In truth several of these statements are false. The nuclear contamination from Fukushima was extensive and recently reached the West Coast of the United States. As noted previously the burning of coal does not create radioactive materials but does slightly concentrate the naturally occuring radiation that is inherent in coal as well as everything else we come in contact with. It does not represent a danger to the human body as the concentration is so small. Nuclear radioactive materials are actually created by the nuclear reaction and the concentration of radioactivity is dangerous as the concentrations are very high.
Of course, it's never entirely that simple. I could build a very strong case that AGW doesn't exist, based on a sizeable base of evidence, facts, analysis, measurements etc. And not one factual error in the lot. And this is common when there are dozens of independent variables, all of them incompletely measured, interacting in ways not fully understood and in many cases not understood at all. Climate is a complex, chaotic thing. So the "truth" depends on what question you are asking. If you're asking why the planet is warming, you get one answer. If you're asking how best to demonstrate that it's not happening, or that if it is people aren't doing it, you get another answer. And each answer is "correct" according to the question being asked. Science tends to ask "what's going on here?" Politicians tend to ask different questions, because they START with preferred answers and need to support them, whereas scientists start with data and attempt to make sense out of it.
Nonsense, the story has been over-hyped by the enviro-liberal main stream media. Here is a good factual summation... "While it’s natural and appropriate to be concerned about radiation, in this case the concern is unfounded. A recent peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences evaluated the health risks of consuming Pacific bluefin tuna after the Fukushima event and found the following: (2) A typical restaurant-sized portion of Pacific bluefin tuna (200 grams, or 7 ounces) contains about 5% of the radiation you would get from eating one uncontaminated banana and absorbing it’s naturally occurring radiation. All foods on the planet contain radiation. Like every other toxin, it’s the dose of radiation (rather than its simple presence) that determines whether it’s toxic to humans. Levels of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes (polonium-210 and potassium-40) in bluefin tuna are greater by orders of magnitude than levels of radioactive isotopes from Fukushima contamination (cesium-134 and cesium-137). In fact, levels of polonium-210 were 600 times higher than cesium. This suggests that the additional radiation (in the form of cesium) from Fukushima is insignificant from a health perspective. Even at very high intakes (3/4 of a pound of contaminated bluefin tuna a day) for an entire year, you’d still receive only 12% of the dose of radiation you’re exposed to during one cross-country flight from LA to New York. Assuming the very high levels of fish consumption above, the excess relative risk of fatal cancer would be only 2 additional cases per 10 million similarly exposed people. And there’s reason to believe that number is no more than chance. Statistically significant elevations in cancer risk are only observed at doses of radiation that are 25,000 times higher than what you’d be exposed to by eating 3/4 of a pound of bluefin tuna per day. Some bottom-feeding fish right off the coast of Japan contain much higher levels of radiation (i.e. >250 times more cesium) than those found in Pacific bluefin tuna. Even if you consumed 1/3 of a pound per day of this highly contaminated fish, you’d still be below the international dose limit for radiation exposure from food." What you wrote is basically true, however, you failed to take into consideration that concentrated radio-active materials 'created' are contained within specially designed chambers, vaults, etc. while coal slag, stack-emissions, and just the constant exposure of it or its elements probably exposes one to 100,000 more times the radiation of all the nuclear plants in the world. BTW, China is set to construct more coal fired power plants.
Good point. Who you gonna believe, reality or the denialists? After all, reality is just another opinion. Right?
No, the evidence says so. Every major scientific body of every country, says so. AGW deniers are like Evolution deniers, you're either ignorant of the facts or stupid.
I dont think they are "like"evolution deniers, i think they usually turn out to be the same people. Coincidence?
As was previously documented the amount of radiation in burnt coal, like the radiation in tuna from Fukushima, is so far below the toxicity level that it doesn't represent a threat to human beings. The problem with burning coal is not the radioactive concentrations but instead the atmospheric pollution with CO2 that is a component of greenhouse gases as well as the emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide that create acid rain when they unit with water molecules in the atmosphere. The problem with burning coal are the CO2, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emitted and not the radioactive concentrations that result from the burning. "Normally" contained doesn't work as an argument because in cases it's not "normally" contained such as was the case with Chernobyl or related to exposure to radioactivity created by above ground nuclear weapon's testing or the problems we face here in WA at the Hanford site where the continment is beling lost and radioactive material are making it into the environment. We currently have no defined means of containing radioactive materials indefinately and because of the extreme half-lifes of the most toxic parts of nuclear wastes lasts for tens of thousands of years. We cannot make a claim that these nuclear waste products can be successfully contained until they are no longer radioactive. We cannot ensure that nuclear wastes can be normally contained.
Kind of a puzzle, anyway. I notice that the "teach the controversy, academic freedom, teach both sides, strengths and weaknesses" crowd includes AGW in with evolution more than any other of their fixations. It's almost like AGW joins evolution in offending their religion, though I see no doctrinal reason why this should be.
Probably they both challenge their "God-runs-the-show" ideology. Their alternative is Satan or some sort of conspiracy.
The point is that coal puts more radioactive elements into the atmosphere every day than all the nuclear plants in the world. The fact that coal emissions are part of background radiation only proves that nuclear generation plants are that much more clean. Yes, burning coal does put CO2 and other elements into our atmosphere which is another argument to start switching power generation to nuclear. Myths about Chernobyl abound...here are some facts. http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20090424/121301292.html "The biological effects of radiation are measured in millisievert (mSv). Of the 2.8 million people who were close to the disaster zone, 2.5 million received an additional amount of less than 10 mSv, or one-fifth of the average global background radiation. Less than 2,000 people received an additional dose of more than 100 mSv, which is 33% less than the amount the residents of Finland, Belgium or Russia's Republic of Altai receive annually." The only sickness reported of any consequence were 200 out of 400 cases of thyroid carcinoma largely in children who consumed milk from cows eating grass near the accident. Radioactive iodine is short lived and if locally supplied milk had been withheld for a few months there would have been no sickness. As it is, just one terminal case is reported. Hanford was built to provide nuclear material for bombs in the early 40's. There is no comparing that to modern nuclear electric generation facilities. Today nuclear fuels can be re-used and completely spent fuel can be vitrified. Also, there is this... "RICHLAND, Wash.- A new report shows the radioactive contamination found around one of the Hanford site's waste tanks may not be from a leak." http://kndu.membercenter.worldnow.c...anford-double-shell-tank-likely-not-from-leak That being said, there is no evidence linking Hanford with excess cancer rates or well contamination either. There is no proof that any nuclear facility or any nuclear disaster has put more than normal background radiation into the atmosphere or the ground on a pervasive world basis.
An opinion based upon basic science, and large quantities of evidence to support it. What is the opposing opinion based upon?
it can decades for people to get ill and longer to die from radiation, it's difficult to definitively blame a disaster like Chernobyl on cancer deaths years later even when it is the cause...
Back during the great tobacco debate, I was a pack-a-day smoker. I strongly defended the "insufficient evidence" side of the debate; I found the arguments for cigarettes being harmful to be unconvincing, poorly researched, and a matter of opinion. At BEST, all the anti-smoking crowd had was a collection of dubious statistical trends, trotted out with an air of condescending "scientific" superiority. They had no "replicable experiments", they had no direct cause, it was all circumstantial, and plenty of other factors MIGHT have been involved. Meanwhile, those around me who didn't smoke and who didn't like me stinking up their air, their clothing, their living spaces were instant and immediate converts to the anti-smoking crusade, right from the start. But eventually, the evidence became to solid to ignore, and I realized I was living more dangerously than I wanted to admit. I quit. By now, the AGW evidence is about where the anti-smoking evidence was in, say, 1980. And of course, many people never have quit, or even quite believed they were taking risks or damaging themselves. Vested interests can be very powerful. So I ask: WHY have you decided to hand-wave away the AGW evidence? What do you gain? How do you benefit? Why is it so important to remain ignorant?
And yet you're still live after taking in all that smoke. I myself smoked for about 20 years. Because of draconian taxes and fines being levied on the cigarette industry, the price of a pack of cigarettes became to high and I could no longer support the habit so.....I quit - cold turkey. No big deal, no deleterious after affects. Will wonders never cease!
So your attitude about smoking is the same as your attitude about AGW: evidence schmevidence! I don' need no steenkin evidence! Or do you today, like I used to, have some personal reason for being in denial? Hey, I really enjoyed smoking. I still crave it. What's your excuse?
I admit I was taken aback. He quit not for health reasons, because of course it's the lying government making up the health myth. He quit because the evil gummint drove up the price of a perfectly harmless pastime, just like the same evil government is trying to destroy the economy to cave in to the left wing loonies on AGW! Who needs facts, evidence, or science when there's a handy conspiracy! Clearly, presenting the science is barking up the wrong tree.
