Who here is a nuclear weapons expert and has an unbiased take on the effects of weapons based radiation vs. power plant radiation?
I know a lot about nuclear weapon effects. I have a Masters degree in physics and wrote classified software for the then Defense Nuclear Agency
concerning nuclear weapons effects for six years and the Strategic Air Command concerning nuclear weapons targeting for about 4 years. I also know how
power reactors are built and understand the nuclear reactions that take place. I thoroughly understand radioactivity and how ionizing radiation
interacts with living tissue.
The main difference between bombs and reactors in the area of radioactive nuclides is the amounts involved. Weapons are composed of 10s -100s of
pounds of radioactive materials. Reactors contain tons of the stuff. Weapons do produce neutron activation of non-radioactive materials, making them
radioactive (the neutron bomb) but such materials are highly radioactive and therefore decay away quickly.
Minimizing the radiological effects of 3 power reactor core melt downs because the ground beneath weapon detonations can be inhabited doesn't make any
sense. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Thank you.... Just observing and trying to understand the hysteria about radiation. The thread started with the "good" news that seaweed is not
radioactive from the power plant. That was point one. Radiation from two atom bombs hitting Japan also is not deadly-lasting... since the two cities
are rebuilt in the same places. Point two. So not all radiation is deadly for an eternity.
Your point that weapons only use a few pounds of radioactive material vs. a power plant using tons is a good one! So, I guess it is lucky the sea weed
is not radioactive?
Originally posted by David K
Just observing and trying to understand the hysteria about radiation.
It's not hysteria, it's legitimate concern.
You can't see it, taste it, feel it, or hear it. You don't know it's there. If you breath in or otherwise ingest just a tiny (weight wise) radioactive
particle and it gets stuck or chemically assimilated in your body your chances of getting cancer is greatly increased. It emits ionizing radiation
which means it changes the atoms and molecules in your tissues, often causing genetic mutations which can and do lead to cancer.
Originally posted by David K
Radiation from two atom bombs hitting Japan also is not deadly-lasting
Yes it is. The half-life of plutonium 239, the fissile isotope in the Nagasaki bomb is 24,100 years. It's not only radioactive, it's toxic too. You
don't want to get a speck of that stuff in your lungs. It's lying around Nagasaki, just not much of it. Residents probably don't need to worry about
it. Probably. I would never raise a family there.
BTW, power reactors create some plutonium 239 from uranium 238, some are even fueled with.
Also, although it could never be proven, it's only logical to attribute high cancer rates, in part, to the Japan bombs and the atmospheric testing
that took place in the 50s and 60s. Why do you think they went to underground testing?
Well, if millions of people are living there since 1945, I would say it is not a deadly place.. anymore so than anywhere else. Chernobyl seems to be
more dangerous... and I thought you made it clear the reason why (tons vs pounds)?
Originally posted by David K
Well, if millions of people are living there since 1945, I would say it is not a deadly place.. anymore so than anywhere else.
I disagree. It is riskier there. Not much, but riskier.
I just added this to my above post:
Also, although it could never be proven, it's only logical to attribute high cancer rates, in part, to the Japan bombs and the atmospheric testing
that took place in the 50s and 60s. Why do you think they went to underground testing?
Originally posted by David K
Perhaps from fear and not real science?
Nope, wrong again.
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
The French didn't go underground, and people still enjoy Tahiti for vacation...
Look up "non-sequitur".
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
I am not saying any of this is good. I am saying it isn't as bad as some make it out to be.
Perhaps the worst industrial pollution event that has ever occurred. I suppose Chernobyl could be considered worse. Depending upon what you're
considering.
Read about the migratory blue fin tuna caught off of San Diego that contain Cs-137. Not much, but it's there. How much will they contain in the
future? Less probably, maybe. Will it accumulate in the fish?????
Do the fish contain plutonium? I don't know. Do you?
Originally posted by wessongroup You don't take a poll on a fact
Watch: John Oliver and Bill Nye Show Why Cable News Climate "Debates" Are So Ridiculous
john oliver is the best! hey, ever notice every time the nutty mapman says something
incredibly stupid he ends with "have a nice day"?
just a casual observation!
Looks like someone here is having a no-hitter thrown
against him, against all logic and factual presentation,
he clings begrudgingly, grasping at straws, trying to save face, do all of us
a favor, and take a seat on the bench, it's over
Originally posted by sancho
Looks like someone here is having a no-hitter thrown
against him, against all logic and factual presentation,
he clings begrudgingly, grasping at straws, trying to save face, do all of us
a favor, and take a seat on the bench, it's over
That's what happens when you use political ideology to form your conclusions instead of following (or following people who use) the scientific method.
Political ideology, which David K uses as a foundation for his opinions, is rooted in the desire for power and not the acquisition of knowledge. As
such it may have little to do with reality or logic and leads one to be negative against all other conclusions.
I just think the liberal "sky is falling" and "in crisis" distress claims about selective disasters is disingenuous and used to create drama to assist
in their political power grab.
David, please cite a "selective disaster" wherein the world's best scientists have falsified evidence to create drama in order to further progressive
causes.
Three of the newspapers from this study are owned by huge multi-national corporations. Almost all the "news" we Americans get comes from one of 5 big
corporations. Can you tell me which ones of them lobbied against the SCOTUS making their corporations "people" with free speech rights to secretly buy
politicians with their shareholder's money?
Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. Sam Harris
"The situation is far too dire for pessimism."
Bill Kauth
Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
That the implementation of Scientific Theory has always been and will always be governed by political reality.
WE are always aware that it is our political support of candidates who support OUR view of those Theories
which will be ultimately responsible for the direction government takes.
Politics to support Ideals are the means to achieve the ends.
"That the implementation of Scientific Theory has always been and will always be governed by political reality."
No disagreement on this point, at this time ..... however, things maybe changing ... as "politics and/or industry" have been faced with an issue which
is very LARGE IN SCOPE and have not been able to effectively address, to date
Perhaps there is a paradigm shift coming our way .... what has worked in the past, is NOT working at this time based on Science which weŽ are
"seeing" up close and personal on a Global Scale
Major step by the President ... to put NOW into the mix on this topic ... as it does have linkage to Japan's meltdown IMHO
"If it were lush and rich, one could understand the pull, but it is fierce and hostile and sullen.
The stone mountains pile up to the sky and there is little fresh water. But we know we must go back
if we live, and we don't know why." - Steinbeck, Log from the Sea of Cortez
"People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care." - Theodore Roosevelt
"You can easily judge the character of others by how they treat those who they think can do nothing for them or to them." - Malcolm Forbes
"Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others
cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else's hands, but not you." - Jim Rohn
"The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." - Cunningham's Law
Thankyou to Baja Bound
Mexico InsuranceServices for your long-term support of the BajaNomad.com Forums site.
Emergency Baja Contacts Include:
Desert Hawks;
El Rosario-based ambulance transport; Emergency #: (616) 103-0262
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
john oliver is the best! hey, ever notice every time the nutty mapman says something
incredibly stupid he ends with "have a nice day"?
