Skip to comments.
Is Atomic Radiation as Dangerous as We Thought?
Der Spiegel ^
| November 22, 2007
| Matthias Schulz
Posted on 11/25/2007 1:01:54 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
A mounting number of studies are coming to some surprising conclusions about the dangers of nuclear radiation. It might not be as deadly as is widely believed.
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: radiation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum
2
posted on
11/25/2007 1:08:34 PM PST
by
rellimpank
(--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
3
posted on
11/25/2007 1:08:37 PM PST
by
Steely Tom
(Steely's First Law of the Main Stream Media: if it doesn't advance the agenda, it's not news.)
To: Steely Tom
Missed it by... that... much!
4
posted on
11/25/2007 1:09:22 PM PST
by
Steely Tom
(Steely's First Law of the Main Stream Media: if it doesn't advance the agenda, it's not news.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
You mean “The Hills Have Eyes” wasn’t based on fact?
5
posted on
11/25/2007 1:10:29 PM PST
by
rbg81
(DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
That was interesting.
Thanks for posting it.
6
posted on
11/25/2007 1:13:43 PM PST
by
PeteB570
(Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Yes radiation scare is blown out of proportion. Unfortunately this moves nukes closer to the “conventional weapons” category. eeks.
7
posted on
11/25/2007 1:14:57 PM PST
by
Hunterite
To: E. Pluribus Unum
It's OK to eat the fish.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
As in the previous radiation threads, the main danger is lawsuits when terrorists detonate a dirty bomb.
9
posted on
11/25/2007 1:17:39 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(anti-razors are pro-life)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
—I have seen it asserted in print that vets of US nuke subs live longer than average—anybody out there know anything about that??
10
posted on
11/25/2007 1:18:03 PM PST
by
rellimpank
(--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
To: rellimpank
—I have seen it asserted in print that vets of US nuke subs live longer than average—anybody out there know anything about that? I bet the selection process for submariners gets rid of lots of people with bad habits that decrease life expectancy.
To: WildWeasel
I grew up eating off Fiesta-ware glazed with Uranium Pigment. I even got some of the plates on display in the breakfast nook. I seem OK. Maybe not to other Freepers.
12
posted on
11/25/2007 1:24:56 PM PST
by
oyez
(Justa' another high minded lowlife.)
To: RightWhale
As in the previous radiation threads, the main danger is lawsuits when terrorists detonate a dirty bomb. Period.
13
posted on
11/25/2007 1:27:08 PM PST
by
yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
To: rellimpank
A US nuke boat sailor gets more radiation from shore duty than sea duty on a nuke submarine. By the way, a nuke boat is not a bomb.
14
posted on
11/25/2007 1:28:10 PM PST
by
encm(ss)
(USN Ret.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Dr. Bernie Cohen, a health physicist at the University of Pittsburg offered to eat an amount of Plutonium equal in mass to an amount of caffeine ingested by Ralph Nader. He was calling B.S. on Nader’s claims about the toxicity of Plutonium.
15
posted on
11/25/2007 1:36:11 PM PST
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake but Accurate, Experts Say)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Most of my wife's family worked on the NV Test Site back in the days of above-ground shots. They tell stories of having to stay inside the school house for a couple of hours until a nuke cloud had passed. My father-in-law developed a curious chest tumor after scraping himself on a piece of heavy machinery while bulldozing dead irradiated animals off a blast site. He had the tumor removed and is still kicking into his seventies.
That being said, there are a lot of folks from that area that didn't make it into their sixties, but that may be attributed to other causes. Desert living can be hard on the body.
16
posted on
11/25/2007 1:42:24 PM PST
by
randog
(What the...?!)
To: oyez
I seem OK. Maybe not to other Freepers. Well, don't listen to them. I think your tentacles are very handsome.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Good article. The danger of low dose radiation (under 150 REM) is certainly exaggerated in the media (and of course, exposure levels themselves are themselves systematically exaggerated).
In the face of any data contrary to the anti-nuclear fictions weaved by the media, anti-nuclear activists, neo-luddites, we must contend with the inevitable straw-man argument - “radiation isn’t dangerous” - being refuted by observations of acute radiation poisoning occuring after exposure to between 1000 and 10,000 REM, followed by anecdotal stories of old hags trying to swindle millions out of entities having nothing to do with their hereditary diseases.
18
posted on
11/25/2007 1:46:24 PM PST
by
M203M4
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Talk to the victims of Chernobyl if they’re any left.
19
posted on
11/25/2007 1:56:54 PM PST
by
lilylangtree
(Veni, Vidi, Vici)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
And the scaremongers prevent us from having the option of buying radiated food off store shelves. Yep, they know what is in our best interests. NOT!
Hard to believe that they physically carry the spent fuel cells. Maybe those black jackets are one foot of lead thickness. I don't even want that job.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson