What the greens got wrong

[Doggy Styles]

Do they mean all the 'isotope' radiation is good for us? Alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays?

What about Yobba rays?

[BlasterBates]

Some scientists actually went ahead and did some investigation into radiation on health. They went to Chernobyl and found that the death rate amongst the inhabitants was no higher than anywhere else, that the high incidence of thyroid tumours was probably not cancer but just the normal variation in size of thyroid glands that no-one had ever really investigated before, i.e. plenty people live normal lives with an enlarged thyroid gland, but had never been picked up before.

Animals living in the contaminated area, were perfectly healthy.

They went to an Iranian town with a high level of background radiation, not sure what it was caused by, and found the life expectancy higher than elsewhere. They found this also in other places.

They investigated why people living in places with high background radiation and found there was a difference in their blood, which seemed to be caused by the radiation, and was beneficial. Experiments confirmed the changes.

One of their conclusions was that a certain level of background radiation is actually beneficial. It seems that organisms have evolved to accept low levels of radiation and like sunlight a bit of it does you good.

One of the reasons why there was a panic about radiation, was that scientists at the time had very good data on the effects of radiation at high dose levels but not low levels, so they simply extrapolated the the straight line between exposure and life expectancy to low levels. It now appears this was totally incorrect and in fact it should be a slight positive curve before turning negative at some higher level.

This whole anti-nuclear movement is based largely on a scientific mistake. In other words they had it right in the 1930's a bit radium-cream would probably do you good.

Stanley Watras is probably not dead, and as a result of the radon is more likely to live to a ripe old age, just like the inhabitants of the Iranian town, who are exposed to the highest background levels of radiation in the world.

[TimberWolf]

So you have no fear of living on top of granite and breathing in Radon?

I don't think people living on or near granite develop more cancers. Granite is all over the place anyway.

[Troll]

There's does seem to be a lot of misplaced fear of radioactivity. A coal power station pushes out much more radioactive material than a nuclear power station, because radioactive elements are all around us, including in coal. There's about a kilogram of uranium alone (a common element) in a metre of top soil of an average garden and lets not even start on granite or bananas.

So you have no fear of living on top of granite and breathing in Radon?

The danger of radon exposure in dwellings was discovered in 1984 by Stanley Watras, an employee at the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Mr. Watras set off the radiation alarms (see Geiger counter) on his way into work for two weeks straight while authorities searched for the source of the contamination. They were shocked to find that the source was astonishingly high levels of Radon in his basement and it was not related to the nuclear plant. The risks associated with living in his house were estimated to be equivalent to smoking 135 packs of cigarettes every day.

[Mich the Tester]

There's does seem to be a lot of misplaced fear of radioactivity. A coal power station pushes out much more radioactive material than a nuclear power station, because radioactive elements are all around us, including in coal. There's about a kilogram of uranium alone (a common element) in a metre of top soil of an average garden and lets not even start on granite or bananas.

Indeed, but I don't think it's just environmentalists who've caused that fear.

In the 1930s, people were sold radioactive 'health products'; men were advised by quacks to shove radium suppositories up their bums to increase their 'vim and vigour'; so there wasn't much fear back then; probably a lot of prostate cancer though.

10 Radioactive Products That People Actually Used

But then in the 40's and 50's the fear came about that the Soviets might drop a nuclear bomb on our heads, and western governments considered it wise to keep up or get the lead in the nuclear arms race; the fear of fall-out from a nuclear bomb justified the huge public expense and the risks of building our own bombs. At the same time, governments tried to show the happy, smiley side of radioactivity by investing in power stations and x-ray technology for hospitals. Now we geeks, being relatively scientifically literate, understand there's a big difference between an atomic bomb, a nuclear power station and an x-ray machine, but for your average joe who struggled to even get a D in GCSE physics it's all wierd and scary; you can't see, feel, smell, hear or taste this radioactivey stuffage, but as far as they know it can kill you and turn a foetus into a six headed monster.

Now then, most people are quite happy to have an x-ray if they've hurt themselves, so somehow medical nuclear technology has got itself a benign image; now to work out how to build a similarly benign image for atomic energy.

[BlasterBates]

In the 1960's environmentalists had good arguments, nobody gave a monkeys about the environment, but by the 1980's everything had been cleaned up, so they started making stuff up, and wanting to rule the world.

It's shame they don't focus on environmental issues anymore, like preserving nature reserves etc.

The fact is these can now be shut down to be used for biodiesel or wind farms.

I used to favour the greens in Germany quite a few years ago, that was until they started converting national parks into windfarms.

In the past we had industrial conurbations and the country side, and you could escape the cities and drive off and lose yourself in the countryside, but when the green revolution is finished, the entire landscape will be industrialised.

[Sysman]

Rats. I meant to record it but forgot. Circa 1980 I had a Green candidate come around canvassing. At the time I was distinctly impressed by their aim of "zero economic growth", not because I believed in it, but because I thought it might be achievable (cf election promises by other parties at the time).

I did buy some spuds off the chap since I had no car at the time and he promised to do fortnightly deliveries. First couple of deliveries were fine, but after that half the spuds were rotten and he accelerated the deliveries to weekly - far more than I could eat on my own.

No they didn't get my vote. Would you want someone who couldn't even organise a spud round running your local council?

[TimberWolf]

watch the other 159.

what about THIS though. remember this is from some prominant greenies - Chernobyl was responsible for 69 deaths, and that includes the firmen first on the scene.

not the multitudes that were predicted

There's does seem to be a lot of misplaced fear of radioactivity. A coal power station pushes out much more radioactive material than a nuclear power station, because radioactive elements are all around us, including in coal. There's about a kilogram of uranium alone (a common element) in a metre of top soil of an average garden and lets not even start on granite or bananas.

[Mich the Tester]

watch the other 159.

what about THIS though. remember this is from some prominant greenies - Chernobyl was responsible for 69 deaths, and that includes the firmen first on the scene.

not the multitudes that were predicted

Maybe nsfw
Miss Chernobyl 2004

[EternalOptimist]

Environmentalists seem to be against everything, including windmills. Can't they do arithmetic?

I recorded it but haven't watched it yet, along with 160 other programmes I've recorded and not watched. Plus a whole load of radio programmes.

watch the other 159.

what about THIS though. remember this is from some prominant greenies - Chernobyl was responsible for 69 deaths, and that includes the firmen first on the scene.

not the multitudes that were predicted

[Mich the Tester]

Did anyone watch this on C4 last night ?
it was all about the green movement and what mistakes they have made over the years. It was greens on greens, pretty tame stuff, but a few telling points were made.
The biggest one, in my mind, was the realisation that crying 'wolf' every couple of years is not a good idea.

The critics were not saying, lets become 'un-green' , they were saying, 'lets change our approach and become less doctrinaire'

I didn't see it, but if I have one real criticism of the greeny people it's that they seem to think every percieved problem should be dealt with through punitive taxes on some activity or heavy handed legislation. I think that has caused a lot of animosity toward environmental causes, particularly from people on the right of politics. I don't even mean the extreme right, but many politically moderate people are very suspicious of the environmentalists because they don't want to be bossed around or taxed any more than they already are.

[TimberWolf]

Environmentalists seem to be against everything, including windmills. Can't they do arithmetic?

I recorded it but haven't watched it yet, along with 160 other programmes I've recorded and not watched. Plus a whole load of radio programmes.

[EternalOptimist]

Did anyone watch this on C4 last night ?
it was all about the green movement and what mistakes they have made over the years. It was greens on greens, pretty tame stuff, but a few telling points were made.
The biggest one, in my mind, was the realisation that crying 'wolf' every couple of years is not a good idea.

The critics were not saying, lets become 'un-green' , they were saying, 'lets change our approach and become less doctrinaire'