|
Post by rsmith7 on Apr 12, 2011 10:53:31 GMT 1
Monbiot recants and slams green nuclear critics www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushimaI post these links not because I have any respect for George Monbiot but simply to demonstrate that it IS possible to change one's opinions without being in the pay of some nefarious interest or other. I myself never questioned the meme of AGW until Durkin's "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in 2007 prompted me to start informing myself about the subject. Naturally I never looked back once my eyes were opened! (Has anyone ever changed their opinion in the other direction - from being a sceptic to being an AGW "believer"? Not too many is my guess.) I was once a CND supporter. It lasted until I met a local activist and realised they wanted unilateral disarmament. Bugger that I said! I was 14.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Apr 12, 2011 15:53:26 GMT 1
I once supported hanging, but whilst living in Bermuda in the 70s two people were hung for murder. Being such a small island it felt like they had been strung up in one's back yard. I then decided I couldn't support the death penalty but would support a sentence of prison for the killer's natural life with no privileges with the option that the prisoner could ask for a lethal injection if they so wished.
Getting back to Monboit, I too lay our current parlous power generation state firmly at the feet of the green movement. By their actions they have coerced governments along an expensive cul-de-sac for which we all will pay heavily. Their ant-nuclear stance stymied any real research into alternative nuclear fuel materials such as Thorium and only now, when we have our backs against the wall, are they begrudgingly accepting that nuclear was the only real large scale alternative (in terms of "saving the planet from CO2") to fossil fuel or gas. Their "get out" of course is that it is now too late to build nuclear palnts because of the time scale involved, so we must continue with renewables! doh
In terms of AGW, I am a bit of a fence sitter. One reason is that I cannot believe that man's activities is not having some effect on the climate, but I am also sceptical of the utter conviction of AGWers that man is the major culprit, especially when the models they use to show this are very crude and, as far as I can see, have an inabilty to take into account water vapour and cloud cover in any meanngful way. P
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 14, 2011 13:43:32 GMT 1
Apparently, the banana standard is erroneous!
WHY radioactive? Because they are rich in potassium, a percentage of which is the naturally occuring radioactive isotope potassium-40.
Except ratio of potassium-40 to ordinary potassium-39 in the banana is the same as ratio for potassium already in your body. And when you ingest more potassiuj, you just excrete some. Overall ratio of potassium-39 to 40 in you, total amount of potassium in you, hence amount of potassium-40 in you doesn't change when you eat a banana.
Which is a bit sad, because its so fun!
|
|
|
Post by principled on Apr 14, 2011 18:49:59 GMT 1
Good post STA. How would you go about educating the general public about radiation and the various dangers/non-dangers. I'm currently visiting my daughter in Canada and, horror of horrors, they measured an increase in radiation in Toronto caused by the Japanese nuclear reactors. They then went on to say that the increase was the equivalent of 1/15000 of the amount one gets flying across to Canada from Europe!
So, how about a traffic light system like we have on foods to indicate: 1) the half life 2) The dangers (eg I believe (not sure if I remem,ber correctly) that plutonium although it has a long half life is only a problem if ingested)
Over to you P
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 14, 2011 18:56:24 GMT 1
I wouldn't even ATTEMPT it, the whole subject is too confused already, with radiation just spooking everyone as soon as you mention it.
Yet MOST people seem to be okay with dental x-rays and such like, hence perhaps that (plus living in Cornwall) is as good as its going to get as regards comparisons..........................
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Apr 14, 2011 19:15:44 GMT 1
Apparently, the banana standard is erroneous! WHY radioactive? Because they are rich in potassium, a percentage of which is the naturally occuring radioactive isotope potassium-40. Except ratio of potassium-40 to ordinary potassium-39 in the banana is the same as ratio for potassium already in your body. And when you ingest more potassiuj, you just excrete some. Overall ratio of potassium-39 to 40 in you, total amount of potassium in you, hence amount of potassium-40 in you doesn't change when you eat a banana. Which is a bit sad, because its so fun! The thought of a banana "in" STA is too horrifying to contemplate.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 14, 2011 19:47:16 GMT 1
Well, you must have spent ages coming up with that one! Very amusing.............
|
|