God(s) bless the U(N)SA
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2013, 07:13 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 07:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 06:50 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Yeah except there was a reactor disaster and it was not properly contained...

You are saying that this is all bullshit? I would welcome such information, I'm seriously worried about this shit and I would sleep better at night if you could shed some light on the situation...I would like to start eating fish again.

Yes, there was a problem. Several unlikely things went wrong at once, so the safety systems weren't quite able to compensate. An absolute worst-case scenario projection (worst-case!) will result in several hundred premature radiation-related deaths over the next several decades. This is fewer people than die in coal mines every year, so far as a 'safety of power generation' comparison stands.

Some radiation was released, yes. But, the reactors are designed pretty damn carefully! What was released was both small amounts of material, and materials with very short half-lives (as short as several days, for some). Unless you were like, five kilometres downwind, you're fine. Even then if you pretty much stayed inside for a couple days you're fine. It's literally less radiation exposure than handful of intercontinental plane flights or radioisotope imaging tests. Some bedrock is more naturally radioactive than the delta from that event.

You probably shouldn't eat any fish anyway, but that's because most fish stocks are either collapsed or collapsing, and a different matter.

Well yeah and the average whale has more pollutants in it than I care to think about.

...I've been hearing crap about the FDA upping acceptable radiation limits in food, about this Fukushima Iodine 129 being in the Pacific and in California soil for millions of years contaminating my beverage of choice (Bogle Cabernet Sauvignon), etc.

If you tell me it's BS I'll trust you on it, but in that case there is a lot of miss-information going on.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 07:40 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(22-08-2013 07:13 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Well yeah and the average whale has more pollutants in it than I care to think about.

But... you're not eating... the whales...

Sadcryface

(22-08-2013 07:13 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  ...I've been hearing crap about the FDA upping acceptable radiation limits in food,

Not something I've ever heard of (but then, what do I care about food laws in foreign countries Tongue ?), but if so I guarantee it's unrelated. We irradiate things on purpose to sterilize them.

(22-08-2013 07:13 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  ... about this Fukushima Iodine 129 being in the Pacific and in California soil for millions of years contaminating my beverage of choice (Bogle Cabernet Sauvignon), etc.

Yes. There's not none. It's just such an absurdly small amount that the effect is statistically insignificant, and pales in comparison to a single tanning session.

(22-08-2013 07:13 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  If you tell me it's BS I'll trust you on it, but in that case there is a lot of miss-information going on.

Oh, you bet your glow-in-the-dark ass there's a lot of misinformation. But I can't for the life of me understand why. As I alluded to in my last post coal mining has killed magnitudes more people and destroyed vast areas. I just really don't get it. People can't seem to think about it rationally. Is there no risk? Fuck no! Everything has risks! But there's just so many people (stereotypically the environmental left, but really all stripes) who run screaming for the bunkers at the merest hint of 'radiation'. Is it the association with nuclear weapons? Is it Chernobyl? 'Cause even that was freak accident caused by poor maintenance and bad communication, and if you don't think we can even do a better job of those things than Soviet Ukraine, well...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 07:48 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
Yeah but you can analyze their blubber for toxins easily(without killing them), they are so large/long lived/far ranging + so high on the food chain that they serve as an excellent barometer for the health of the ecosystem.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
[Image: 1229870_711297938887555_1252330624_n.jpg]

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 04:14 PM (This post was last modified: 07-09-2013 12:43 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: God(s) bless the U(N)SA
(06-09-2013 02:31 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  [Image: 1229870_711297938887555_1252330624_n.jpg]

Maybe noone fucking cares cos the argument is a little stretched, exaggerated and bent out of shape in the media examples given. The world is more complex than an argument that fits in a sentence. That topic probably needs its own book, or several books.


Edit: just maybe this came off sounding harsh and that wasn't my intention. Thats the problem with text talk. It doesn't accurately show what I'm trying to say.

I think the privacy issue will need to be addressed but it's not so simple. Its not just government that collects your data. Private business does it. Loyalty rewards cards are just one form of data collection. Pharmacies and supermarkets use this to track your buying behaviour. Plenty of other examples.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: