4leto go educate yourself on some reports that are not WHO or industry bull****.
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.
its like telling someone to learn to drive and then sending them a link to this.
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.
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).
Glad to see everyone has continued to be civil to one another on this thread.
Not really. Cancer != radiation death.
Acute radiation sickness has a way of killing you a lot sooner than the onset of cancer.
Do you believe in fairy tales? Because the Sun and its solar cycles have much greater impact on our climate than mankind will ever have.
Never knew boards.ie had so many scientists on it. Y'all should publish your findings and get it peer reviewed, might take notice then as I'm no scientist, just an ordinary person who has to rely on what experts know
While the title may say the radiation is unrelated, what the article says is that they don't know where the radiation is coming from. It reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where, in the interests of not being the messenger who is shot, Dilbert changes his presentation from "Warning: Our product is killing people" to "Issue: Customer Safety" before finally settling on "Decline in Unsatisfied Customers"...
A sensationalist newspaper would no doubt have focused on the fact that the levels reported officially now are 40 milliSv, about 400 times as much as the 100microSv initially reported.
I'm sure there are better tables with varying levels of radiation on them knocking around, but here's the first one that Google yielded
It doesn't look great in any case.
Subsidized by who? The public. (Private money would not build a nuclear power station due to the liabilities and slow return on investment (if any).
Disasters and their cost in health and economic terms? Borne by the public.
Waste that's radioactive for centuries? Public problem.
Proliferation of radioactive material and distasteful regimes making weapons or dirty bombs? Public problem. (Cost of security)
It's a win win for... um....
Yay \o/ for nuke-u-lar!
what's our point?
Sounds like the farmland has been ruined for decades to come.
please destroy this thread.