Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

1170171172174176

Comments

  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,033 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Any amount of plutonium is cause for alarm. I certainly would not be happy living in an environment that has any levels of plutonium.

    It's really not, low levels are harmless. Just so you know, coal powered plants produce and release plutonium, uranium and thorium so you might want to stay far away from them. Whether normal coal fires (like the ones people have in their house) do or not I do not know.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 256 ✭✭Statistician


    It's really not, low levels are harmless. Just so you know, coal powered plants produce and release plutonium, uranium and thorium so you might want to stay far away from them. Whether normal coal fires (like the ones people have in their house) do or not I do not know.

    Do you have a source for that?
    Which isotopes of Plutonium are produced from coal? The above article mentions that Pu-238 was found.

    I'm aware that coal contains small amounts of Uranium, but I never heard of it also containing Plutonium.


    As for Pu-238 being harmless, how much of it would you like to have in your lungs right now? - a small amount, or none?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    It's really not, low levels are harmless.

    Eh not last time i looked..


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    anyone for free return flights to Japan?

    http://bit.ly/p0HGUy

    the Japanese government is giving away 10,000 free flights to tourists worth up to 1.1b yen, you just have to tell them why you'd like to visit and what you intend to do when you're there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,735 ✭✭✭el diablo


    Been there twice already but I wouldn't another trip there next year. :)

    We're all in this psy-op together.🤨



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭Hal Emmerich




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    I wish someone would change the thread title. Every time someone bumps this I think a new earthquake has hit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,018 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    What's a normal reading?

    About 0.5 to 1.5microSv, I think?




  • Standman wrote: »
    I wish someone would change the thread title. Every time someone bumps this I think a new earthquake has hit.
    Yes: either that or put this thread to sleep and start another one about the Fukushima nuclear incident!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Solnskaya


    jsd1004 wrote: »
    There is very little evidence of a substantial increase in cancer rates as a result of Chernobyl. Thyroid possibly but that can be attributed to increased screening and children fed with contaiminated milk as outlined in the articles below

    Regarding the medical data, would you care to comment.

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html

    Regarding cost benefit I think that is incidental. If we do not use nuclear what option do we have? We are quickly killing the planet with Co2 emissions from fossil fuel. It is a tough choice but one that will have to be made.
    Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,654 ✭✭✭shadowninty


    Solnskaya wrote: »
    Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.

    Are you a global warming sceptic or something?


  • Registered Users Posts: 334 ✭✭Elohim


    Solnskaya wrote: »
    Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.

    Eh jsd1004 is right:

    UN Report: http://www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/docs/report.pdf

    "No reliable evidence has emerged of an increase in leukemias, which had been
    predicted to result from the accident. However, some two thousand cases of
    thyroid cancer have so far been diagnosed among young people exposed to
    radioactive iodine in April and May 1986."


  • Registered Users Posts: 469 ✭✭geetar


    Solnskaya wrote: »
    Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.

    no. check your facts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Solnskaya


    Yup, chernobyl was good, Jet airplanes don't create excess cloud, CO2 is bad, Football is important and Gerry Ryan is a saint. "Whatever" is all that comes to mind.:rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Solnskaya


    Are you a global warming sceptic or something?
    Heaven forbid. Are you 17?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    Solnskaya wrote: »
    Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.

    It happens to be true, there is also other studies about people who live in naturally high radiation environments such as an area rich in granite and there are no increases in cancers or any other diseases and the link provided by the poster is based on a WHO/UN report it was not commissioned by the daily mai,l or Greenpeace who wrote the original projections of the Chernobyl disaster which never came to fruition. We just simply didn't get the increase in cancers they suggested.

    So lets see what happens in Japan in the future.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Solnskaya


    4leto wrote: »
    It happens to be true, there is also other studies about people who live in naturally high radiation environments such as an area rich in granite and there are no increases in cancers or any other diseases and the link provided by the poster is based on a WHO/UN report it was not commissioned by the daily mai,l or Greenpeace who wrote the original projections of the Chernobyl disaster which never came to fruition. We just simply didn't get the increase in cancers they suggested.

    So lets see what happens in Japan in the future.
    Yeah, and the reactors weren't built by GE, who, in the usual course of events would be bust through the lawsuits imposed, but, because it's GE, it's all good- don't mind them durty hippies spouting nonsense. Or the one tailed swallows, which only means somthing to those who have really studied chernobyls insidious effects.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    Solnskaya wrote: »
    Yeah, and the reactors weren't built by GE, who, in the usual course of events would be bust through the lawsuits imposed, but, because it's GE, it's all good- don't mind them durty hippies spouting nonsense. Or the one tailed swallows, which only means somthing to those who have really studied chernobyls insidious effects.

    First of all if you did study the effect you would know about this report which was compiled by a multidisciplinary international team by the WHO from between 2003 to 2005 way before the Japanese disaster.

    As for the dirty hippies,,what about them:confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Solnskaya


    4leto wrote: »
    First of all if you did study the effect you would know about this report which was compiled by a multidisciplinary international team by the WHO from between 2003 to 2005 way before the Japanese disaster.

    As for the dirty hippies,,what about them:confused:
    My hero s. Not sure where the apostrophy goes, if it has one. Anyway, fexk away and sh1te, you're boring me.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    The WHO? You must be joking! they're in the pockets of the nuclear industry. Always have been old chap.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    Solnskaya wrote: »
    My hero s. Not sure where the apostrophy goes, if it has one. Anyway, fexk away and sh1te, you're boring me.

    Awwwww, so you were wrong. I think its heroes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Solnskaya


    4leto wrote: »
    Awwwww, so you were wrong. I think its heroes.
    spot on. First time in a while.:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    4leto go educate yourself on some reports that are not WHO or industry bull****.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    ed2hands wrote: »
    4leto go educate yourself on some reports that are not WHO or industry bull****.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl

    Article by Oliver Tickle writer of Kyoto 2 and a well known environmental campaigner. Mmmm I think I will pass on that journalist educating me on the nuclear industry.

    If you are interested Google Radiation effects exaggerated and take your pick. The studies are not all WHO. I remember Horizon and the OU did something about it as well. But its irrelevant after fukushima there will be virtually no nuclear industry in a few years time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    ed2hands wrote: »
    4leto go educate yourself on some reports that are not WHO or industry bull****.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl
    i'm sorry but you can't tell someone to go and educate themselves and then post a link to an article in the guardian.

    its like telling someone to learn to drive and then sending them a link to this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Solnskaya


    I put more store in Helen Caldicotts version than the mainstream media, she seems to have a fair grasp and is not a rabid axe grinder. Watch her press conference on Youtube and it's fairly sobering stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    this is never going to go anywhere, much like it hasn't gone anywhere in the last 5000 odd posts.

    the posters on the anti-nuclear side will believe whatever reports tend to support their views and the pro-nuclear side will believe whatever supports theirs and everyone will keep posting links that the other side will refute with their own opinions and links supporting those beliefs and it'll just keep going round and around and getting nowhere.

    the only thing we know for sure is that according to the thread tags, the world is ending, godzilla is here and vibe666 loves rimming (allegedly). :)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    Glad to see everyone has continued to be civil to one another on this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 81,144 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Solnskaya wrote: »
    Utterly, totally, completly, the most disingenuous post I have ever read on Boards.ie and God bless us, that's saying somthing. Wrong on so many levels its just....wrong. I despair somtimes.
    Not really. Cancer != radiation death.

    Acute radiation sickness has a way of killing you a lot sooner than the onset of cancer.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement