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 clif » Tue 14 Feb 2017, 22:53:48

Yes but the radiation levels inside means robots DIE after only two hours inside. It takes them longer to get to the bottom of the reactor, which is why they never actually get to where they are needed before radioactive death to machine.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Tue 14 Feb 2017, 23:03:55

Yes. But most decommissioning plans include flooding the area with water to provide shielding and reduce the radiation levels then remove the material from the top down.

The three mile island decommissioning is an interesting example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3CWS1z_py4
User avatar
diemos
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby clif » Tue 14 Feb 2017, 23:41:20

Two different level of failure, TMI didn't have a catastrophic failure and explosion of the building, Fukushima have 4 out of 4 reactors fail and explode. even though #4 wasn't operating at the time.

The damage at Fukushima is magnitudes worse then TMI experienced, with much higher levels of radioactivity. Also with the possible breaches which have allowed water to leak out of the reactors, refilling them might prove to be problematic especially with their proximity to the Pacific Ocean..
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Tue 14 Feb 2017, 23:46:30

Yup, the damage is higher and there's three of them to decommission (not 4). The possible breaches is one reason they need the ice wall to keep the ground water under the reactors separate from the ground water outside the wall.
User avatar
diemos
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby yportne » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 00:28:42

Leslie Corrice on Hiroshima. He has an interesting blog that he updates about twice a week. http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com
User avatar
yportne
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon 03 Jan 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby sparky » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 16:12:13

.
Excellent video on three miles island clean up,
as in all disasters some lessons can be drawn from it

to contain the materials , a concrete enclosure is a good idea ,
to contain molten core material ,a thick layer of sand under the reactor is a good idea
to design the reactor for easier dismantlement and access is a good idea
never never store the fuel too close to the reactor

Accident will happen , that's what accident do , it's wise not only to plan on preventing them
it's also good policy to plan how to deal with them afterward
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 pstarr » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 20:41:44

clif wrote:Two different level of failure, TMI didn't have a catastrophic failure and explosion of the building, Fukushima have 4 out of 4 reactors fail and explode. even though #4 wasn't operating at the time.

The damage at Fukushima is magnitudes worse then TMI experienced, with much higher levels of radioactivity. Also with the possible breaches which have allowed water to leak out of the reactors, refilling them might prove to be problematic especially with their proximity to the Pacific Ocean..

I am proximate to the Pacific Ocean, but the only thing I see glowing on the beach are the surfers campfires and a lot of spiffs. still looks like good old h20 out there lol
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25737
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby clif » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 20:51:41

I am proximate to the Pacific Ocean,



5000 miles from Fukushima.

Don't know what your post is supposed to show BTW since you are so far from the disaster site.

The worry is radioactive water leaking into the ocean near the Japanese coast not leaking near the California coast.

But do continue to attempt to obfuscate the obvious.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 28 Apr 2017, 20:54:09

For those who think they need to be terrified of radiation releases I was just wondering, do you cook with natural gas?

[img]2015-04-17-1429237690-1319440-RadonKitchen.JPG[/img]

Enjoying the spring air? Well, take a deep breath New York.

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States and the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, resulting in 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year.

So why am I mentioning this now? Well, recent research reported from scientists at Johns Hopkins reiterates the wisdom of legislation introduced by assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal and senator Diane Savino mandating that all natural gas sold in New York must contain safe radon levels.

Joan A. Casey and her scientific team recently reported that radon levels in Pennsylvania have risen since hydraulic fracturing of natural gas commenced. The researchers said they “found a statistically significant association between proximity to unconventional natural gas wells drilled in the Marcellus shale and first floor radon concentration in the summer,” suggesting “a pathway through outdoor ambient air.”

The Johns Hopkins finding renews concern about increased exposure to radon due to natural gas obtained through unconventional methods, including horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing. Further studies are clearly needed to determine why the radon level in areas of Pennsylvania with 100 or more shale gas wells is significantly elevated and what can be done to control increased radon exposure.

Studies are also needed to be sure the extracted natural gas itself does not contain elevated radon as major health organizations (including the American Medical Association, American Lung Association, U.S. Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the World Health Organization) agree that reducing radon exposure is a major health imperative.

So now is the time to enact legal protections to ensure radon levels from natural gas remain safe.

Overwhelmingly, New Yorkers use natural gas for cooking and heat. Former New York City Department of Environmental Protection commissioner Al Appleton posed it best when he asked whether New Yorkers wanted a side of radon with their meals.

Proposed radon bill A778-2015/S3414-2015 is designed to ensure that the number of premature deaths does not grow exponentially as a result of exposure to radon and other forms of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM) in natural gas used by New Yorkers.

Until recently, radon exposure in New York was principally caused by ground emissions through cracked or leaking foundations in buildings and through use of groundwater contaminated from radon.

Radon from Marcellus Shale natural gas is a new peril. EPA studies definitively show that soils in the Marcellus Shale region, where the natural gas extraction industry is rapidly expanding, contain significant concentrations of NORM. As such, gas extracted from the Marcellus and Devonian Shales could contain levels of TENORM that raise health concerns. In fact, a USGS study of 11 Pennsylvania wells tested at the wellhead suggested that natural gas from shale may have higher radon levels than natural gas from other sources.

To date, few peer-reviewed, independent studies have been done to determine the nature and extent to which Marcellus Shale natural gas contains TENORM (the so-called “top of the well” studies). No systematic, peer reviewed studies measured the amount of TENORM in Marcellus natural gas found in end-user kitchens, boilers or homes (“end of the line” studies).

Let me focus on the facts we do know. The natural gas wells being drilled in the Marcellus extend about 1 mile deep and 1 mile or more long through areas that are documented to contain high levels of NORM. The time it takes to transport natural gas from the top of the well in the Marcellus to the end of the line in New York is a matter of hours—- much less than the 3.8 day half-life, the time it takes for TENORM to naturally dissipate.

According Mark Hudson, an oil and gas industry writer, “testing for radon is quick, inexpensive - and, given the potential volatility of the discussion, invaluable.”

Proposed bill A778-2015/S3414-2015 is an important measure because the bill creates incentives for industry to test natural gas before TENORM is delivered into New York.

If, as the oil and gas industry contends, there is little NORM in Marcellus natural gas, then there will be little to no cost for the energy industry to comply with A778-2015/S3414-2015 . If the industry is correct that there is no potential public health problem, then there is no cost to mitigate radon levels before delivery to the public.

If, on the other hand, elevated radon levels are found in natural gas, then the cost of reducing exposure will save lives (and avoid a potential epidemic of lung cancer). Reducing exposure will also reduce future public health care costs for the state of New York.

Simply said, failure to ensure that there are no elevated radon levels in natural gas delivered to New York homes and businesses could cause a significant uptick in lung cancer in future decades.

The Johns Hopkins study reinforces concerns that radon in drilling is a public health concern in need of further review. Proposed radon bill A778-2015/S3414-2015 takes the important step of requiring industry to demonstrate that all natural gas delivered to homes and businesses in New York is safe. The legislation does not stipulate how industry delivers safe gas.

Under the proposal, natural gas that is not safe cannot be sold in New York. Allowing only the sale of radon-free or low-radon natural gas is a notion we can all live with.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth ... 83518.html
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: 4026
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 28 Apr 2017, 21:15:03

Just from a climate change perspective natural gas is bad. It inevitably leaks into the atmosphere adding to methane levels.

Is your point supposed to be that just because something else is bad, anything else bad is somehow less bad?

Thank you clif for taking on the thankless job of putting these morons in their place.
"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: 6875
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby chilyb » Sat 29 Apr 2017, 01:34:50

all I have to say in reply is that the fukushima catastrophe isn't helping anyone. What is the long term waste stategy again?
chilyb
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 21:35:20

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Sat 29 Apr 2017, 07:51:07

chilyb wrote:all I have to say in reply is that the fukushima catastrophe isn't helping anyone. What is the long term waste stategy again?


Fukushima was the result of crap technology and crap decision making (the reactors only failed because some collection of Tepco manager retards couldn't be bothered to move the backup generators from the standard GE basement location to the hill behind the plants). Trying to discount nuclear power on this basis is retarded. Nuclear "waste" is fuel for fast neutron breeder reactors. Such reactors are not exotic proposed designs but are on track to be the primary nuclear generation mode in certain countries. That there is a discussion about "waste" being a problem reveals the ignorance of those engaged in this discussion.

This thread pushes the notion that natural gas is bad (obviously oil and coal are bad) and of course nuclear is super, super bad. That leaves biomass burning, solar and wind as the power sources to supply 7.5 billion humans on this planet. Good luck with that.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4894
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 29 Apr 2017, 12:50:12

"Good luck with that"

We collectively have had pretty 'good luck with that.'

Wind power capacity has been increasing at an exponential rate for decades now, its price dropping precipitously so that it is now more than competitive with coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_powe ... pacity.svg

Solar is on similar trajectories, though with a later start. Yes, we should have started these ramp ups a couple decades earlier at least--blame Reagan if you like. But in the coming collapse, I'd rather have a bunch of of solar and wind around going under-maintained than have a bunch of nukes melting down or being taken over by terrorists of various sorts.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16459
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Sat 29 Apr 2017, 15:44:30

Everything we can put in place now will cushion the transition to the post-fossil fuel world.
User avatar
diemos
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby pstarr » Sat 29 Apr 2017, 20:02:34

clif wrote:
I am proximate to the Pacific Ocean,



5000 miles from Fukushima.

Don't know what your post is supposed to show BTW since you are so far from the disaster site.

The worry is radioactive water leaking into the ocean near the Japanese coast not leaking near the California coast.

But do continue to attempt to obfuscate the obvious.

Wasn't the plume like due here, like, I don't know, like 2 or 3 years ago?
Image
Still a groovy happy surfin' safari here NorCal lol
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25737
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 30 Apr 2017, 08:04:42

pstarr wrote:Wasn't the plume like due here, like, I don't know, like 2 or 3 years ago?
Image
Still a groovy happy surfin' safari here NorCal lol


Like nearly all anti-nuclear propaganda this map is not only idiotic on the face of it, time has proven once again that it was nothing but a sensational lie used to gin up donations to the anti-nuclear organization like Greenpeace and advocates like Helen Cladicot.

I tried to watch the 1983 Hollywood version of the Karen Silkwood story and gave up after 45 minutes. That has to be one of the slowest paced boring movies of all time. In reality almost everyone in the movie was a smoker, and the radiation dose you get from smoking is vastly more than ignorant people have any clue about.

Cigarettes & Radiation…

One theory on lung cancer which brings both air-borne radon and cigarettes to a comparable assessment is the amount of radiation contained in both. Because tobacco is grown in soils fertilized by Phosphorous (radioactive) enriched materials, polonium-210 and lead-210 (radioactive) are resident in the tobacco leaves. When smoked, this radiation is transferred to the smoker’s lungs, and then exhaled to the environment. If contained in a room or car, this radiation filled smoke can be inhaled by non-smokers, causing lung damage. Two articles on the subject are…

Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke
Winters-TH, Franza-JR
New England Journal of Medicine, 1982; 306(6): 364-365

To the Editor: During the 17 years since the Surgeon General's first report on smoking, intense research activity has been focused on the carcinogenic potential of the tar component of cigarette smoke. Only one definite chemical carcinogen -- benzopyrene -- has been found. Conspicuous because of its absence is research into the role of the radioactive component of cigarette smoke.

The alpha emitters polonium-210 and lead-210 are highly concentrated on tobacco trichomes and insoluble particles in cigarette smoke (1). The major source of the polonium is phosphate fertilizer, which is used in growing tobacco. The trichomes of the leaves concentrate the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and processed.

Levels of Po-210 were measured in cigarette smoke by Radford and Hunt (2) and in the bronchial epithelium of smokers and nonsmokers by Little et al. (3) After inhalation, ciliary action causes the insoluble radioactive particles to accumulate at the bifurcation of segmental bronchi, a common site of origin of bronchogenic carcinomas.

In a person smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes per day, the radiation dose to the bronchial epithelium in areas of bifurcation is 8000 mrem per year -- the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300 x-ray films of the chest per year. This figure is comparable to total-body exposure to natural background radiation containing 80 mrem per year in someone living in the Boston area.

It is a common practive to assume that the exposure received from a radiation source is distributed throughout a tissue. In this way, a high level of exposure in a localized region -- e.g. bronchial epithelium -- is averaged out over the entire tissue mass, suggesting a low level of exposure. However, alpha particles have a range of only 40 um in the body. A cell nucleus of 5 to 6 um that is traversed by a single alpha particle receives a dose of 1000 rems. Thus, although the total tissue dose might be considered negligible, cells close to an alpha source receive high doses. The Po-210 alpha activity of cigarette smoke may be a very effective carcinogen if a multiple mutation mechanism is involved.

Radford and Hunt have determined that 75 per cent of the alpha activity of cigarette smoke enters the ambient air and is unabsorbed by the smoker, (2) making it available for deposit in the lungs of others. Little et al. have measured levels of Po-210 in the lungs of nonsmokers that may not be accounted for on the basis of natural exposure to this isotope.

The detrimental effects of tobacco smoke have been considerably underestimated, making it less likely that chemical carcinogens alone are responsible for the observed incidence of tobacco-related carcinoma. Alpha emitters in cigarette smoke result in appreciable radiation exposure to the bronchial epithelium of smokers and probably secondhand smokers. Alpha radiation is a possible etio- logic factor in tobacco-related carcinoma, and it deserves further study.

Thomas H. Winters, M.D.
Joseph R. Di Franza, M.D.
University of Massachusetts Medical Center
Worcester, Ma 01605


How much radiation dose is received by a cigarette smoker?

Interestingly, this subject was initially investigated some 40 years ago by scientists at the School of Public Health at Harvard University. Working with physicians in the neighboring Harvard teaching hospitals, they were able to obtain lungs taken during autopsies of smokers who had died from lung cancer. The School of Public Health scientists carefully analyzed samples from selected areas of these lungs and found that they contained relatively high concentrations of 210Po (polonium-210), a naturally occurring radionuclide that the International Commission on Radiological Protection considers to be one of the most hazardous of all radioactive materials. In fact, it is far more hazardous than 239Pu (plutonium-239). Of particular significance was that the Harvard studies showed that this radionuclide tended to concentrate in "hot spots" at bifurcations of segmental bronchi within the lungs, precisely the areas where lung cancer originates among cigarette smokers.

Armed with this information, studies were conducted to determine the source of the 210Po. Although the initial assumption was that it was taken up by the tobacco plant from the soil, the investigations revealed that it was deposited on the leaves of the plants (which are large and sticky) from the air. Just as the decay of naturally occurring radium in the soil often results in the presence of relatively high concentrations of radon and its radioactive decay products in the air inside buildings, the decay of radium in the soil outdoors results in the presence of radon and its decay products in the surrounding air. Whereas radon is a gas, its radioactive decay products are solids. Enhancing the adherence of these decay products to the tobacco leaves is the fact that they are electrically charged and readily adhere to any surface with which they come into contact. When a smoker lights a cigarette, the 210Po is volatilized and, when he/she inhales, it is deposited in the lungs.

Based on careful assessments of the concentrations of 210Po in the lung tissues, it was estimated that the "hot spots" received an annual dose of about 160 millisievert (about 16,000 millirem), two of the more common units for expressing doses from ionizing radiation. To provide perspective, it is useful to compare this dose to the limit stipulated, for example, by the US Environmental Protection Agency for members of the US public. Making this difficult in this case, however, is that the annual dose limit for members of the public (1 millisievert, or 100 millirem) is expressed in terms of a dose to the whole body, whereas, as noted above, the dose to a smoker is limited to a very small portion of the body.

Nonetheless, in a report published in 1987, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1987) sought to make such a comparison, the tentative outcome of which suggested that the annual dose to a smoker (when converted into an equivalent dose to the whole body) was more than 10 times the annual dose limit for a member of the public. Having provided this estimate, however, the NCRP went on to state that they would prefer not to make such a comparison. That is to say, the comparison to the annual whole-body dose limit may not be completely valid.

In a similar manner, the scientists at Harvard, while acknowledging that the dose to a smoker was high, were quick to recognize that 210Po was only one of a multitude of carcinogenic compounds in cigarettes. For this reason, they were hesitant to cite 210Po as a primary source of lung cancer among cigarette smokers. Based on these considerations, their conclusion was that "we believe 210Po may be an important factor in the initiation of bronchial carcinoma in humans" (Little et al. 1965).

Dade W. Moeller, CHP, PhD

References
Little JB, Radford EP Jr, McCombs HL, Hunt VR. Distribution of Polonium210 in pulmonary tissues of cigarette smokers. New England Journal of Medicine 273: 1343-1351; 16 December 1965.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation exposure of the US population from consumer products and miscellaneous sources. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; NCRP Report No. 95; 1987.


http://www.rmeswi.com/36.html
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: 13821
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 dohboi » Mon 01 May 2017, 03:49:43

Other things are worse for you, therefor nukes must be great.

Rock-solid logic, there, T! :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16459
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 01 May 2017, 08:32:08

dohboi wrote:Other things are worse for you, therefor nukes must be great.

Rock-solid logic, there, T! :lol: :lol: :lol:


We should all hide under rocks and die of diseases and lack of energy because, you know, science is scary right D?

There are zero consequence free choices, so we do the best we can selecting from the menu we have. Solar PV manufacturing generates a lot of toxic waste. Windmills kill a lot of birds and bats. Geothermal releases plumes of Radon gas from deep in the crust. Wave energy requires careful placement to avoid damaging the environment in ecologically sensitive locations. Tidal and Hydroelectric artificially impound water and this has effects many of which were not known or planned for in the past.

Fossil fuels are undoubtedly bad but supply 80 percent of world baseload power. Most other sources of power are intermittent which makes them problematic for baseload power, only large scale Hydro-electric and Nuclear fit the baseload role well.
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: 13821
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 Tanada » Mon 01 May 2017, 10:38:43

A short video by an expert scientist who dedicated his life to understanding radiation and its effects on your genes.

https://youtu.be/C0_gMpsVB-k
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: 13821
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 01 May 2017, 12:02:53

Tanada wrote:A short video by an expert scientist who dedicated his life to understanding radiation and its effects on your genes.

https://youtu.be/C0_gMpsVB-k

I might just give that a looksee.

But really, all I need to know is the wolves of Chernobyl. They eat all their meals in the radiation zone, no certified organic. Their pups are born and raised in the radiation zone, no charter schools. The wolf family lives and die quite normally . . . in the radiation zone.

We share with wolves the very same molecular, genetic, cellular, metabolic and physiologic systems. Radiation has the same effect on all of us. Happy wolves happy humans :)
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25737
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests