A GIANT WTF!!!?

I can't fricking believe that wherever I go, whatever I do, whomever is speaking, all I'm hearing about is that radiation is not as bad for you as you think it is.

Now, I IRRADIATE PEOPLE FOR A LIVING. I am actually trained in radiation exposure and limits and allowables and all that other stuff which these 'experts' are casually espousing and downplaying, and I'm gonna tell you right here, right now, that if a population is exposed to a given dose of radiation which is not the norm, not the background amount, then we are going to see, if not today, then 20, 30, or 50 years from now, increased morbidity and mortality. It's a statistical certainty. Much of the disease which occurs normally is due to ionizing radiation which is unavoidable: it's part of living and a shame but more or less inescapable. When you dose people, you're going to get illnesses which may manifest later, birth defects which may manifest later, anomalies which may manifest later, and these SCUM who say, "There's no provable blah blah blah" in the same manner in which they did it for cigarette smoking, will be out there saying that just because your child was born with this that and the other thing, and that you lived downwind of TMI or flew over Japan, or worked in a lab which processed plutonium, is no indication AT ALL WHATSOEVER that radiation caused this.

To quote the great Clint Eastwood: do you feel lucky? Because you had best better if you get exposed to this 'harmless' radiation. It's just maddening...

defense contractor. And owns NBC.

It's not all black and white with GE.

As a Marine, he volunteered to participate in Operation Crossroads. The Department of War (as it was known at the time)assured him that he was only exposure to "safe" levels of radiation during the testing. However, when he developed various cancers in the 1970s, they were quick provide him care at military hospitals and discouraged him from seeing a private physician.

The pattern is always the same.... its too bad so many people can't see the way this is played out.

Like we will do with the fascists, one and all.

and how people have gone back there to live and the radiation levels are low enough and there is no evidence of cancer related to the radiation. it's so great there that it is now a tourist spot! talk about wtf!

Yeah, I'd buy a house there...

I went to a speech by the director of Carnegie-Mellon University's Robotics Center. He was the guy who designed the robots sent into Three Mile Island after it's partial melt-down. Ross Perot pulled strings with the US Govt. to get this guy sent to Chernobyl to help them out before the public even heard about what happened there. He had to wear a Soviet army uniform while he was there.

He returns to the area every year to visit people he worked with, and to visit the two orphanages- birth defects 30 years later!

I saw the the Today Show piece, and they never made such claims.

Nice spin, but not accurate. They never said that things were "great" there. They pointed out that it is an "extreme" tourist spot, and that people still need permission to enter the area. Travel will be restricted, and lots of precautions will have to be taken.

As for the cancer, they never said there was "no evidence of cancer related to radiation." They said there was no evidence of cancer in areas where one now receives low doses of radiation. They pointed out that thousands of people are dying from cancer from receiving large doses of radiation after the accident.

And, yes, people are going back to live there, although NBC neglected to mention that they're all elderly people who don't have many years left in them as it is.

It's bad enough that the MSM is fomenting hysteria with their hype and disinformation, but I'm appalled to see it here on DU, too.

and showed people working the land. then they showed kids swimming in a pool and said that they don't have increased rates of cancer and i'm pretty sure said something about not related to the radiation. i wasn't spinning anything. it was quite obvious to me that they were making it sound like things are going back to normal in chernobyl and as if it weren't a big deal and that people wouldn't get sick from living there. i am not spreading disinformation. this is what I saw on the piece and how i saw it. you may not have seen it that way, but don't accuse me of spinning or minsinforming people.

Yeah, I wanna see a radiation superfund site for my vacation! WTF??

Stood at ground zero where the very first nuclear weapon went off.

Yes, the site is still mildly more radioactive than it was before the blast.

I don't expect that wiill have as much of an effect on my overall lifespan, though, because:
1. I drink.
2. I smoke.
3. I have had more than 4 sexual partners.
4. I drive.
5. I exercise less than 30 minutes a day.

(etc.)

Going somewhere mildly more radioactive than "usual" (which varies quite a bit, BTW) isn't adding much at all to the overall calculus... but going to Trinity (and maybe I should do Hanford, too, now that I'm closer) added something to my life.

The lobbyists and their hacks are dominating the discussion.
M$Greedia strikes again.

radiation we may have been exposed to. As though that's okay and we shouldn't be concerned that the dental or X-Ray techs dive behind protective shields and don lead aprons before zapping us. :eyes:

An acquaintance of mine had colon cancer last year. It was the first I'd heard that there are limits to how much radiation therapy one can have in the course of a lifetime. She caught her's early but her brother's was more advanced & he's had his lifetime dosage.

Unbelievable, the lies they tell us. Even more unbelievable that so many fall for them.

"Question Authority" has served me well.

or surgery -- I chose surgery. Glad I did!

What do they do in the case where you've reached your limit? Radiation, like chemo, just seems like the wrong approach to me, but that's another topic.

up having surgery anyway so I opted for the surgery to just get it over with. And really, it was a piece of cake, so for me that was the way to go.

Do you take thyroid meds now?

C'est la vie.

Or is it more of a guideline about "uhm, this may hurt more than harm"?

Are airline attendants denied chemo, for example?

So can we agree that it is HIGHLY rational to be afraid :scared: of Fukushima

:nuke:1 :nuke:2 :nuke:3 :nuke:4 :nuke:5 :nuke:6

(and not rational to suppress emotions and act like it's business as usual at this point)?

nt

I avoid them like the plague, myself. Until of course you can't. :)

or something like that?

It's pretty regulated actually...at least here in PA.

Also accidentally referring to chemo as radiation therapy colloquially. :blush:

it's the same thing with climate change and a host of other things...the more of a substancethat is added to existing levels, will increase said substance exponentially. This is partiucularly important if the sunstance(s), cannot be removed in the natural process, which is often overwhelmed. This holds true for radiation, chemistry and other situations that can and do affect the earth and all of the ings on it to some degree.

Studies from post WWII show sudden exposure to intense radiation, particualrly Gamma Rays, can have severe consequences over long periods of time.

Then there are the changes made in the atmosphere, (and elsewhere), when substances can mix chemically, creating unforeseen consequences.

you get all these extra tumors. But by then who's asking?

For example, was the ovarian cancer that killed my mother too soon in the year 2000 when she was otherwise fit, healthy and alert due to the 1957 Windscale disaster?

It is pathetic to listen to the "experts" as they propagate their lies and apathy towards their fellow human beings.



If I hear one more "expert" on TV say that this man-made disaster is really not a big deal, I'm going to scream. They have the temerity to opine that it will lead to an increase in cancer deaths, but that it won't be "statistically significant". Really....... that's the best that they can come up with????????? I wish that they would define "statistically significant" and explain how such an inane remark will pacify the victims and their families who become the "insignificant". GE...We bring good things to life! Now we know why some of their top Engineers resigned when these reactors were green-lighted despite their fears.

a lot of people, myself included, don't have full knowledge of this stuff. And yes, I do know exposure via X-rays is safe; you even have us put on a lead bib, for God's sake.

40% of us are going to get cancer anyway, so big freaking deal. When you're dealing with people who think the earth is only a few thousand years old and that global warming is a myth, it's not surprising they thing radiation is good for you. I say send 'em into the plant with buckets of water.

Never in my life have I ever heard of anyone that actually thought radiation wasn't bad for you.

He thinks nuke waste should be incorporated into bricks and used to build houses. :tinfoilhat:

One method of containing the waste is to encase it in such structures.

Of course, if you then *pulverize* the bricks in, say, an earthquake or house demolition, well, the genie is back out, and a cute idea goes back to being really short sighted.

not politicians. Any politician is generally guarranteed to say something completely nutso at some point, so that wouldn't surprise me.

I just can't imagine any normal average person that would think something so whacko. Any person I've ever encountered in my whole life is twitchy about radiation all the way up to totally horrified by it. Medically, radiation can be useful for some things but I don't know anyone that doesn't think of it even medically as a necessary evil they'd far rather NOT have.

Nuke waste to build houses... What. The. Fuck. The things a politician will actually say out loud.

...normally all jokey fun stuff, but this morning it's all about how radiation is our friend, and how it's not abnormal to grow second penis or a third arm...well okay, maybe not that extreme, but they were cetainly pushing the "radiation isn't dangerous" meme very hard..

Not only does it make you feel healthy and smarter, it waxes your car, walks the dog and will at times, make dinner.

nuclear radiation - it's not just a sickness, it's a way of life. :)

(brought to you by the good people for nuclear radiation ignorance committee)

comic book superheroes!

Kid: Thank you radiation man!


Radiation Man: you won't later when your hair falls out!

:rofl:

:rofl:

Because there isn't a single form of "radiation". Which is why some of it is more dangerous than others.

From a plant like the ailing one in Japan, the primary dangers are radioactive Iodine and Strontium. Both emit a 'beta particle' when they decay. Another name for a beta particle is a high-energy electron. It can only cause damage if it's inside, or next to a cell in your body. Your skin, since the outer layers are dead, provides a barrier against all but extremely strong sources. So standing next to the reactor would be a very bad idea, but low-level exposure to the outside of your body isn't an issue.

Incorporation is the issue - where your body incorporates the radioactive I or Sr. The radioactive material is inside your body, where it can do damage. Which is where those iodine and calcium tablets come in. If you flood your body with "normal" I and Ca, you'll literally piss away any radioactive I or Sr before they have a chance to do much damage.

Alpha emitters would be even safer, since alpha particles are huge, and easily blocked by skin...or a single sheet of paper. Gamma particles are the nasty stuff, since that penetrates very easily into our bodies.

my point is tha tthere is a propaganda effort afoot to convince people that these dosages are OK. they're not OK for the population in general...

They're "OK" but not exactly encouraged if they do.

It may be my personal bias entering into it, but it seems to me that a lot of the "it's OK" is more along the lines of "it's not absolutely terrible".

Because it's hell on earth. And there's no way to know if these radioactive gases are going to cause cancer or not. The odds are they will.

It IS absolutely terrible. Anybody who thinks otherwise is living in fantasyland along with the whackos from the creationist museum.

"And there's no way to know if these radioactive gases are going to cause cancer or not"

Because the laws of physics don't exist, and there has been absolutely no study of the effects of radiation on living organisms.

"It IS absolutely terrible."

No, you only think that due to a lack of imagination. I can think of a long list of scenarios that are much, much worse.

and I have never left any permanent damage like I could have.

This is a slow moving disaster for millions of people inside and outside Japan and shows how we are lulled by the propaganda into believing that there are worse things than radiation poison so we should not demand absolute safety, pretend safety with good PR like in this design and the gulf oil disaster is wrong and just too expensive.

The total cost of some fuel is just too high and that has to be taken into consideration not minimized through propaganda and silly analogies.

The time to demand truth, safety and accountability is now because the 48 hour window sill close. What ever happened to the missing in NOLA? Why do people have to die to get continued eyes on the Gulf disaster?

My government tells me so.
They even have a limit of acceptable melamine in my food!
And oil in my shrimp..didja know the gov't has an acceptable level of that now???

with both beta and gamma emissions. Iodine-131 is not a pure beta emitter. I-131 has an 8 day half-life.

Cesium-137 is also an isotope to be concerned about in this type of radiation accident. Cs-137 has a 30 year half-life. It decays by beta emission to a Barium daughter isotope that has a 2.55 minute half-life and emits a high energy gamma ray (662 keV gamma ray). So for every beta emission you get a gamma emission shortly after.

:shrug:

I never got my feet nuked, but was astonished when I heard of these machines.

-Hoot

A service provided (free) to pre-teens in schools by the 1950s/early 60s British NHS.

Back in the day (1950s).

I can hear the pitch now... "See Ma'm? That's near a perfect fit and these shoes are hard wearing, should last Jonny until his next growth spurt."

-Hoot

something. I have never in my life heard anyone, anywhere say radiation is anything less than deadly. On such serious matters, it can be worth the time to cite your posts, rather than go with the full tilt gossip method.
Show me one actual news outlet that has said radiation is harmless.

they had all these 'experts' on saying that there were no problems with the reactors all weekend...that ist was all under control

but the attitude and downplay about the dangers was definitely there! OP is not exaggerating!

Including that concerned looking "University Professor" or any other person that the MSM brings in. I have no clue what their agenda is, who they consult for, whose boards they sit on, and they don't feel any obligation to tell me that info.
Screw them....we are on our own.

Bunch of lying smug bastards.

This is no different.

At Tinyrevolution.com

You might need to scroll down to read the Three mile Island OPs, but they are worth the small scroll-down time.

One OP lists a site that archives testimony from people who lived in area contaminated by the 3 Mile Island releases and ash deposits from 3 Mile Island.

Very scary and very interesting information.

The paid off interests in this country have managed to convince - or to slant and spin - and to mangle the truth about radiation from these nuclear reactor events. They have succeeded to the point that now the only health studies that get covered in full are the thyroid cancer events.

Yet we know from data before "information" became "industry-bought-out-and-paid-for" information, that radiating particles which lodge in your lungs - you end up with lung cancer. In your blood, leukemia. If they end up in the womb, you can be be a baby born with blastomas and/or brain cancer before your third birthday.

And it is interesting that the UNSCEAR report on Chernobyl did not even look into the findings of the Scandinavian countri8es - it only focused on the people in the Belarus, Ukraine and small area of Russia, rather than the places that were immediately downwind of the event during the 96 hours most pertinent to exposure. Scandinavian countries and Italy all were downwind of the event at some points during the first week of the disaster at Chernobyl.

"Experts" performed a cost-benefit analysis and decided that protecting the public - meaning YOU - from comparatively low-probability threats wasn't worth the additional cost. Therefore they plan for a earthquake, they plan for a tsunami and they plan for a fire, but they don't plan for an earthquake, a tsunami and a fire happening at the same time.

Otherwise, Authority might break down.

That's only one event.

Outraged that the Congress is either considering dropping funding for tsunami warnings, or actually already has done so.

Really, truly and amazingly appalling.

Consider this - - Here in Calif, after the minor tsunami landed from Japanese 8.9 earthquake, we had fifty million dollars of property damage to public owned property like harbor docks etc.

Plus countless other costs related to boats that were sunk. And Hawai'i is usually much more vulnerable than California.

I'm a nurse and since I have never worked in oncology or radiation oncology, I have zero training in radiation exposure. I assist with my neonates getting xrays all the time and it's only until this disaster that I started self educating. I do hope the xray techs who routinely allow me to forgo the lead apron have had more training than me. Don't worry, I've done my last forgone lead apron assist. Each xray for a wee ones is just one, especially if I hold them in the right position, but I'm there for hundreds of them, smaller dose be damned, that was not a good choice on my part but never has anyone thought to offer those of us who work in the NICU a bit of teaching about radiation safety.

Standard insincere appeal for balanced, rational, factual discourse added here to cast doubt on OP.

You should seek out some of the emergecy preparedness threads! Especially the food threads. I think you could really cut to the chase there too.

I will concentrate on that part of the message from a woman as follows: "Hey, you're good!"

I have not heard that in a long time!

:-)

and the last class they made us take was radiation safety. It was actually after we took the registry. I was always very safe, wore aprons and practiced standard safety procedures, was in the field for 20 years, but have known some techs, including myself, who have come down with cancer. I have absolutely no proof that it was my career that caused it, but there was always a part of me that knew I had a higher risk than the general public.

My father too worked with high energy equipment and died at an early age from cancer. I knew of a colleague of his who died at the same time he did, from the exact same rare cancer he had. Of course I have no proof there was a correlation, but I never forgot this.

I have always felt very strongly about radiation safety, the use of the TSA scans to irradiate the public, the use of depleted uranium for weapons, and nuclear energy. I encourage everyone to educate themselves on this subject as much as possible in order to recognize misinformation, since we are too often given information that both underestimates hazards as well as over estimates dangers. But to err on the side of caution is the best philosophy.

This is a time for a renewed sane discourse about public safety not dictated by those who have a vested interest in the field but by independent scientists, scholars and professionals who have the will to protect the Earth and all life.

telling us all how radiation is just part of our lives!

I thought I was having some sort of strange dream as I left the tv on from last night and this is what I woke up to! It's crazy. What are these stooges told to say on the air by whom?

there was a collimated x-ray beam aimed at their ovaries the whole time they were on air.

I am just raging mad about this..it's t he biggest big lie of recent years...scary as all Hell.

can't figure out any other reason right now, either that or their energy advertisers gave them a script.

unfuckingbelievable.

in the medical profession know better.

then i?m not surprised you're experiencing some "strange dreams".

But, hey, at least you're becoming aware of this! :hi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hftgytmgQgE (Cream: Strange Brew (early, on stage)). :smoke:

I was watching late into the night for developing news on the disaster. and fell asleep on the couch with the tv on.

so fucking sorry to disappoint you

The advocates for backscatter were overstating the dangers 10 fold.

He will not go through the new airport super duper x ray machines. I guess he might know a little about it and says even that is too much exposure~

You just don't eff with this...I am old enough to recall when dentists used to stay in the room for x-rays of their patients and lost various body parts, including but not limited to fingers.

Crazy, I know.

I have been in an implant process for over a year now and have had lots of X-rays in relation to that. I also had two sessions at a lab that took slow mo X-rays from above. That, I was told was needed to be able to pinpoint points of integration between bone marrow implants and jawbone, etc.

Every time I mention the numerous X-ray sessions I have been requested to have, my dentist asserts that hers is the state of the art digital X-ray process, which she then asserts emits 80% less radiation than the previous designs. Nonetheless I am given a lead bib and the tech still leaves the room.

Am I any safer getting lots of these new fangled digital X-rays?

Thanks in advance for any info you can lend.



Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!


rdb

Forgive any typos, I'm in a hurry today but wanted to answer your question;

Assuming you're covered with a lead apron which includes your thyroid, then the exposure is minimal. Not zero, but minimal: you get much more x radiation from flying any length of time at 38000 feet than you do from the dental exposures BUT, the practitioner should only take what is necessary to ensure good treatment and no more. they're being careful with your implant placement and that's good news for the long run: you won't have to have more diagnostic films over the years if they do a great job to begin with.

Hope this answers your question...

funny -- if the occasion wasn't so damned sad!!

:nuke:

It's the illness shit that fucks you up hurts.

They are cumulative daily, right? So if you get 10 mSv today, and 20 tomorrow and 30 the next day,that means you have 60 mSv? And so how long before you have a deadly dose of 5000 mSv?

The long term prognosis is not good as far as I can see.

Also depends on source.

Since almost everybody has heard about the iodine pills, and gets sunlight and environmental doses, I'll use that as an example.... and add bananas.

If your system is exposed to radioactive material like sunlight, it mostly bounces off, or just damages some cells (though, it can still cause cancer). If you eat a banana, chances are you will excrete the radioactive material before it affects you (though, it can still cause cancer).

If your body is exposed to radioactive material, and *stores it*, or it happens *a lot*, be it from a banana, sunlight, or a reactor pumping out lots of particles, that's when it is more cumulative, and/or your body can not repair itself as fast as exposure and damage occurs.

The 5000 mSv "deadly dose" is a radiation poisoning risk. That is not cumulative in the sense that if you received a 100 mSv dose once a year for 50 years it probably would not be fatal because your body would recover in between doses. It all has to occur over a "short period of time" to be fatal.

I have to admit I'm not sure how short "short" is, but it's probably governed by the speed with which the body can repair radiation damage. I'd imagine you'd need weeks or months for that process, so I think you're basically right about consecutive daily doses.

Normally, if you got a 10 mSv whole-body dose today as a radiation worker, you wouldn't get 20 mSv tomorrow and 30 mSv the next day because you'd be on a "radiation vacation - you'd have exceeded (or in Japan, reached) your maximum permissible annual radiation exposure. Needless to say, these are not normal times in Japan...

The other risk is cancer, and a rule of thumb is that you'd expect one excess cancer death for every 2000 rem or so (20,000 mSv) of exposure in that population. So my hypothetical person would have a distinctly elevated cancer risk, but would not be "sure" to get cancer.

Then there's the exposure that happens when something radioactive lodges in your body. In that case these "whole body" exposure numbers don't really apply, and you need to look at the dose to whatever organ tends to accumulate the radionuclide.

if there's anything left, say 30 years down the line.

leaked radiation doesn't affect the bottom line for the nuclear industry

where you hide under a wooden desk to protect yourself from a white hot ball of fire emanating from the nuclear attack. That sure calmed everyone.

Depending on distance from the detonation you might have seconds to a minute to get under something before the blast knocks the building you are in, down.

People survived Hiroshima, 300m from ground zero, by being in a building, saw the flash, but weren't crushed to death when the East Asia Tin Works plant building collapsed.

(Memory is a bit foggy, but I'm pretty sure it was 300m from the NE corner of the building)

Just crawl under a desk. Yep. That'll do it.

I never said that, nor did the old 'drop and cover' PSA's.

But you go find some way to make light of things that matter.

The real straw man was your fist reply.

You have yet to point out where I constructed a false argument to substitute for yours, with inherent weaknesses I could exploit.

I simply pointed out the practical purpose of the 'drop and cover' PSA's. The information is valid, for one specific purpose. No one ever suggested it could protect anyone from a nuclear fireball.
And no, I don't expect an apology.

Dribbling off topic for self edification and pointless amusement is the last refuge of the pointless.

Your straw man was to portray my comparison as one of a discussion of physics and the minutiae of "what ifs". It is a false arguement because it ignored the point of the post. You know full well that your portraying my post as a simple physics discussion was not honest. It was a tiresome diversion from the topic of discussion. So you got back what you threw.

And no, I don't expect an apology would ever flow from your fingers for your meandering and pointless post. Or did I miss how your discussion of thermodynamics and plywood actually do have anything to do with the issue of the people in Japan who will be dealing with radiation sickness and death.

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were somewhere in the ballpark of 20 kilotons. The typical yield of a nuke today is 1,000 kilotons or simply 1 megaton. The largest bombs tested by the US had yields as high as 15 megatons, and the largest bomb tested by the Russians had a stunning yield of 57 megatons, so powerful that its shockwave was still measurable on its third trip around the earth.

Duck and cover worked if we're dealing with smaller nuclear weapons, but thanks to the Cold War, there are weapons that are hideously powerful to the point where that simply doesn't work.

You would just be further from the epicenter of the blast. Where in Hiroshima, people survived in the East Asia Tin Works building, if a 4 megaton bomb was dropped on Seattle, you might survive in a building in Issaquah.

You would still see the flash, still be at risk from building collapse. At 20mt, you'd probably have to be in North Bend or further.

The blast and heat radius of what humans cannot survive is much larger, but at some point there is an interface where fatalities due to either factor begin to drop off.

as I recall it by 2 and 1/2 X what it was previously!!!


:rofl:

if it wasn't so sad -- !!!

Do you think the gulf stream will carry the radiation over here, like Chernobyl did to Scandinavia and Northern Europe (cancer rates went up significantly, just like the OP described)

How safe is west coast? Worried about me babies like everyone of course....

Japan should evacuate as many as possible, yes? I have a bunch of relatives there too so any info appreciated. The news IS downplaying this it seems.

sadly, many are still sitting in front of their TVs quite sure that if anything

were really wrong, the TV reader would let them know!!

It's all about the type of radiation, the dosage, and if you're being exposed to just the radiation itself or to radioactive substances that will be absorbed into your body.

If you are told (accurately so, not by people covering up the truth and/or reporting falsified data) that over the course of one day you received twice the amount of radiation than you'd normally receive from background radiation, that's nothing to cheer about, that doesn't mean that since some radiation is normal that extra is good for you... but it's nothing to lose much sleep over either.

If you live 80 years, that's 29220 days. One day of double exposure would mean you'd get 29221 days worth of exposure over the 80 year average if your exposure was otherwise average. That's 0.003% more lifetime exposure than you otherwise would have had, 0.03% if you're only an eight year old for the first eight years of your life.

People take much, MUCH larger risks all of the time without even thinking about it for a split second. If you are so risk adverse that you find such a risk totally, categorically unacceptable, then you'd have to stop flying, driving, playing nearly any sort of sport, eating anything other than the most strictly controlled diet, etc.

While you might be technically correct that radiation (high-energy electromagnetic or particle radiation) is never completely without some risk, there is such a thing as moderate risk, mild risk and even vanishingly small risk. It is wrong for the media to obscure real risks, but it is not a bad thing for the media to calm unnecessary levels of fear. I don't trust our modern media implicitly, but neither do I automatically trust anyone who thinks the only way to compensate for bad reporting is to assume everything is either much worse (if you're afraid the media is dishonestly trying to pacify you) or much better (if you're afraid that the media is dishonestly trying to manipulate your fears) than what you hear from a major news outlet.

It almost sounds like you're recommending "BE AFRAID!!!!!!! BE VERY AFRAID!!!!!!!!!" as the only possible accurate and responsible media response when reporting any degree of excess exposure to radiation.

it isn't that the media is being responsible...they know damned well that ionizing radiation carried from a nuclear plant on isotopes blown out or debris blown out is dangerous. They're just spoon-feeding us crap that 'no one has shown that this disaster is dangerous yet, so don't get your panties in a twist."

Horsecrap I say. When these started BLOWING UP, I was 'concerned' and 'worried', and guess what, I was completely correct in my assertion.

...or irresponsible in regards to the current Fukushima situation. I'm merely saying that *in and of itself* talking about levels of risk, and saying that some levels of risk sometimes aren't hugely worrisome, is not inherently the wrong thing to do for all situations.

Your OP sounds like you're saying that nothing other than dire warnings and deep fear are ever appropriate where radiation is concerned.

I am.

We take as many radiographs as we have to and not one more. there's a reason for that; one more here, one more there, and before you know it, yo've probably caused a problem somewhere along the line which didn't need to be caused. Warnings and fear? Sure: that's why they put those big goddam radiation hazard stickers on my units, that's why I've got lead lined film containers and lead aprons. Because there's fear for good reason...and one of my jobs is to take that into account and minimize exposure as much as I can.

...doesn't mean irrational fear is good. Practically everything in life has a risk cost. If you don't evaluate the degree of risk and simply classify all risk associated with radiation as some special kind of always-unacceptable risk, as compared to the risk of driving, the risk of swimming, the risk of eating, the risk of walking, etc.... then that's just hysteria, not reason, and I don't care if this happens to be something you work with or not. Whatever expertise you have in handling radioactive materials, it clearly doesn't translate into an automatic rational ability to deal with risk assessment.

You make everyone leave the room when someone gets an x-ray. That doesn't completely eliminate exposure to radiation beyond the room, it only reduces it. Why not evacuate the whole wing of the hospital when someone gets an x-ray? The whole hospital? A one kilometer radius around the hospital? At some point you have to make a practical assessment of actual risks, and "RADIATION BAAAAAADDDDDD!!!" doesn't cut it as a risk assessment tool.

I SAID that I irradiate people...that I know what the risks and benefits are...and am wiling to live with certain risks. I am also stating that the MSM is saying now that exposure from this CATASTROPHE is not all that bad and that there's background radiation all the time, thus equating the two and it just ain't so. Any person who lived thru TMI in the area, myself included, knows full well that it wasn't a minor release, but enough to harm many many people and animals and crops. Saying that you get radiation all the time is not the same as saying that a nuclear plant exploded, or that you live downwind of a nuclear test site. Sorry.

who believe exactly what they say. And those are the ones who still believe in the Easter Bunny and Tooth fairy. Well the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny have more credibility.

and Chris Jansing was interviewing a "Nuclear Specialist" (HAD TO BE A RIGHT WINGER!) and he was saying how 3 Mile Island was NOTHING and no one died, no one was injured and people are worrying over NOTHING! I could not believe my ears. And the sad thing is...Jansing didn't call him on it! They also interviewed people who lived by 3 Mile Island and they said if they had to live near a Nuclear plant, 3 Mile Island is the one they want to be by because IT'S SO MUCH SAFER NOW. *sigh*

Now, I saw Ed Schultz give a list of statistics generated from the birth defects/sick/deformed animals/cancerous people who live/did live around 3 Mile Island and the cancer/illness/deformity in animals/birth defect increases are STAGGERING!

They cannot get away with telling people they have NOTHING to worry about! It's CRIMINAL. Someone needs to set these people straight immediately after they spew their LIES on TV.

It's a HUGE cover-up to protect the Nuclear industry. It reminds me of Agent Orange LIES after Vietnam. The soldiers were dying left and right from that crap, they were diagnosed with cancers, their children were born with birth defects and the military REFUSED to admit it was the agent orange they so generously sprayed on the soldiers. They all LIE to cover up the TRUTH. That's what they're doing now.

covering it's shit. But we all know it's still there and it stinks.

Nuclear specialists know better.

I'm so damned tired of hearing it too. And all the arguments for why we should continue with nuclear power here in the states. They've got the gall to tell us that California's power plants, which are built on faults on the coast, just like Japan's, pose little risk.


How stupid do they think we are?

The casualties in Japan that are due to develop will make liars out of those who claim otherwise.

That's how evil and complicit they are.

Fucking asshole M$M and the MIC want everyone to know that radiation is your friend! Giggles. Tee hee. :mad:

radiation is, I want to go help them pack their bags for a move to Japan. Not one of them would CHOOSE to go live there now and they know it! They truly are CRIMINAL in their misinformation. We're talking about serious illnesses here!

The internet makes it so easy to lie about obvious dangers, wish they could feel what the Japanese feel right now. They would stfu and never utter another stupid word about nuclear energy.

You can't ignore the facts. The fact is, more exposure to radiation leads to higher chances of bad things happening, like birth defects, cancers, and premature death. The only reason those talking heads are saying radiation won't hurt you is because they're promoting their own agenda. If radiation doesn't hurt, then why do they wear protective suits when anywhere radiation? Why can't people walk into Chernobyl without protective gear?

I hate agenda-pushers who ignore facts.

On one hand the OP is absolutely right, according to the best science there's no such thing as a zero-risk radiation dose, and exposing a large population to radiation will reliably lead to a number of cancer deaths that depends mainly on the size of the dose and the number of people exposed.

On the other hand, it really is true that for most people, radiation is not as bad as they think. The public at large genuinely does lack a true sense of relative risks; in order for them to have any sense at all of that, they'd minimally need to know the units for exposure, which most people don't.

I've seen so many people refer to some mythical "cancer dose" of radiation, used both ways (i.e. "This is not enough to give you cancer" or in the other direction, "That dose will give you cancer"). Both are equally unsupported. It's all a roll of the dice; all we can calculate is the probability (and even that with large uncertainties, especially for a given person).

If you want a rough estimate of the cancer death toll take the exposed population and multiply by the average exposure (in rem) to that population and divide by 2000. Be sure to divide by 1000 if your dose is in mrem! This is the conventional wisdom based on the linear hypothesis; there are dissident views that treat this risk estimate as both high and low.

I've seen this kind of estimate in many sources; one is the EPA:

Well put.

War is Peace!!! Up is down!!!!

You tell 'em.

K and R

It used to be a person watched the news and trusted that they would give it to us straight. But no more. This is way bigger than they are saying.

Breathe deeply it's good for your lungs...

:mad:

The propaganda allegedly keeps people calm as the poison slowly kills. What these idiots don't get is, if this were to happen here after a massive earthquake in California, and the worst case scenario happened, they might be safe in their bunkers for a period of time, but what of the contamination of everything above? None of their money or power will matter then, because depending on the fallout, it could take hundreds of years for things to recover if ever. They would all just get sick and die later than the rest of us, or they could stay underground like a pack of rats until they killed each other. So, what is all the hoarding of money for if a situation exists, that at any moment, could make money insignificant? They really are that dumb.

...do you feel lucky PUNK?
I just couldn't resist the temptation ;-) You are right on the mark with your statements. I am a science teacher and have attended many radiation workshops over the years. I am a scientist as well. I'm an astronomer and a geologist and we talk about radiation all the time.

Do you remember the one episode of Cosmos where Carl Sagan was sitting in a cave and explained what you have posted? I do. It was a great series.

StarzDust

but I do remember the Star Trek Wrath of Khan film where Spock goes into the chamber and fixes the crystals so that they can have warp speed and dies from the radiation. If this happened today, the industry would say that Spock died of Natural Causes and they can't prove that he died from walking into the chamber: the chamber's as good a place as anywhere to die.

much I tell them that those extra 12mR are going to cause me problems 20, 30, or 50 years from now, statistically.
can I sue?

I forwarded your OP to her and asked her what she thought of it. She said "I couldn't agree more!"

a greater extent, creationists\intelligent design folk. The fundies\evangelicals of Palin's stripe go so far as to say that radio-carbon dating is a ruse used by Satan to deceive us and lead us away from God. Now how can you argue with that level of craziness?

I understand your frustration and bewilderment, but the U.S. has always had a profoundly anti-intellectual steak and, to add insult to injury, has been even more dumbed down now for going on 30 years, since the days of Reagan and his Junta.

That is causing so much of the problem is a GE designed plant!

Faulty design. Really a bad plant.

Way back in 2006, The people of Fukushima knew it. They elected a mayor, Mr Sato, who also wanted to shut down the nuke plants in his area (if not immediately, then to start phasing them out.)

However the goons in our Administration (Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld et al) sent their people along with GE goons over to Japan.

The mayor was ousted on account of bribery charges being brought against him. The new mayor supported the goons from the USA and from GE. On account of all this, the plant was not decommissioned.

The slant that I hear from the TV stations is that these are plants in Japan and they have no connection what so ever with outer reactor systems. This is a lie.

And yes, radiation is dangerous. It is not a substance that cares about a person's nationality. In Canada, the TV stations are telling people to stock up on potassium iodide. In Canada they are telling their people that radioactive substances travel through the weather systems, which take days, and through the jet stream, which takes around 24 hours to go from Fukushima prefecture to the Western part of the North American continent.

But I guess we Amerians are invincible - if our media can be believed!!

It has been said on TV, despite all the censorship, that Cesium 137 has been released. this stuff has a half life of some 300 years (IIRC)

If we had a working Homeland Security Department, instead of the for-profit farce we would all be safer. Instead we have this monstrous bureaucracy whose current main preoccupation being the purchase of scanning machinery to zap us all the time for the benefit of the profiteers, we would now be being issued the potassium iodide tablets we ne4ed to protect ourselves.

However, from what I have gleaned on the internet, at most times, there are only Three Hundred Thousand Tablets (or maybe it is bottles) of potassium iodide available for consumption. In a nation of 300 million people.

Obama and his flunky Neapolitano really failed us on this. We taxpayers have spent a half trillion dollars on DHS, and we cannot get even the most basic protection from them.

:spray: :rofl:

Ah, if only. :( Instead, we've got the Oligarchy Loss Prevention & Propaganda Ministry.

Laff now, but we know where you live!

Ohhh beu-di-vul, fur spay-shus skiess!

Vy do you perzecute me?!

Obama's administration places profits for Big Pharma WAY ahead of health care for citizens. So Big Pharma cannot waste it's manufacturing capacities on potassium iodide tablets which may not be purchased for decades, when they can be making drugs like Viagra and OxyContin for the old rich white male GOP market niche.

Me forgot that Big Pharma cannot be concerned with health.

(I am on the West Coast - may the rads are already ggetting to me - though as a close friend of mine, also in menopause has said, "How can we really tell!?!")

Maybe compared to what you've said it's actually less harmful than what most people think, ever think?

I'm presuming that people I talk to think that any amount above the norm makes you into a microwave meal.

The way I like to put it is, "Are you going to die immediately? No. Are you going to die a year from now? No. But you will notice a few years missing from your life and a few more years of suffering."

I'm not discussing what people think...I'm discussing what's put on TeeVee to make people think what they think. Think I'm wrong? Think again.

So, what was I supposed to think?

I guess the difference is that I haven't watched TV since this has begun, so maybe I'm out of touch. But really, I've perceived high anxiety among people I've spoken to. They seem in no way inclined to minimize the risk of this. My neighbors were talking in terms of this being worse than Hiroshima, implying that the whole thing could create a city-sized mushroom shaped cloud.

Fact is, in some ways it's not as bad as Hiroshima, in some ways its far worse. That is to say, immediately it's not as bad, later on, it's much worse.

But all of that is beside the point. Your message is true anyway.

exposure here in the USA at all whatsoever...yet...that's all potassium iodide MIGHT do for you. Best choice if you're irradiated from this mess is to go on with your life as you were and just hope for the best. This is NOT "On The Beach"...so no need to play Waltzing Matilda....

it can't harm or kill you.

who will stampede for the least little fearsome thing. They can't handle the truth. They run away from it and avoid it at all costs. It only makes them feel stupid for not seeking the truth and we can't have that ...oh ...fuck them!

would DU be having this discussion at all?

I think not.


Irradiation, mutation, death of the environment, death of the natural world doesn't matter

for some, one single man's opinion trumps it all! :puke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

they are modular, when the fuel is spent, the Core is just swapped out with a recycled one, no water tank storage

If you flip over an hourglass enough times, the probability that the sand won't drop is one.

There's no such thing as safe energy, only "safer than that shit over there".

This discussion is NOT about Obama. Try not to see the whole world through that lens.

You should be thankful that DU is having a technically detailed, factually based discussion on the impact of radiation fallout from nuclear accidents. It is discussions such as these which hopefully will push our government, and whomever is president, to quit covering up man made disasters to protect corporate profits and cover their own butts for failing to properly regulate dangerous operations. The link below discusses in detail a peer reviewed article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. This journal, published by the Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, was founded in 1945 by scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project. Based at the University of Chicago (you know, where Obama used to teach), it warns of the dangers of nuclear weapons. The author of that article criticizes the medical community for fixating on stress related health effects from the accident and not doing extensive research into cancer rates in residents beyond five miles of the plant, where wind-blown radiation may have settled. The article points out that TMI radiation traveled long distances, and both Albany, NY and Portland, Maine documented elevated radioactivity levels several days after the accident.

The author's research of public health data shows that death rates of Dauphin and Lebanon county (both areas downwind of TMI) residents who were children in 1979 continue to be well above average to this day. He noted that there were no other risk factors in these two counties, so the degree to which these higher rates evidence the latent effects of TMI should be explored.

He notes:
"Nothing exists in the literature on infant mortality, hypothyroidism in newborns, cancer in young children or thyroid cancer, EVEN THOUGH DATA FOR ALL OF THESE WERE ROUTINELY COLLECTED IN 1979. All these conditions are especially sensitive to ionizing radiation. Many prominent journals have remained silent. Why?"

He asserts that the official position of the federal and Pennsylvania governments that the accident had negligible health effects has had a chilling effect. That's very unfortunate he says, because the "effects of ionizing radiation may take decades to manifest as the onset of a disease like cancer. So monitoring of disease patterns and dose-response comparisons should continue."

"Effects of radiation may take decades to show up and scientists' understanding of the health effects from low-dose exposure continues to change . . .there were no accurate readings of radiation levels outside the pland.





http://www.efmr.org/Xtra/Manango_TM_health_studies.pdf
TMI Health Studies Hit (headline)

about Obama, and yet it is.

He should not be advocating nuclear, plain and simple. He's batting zero on Energy, from telling us how 'safe' Oil drilling was/is and now to Nuclear.
This is the President of the US of A. Policy issues from his desk. Direction comes from Washington, D.C.
He should be advocating private enterprise to sell solar panels on every rooftop. Windfarms. Non-polluting, renewable forms of energy, not that tired old bullshit about how 'safe' very, very unsafe means are.

I'm also near fracking. Frackville, PA. And "Clean" Coal Country. Triple whammy: Nuclear, Coal & Natural Gas. All I see around here is misinformation, propaganda, and an absence of Truth.
And I was born in a place that is a 'cluster' -- which our entire country is turning into.
When will we learn?

It makes me ill, in more ways than one.

It all sucks, it all pollutes but makes a relatively few men filthy rich -- and there's more love of these wealthy few than the love of one's own quality of life from the top down: there's the rub.

'Hippies' have been telling us since the 60's about the dangers of what we're doing; about how it is incompatible with Life. And Hippy-Punching has become a national sport, and again, from the top down,

And it must change.


There's that word again: Change.
Would that we could see it happening instead of the same old lies,
and a nod an a wink --or a slogan-- won't do either.

than did TMI. Hope you are following DU's Pennsylvania state forum re fracking.

in most respects.

I just feel that our 'leaders' --those elected to represent us, not the uber-wealthy and all-powerful corporations-- should
1) Be informed
2) Be truthful, and
3) Sorry to be redundant, but represent We, The People's welfare, especially over profit$

And I hope I don't need to qualify that I would be highly critical of any person in the White House, of any gender, any race, any religion, any Party, who isn't advocating for the welfare of the People but for Big Business.
It additionally hurts that all this crap is issuing from a Democrat, we should know better.
I may show my age, but I do remember a time when Democrats stood for Principles, not 'Go along to get along' and their keenness for keeping that marvelous powder dry... :sarcasm:


I almost bought a farm in Eastern Ohio which had a 'passive' (non-fracking) gas well (free energy in a lesser-of-evil way); but as we all know
--well, perhaps that line from the movie can say it quicker: "I drink your milkshake"--
so while there would be no fracking on my 80 acres, the guy down the county road could poison the surrounding area anyhow.
Twas a real shame, it would have been the perfect set-up in having enough acreage to pasture a good amount of rescues and to harvest your own hay, the buildings/barns/architecture were perfect and pristine *and* it was very close to the biggest horse slaughter auction business on this coast, if not the country.
If you ever want to cry, visit one of them someday; abused, starved, mistreated horses no longer needed or wanted in our disposable society (including former race horses who didn't win the Derby and virtually thrown away. The Tracks are immoral, and I wish nobody would bet on these poor creatures because there's only one Man O'War per century, the rest are average just like us; and we may end up like them) The ones who can still walk onto a stock trailer are sold for a couple hundred each to be shipped to Canada to be slaughtered; and for human food on top of it. It's not unusual to see downed horses there too weak to even get up -- and it didn't have to be if they had basic, proper, even minimal care.
Inhumane. Inhuman.
And hundreds or more go through that (pre)abattoir every damn week.


I'm sorry, now I'm talking too much. I just wish people, especially Democrats, would do the Right Thing, the Moral Thing,
not what engorges their bank balance or the bottom line of the wealthy they try to curry favor from.
A helluva lot of good wealth does when you're dying, but that's OK for us 'little people'. People try to praise one of the Cock brothers because he gives to Cancer research

well, he never donated a single fucking penny until HE got cancer. What does that tell you?

It's all about them, the rich, and they'll try to buy their way out of it if they can.


But they'll all end up in the same place -- and they won't be able to bring their filthy lucre with them.

T_C_O - Could you expand on your post? I have friends who moved there recently (wife needed a dry climate to alleviate a severe health issue.)
I'm told it's an extremely conservative area. Duh, it IS Utah! Might a sarcasm tag have been appropriate? Thanks for a clarification; I'm assuming your
comment is a criticism of the inhabitants' politics...:shrug:

Standardized the thinking on fallout risks to be real concerned about thyroid cancer, while down playing the risk of anything else...

The UNSCEAR report on the 1986 Chernobyl disaster basically wrote off and non-reported on leukemias, on lymphomas, on brest cancer on melanoma, on bone cancer, and reported mainly on thyroid cancer.

On edit:
You have UNSCEAR's assessments of the radiation effects, and they point to the fact that there were 30 people killed by radiation in the first few weeks after the Chernobyl disaster. And that another 100 people were injured by radiation in that period as well. (UNSCEAR stands for: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.)

Initially, one hundred and fifteen thousand people were evacuated on account of the event. But in the end, closer to two hundred and twenty thousand people were forced from their homes in areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

Over the years, older people have moved back into these areas, wanting to be back where they feel most at home. Also, since they are older, they are not as fearful of a possibility that cancer might generate inside their bodies some twenty years down the road - at which point they might be dead from something else anyway.

Among the most notable of the tragic results of this accident were the serious social and psychological disruption in the lives of those affected. There were also large scale economic losses. It should not be overlooked that large areas of the three countries were contaminated with radioactive materials, and radionuclides from the Chernobyl release were measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere. (Not just in the afore mentioned Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.)

Some military, social and political analysts credit the profound dismay, combined with anger, sadness and a desire to deviate and to revolt against the system that brought about this nuclear disaster to be the major propelling force, along with the Afghan War, that had the Soviet people bring down their Communistic way of life. The event is also given credit for the toppling of the Berlin Wall.

Now back to the grim statistics - what statistics we glean from the records of the UNSCEAR report --
Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, claims the authors of this United Nations study, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to the radiation exposure some two decades after the accident.

Many current day travelers to the old Soviet Union, and many who visit places in the Ukraine where the uprooted Ukrainians now live, distrust this report. They see first hand the numerous children who do not live to the age of fifteen, but die of cancer or a genetic condition, or a birth defect.

It is known that the accident at the Chernobyl reactor happened during an experimental test of the electrical control system as the reactor was being shut down for routine maintenance. The operators, in violation of safety regulations, had switched off important control systems and allowed the reactor, which had design flaws, to reach unstable, low-power conditions. A sudden power surge caused a steam explosion that ruptured the reactor vessel. This allowed further violent fuel-steam interactions that destroyed the reactor core and severely damaged the reactor building. Subsequently, an intense graphite fire burned for 10 days. Under those conditions, large releases of radioactive materials took place.

This radioactive material went across Europe and Scandinavia. Italy received among the highest doses.

Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far. These numbers far surpass the UNSCEAR reporting of some four thousand deaths.

The mismatches in figures arise because there have been no
comprehensive, co-ordinated studies of the health consequences of this accident. This is in contrast to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where official research showed that the main rise in most types of cancer and non-cancer diseases only became apparent years after the atomic bombs fell.

Critics of the UNSCEAR report also point to the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency has compromised the research and findings as collected by the United Nations. For instance, WHO guidelines, utilized quite often by UNSCEAR, were requiring the peer review of evidence and collected data and this has made it hard for many deaths and illnesses to even be considered as part of the complete record.

The UN's World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people have died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually.

Controversy rages over the agendas of the IAEA, which has promoted civil nuclear power over the past 30 years, and the WHO. The UN accepts only peer-reviewed scientific studies written in certain journals in English, a rule said to exclude dozens of other studies.

Eleven years ago, an IAEA spokesman said he was confident the WHO figures were correct. And Michael Repacholi, director of the UN Chernobyl forum until 2006, has claimed that even 4,000 eventual deaths could be too high. The main negative health impacts of ­Chernobyl were not caused by the ­radiation but by the fear of it, he claimed.

However, it is important to consider the remarks of Linda Walker, of the UK Chernobyl Children's Project, which funds Belarus and Ukraine orphanages and holidays for affected children, as she called for a determined effort to learn about the effects of the disaster. "Parents are giving birth to babies with disabilities or genetic disorders … but, as far as we know, no research is being conducted."

No research is being conducted. Forgive me my cynicism, but this reminds me of our EPA's "research" - when confronted by one angry Gulf of Mexico fisherman with dead fish, all of which had black oily residue about their gills, the officials from EPA told the man that the fish were not affected by the oil spill, but this new disease "black gill disease.'

So too the parents of birth defective children in this region of the world can be reassured - "Your children are not suffering from damaged chromosomes resulting from the Chernobyl radiation exposure - they are suffering from Mutated Chromosome Disease, cause unknown."

There was much discussion about the effects on the local population in the 70's and 80's.

As an example I had a FOX-acolyte telling me earlier today that Chernobyl caused the death of nobody but the 50-ish people it killed directly with radiation sickness.

It's disgusting the extent to which people go to in order to parrot the FOX lies. However, I really don't get it in this case. What do they gain? Do they misinform people just for kicks?

Despite the situation in Japan.

Thousands of chemicals "generally recognized as safe" when tested separately. Rarely tested all together in the soup we wade through every day.

They're a tad better than a placebo.

But not much.

I eat crude oil all the time. It's full of monosaturates and minerals. It's perfectly natural to eat fish that taste like oil.

No really...

We don't have to worry about global warming anymore. Now we have to worry about how it affects the polinators who are very sensetive to changes in the enviroment. (Bee colony collapse.)

In a way, radiation is necessary for the species. It is what causes cellular mutation and allows evolution to advance. Sure you might die of some bizarre cancer but the DNA you pass on may make for a really cute 3 eyed baby!

Quit bitching and take you place in evolution.

It's great that certain people will use anything to scare you. Gay people. Socialism. What have you. Then, when something awful happens, they do the "down play" dance and hope no one reacts in a proper way. Lol.

Sad.

I'd say your screen name says it all, about that.
:toast:

I IRRADIATE PEOPLE FOR A LIVING

Okay. Let's start there. If it's always so damned awful, why are you doing that to people?

that's why...

So, you give people cancer, over a tooth-ache?

That seems odd.

themselves. Then Obama makes that silly comment about; 'hey! the oil is gone... ; - )

:applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause:

for the tragedies that will be occurring for the next few generations. BP already "approved" 10 billion(?) for the "almost completed" gulf clean-up and the destruction that it caused to the citizens of the area. Unfortunately, the man put "in charge of those Gulf tasks, ,mainly because of his impartiality, has been found to be very partial to BP because they pay him! Therefore, the people who have been devastated are not being paid. Now, if you're a "corporate person" (and profitable at least before the "spill".. lol..it is much easier to be reimbursed....
Really, how do you "reimburse" people for a permanent change in living?

It's must be harmless because you really can't feel it doing anything bad. Later on when the rat realizes that crap he just ate was not good for him it's already too late; the reaper is just around the corner.

Beck Dismisses Concern Over Japan's Nuclear Emergency As "Propaganda From George Soros"
From the March 14 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201103140008

I cannot go underground, I have yo work.
I am slipping further and further behind and dont know what to do.

I'm about ready to just go to ca. and sit on the beach and take a huge dose...

Already dosed when I met him and both of his parents had already died of cancer. He passed in 1983, just four years after exposure.

In his last week of life his message to us all was "Don't postpone joy!"

the folks over at Tinyrevolution.com have an OP or two about the Three Mile Island disaster.

You have to scroll down to get to them, but they are worth it.

One OP has the URl for a Three Mile Island archive, put together with the remembrances of many people who were affected.

And like your friend, many of those people didn't make it to the five year mark of the disaster's anniversary.

A witch!!!!

Really, not feeling so much with the lucky at all tonight.