Evidence?
Do you burst into flames when standing next to an unshielded nuclear pile?
I’d want my child in a hospital where the patients didn’t get abandoned because of an earthquake or tsunami.
I would not want my child in the hospital that did get abandoned thanks to a government directed nuclear evacuation.
That was an easy one!
I suppose that would depend on how hot it was.
Are you even gonna try to make sense?
Probably. They are pretty hot.
Know what? You’d also probably burst into flames standing next to an unshielded coal furnace too. They are pretty hot as well.
Eh?
Is there anywhere on earth not subject to some form of natural disaster?
I mean, I don’t want my child in a hospital that gets hit by a tornado or hurricane and have to evacuate.
What is your point?
The graphic/chart is actually quite fascinating. You can put 3 feet of concrete between the nuclear pile, and the number of squares will go down to half. Or back away by twice the distance, and the number of squares will go down to one quarter as much.
Which makes you think about why nobody can get near the building that has the extreme gamma coming out of it. You can put 5 feet of concrete, and a lead face shield between you and that gamma radiation, and it will still blind you.
Um, where did you get the 'the creator of your chart there makes it clear the chart isn’t “real.” ’ bit? The creator just has a standard disclaimer on it.
It is becoming rather apparent that you have no clue about radiation and any attempt to educate you is failing, badly.
Here is a chart from wiki that says basically the same thing as far as the effect are concerned. Link.
Here is a radiation dose calculatorfrom ANS (American Nuclear Society). This will give you an idea of radiation doses.
Slee
Radiation, blah, blah. I’m not bothering with your links because I don’t need to learn about radiation. Quit obfuscating. I smoke cigarettes, and I live in a city full of cars that belch out all kinds of crap. I don’t care about a .000001 percent increase in my cancer risk at this point in my life.
Radiation alone, is not my biggest beef with “Nooklur Americuh, fuck yeah!”
The radiation calculator linked above (American Nuclear Society) doesn’t have any information on exposure to actual radioactive material, or the radiation from it. No information on how to calculate radiation at all.
Now that’s funny.
Interestingly (because most people do not know it and it is not something that one would guess) cigarette smoking is one of the biggest radiation risks a person can willingly expose themselves to. (cite)
Such a calculation is dependent on so many factors on online calculator would be impractical.
Depends on what you are being exposed to, how much there is of it, how close you got, for how long, did you breathe it and so on.
There are lots of radioactive materials out there. Many you can hold in your hand with no ill effect. Others you do not want to come close to. Others are in-between.
Hell, you almost certainly have radioactive materials in your home. If you have a smoke detector then there is radioactive material in it (Americium).
Have a watch with glow-in-the-dark hands? Radioactive.
People used to make pottery and jewelry with uranium and you can still buy it.
Of course it is. You are inhaling all the radioactive fallout that lands on the leaves, and putting directly into your lungs, where it does the most damage. Before WWII smoking cigs didn’t cause cancer like it does now.
Cancer rates spiked after WWII, especially the kind that kills you. But good luck trying to prove it had anything to do with radioactive fall out.
So you’re stating something and then saying it can’t be proven. Does that sound like a reasonable position to take?
Pretty sure that is not the cause but…
Cite?
I mean, if what you are saying is true then the fallout is being breathed in anyway and it is being concentrated in plants you eat and animals you eat.
So, therefore, even non-smokers should be getting a substantial intake of radiation.
I wasn’t clear.
Elderly patients abandoned at hospital when workers fled due to radiation fears
These patients were not abandoned by their doctors and other hospital workers because of a stupid ol’ earthquake. These patients were not abandoned by their doctors and other hospital workers because of a stupid ol’ tsunami.
These patients were abandoned by their doctors and other hospital workers because of a government directed nuclear evacuation.
Which hospital would I want my child in? The one before the nuclear evacuation.
Clear?
It’s clear to me. I don’t expect any true believer of the nuclear power to be swayed by an argument. None. But, I love to be wrong.
For the supporters of nuclear power, is there any accident/disaster, of any magnitude, that would change your mind about nuclear power?
If so, what would it be?
I would bet money not a single supporter will answer those questions.
Why not? Inference is perfectly legitimate. If you have enough data pointing at something you can infer that it is a contributor.
All that tells us is hospital workers abandoned their patients. Not cool (and somewhat surprising they’d abandon people like that).
Obviously other people went in and collected them so clearly some people were willing to go there.
What if a train carrying toxic chemicals overturns and causes an evacuation? A truck carrying nasty stuff? A nearby chemical plant explodes ala Bhopal? Zombie apocalypse?
If you are looking for guarantees in this life I wish you luck.
The US has 104 nuclear reactors that have been running for decades. How many have been evacuated due to a nuclear emergency?
My guess is, statistically, you are in more danger driving to the hospital than being abandoned there.
You may have heard from people trying to say how there is no danger from the current disaster, that there is already trace amounts of Cesium137 and other radioactive materials that exist naturally in the world. It’s everywhere.
If this is so, then smoking puts the natural and trace amounts of nuclear fall out, that is already everywhere, in very tiny amounts of course, smoking puts those tiny tiny little radioactive particles into a for where they get into your lungs.
Plants take up Cesium137, and fires releases Cesium137 again into the air, it is everywhere, but only in small amounts. Smoking puts those small amounts into your lung tissue, where they can actually do damage. Eating it isn’t nearly as bad. But the higher up on the food chain you eat, the more cesium137 you ingest. It’s in beef, it’s in milk, its in polar bear milk, it’s in salmon, but just a little bit.
You will hear about this more and more as levels rise in American produce. When you hear that the levels of Cesium137 are trace, or only twice the “normal” levels, the reason there even is a normal level, is due to past fall out from nuclear bombs, radiation leaks from reactors, or experiments with Cesium137 that were done long ago.
In any case, smoking puts a lot of these tiny amounts into your lungs. It’s no surprise people die from lung cancer.
It’s also no surprise that one third of the people that die from lung cancer never smoked at all.