Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Coles

amacachi wrote: »

How do you define "otherwise avoidable"? Someone standing closer than necessary to you on a train is a rise in the radiation you're exposed to that could be avoided.

Read the first part of my definition again.

It's stocking how hard it was for any of the Kool-Aid gang to accurately (or consistently) define 'harmless'. Perhaps one of you would have another stab at it. Feel free to copy and paste my definition of 'safe'.

'No attributable harm that was otherwise avoidable'.

ScumLord

Coles wrote: »

It's stocking how hard it was for any of the Kool-Aid gang to accurately (or consistently) define 'harmless'.

Can you even buy cool-aid in this country?

Your an alarmist. Radiation is a common and normal part of every day existence.

Coles

ScumLord wrote: »

Well obviously, nobody told me I shouldn't.

:rolleyes: You threw out the warning leaflet?

Coles

PeakOutput wrote: »

are you just going to keep ignoring all the reasonable questions you are being asked because you have no reply that does not contradict your position?

I thought you'd gone to bed. It's getting late after all, and I assumed that if you were asking childish questions about the risk of driving cars and flying aeroplanes that you probably had a curfew.

andrew

Coles wrote: »

Link please.

As proof of which statement?

No attributable harm that was otherwise avoidable.

So you agree, then, that travel by airplane is unsafe? As is, well, any other travel which is 'avoidable.' And so is being anywhere near a lit cigarette, or being near someone with any kind of infectious disease.

Coles

andrew wrote: »

So you agree, then, that travel by airplane is unsafe? As is, well, any other travel which is 'avoidable.' And so is being anywhere near a lit cigarette, or being near someone with any kind of infectious disease.

Do you smoke near a new born baby? What do you think when you see someone smoking near a baby?

mufcboy1999

is japan actually sinking lads? is there a possibility it could completely disappear...

andrew

Coles wrote: »

Do you smoke near a new born baby?

No, but not because I'd be afraid of giving it a statistically increased chance of cancer, but because smoke is an irritant.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. The things i mentioned, like air travel, do you consider them unsafe?

Coles

andrew wrote: »

No, but not because I'd be afraid of giving it a statistically increased chance of cancer, but because smoke is an irritant.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. The things i mentioned, like air travel, do you consider them unsafe?

I can choose to fly or not. I can choose the flight, the aircraft, the airline, the airports, the weather. I can change my mind before I board the plane. I can consciously assume the risk. Air travel is a safer form of travel than doing the comparable journey by car or by horse.

Can a baby refuse the radiation in breast milk?

Hank Scorpio

Well at least its nice to know if Ireland ever did have a radioactive situation unfold we`d be fine, the amount of experts posting thier knowledge in this thread is overwhelming.



























:rolleyes:

Coles

No more questions? Ok then. I'll take that to mean that the Kool Aid gang have finally gone off to research the topic.

mufcboy1999

Can a baby refuse the radiation in breast milk?

theres radiation from boobies:eek: can you get that from sucking your girlfreinds titays?

if so il never look at tits the same way again you may have just ruined me sex life buddy.

ScumLord

Coles wrote: »

No more questions? Ok then. I'll take that to mean that the Kool Aid gang have finally gone off to research the topic.

No it's skateboarding time, the cool aid gang have put their radiation shields (sunglasses) on and have gone to pull some Ollies or some such manoeuvres on their skateboards. Or land surfing vehicles as I like to call them.

amacachi

nuxxx wrote: »

Well at least its nice to know if Ireland ever did have a radioactive situation unfold we`d be fine, the amount of experts posting thier knowledge in this thread is overwhelming.



























:rolleyes:

No, much better to run away from every "possible" "danger".

Coles wrote: »

Can a baby refuse the radiation in breast milk?

No, which is why I think any woman who gets a mammogram while either of child-bearing age or with young children should be stoned to death.

andrew

Coles wrote: »

I can choose to fly or not. I can choose the flight, the aircraft, the airline, the airports, the weather. I can change my mind before I board the plane. I can consciously assume the risk. Air travel is a safer form of travel than doing the comparable journey by car or by horse.

Can a baby refuse the radiation in breast milk?

But you didn't answer the question, do you consider the various things I mentioned to be safe?

KamiKazi

Can all the bedroom nuclear experts please STFU, it's getting really tedious reading your bullsh*t.

PeakOutput

KamiKazi wrote: »

Can all the bedroom nuclear experts please STFU, it's getting really tedious reading your bullsh*t.

so why are you reading it then? you know were the door is right?

Coles

amacachi wrote: »

No, which is why I think any woman who gets a mammogram while either of child-bearing age or with young children should be stoned to death.

You're not understanding the issue here are you? Ingesting radioactive particles or radionuclids is significantly more harmful than an external exposure. Ask Andrew. He's a sensible fellow and I've no doubt he'll confirm that.

Seriously, Kool-Aid Kids, the information is out there. Read up on it.

gbee

Ireland has already had a nuclear accident, don't forget Windscale [Sellafield] reactor fire. Same as in Japan, except Japan's accident is more contained.

Turtwig

Coles wrote: »

You're not understanding the issue here are you? Ingesting radioactive particles or radionuclids is significantly more harmful than an external exposure..

Actually this depends on the substance. Inhalation of plutonium is worse than ingesting it. Ingesting radium, is worse than inhalation. Exposure to Caesium 137 is worse than ingesting it. In the case of plutonium unless the amount you eat/drink is quite large (I forget the quantity:o) it is possible for the substance to pass through you without any harm. If however you inhale a similar amount, then once the plutonium enters the lungs it stays there and can be absorbed into the bloodstream.

Also to people who are claiming that low level radiation is harmful. Low level radiation is believed to increase your risk to get cancer (although not significantly). I say believed because this is a claim that has yet to be verified, it's quite possible it never will be. In any case, I still believe the claim to be correct : a single ionised particle could alter the DNA in your cell and produce a cancer. Low level radiation does increase your risk to cancer but when in its in terms of getting killed by ducks crossing the road the risk is negligible and not really worth mentioning.

mufcboy1999

is japan going to sink?

andrew

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

is japan going to sink?

Eh, No, that's not possible.

Coles

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually this depends on the substance. Inhalation of plutonium is worse than ingesting it. Ingesting radium, is worse than inhalation. Exposure to Caesium 137 is worse than ingesting it. In the case of plutonium unless the amount you eat/drink is quite large (I forget the quantity:o) it is possible for the substance to pass through you without any harm. If however you inhale a similar amount, then once the plutonium enters the lungs it stays there and can be absorbed into the bloodstream.

So we can agree on that. Taking radionuclides into the body (ingesting or inhaling) is significantly more harmful than an external exposure. Right?

It sure would be interesting to know how much more harmful, wouldn't it? Any takers? Any one got any data to suggest how much more dangerous ingested/inhaled radionuclides are as opposed to external exposure?

The Kool-Aid gang like to compare all radiation to 'a healthy sun tan', or an x-ray, or a CT scan, or a trip in an aeroplane, but that betrays an extraordinary ignorance.

Also to people who are claiming that low level radiation is harmful. Low level radiation is believed to increase your risk to get cancer (although not significantly).

Link please.

I say believed because this is a claim that has yet to be verified, it's quite possible it never will be. In any case, I still believe the claim to be correct : a single ionised particle could alter the DNA in your cell and produce a cancer. Low level radiation does increase your risk to cancer but when in its in terms of getting killed by ducks crossing the road the risk is negligible and not really worth mentioning.

Your anonymous opinion? A link would be appreciated.

123balltv

Japan 9.0 earthquake on discovery now
good footage, what a day that was

andrew

Coles wrote: »

So we can agree on that. Taking radionuclides into the body (ingesting or inhaling) is significantly more harmful than an external exposure. Right?

As another post said, it depends on the kind of radionuclide. Given the doasges we're talking about here, and as another post here said, I don't think it really matters.

The Kool-Aid gang

Christ, and I thought 'nuclear choirboy was bad'

Link please.Your anonymous opinion? A link would be appreciated.

How about you take 5 minutes to do some research into how ionising radiation affects living things before asking for links to support basic facts.

Coles

andrew wrote: »

As another post said, it depends on the kind of radionuclide. Given the doasges we're talking about here, and as another post here said, I don't think it really matters.

YOU don't think it really matters? Some anonomous contributor on Boards.ie called 'Andrew' says ingesting radionuclides into the body 'doesn't really matter'. Perhaps you would/could/should provide a link?

Christ, and I thought 'nuclear choirboy was bad'

'Nuclear choirboy'? That suggests virtue. No... I prefer the Kool-Aid reference. It more accurately reflects the inherent dangers of 'accepting an argument or philosophy wholeheartedly or blindly without critical examination'. WikiLink

How about you take 5 minutes to do some research into how ionising radiation affects living things before asking for links to support basic facts.

No. I want links. I want to see the quality of the information sources the Kool-Aid gang relies on. I've already done the research.

Coles

Link to Fairewinds Associates.
Epidemiologist, Dr. Steven Wing, Discusses Global Radiation Exposures and Consequences with Gundersen.

Rob A. Bank

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Radioactive milk found in breast feading milk of Japanese mothers.

This is extremely serious.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8465248/Radioactive-iodine-found-in-breast-milk-of-Japanese-mothers.html

The worrying thing about this is that it took a 'citizen's group' to discover that four out of the nine women tested had radioactive Iodine-131 in their breast milk.

The Japanese government should have been testing for this, this is not the first time the Japanese people have been exposed to lethal radiation.

Rob A. Bank

Atmospheric radiation leak underestimated

Fukushima plant releasing 154,000,000,000,000 becquerels per day, every day.

“Data released by the government indicates radioactive material was leaking into the atmosphere from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in early April in greater quantities than previously estimated.

Radioactive material was being released into the atmosphere from the plant at an estimated rate of 154 terabecquerels per day as of April 5, according to data released by the Cabinet Office's Nuclear Safety Commission on Saturday.

The NSC previously estimated radiation leakage on April 5 at "less than 1 terabecquerel per hour."

…One terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels.“

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20110424dy04.htm

robinph

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

...estimated rate of 154 terabecquerels per day ...

...less than 1 terabecquerel per hour....

They should at least use the same range of time for the numbers they are quoting.

So it's gone from 1 thingy per hour to 6.4 thingys per hour now. Not the 1-154 change that the numbers are trying to claim.




Not questioning that it's less than ideal, but it is not in the same range of :eek: that the dodgy statistics are being used to show.