Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby sparky » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 08:41:59

.
while I have some doubt on the Linear non threshold , it was implementing the precautionary principle at a time when studies on radiation in large population , long term , were not yet authoritative .
it turn out they were wrong , presented probably for some selfish reasons , but seemed to be a good idea at the time .
things got really stupid because of the scare of the cold war ,
the peace movement jumped on the radiation boogeyman like an Australian on a cold beer !

On the Chernobyl wildlife , especially the wolves ,
their mortality rate of plain natural causes dwarf any radiation mortality by a factor of 100 at least.
thus it wouldn't really appears , their biggest danger is freezing and staving to death , sickness ,being shot or killed by other wolves .
only in a population as sheltered as us in modern life would radiation show any statistical importance
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 09:23:12

Please, I had a younger sister born in the late 50s (yes, an empty nest baby) who died from spinal cancer in the last few years, a step brother and sister, mom's second husband's, and a step sister, Dad's second wife's, all born in the late 50s, from pancreatic cancer, in the last few years.

Children from that generation all have cesium in their bones, based on a study of their teeth.

Every member of the cast and crew from the movie The Conqueror, filmed downwind from the atmospheric tests died from cancer. (or like Lee Van Cleef, secondary causes connected with their cancer)

To deny the carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure is the same as denying climate change. And not surprisingly by the same individuals.

The atmospheric tests spread fallout across the US breadbasket all the way to the Great Lakes. It was as if a limited nuclear war had occurred.

And the government took steps to suppress any revelations about it.

How many from that generation right now are dying from cancer? I'll bet a lot higher than reported. How many already died?

And what about those who actually watched the tests, it was like an event people looked forward to at the time.
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:49:25, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:47:22

Conflating all radiation types and sources into one general fear is equivalent to saying a gentle breeze is as deadly as a hurricane because both are weather events that result in movement of air.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4152
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 10:55:11

Right. The high incident of cancer deaths from that generation in my own extended family, is what? An aberration not related to the radioactive elements identified in the bones of their generation showing their exposure? I don't think so.

Easy to connect the dots, which you don't seem to want to do. Radiation exposure causes genetic damage. Not some mystery. You want to argue against that Moron? (notice the loathing in my tone, it's very real)

Note: there is NO incident of cancer in the older generations of my family. Nearly all members of the family born in the late 50s have died from cancer or are dying from it. Explain that.
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Sun 30 Oct 2016, 11:18:14, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 11:12:18

Cid_Yama wrote:Right. The high incident of cancer deaths from that generation in my own extended family, is what? An aberration not related to the radioactive elements identified in the bones of their generation showing their exposure? I don't think so.

Easy to connect the dots, which you don't seem to want to do. Radiation exposure causes genetic damage. Not some mystery. You want to argue against that Moron?


Of course I argue against moronc statements like the ones you are making. To do otherwise would to fall into the trap of intellecul dishonesty you are reveling in. There are literally thousands of causes of cancer known to exist, mostly chemical. Pesticide and herbicide use exploded across America in exact era you are talking about and with rare exceptions is a much better fit in the cause-effect relationship. The generations since 1945 have been bathed in chemicals in just about any possible combination. Many of them are bioaccumulating and stay in the body for life.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4152
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 11:22:39

Right. That argument is like those arguing that methane from cows is causing global warming but NOT fossil fuel extraction and burning.

Eat shit moron.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 11:33:41

Cid_Yama wrote:Right. That argument is like those arguing that methane from cows is causing global warming but NOT fossil fuel extraction and burning.

Eat shit moron.

Cid, you already lost the debate above when you reacted emotionally (self-described 'loathing') and confused anecdotal information (family illness) with valid science. Appeal to emotion instead of friendly discussion.

Now this? I always knew I should have you on ignore.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26543
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby eugene » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 12:00:36

I thought emotional, anecdotal thinking was all most, and I mean most, people are capable of. Researching a subject appears to be beyond peoples ability. All a person has to do is look at the presidential candidates and their supporters to see that.
eugene
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat 23 Aug 2014, 09:08:45

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 14:48:11

Everybody dies.
Therefore everybody dies of something.
Therefore the sum of all possible ways of dying always adds up to 100%
Therefore, mathematically, one possible cause of death cannot go down without another one going up.

So there are two possibilities when a particular cause of death goes up and others go down. Either:
1) We've gotten better at treating the cause of death that's gone down. So instead of dying of that we are living a little longer, long enough to die of the cause that's gone up. So average life span should go up.
2) Or the rate of incidence has increased of the cause of death that's gone up. In that case we would die sooner of that cause and the life span would go down.

100 years ago most people died of infectious diseases.
Then we invented antibiotics and people stopped dying of infections and started dying of heart disease and cancer instead and the life span went up.
Over the past 50 years we've gotten better at treating heart disease and the life span has gone up. So the number of people dying of heart disease has gone down and the number of people dying of cancer and stroke has gone up.

If tomorrow someone invented a cure for cancer people would stop dying of cancer. Life spans would go up and we would start to have an epidemic of strokes and alzheimer's and renal failures and every other way a body can wear out and fail.

As long as humans are mortal, every time we triumph over one condition another one will just move up to take it's place.
User avatar
diemos
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 20:48:09

The huge mushroom clouds from atom bomb tests of the 1950s and 1960s are an unforgettable part of the American saga. The tests were cloaked in rhetoric typical of the Cold War, i.e. they were needed to achieve “superiority” over the Soviets in the event of a nuclear war.

But all the patriotic nuclear talk couldn’t prevent widespread concern that nuclear war would kill tens of millions. But many were also troubled by fallout in the mushroom clouds, which contained huge amounts of over 100 deadly radioactive chemicals that traveled through the air across the continental U.S. Precipitation brought this fallout back to earth — and into the food chain and human bodies.

Concerns became so great that scientists and citizens began calling for studies of how much fallout was entering people’s bodies, and how much harm it was causing — especially to the highly-sensitive fetuses, infants, and children. Dr. Herman Kalckar of the National Institutes of Health published an article in August 1958, calling for a baby tooth “census” — a program of collecting teeth and testing them in laboratories for fallout levels. In particular, Kalckar suggested that Strontium-90 be measured.

Of the more than 100 radioactive chemicals in fallout, Sr-90 was the most feared. Chemically similar to calcium, it attaches to bone and teeth, where it attacks cells, causing cancer. It can penetrate into the bone marrow, where the red and white blood cells so important to the immune response are formed. In 1956, Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson made a speech singling out the potency of Sr-90:

“This radioactive fallout, as it is called, carries something that’s called strontium-90, which is the most dreadful poison in the world. For only one tablespoon equally shared by all the members of the human race could produce a dangerous level of radioactivity in the bones of every individual.”

In December 1958, a group of visionary scientists at Washington University in St. Louis, working with the citizen group Committee for Nuclear Information, began collecting baby teeth, locally and across the country. They obtained federal grants to cover their costs, and generated large numbers of volunteers to help with tooth collection. Schools, PTAs, churches, scout groups, dental societies, libraries and clinics all took part. Children were rewarded for donating teeth with a small button bearing a likeness of a boy with a gap in his front teeth, with the phrase “I Gave My Tooth to Science.”

A staggering total of about 320,000 teeth were collected over the next dozen years. Lab tests found that children born in 1963 had about 50 times more Sr-90 in teeth than those born in 1950. Washington University officials used their results in testimony to the U.S. Senate leading to the Partial Test Ban Treaty signed by President John F. Kennedy, ending all above-ground atom bomb tests.

Testing had ended, but the thorny question of health hazards to Americans — especially children — remained. U.S. childhood cancer rates had climbed in the 1950s and early 1960s, but scientists were stumped as to why. Studies of the fallout-cancer link were only conducted after the Cold War had ended. A 2002 U.S. Centers for Disease Control report calculated that fallout caused 15,000 U.S. cancer deaths, a figure some believed was a gross underestimate. The following year, a blue ribbon European panel reported 61,600,000 cancer deaths worldwide from fallout.

The St. Louis tooth study was seemingly headed for the history books, until 2001, when Washington University officials stumbled upon 85,000 teeth not used in the study in a remote storage area. The school donated the teeth to the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a research group conducting its own study of Sr-90 in baby teeth, near U.S. nuclear reactors. Each tooth is enclosed in a small envelope attached to a card identifying the tooth donor.

RPHP scientists recognized that these teeth could help answer the long-awaited question of fallout’s harm to the health of Americans. The tooth donors, now in their 40s and 50s, could be tracked at current addresses or through death records. And Sr-90 could still be measured in each tooth, as the chemical decays very slowly.

Earlier this month, the first results of the RPHP health study were released in an article in the International Journal of Health Services. Baby teeth of St. Louis baby boomers who died of cancer by age 50 had more than double — 122 percent more — the Sr-90 concentration than did Boomers who are alive and healthy. This research, known as a case-control study, is the first evidence that bomb tests harmed Americans using actual levels of fallout in human bodies.

link


During the Cold War in the mid-1940s through early 1960s, the U.S. government conducted about 100 nuclear weapons (atomic bomb) tests in the atmosphere at a test site in Nevada, more than 100 in the Pacific, and one—the first ever—in New Mexico. The radioactive substances released by these tests are known as "fallout." They were carried thousands of miles away from the test site by winds. As a result, people living in the United States at the time of the testing were exposed to varying levels of radiation.

Among the numerous radioactive substances released in fallout, there has been a great deal of concern about and study of one radioactive form of iodine--called iodine-131, or I-131. I-131 collects in the thyroid gland. People exposed to I-131, especially during childhood, may have an increased risk of thyroid disease, including thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer is uncommon and is usually curable. Typically, it is a slow-growing cancer that is highly treatable. About 98 out of 100 people who are diagnosed with thyroid cancer survive the disease for at least five years after diagnosis.

The thyroid controls many body processes, including heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperature, as well as childhood growth and development. It is located in the front of the neck, just above the top of the breastbone and overlying the windpipe.

Although the potential of developing thyroid cancer from exposure to I-131 from nuclear weapons testing is small, it is important for Americans who grew up during the atomic bomb testing between 1945 and 1963 to be aware of risks.

How Americans Were Exposed to I-131

Because of wind and rainfall patterns, the distribution of I-131 fallout varied widely after each test. Therefore, although all areas of the United States received fallout from at least one nuclear weapons test, certain areas of North America received more fallout than others.

Scientists estimate that the larger amounts of I-131 from the Nevada test site fell over some parts of Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Montana. But I-131 traveled to all states, particularly those in the Midwestern, Eastern, and Northeastern United States. Some of the I-131 collected on pastures and on grasses. Depending on the location, grazing cows and goats sometimes consumed contaminated grasses resulting in I-131 collecting in the animals' milk. Much of the health risk associated with I-131 occurred among milk-drinkers--usually children. From what is known about thyroid cancer and radiation, scientists think that people who were children during the period of atomic bomb testing are at higher risk for developing thyroid cancer.

The Milk Connection

People younger than 15 at the time of aboveground testing (between 1945 and 1963) who drank milk, and who lived in the Mountain West, Midwestern, Eastern, and Northeastern United States, probably have a higher thyroid cancer risk from exposure to I-131 in fallout than people who lived in other parts of the United States, who were over the age of 15 in the 1940s, or who did not drink milk. Their thyroid glands were still developing during the testing period. And they were more likely to have consumed milk contaminated with I-131. The amount of I-131 people absorbed depends on:

•Their age during the testing period (between 1945 and 1963)
•The amount and source of milk they drank in those years
•Where they lived during the testing period

Age and residence during those years are usually known. But few people can recall the exact amounts or sources of the milk they drank as children. While the amount of milk consumed is important in determining exposure to I-131, it is also important to know the source of the milk. Fresh milk from backyard or farm cows and goats usually contained more I-131 than store-bought milk. This is because processing and shipping milk allowed more time for the I-131 to break down.

Exposure to I-131 can increase the risk of thyroid cancer. It is known that children have a higher-than-average risk of developing thyroid cancer many years later if they were exposed to radiation. This knowledge comes from studies of people exposed to x-ray treatments for childhood cancer or noncancerous head and neck conditions, or as a result of direct radiation from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

link


This isn't some abstract debate. This is real life and those born in the late 50s are dying in their 50s from cancer due to fallout exposure.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 21:12:25

It takes a stupendous level of ignorance to believe an isotope with an 8 day half life released between 1945-1963 in very small quantities is causing a plague of thyroid cancer.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14112
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 21:24:48

The earliest concern about health effects from exposure to fallout focused on possible genetic alterations among offspring of the exposed. However, heritable effects of radiation exposure have not been observed from decades of follow-up studies of populations exposed either to medical x rays or to the direct gamma radiation received by survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Rather, such studies have demonstrated radiation-related risks of leukemia and thyroid cancer within a decade after exposure, followed by increased risks of other solid tumors in later years. Studies of populations exposed to radioactive fallout also point to increased cancer risk as the primary late health effect of exposure. As studies of biological samples (including bone, thyroid glands and other tissues) have been undertaken, it has become increasingly clear that specific radionuclides in fallout are implicated in fallout-related cancers and other late effects.

It is important to note that, even though the fallout exposures discussed here occurred roughly 50 to 60 years ago, only about half of the predicted total numbers of cancers have been expressed so far. The same can be said of the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most of the people under study who were exposed to fallout or direct radiation—for example, A-bomb survivors—at very young ages during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s are still alive, and the cumulative experience obtained from all studies of radiation-exposed populations is that radiation-related cancers can be expected to occur at any time over the entire lifetime following exposure.

link

Tanada, take it up with the National Cancer Institute and the CDC who conducted the study. 'It takes a stupendous level of ignorance to believe' that they don't know what they are talking about and that you know better than them.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby sparky » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 00:00:11

@ Diemos ,
Antibiotics appeared during the 1940ies , the mortality rates of the early 19th centuries were gone by then .
actually the improvement in life expectancy was mostly due to better food security ,sanitation ,clean running water and modern sewage .
on the medical front , basic antiseptic procedures , such as washing hands for the surgeons and midwives , produced immediate improvement , the smallpox was the first epidemic to be mastered as early as the late 1700
the work of Pasteur around 1880 establishing the germs as responsible for a great number of diseases
was ground breaking ,he invented vaccines and serums to cure several including rabies
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby sparky » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 00:29:17

.
@ cid yama , the danger of radioactive substances were well established for decades before any Atomic testing
professor Becquerel , discovered natural radioactivity and was burned by it ,probably fatally so was Marie Curie .

in 1917 the case of the "Radium girls "women painting clock faces with brushes dipped in Radium was the first successful industrial hazard case

The first warning of possible adverse effects of X-rays came from Thomas Edison, William J. Morton, and Nikola Tesla who each reported eye irritations from experimentation with X-rays and fluorescent substances.

as early as the 1920ies warning of the danger of medical X-rays were included in the procedures

the large number of cancer provoking chemicals in the modern everyday life probably claimed more live than the testing

the case of the Polynesian population exposed to the fallout of the bravo test was so extreme
as to constitute a boundary by itself .

if you are stating that extreme exposure is dangerous , that certainly is the case
but EXTERNAL exposure to radiation a few percent above the average background
should not be assumed to be proven deadly .
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 07:01:35

No, it is the ingestion of radioactive particles, which the deniers try to gloss over or ignore, that is the problem.

And it is the same people that deny climate change. Someone tell how these same people always end up on the opposite side. If Tobacco was still an issue, the would be on the side of the Tobacco Industry.

It has to be political, as that is the only connection I can see across the different issues. And they are all Republicans. Yes, not all Republicans are deniers, but all deniers are Republicans.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 07:42:50

Cid_Yama wrote:No, it is the ingestion of radioactive particles, which the deniers try to gloss over or ignore, that is the problem.

And it is the same people that deny climate change. Someone tell how these same people always end up on the opposite side. If Tobacco was still an issue, the would be on the side of the Tobacco Industry.

It has to be political, as that is the only connection I can see across the different issues. And they are all Republicans. Yes, not all Republicans are deniers, but all deniers are Republicans.


Horse pucky, all the physics science deniers I meet are Democrats like yourself Cid. There is some fundamental disconnect in your thinking process between the fact that I-131 has an 8 day half life and makes up a astonishingly small percentage of weapon test fallout. Yes if you had the bad luck to be heavily exposed you were at serious risk for thyroid damage, but that risk ended over 50 years ago when atmospheric testing ended. Claiming that thyroid cancers today are related to events that took place over 5 decades ago is attempting to disprove a negative. Nobody alive today has had any of that weapon testing iodine in their systems since three months after the last test. They can not have any because it all decayed away beyond detection thresholds well before the end of 1964.

Physics is physics, radiation is not some magical effect we know nothing about. Radiation is omnipresent in the environment, no matter where you are you are subject to background radiation including high energy solar and cosmic radiation, radioactive soil, Carbon-14 in the food you eat and on and on and on. Fear mongering when it has been shown with hundreds of case studies that people who live in 'hot' zones have equal or fewer cancers than people living in 'cold' zones is ignorant denialism at its very worst. Strangely enough all the hype artists doing it are Democrats, like Helen Cladicott.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14112
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 09:35:21

Tanada wrote:
Horse pucky, all the physics science deniers I meet are Democrats like yourself Cid.


Odd. I know plenty of science deniers that are republican religious fundamentalists.

But then I suppose ideologues of any strip react the same way whenever science has to say to them, "No, your cherished and beloved belief does not match reality. Sorry."
User avatar
diemos
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 11:45:56

diemos wrote:
Tanada wrote:
Horse pucky, all the physics science deniers I meet are Democrats like yourself Cid.


Odd. I know plenty of science deniers that are republican religious fundamentalists.

But then I suppose ideologues of any strip react the same way whenever science has to say to them, "No, your cherished and beloved belief does not match reality. Sorry."


I think it is all topic oriented. Many on the left hate nuclear fission so they ignore all science on that part of science because it proves they have no leg to stand on. Many on the right you see the same thing with regards to ecosystems and/or global warming. Because the science does not support the 'its all a gradual change and nature will easily adapt' meme of the right leaning folks they deny the science on those topics.

The danger is lumping everyone in either group into the denier basket on a particular topic without talking to them first. I know devout Christians who believe in Global Warming and I know devout Ecologist Activists who are fully in favor of Fission as a way to maintain civilization with the smallest possible environmental impact.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14112
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 12:43:13

Tanada wrote:Horse pucky, all the physics science deniers I meet are Democrats like yourself Cid. There is some fundamental disconnect in your thinking process between the fact that I-131 has an 8 day half life and makes up a astonishingly small percentage of weapon test fallout.

Isn't the issue inhaled strontium?
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26543
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 15:56:18

pstarr wrote:
Tanada wrote:Horse pucky, all the physics science deniers I meet are Democrats like yourself Cid. There is some fundamental disconnect in your thinking process between the fact that I-131 has an 8 day half life and makes up a astonishingly small percentage of weapon test fallout.

Isn't the issue inhaled strontium?


Strontium is generally speaking absorbed from food grow n soil containing Strontium. It is a Calcium analog chemcally and gets deposited in your teeth and bones. Strontium-90 has a roughly 30 year half life so if you absorb say 1 gram when you are 15 and your skeleton is rapidly growing then when you are 45 half of that gram will have dcayed away.

Of course in the intervening 30 years not all of the Strontium you absorbed will stay in your system, calcium and its analogs do cycle in and out of your body. Interestingly the mustang horses collected from the Chenobyl exclusion zone have a "high" level of Strontium-90 in their skeletons and teeth from grazing the grass growing in contaminated soil. Despite this they sell for good prices in Western Europe and China because the horses are healthy, not sickly tumor ridden biological wreckage.

Commenting on the herds of Przewalski's horses, Dr Wood observed: "They seem to have adapted quite well to life within the zone.
"From the images from our cameras, they are clearly moving around in quite large groups," he told BBC News.


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32452085
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4152
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests