I was in an area where the fallout was supposed to be landing at the time. They culled the sheep but so far not any affected humans. My wife was born the year Sellafield went up downwind of it. So far she is not showing any symptoms-unless being crabbit once a month counts.:-3
Personally I worry more about chemicals and what they put on the food.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6496977.stm
The Rochester team examined sperm counts among US men born between 1949 and 1983.
They found those whose mothers ate more than seven beef meals a week had an average sperm concentration of 43.1 million sperm per millilitre of seminal fluid.
In contrast, the sons of mothers who ate less beef had an average of 56.9 million sperm.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... beef28.xml
Hmmm. What do you think? Chernobyl.
Hmmm. What do you think? Chernobyl.
Scrat;587341 wrote: Hmm I knew England had a Nuclear program but I didn't know they had an accident. Seems to happen with the new technology though. I take it the program isn't totally abandoned.
Chernobyl was an old reactor and it was poorly run. That was the cause of the accident. Russia is now looking at smaller reactors, you can put them on barges to create steam and run turbines. Something the size of a large yacht can power a city of a million people. Really much better than running a power grid across the tundra. Britian being surrounded by water should look at it. If something goes wrong just head for the ocean.
There is so much potential in nuclear energy but there is a lot of hazards also. None of the pilots and people that were heavily exposed at Chernobyl are alive today. The rest of the people exposed seem to be unaffected.
I wonder waht hysteria had to do with this.
Sellafield is one of our oldest reactors - much to the disgust of the Irish, but we have many nuclear power stations and, hopefully, will soon have many more.
Chernobyl was an old reactor and it was poorly run. That was the cause of the accident. Russia is now looking at smaller reactors, you can put them on barges to create steam and run turbines. Something the size of a large yacht can power a city of a million people. Really much better than running a power grid across the tundra. Britian being surrounded by water should look at it. If something goes wrong just head for the ocean.
There is so much potential in nuclear energy but there is a lot of hazards also. None of the pilots and people that were heavily exposed at Chernobyl are alive today. The rest of the people exposed seem to be unaffected.
I wonder waht hysteria had to do with this.
Sellafield is one of our oldest reactors - much to the disgust of the Irish, but we have many nuclear power stations and, hopefully, will soon have many more.
Hmmm. What do you think? Chernobyl.
Scrat;587341 wrote: Hmm I knew England had a Nuclear program but I didn't know they had an accident. Seems to happen with the new technology though. I take it the program isn't totally abandoned.
Chernobyl was an old reactor and it was poorly run. That was the cause of the accident. Russia is now looking at smaller reactors, you can put them on barges to create steam and run turbines. Something the size of a large yacht can power a city of a million people. Really much better than running a power grid across the tundra. Britian being surrounded by water should look at it. If something goes wrong just head for the ocean.
There is so much potential in nuclear energy but there is a lot of hazards also. None of the pilots and people that were heavily exposed at Chernobyl are alive today. The rest of the people exposed seem to be unaffected.
I wonder waht hysteria had to do with this.
There have actually been several major incidents and fairly regular leakages reported. Chemical plants and pesticides are a bigger problem IMO. There have been links to birth defects close to reprocessing plants and fish in rivers feminised by hormones used in cattle as well as just outright killed by careless use of chemicals on farms.
I don't think the west ever really acknowledged the debt owed to those pilots.
Chernobyl was an old reactor and it was poorly run. That was the cause of the accident. Russia is now looking at smaller reactors, you can put them on barges to create steam and run turbines. Something the size of a large yacht can power a city of a million people. Really much better than running a power grid across the tundra. Britian being surrounded by water should look at it. If something goes wrong just head for the ocean.
There is so much potential in nuclear energy but there is a lot of hazards also. None of the pilots and people that were heavily exposed at Chernobyl are alive today. The rest of the people exposed seem to be unaffected.
I wonder waht hysteria had to do with this.
There have actually been several major incidents and fairly regular leakages reported. Chemical plants and pesticides are a bigger problem IMO. There have been links to birth defects close to reprocessing plants and fish in rivers feminised by hormones used in cattle as well as just outright killed by careless use of chemicals on farms.
I don't think the west ever really acknowledged the debt owed to those pilots.
Hmmm. What do you think? Chernobyl.
Scrat;588097 wrote: I wonder about the chemicals put in our meat supply too. There's cases here of 8 yr old girls starting puberty. Who knows what else is in the food.
Don't forget if the food is causing girls to start puberty early it must also be affecting the boys-unless they eat different foods.
It's the cause of a major spat between the eu and us just now. We have stricter labelling requirements on our food that include identifying genetically modified crops also the US still uses hormones in their cattle feed that are banned in the EU. It's portrayed by the US as simply being anti competitive and anti American but there's a lot more to it than that.
Things like BSE don't have make you sit up and take notice. scientists that thought feeding animal protein to cows was a great idea kind of lost their credibility with the general public to the extent we are all a lot more cynical and distrustful about what we eat. Feeding female hormones to cows and chickens so they put on fat quicker is also something most would see as just fundamentally a stupid thing to do. Yet they do it.
Consumer resistance here to gm foods and in europe has caused most of the supermarkets to withdraw a lot of the products that have, same with the use of pesticides in crops. It's not their use per se but rather the knock on effect their use has on the rest of the environment.
Don't forget if the food is causing girls to start puberty early it must also be affecting the boys-unless they eat different foods.
It's the cause of a major spat between the eu and us just now. We have stricter labelling requirements on our food that include identifying genetically modified crops also the US still uses hormones in their cattle feed that are banned in the EU. It's portrayed by the US as simply being anti competitive and anti American but there's a lot more to it than that.
Things like BSE don't have make you sit up and take notice. scientists that thought feeding animal protein to cows was a great idea kind of lost their credibility with the general public to the extent we are all a lot more cynical and distrustful about what we eat. Feeding female hormones to cows and chickens so they put on fat quicker is also something most would see as just fundamentally a stupid thing to do. Yet they do it.
Consumer resistance here to gm foods and in europe has caused most of the supermarkets to withdraw a lot of the products that have, same with the use of pesticides in crops. It's not their use per se but rather the knock on effect their use has on the rest of the environment.
-
Richard Bell
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:56 am
Hmmm. What do you think? Chernobyl.
Scrat;586842 wrote:
Living in Chernobyl Less Risky Than Passive Smoking — Study
Created: 03.04.2007 12:50 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:54 MSK, 16 hours 44 minutes ago
MosNews
The risk of survivors of the Chernobyl accident dying early is far less than supposed, ranking about the same as exposure to air pollution or passive smoking, according to new research published on Tuesday...
Now a top British scientist has evaluated the comparative risks and concluded that for those most affected by the disaster —- emergency workers and people living nearby —- the increased risk of premature death due to radiation is around 1 percent.
That is roughly the same as the risk of dying from diseases triggered by air pollution in a major city or the effects of inhaling other people’s tobacco smoke, said Jim Smith of Britain’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology...
Interesting statistic.
I think it speaks more to the dangers of second hand tobacco smoke and air pollution than it does to the risk of living in the Chernobyl area.
Living in Chernobyl Less Risky Than Passive Smoking — Study
Created: 03.04.2007 12:50 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:54 MSK, 16 hours 44 minutes ago
MosNews
The risk of survivors of the Chernobyl accident dying early is far less than supposed, ranking about the same as exposure to air pollution or passive smoking, according to new research published on Tuesday...
Now a top British scientist has evaluated the comparative risks and concluded that for those most affected by the disaster —- emergency workers and people living nearby —- the increased risk of premature death due to radiation is around 1 percent.
That is roughly the same as the risk of dying from diseases triggered by air pollution in a major city or the effects of inhaling other people’s tobacco smoke, said Jim Smith of Britain’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology...
Interesting statistic.
I think it speaks more to the dangers of second hand tobacco smoke and air pollution than it does to the risk of living in the Chernobyl area.