@Linda : I think that is about what I feel as well On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Marko Vojinovic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Friday 23 December 2011 10:49:57 jdow wrote: > > On 2011/12/23 08:57, Joe Zeff wrote: > > > On 12/23/2011 12:44 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > > >> Also, give it time... > > > > > > How much? We're still waiting for signs of major mutations from > > > Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show up. > > > > > >> Fukushima radiation mapped > > > > > > Yeah. What they don't tell you, probably because the reporters don't > > > know it, is that much of the reason we're finding so much radiation is > > > because our detectors are a lot better than they were back in the days > > > of Chernobyl. > > That's not exactly true. The radiation is quite easy to measure, and there > is > no need for increased sensitivity of the detectors. It is true that todays > technology of making those detectors is better than it was in the time of > Chernobyl, but the detectors used back then were equally precise for the > purpose of measuring the excess radiation. If a detector can measure > properly > the natural background radiation, it's good enough for everything stronger > as > well. > > > What they are also not teaching you about is the number of now ripe old > > people who have been living in the exclusion (high radiation) zone after > > refusing to move out. They seem to live quite normal and healthy lives as > > do the herds of wildlife, horses and so forth. > > Are talking about Fukushima or Chernobyl? > > AFAIK, those are just old people who refused to leave the Chernobyl > exclusion > zone (or rather kept coming back after being removed). But there are no > young > people living there. There are no children there either (nor living nor > being > born). And there probably shouldn't be any, for a long time to come. I am > not > so sure how "normal and healthy" that can be. > > I am sometimes quite surprised about people downplaying the seriousness of > nuclear pollution. The common argument that "nobody has died yet" is > irrelevant --- it takes a fairly large amount of exposure to actually kill > a > human by radiation. However, it takes a rather smaller amount of radiation > to > contaminate the human DNA to the point of problems in reproduction. In > addition, it's a matter of future planning --- the "hot spots" in the > contaminated zone are dangeorous now, and they are going to stay dangeorous > for a very very long time. If the hot spots are not cleaned out (which may > be > impossible in some cases), the pollution in those areas is to be considered > *permanent* for all intents and purposes, on the scale of the lifetime of > human civilization. Noone can faithfully claim to be able to keep those > areas > "off limits to population" for the next 10 000 years or so. > > I'd say that uncontrolled nuclear pollution is the single most > irresponsible > thing that humans could ever do to this planet (bar a global thermonuclear > war). Oil spills, CO2 emmision and other "environmental" stuff that people > are > talking about these days are a complete childsplay compared to this. > > Best, :-) > Marko > > > > > -- > users mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org >
-- users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
