no building
up of carbonate rocks below the seas. Earth's volcanoes over the aeons are
reckoned to have outgassed as much CO2 as on Venus - 90 Bars worth, but on
Earth life processes have acted to capture nearly all of it.

The biffing the Earth got also meant that the crust melted entirely, allowing
most heavy elements (including the radioactive ones) to sink below the crust.
Their radioactive decay is why the core is molten, just as well as that gives
us the plate tectonics business.

The Venus landscape renews itself every 100-300 million years where the
core accumulates sufficient heat it melts the surface. It is thought
that the lack of water in the crust prevent the formation of plates and
prevent them from slipping.

On 22/02/2021 16:00, Spike wrote:
On 22/02/2021 14:51, T i m wrote:

So even looking straight at the sun is dangerous and that's
141,600,000 miles away.

It might be in your planetary system - would that be Vega?


Vega is a lot father from the Sun than 141,600,000.

It sounds more like T i m is from Mars.

On 23/02/2021 09:08, Pancho wrote:
On 22/02/2021 16:00, Spike wrote:
On 22/02/2021 14:51, T i m wrote:

So even looking straight at the sun is dangerous and that's
141,600,000 miles away.

It might be in your planetary system - would that be Vega?


Vega is a lot father from the Sun than 141,600,000.

It sounds more like T i mÂ* is from Mars.

farther or even further.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/uk-smr-industry-net-zero/
with some links at the bottom.

--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 19/02/2021 12:59, T i m wrote:

Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

But don't you have to balance this with risk from the deaths that are
caused by, not climate warming, nor climate change or climate crisis but
from climate catastrophe as I listened to it being described on the
radio the other day?


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:57:55 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 19/02/2021 12:59, T i m wrote:

Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

But don't you have to balance this with risk from the deaths that are
caused by, not climate warming, nor climate change or climate crisis but
from climate catastrophe as I listened to it being described on the
radio the other day?

When comparing overall deaths from all energy sources as we have
witnessed so far, yes, but not when just comparing the 'risk' aspect
of all the energy generation sources, the ease / ability to clean up
any mess and how far reaching any damage might reach.

Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

We know burning fossil fuels is bad for us and so forward thinking
countries are reducing such as fast as possible.

Because 'some people' can't see pollution they don't imagine it's
there (unlike the old London smogs and those still occurring in some
big cities around the world) and if they could they might consider
deeper exactly what we are doing in the very air we (all species) need
to survive. And I'm obviously not simply talking about CO2 (that
plants need to survive etc).

Re 'climate catastrophe ... with any closed loop system it can only
take a tiny nudge inside that system to make it unstable and no longer
be self maintaining.

As with Brexit, Anti Vaxers, Carnists and MM global warming /
polluting deniers there are always those who really do believe their
'side', irrespective of what their own eyes see happening around them.

But they also prefer not to see, preferring to believe all the
conspiracy theories because that's the way the coin happened to fall
when they were deciding which side to support or how it best suited
their general goals (ie, they have or do work in this industries
concerned).

*Of course* every representative of British American Tobacco insisted
their product was safe and spread propaganda trying to support that
.... why wouldn't they when they had so much to gain from it?

I wonder what drives vegans to not want to support the unnecessary
ongoing suffering and death of trillions of animals every year ... oh
hang on, I think I've just given the answer away ... ;-(

https://ibb.co/9b2Y0wk

Cheers, T i m

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:57:55 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 19/02/2021 12:59, T i m wrote:

Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

But don't you have to balance this with risk from the deaths that are
caused by, not climate warming, nor climate change or climate crisis but
from climate catastrophe as I listened to it being described on the
radio the other day?

When comparing overall deaths from all energy sources as we have
witnessed so far, yes, but not when just comparing the 'risk' aspect
of all the energy generation sources, the ease / ability to clean up
any mess and how far reaching any damage might reach.

Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Oh, so these 260,000 deaths are local and quick, so that doesn't matter
then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

On 23/02/2021 08:48, Tim Streater wrote:
On 22 Feb 2021 at 23:00:17 GMT, Fredxx wrote:

On 22/02/2021 22:10, Tim Streater wrote:
On 22 Feb 2021 at 21:57:09 GMT, Fredxx wrote:

I thought the issue was more if Earth loses it's magnetic field. Mars
with the lack of a magnetic field is though to have contributed to the
loss of it's atmosphere. High altitude measurements suggest it is an
ongoing process.

Of course Venus lacks a magnetic field, is smaller than earth yet
retains an atmosphere many times than that of the earth. It's upper
atmosphere is said to be Earth-like.

No apo'strophe's needed in any of that.

Agreed, didn't realise I'd put them in.

The magnetic field keeps the solar wind away from the planet. This wind strips
the atmos away, over time.

Venus has/had volcanoes much like the earth, but lacked plate tectonics - not
having been biffed into by a Mars-sized object like the Earth means its crust
is much thicker. So, no life to occupy the non-oceans which meant no building
up of carbonate rocks below the seas. Earth's volcanoes over the aeons are
reckoned to have outgassed as much CO2 as on Venus - 90 Bars worth, but on
Earth life processes have acted to capture nearly all of it.

The biffing the Earth got also meant that the crust melted entirely, allowing
most heavy elements (including the radioactive ones) to sink below the crust.
Their radioactive decay is why the core is molten, just as well as that gives
us the plate tectonics business.

The Venus landscape renews itself every 100-300 million years where the
core accumulates sufficient heat it melts the surface. It is thought
that the lack of water in the crust prevent the formation of plates and
prevent them from slipping.

Yes, interesting that. Won't be planning a holiday there any time soon :-)

The planet sounds far more interesting than Mars, shame it is so
inhospitable for probes.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:39:49 +0000, PeterC
wrote:

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/uk-smr-industry-net-zero/
with some links at the bottom.

Erm?

Cheers, T i m

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:

We know burning fossil fuels is bad for us and so forward thinking
countries are reducing such as fast as possible.

Well, you live in a house, with heating, lighting, fridge, freezer, TV,
dog, etc etc, when you should be forward thinking about reducing such as
fast as possible. But how are you going to repair the damage you have
caused in your 60-odd years of consumerist living? You didn't seem to
give a flying **** when you had your motorcycle tour of Scotland, for
example, but having had your fun for all those decades you now become a
hypocrite because you don't want anyone else to have any.

--
Spike

On 22 Feb 2021 17:14:19 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

If it has a short half life, then it's already gone, years ago,
decayed to safer stuff. If it has a long half life, it's not that dangerous
anyway.

I believe they were (are) testing welsh lamb for 30 years after
Chernobyl and still often rejecting those grazing on the higher levels
for being over the acceptable levels for radioactivity.

Obviously not sheep that are grazing on Dartmoor, then.

'Obviously'? Back to your binary view of the world left brainer?

See, you are still desperately and disingenuously trying to conflate
my statement by 1) comparing 'man mage' situations with 'naturally
occurring and 2) any subsequent processes that are (or are not)
applied / required.

eg (for hard of thinking Goblins), 300+ Welsh farms *weren't*
suffering high levels of background radiation contaminating the ground
/ grass (that was then being eaten by their sheep and then potentially
consumed by us) compared with the farmers grazing their sheep in areas
that may well have 'untypically' high levels of background radiation
that has been known about for a long time. Potentially the same tests
(for acquired radiation levels) in all cases, just that the farmers
grazing their stocks on Dartmoor were aware of it previously (before
deciding to farm there) and the Welsh farmers couldn't possibly have
predicted such an event.

You overlook that there is significant radioactive material all around us,

I do(?) ... and you know that how?

even more so in places like Dartmoor.

And how many people live on Dartmoor?

It's not just Dartmoor. Most of Devon and Cornwall too, and anywhere where the
exposed rock is granite.

Glasgow. But the point is such issues in such locations are a *known*.
Don't want to expose yourself to such abnormally high levels, don't
live there.

You also overlook that life has been
dealing with radiation since the beginning of life on Earth,

Again, I have have I?

Your casual aquaintance with facts (such as how far away the Sun is from the
Earth), make is a reasonable assumption.

Or what if you were whooshed (by a Vegan), again ... not to mention
that you can't possibly even take the spirit of something, that's how
left brained you (now) are.

and has developed
mechanisms to mitigate the effects of it.

Until the levels are greater than those typical 'background' levels
and then we die or are made very ill by it?

That's right, the moment it goes over the limit we all fall down and die.

Oh, is that a goblin weakness then as I know most other species don't
suffer like that.

This is your no-brainer approach showing again.

And your left brainer constantly missing the points (like I said, the
sad thing is you *really* can't help it / yourself).

You obviously like numbers, they mean a lot to you because they are
black / white, therefore simple therefore easily comprehended by you.
52 v 48 is a 'clear indication of the will of the people' to you and
any number of deaths or levels of sickness and any potential future
risk caused as a result of nuclear energy production is 'ok' by you.

Why do we sign a disclaimer when having any 'radioactive' form of
medical process and have to read the section about 'increased risk'
(when having a medical procedure that is trying to make us *better*)?

So you can't sue them when they x-ray you today to find what is causing that
painful toothache, and then you get cancer is 20 years time.

So, there no increased risk whilst being bombarded with x-rays then?
No chance of a cell becoming damaged and mutating? It's all just
conspiracy theory stuff and they are wasting space, time and money
putting up (and them hiding behind) all the lead shielding (especially
if the maximum 'safe' exposure levels are actually way higher)?

Do they quantify
"increased risk"? Do you even understand what the word "risk" means?

Oh the irony. *You* only seem to (stand a chance of understanding)
risk when the negative consequences may apply to you (like you being
Bexit risk proof etc).

Cheers, T i m

p.s. When they are repairing old / valuable things they try to do so
in a way that 1) does no further damage and 2) is reversible (again
with no further damage).

It's also why the building planning is far more lax around portable
buildings than permanent etc.

On 23/02/2021 15:13, T i m wrote:
On 22 Feb 2021 17:14:19 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

If it has a short half life, then it's already gone, years ago,
decayed to safer stuff. If it has a long half life, it's not that dangerous
anyway.

I believe they were (are) testing welsh lamb for 30 years after
Chernobyl and still often rejecting those grazing on the higher levels
for being over the acceptable levels for radioactivity.

Obviously not sheep that are grazing on Dartmoor, then.

'Obviously'? Back to your binary view of the world left brainer?

Resorting to abuse is the sure sign of a weak argument.

See, you are still desperately and disingenuously trying to conflate
my statement by 1) comparing 'man mage' situations with 'naturally
occurring and 2) any subsequent processes that are (or are not)
applied / required.

eg (for hard of thinking Goblins), 300+ Welsh farms *weren't*
suffering high levels of background radiation contaminating the ground
/ grass (that was then being eaten by their sheep and then potentially
consumed by us) compared with the farmers grazing their sheep in areas
that may well have 'untypically' high levels of background radiation
that has been known about for a long time. Potentially the same tests
(for acquired radiation levels) in all cases, just that the farmers
grazing their stocks on Dartmoor were aware of it previously (before
deciding to farm there) and the Welsh farmers couldn't possibly have
predicted such an event.

I'm not sure what you are saying, apart from that 300+ Welsh farms
*weren't* suffering high levels of background radiation?

And that Welsh farmers couldn't predict *weren't* suffering high levels
of background radiation?

You overlook that there is significant radioactive material all around us,

I do(?) ... and you know that how?

even more so in places like Dartmoor.

And how many people live on Dartmoor?

It's not just Dartmoor. Most of Devon and Cornwall too, and anywhere where the
exposed rock is granite.

Glasgow. But the point is such issues in such locations are a *known*.
Don't want to expose yourself to such abnormally high levels, don't
live there.

Does that choice extend to children? Abnormally high levels are usually
found in mountains, that doesn't make them any more dangerous.

You also overlook that life has been
dealing with radiation since the beginning of life on Earth,

Again, I have have I?

Your casual aquaintance with facts (such as how far away the Sun is from the
Earth), make is a reasonable assumption.

Or what if you were whooshed (by a Vegan), again ... not to mention
that you can't possibly even take the spirit of something, that's how
left brained you (now) are.

Why is it fanatical vegans, when pushed and shown to have a flawed
argument resort to abuse.

and has developed
mechanisms to mitigate the effects of it.

Until the levels are greater than those typical 'background' levels
and then we die or are made very ill by it?

That's right, the moment it goes over the limit we all fall down and die.

Oh, is that a goblin weakness then as I know most other species don't
suffer like that.

This is your no-brainer approach showing again.

And your left brainer constantly missing the points (like I said, the
sad thing is you *really* can't help it / yourself).

The real sadness is you don't recognise your own failings.

You obviously like numbers, they mean a lot to you because they are
black / white, therefore simple therefore easily comprehended by you.
52 v 48 is a 'clear indication of the will of the people' to you and
any number of deaths or levels of sickness and any potential future
risk caused as a result of nuclear energy production is 'ok' by you.

Quite 52 is 8% more than 48. I can't help it if politicians promise to
recognise and honour the result. Yo do vote in General Elections, don't
you? Even if you don't in referendums.

Why do we sign a disclaimer when having any 'radioactive' form of
medical process and have to read the section about 'increased risk'
(when having a medical procedure that is trying to make us *better*)?

So you can't sue them when they x-ray you today to find what is causing that
painful toothache, and then you get cancer is 20 years time.

So, there no increased risk whilst being bombarded with x-rays then?
No chance of a cell becoming damaged and mutating? It's all just
conspiracy theory stuff and they are wasting space, time and money
putting up (and them hiding behind) all the lead shielding (especially
if the maximum 'safe' exposure levels are actually way higher)?

As in my earlier post, the linear relationship between illness and
radiation falls over at low levels. Some studies even say low levels are
beneficial to life expectancy.

Do they quantify
"increased risk"? Do you even understand what the word "risk" means?

Oh the irony. *You* only seem to (stand a chance of understanding)
risk when the negative consequences may apply to you (like you being
Bexit risk proof etc).

The irony will be lost on most, including me.

On 23/02/2021 12:47, Spike wrote:
On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:

We know burning fossil fuels is bad for us and so forward thinking
countries are reducing such as fast as possible.

Well, you live in a house, with heating, lighting, fridge, freezer, TV,
dog, etc etc, when you should be forward thinking about reducing such as
fast as possible. But how are you going to repair the damage you have
caused in your 60-odd years of consumerist living? You didn't seem to
give a flying **** when you had your motorcycle tour of Scotland, for
example, but having had your fun for all those decades you now become a
hypocrite because you don't want anyone else to have any.

T r o l l want us to go back to when ewe didn't have fire and eat raw veg.

And life expectancy was about 25




--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 23/02/2021 15:13, T i m wrote:

So, there no increased risk whilst being bombarded with x-rays then?
No chance of a cell becoming damaged and mutating? It's all just
conspiracy theory stuff and they are wasting space, time and money
putting up (and them hiding behind) all the lead shielding (especially
if the maximum 'safe' exposure levels are actually way higher)?

I hope you don't sleep in the same bed as another adult, because you
will receive, and also give to them, a radiation dose from the ~5000 Bq
arising from the natural decay of Potassium 40 (K40) that is present in
your/their body. A gamma ray is emitted in about one out of every 10
disintegrations of K40, implying that about 500 gamma rays are produced
each second. These will be moving in all directions, and some will be
attenuated in the body. Gamma rays are really dangerous.

As a vegan, and therefore low in natural B12, try to note that foods
rich in potassium (and therefore in K40) include potatoes, kidney beans,
sunflower seeds, and nuts. Brazil nuts in particular may also contain
significant amounts of radium, which have been measured at up to 444 Bq/kg.

The disintegration of the carbon (C14) in your body is almost as bad as
K40, and it doesn't stop there...

--
Spike

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:46:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip drool

T r o l l want us to go back to when ewe didn't have fire and eat raw veg.

Is that right Turnip? I wonder just how guilty someone has to feel
before that resort to making up such blatant / desperate BS? Oh,
Turnip guilty!

No, you seem to be the one saying we have to doing what most animals
*have* to do to survive, rather than seeing that we have the choice to
be / do something better.

You are choosing to continue a process that we may have had to rely on
when we were primitive, but since some of us have evolved past that
period, we can do the natural thing for such an 'advanced' species and
protect, not exploit all the others, for their well being and ours!

Except it's not (even) all the others is it, your upbringing /
conditioning, tradition, culture plus the marketing and peer pressure
has forced you to also become a speciesist, (hopefully) protecting one
arbitrary group of animals (from harm and death) whilst doing exactly
the opposite to others? [1]

Logical inconsistency at its worst. Good job you don't have any
empathy or the conflict would tear you apart.

But then we know just how primitive you still are, with all your
protesting about people being PC, or 'WOKE' or potentially, even
gender equality, totally misunderstanding / ignoring once again that
we are talking about individual 'people' and they all have feelings.

Cheers, T i m

[1] I was talking to a mate recently who used to help 'manage' some
local land, culling pigeon and rabbit.

He admitted that as he got older he started making calls when he found
a young rabbit in his rifle cross-hairs, selecting to leave it because
(and in his own words), 'It hadn't had much of a life ... unlike the
older rabbits ...'.

I reminded him that most of the 'farmed' meat he consumed also /
specifically came from 'young' animals ... he didn't have a reply
(because there wasn't one of course).

On Tuesday, 23 February 2021 at 16:24:52 UTC, Spike wrote:

I hope you don't sleep in the same bed as another adult, because you
will receive, and also give to them, a radiation dose from the ~5000 Bq
arising from the natural decay of Potassium 40 (K40) that is present in
your/their body. A gamma ray is emitted in about one out of every 10
disintegrations of K40, implying that about 500 gamma rays are produced
each second. These will be moving in all directions, and some will be
attenuated in the body. Gamma rays are really dangerous.

Well, the betas are probably more dangerous as they will mostly be
absorbed whereas the gammas will mostly pass straight through the
body without interacting.
John

On 23/02/2021 17:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 16:24:52 +0000, Spike wrote:

On 23/02/2021 15:13, T i m wrote:

[quoted text muted]

I hope you don't sleep in the same bed as another adult, because you
will receive, and also give to them, a radiation dose from the ~5000 Bq
arising from the natural decay of Potassium 40 (K40) that is present in
your/their body. A gamma ray is emitted in about one out of every 10
disintegrations of K40, implying that about 500 gamma rays are produced
each second. These will be moving in all directions, and some will be
attenuated in the body.
Gamma rays are really dangerous.

Bananas are radioactive, as are Brazil nuts.

ISTR a pocketful of Brazils will trip a nuclear power stations door
sensors.

And since Radium is an alpha emitter it's particularly dangerous to consume.

On 22/02/2021 14:51, T i m wrote:
So even looking straight at the sun is dangerous and that's
141,600,000 miles away.

I'm sorry, I can't resist.

Just what planet are you on?

(that's much closer to the km value)

Andy

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Go and work out how many dams we'd have to build in order to supply the
UK with electricity.

Remember they'd have to be built high up in the major river valleys. And
they tend to have major cities downstream.

Andy

On 23/02/2021 17:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 16:24:52 +0000, Spike wrote:
On 23/02/2021 15:13, T i m wrote:

[quoted text muted]

I hope you don't sleep in the same bed as another adult, because you
will receive, and also give to them, a radiation dose from the ~5000 Bq
arising from the natural decay of Potassium 40 (K40) that is present in
your/their body. A gamma ray is emitted in about one out of every 10
disintegrations of K40, implying that about 500 gamma rays are produced
each second. These will be moving in all directions, and some will be
attenuated in the body.
Gamma rays are really dangerous.

Bananas are radioactive, as are Brazil nuts.

As T i m is such a simple soul I was going to do the body-count thing in
terms of the Banana Equivalent Dose, but it might well have driven him,
well, bananas...

ISTR a pocketful of Brazils will trip a nuclear power stations door
sensors.

Dangerous things, these 'healthy' diets...

--
Spike

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:11:42 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Go and work out how many dams we'd have to build in order to supply the
UK with electricity.

Why would I / we do that?

Remember they'd have to be built high up in the major river valleys.

Of course?

And
they tend to have major cities downstream.

Of course?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:10:10 -0800 (PST), John Walliker
wrote:

snip Spuke puke

Well, the betas are probably more dangerous as they will mostly be
absorbed whereas the gammas will mostly pass straight through the
body without interacting.

Quite.

But since when has Spuke ever bothered with the facts over trying to
get one in against me (I feel sorry for him having me as the centre
of his life). ;-(

It must be very confusing living in a world of grey when you can only
think in black and white.

I'm not talking about (naturally occurring) radiation, I'm talking
about using it to generate power and the risks that can expose.

I haven't said that I don't want nuclear power or that the
alternatives can't have / cause their own issues, but common sense
would suggest we consider all other energy sources and focus on the
greenest / safest of them.

There is little point relying on nuclear energy when the world
population is being forced to live in the areas it hasn't polluted for
a good few years.

When a windmill falls in the farm, do people 2000 miles away have to
suffer the consequences?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:49:09 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

snip Spuke puke

Bananas are radioactive, as are Brazil nuts.

Brazil nuts are also good for the macula and we have been assured here
that radiation is good for us so ... ?

ISTR a pocketful of Brazils will trip a nuclear power stations door
sensors.

As might my old watch and my plutonium keyring. Answer, don't take
them round the Nuclear Power Station tour (I didn't when we went
*near* the Sellafield power station round their Visitor Centre).

Cheers, T i m

p.s.

Q. Name four jobs where you do most your work via a remote control
because of the high levels of risk.

1) Deep sea exploration.
2) Space exploration.
3) Bomb disposal.
4) Nuclear power station management.

;-)

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:05:04 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 22/02/2021 14:51, T i m wrote:
So even looking straight at the sun is dangerous and that's
141,600,000 miles away.

I'm sorry, I can't resist.

Just what planet are you on?

(that's much closer to the km value)

Given Mars is on topic ... I was triggering the likes of the Squeaker
goblin (who is another one who fantasises about me all the time) who
previously suggested I came from planet Vegan because I spelled vegan
with a capital V?

He's an anally retentive, left brainer, Goblin / troll, carnist ... it
all fits etc. ;-)

But I can see why people are petrified of Vegans because they think we
will treat you humans like you treat some of the other animals you
share this rock with. Keeping, feeding and dealing with the waste
products as many live stock as there are people ... madness.

https://ibb.co/GRyxDfs

And when I look back at how and what I had been indoctrinated to
consider 'acceptable re how we treat animals (especially in 2021), I
also questioned what planet I was on to have gone along with it for as
long as I did. ;-(

https://youtu.be/d5wabeFG9pM


Cheers, T i m

On 23/02/2021 17:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 16:24:52 +0000, Spike wrote:

On 23/02/2021 15:13, T i m wrote:

[quoted text muted]

I hope you don't sleep in the same bed as another adult, because you
will receive, and also give to them, a radiation dose from the ~5000 Bq
arising from the natural decay of Potassium 40 (K40) that is present in
your/their body. A gamma ray is emitted in about one out of every 10
disintegrations of K40, implying that about 500 gamma rays are produced
each second. These will be moving in all directions, and some will be
attenuated in the body.
Gamma rays are really dangerous.

Bananas are radioactive, as are Brazil nuts.

ISTR a pocketful of Brazils will trip a nuclear power stations door
sensors.

I read some of the documentation for a site a few years ago. The
permissible discharge to water was the equivalent of 9 bananas a year!

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:07:03 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:51:48 +0000, T i m wrote:

As might my old watch and my plutonium keyring. Answer, don't take them
round the Nuclear Power Station tour (I didn't when we went *near* the
Sellafield power station round their Visitor Centre).

I have a nice glowing keyring, thanks to nuclear power

Just don't keep it in your pocket when paddling on the beach, in case
a big wave comes in ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 24/02/2021 09:38, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:10:10 -0800 (PST), John Walliker
wrote:

snip Spuke puke

Well, the betas are probably more dangerous as they will mostly be
absorbed whereas the gammas will mostly pass straight through the
body without interacting.

Quite.

But since when has Spuke ever bothered with the facts over trying to
get one in against me (I feel sorry for him having me as the centre
of his life). ;-(

It must be very confusing living in a world of grey when you can only
think in black and white.

I'm not talking about (naturally occurring) radiation, I'm talking
about using it to generate power and the risks that can expose.

It's helpful to put risk into context:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

It does help to consider man made radiation in context with natural. It
all depends on whether you are open or closed to nuclear power.

I haven't said that I don't want nuclear power or that the
alternatives can't have / cause their own issues, but common sense
would suggest we consider all other energy sources and focus on the
greenest / safest of them.

Agreed, but some like to say they don't have an opinion, like Brexit and
so don't vote yet call those in favour of Brexit childish names. This is
deja vu.

In reality your world is black and white and give the illusion you're
just a grey man.

There is little point relying on nuclear energy when the world
population is being forced to live in the areas it hasn't polluted for
a good few years.

When a windmill falls in the farm, do people 2000 miles away have to
suffer the consequences?

Sometimes, if a loved one died in the incident came from a family 2,000
miles away. That's more likely with wind than nuclear.

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:38:54 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip

Relying on humans (human error) or automation (black Friday) to have
total control of something very dangerous is a bad thing, and why I'm
guessing it takes two keys and the presence of some important people
to launch a nuke (not that Trump being involved makes that any less
safe for the rest of us).

Except of course that nuclear power plants have the normal, programmable
(and therefore fallible and hackable - despite being locked down)
control systems backed up (for the critical safety systems) by multiple,
dedicated, hard-wired safety systems, which in turn are backed up by
fail-safe mechanical systems. And the designs, calculations and
permutations are pored over by the Nuclear, Process, Mechanical and
Control Engineers that do the designs, the Safety Engineers that oversee
the documenting of the safety systems, their equivalents in multiple
companies working on the project and finally the Office for Nuclear
Regulation.

Yet 'accidents' have happened?

The same processes apply to aeroplanes and space rockets yet they
still hit the ground and other planets pretty hard?

Safety has moved on massively from the early days where people could
operate the wrong valve.

I'm sure it has, in some countries. Maybe I'll be happier when all the
'old' systems have been turned of and fully decommissioned.

Cheers, T i m

On 19 Feb 2021 15:04:03 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 19 Feb 2021 at 12:59:55 GMT, T i m wrote:

On 17 Feb 2021 16:40:11 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

You mean, just like that and for no apparent reason?

This is the funny thing about left brainers, they can't ever have
'what if' in their thinking.

snip crazy Goblin drool

Just as
reactors don't explode *for* *no* *reason*.

Whoever said they did (so once again your just a left brained babbling
Goblin, making stuff up or trying to twist things I have said (and
even not said))!

Put forward a *reason* why a reactor might explode

snip Goblin drool

I don't need to because they already have (and IDGAF about the reason,
just the consequences).

FACT: no reactor has ever exploded *for* *no* *reason*.

FACT. I nor no one here I've seen has ever said one has
(for_no_reason) ... so any comment on that is just a left brainer
missing the point and flapping their gums.

Actually, some here
have said that no reactor has ever exploded. I wouldn't perhaps go quite that
far in regard to Chernobyl, even if it was a steam and not a nuclear
explosion.

Whatever?

Large amounts of energy were released in a small amount of time,
and the effect that has is a good definition of an explosion.

Yes ... and? Did you actually have a point or is it the meds wearing
off?

Loads of things aren't done or are restricted / limited because of the
*potential* consequences, even though statistically the justification
for doing so is sometimes insignificantly small.

Like, a good few thousand fully Police checked and licensed firearms
holders *had* to give up their legally held equipment because it was
considered that it was 'a risk' to have such thing in the charge of
even checked and approved people, in spite of the fact that the number
of incidents carried out using legally held firearms were very very
small (and specifically by their legal owners).

It's the same as selling knives / fireworks / cross bows to children.
Statistically few use them for bad things but the risks are just too
great (and of course they can get them *illegally*).

So, something that can go wrong will generally go wrong (at some point
or another) and when that happens, the level of concern as seen by
'most people' is generally a function of the range / depth of the
impact / duration of the consequences.

Back to the what if ...

OOI, do you consider the RR SMR's to be 100% perfect? No room for
(safety specifically) improvement whatsoever?

Cheers, T i m