Hey, rambill - check with the red cross or w.h.o. or Doctors Without Borders or Ramsey Clark and find out how much Iraqi cancer and birth defect incidence multiplied since '91.
http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html
(- Here's those pics you wanted..)

Hey, rambill - Why don't you check out what the pentagram's own nuclear and biological expert, Maj. Doug Rokke, has to say on the topic?

...and don't let them fool you - There IS no "safe" level of radiation - Over half of EVERYONE now succumbs to cancer.

are we trying to justify the use of nuclear weapons?...

Hey, Rambill,

You're right on the time, distance, shielding as protection. I work in a nuclear medicine facility, and that's what they taught us in our first day of training. They also talk about a fourth element, common sense, which you apply to the three methods of protection. Of course, we deal with very low levels of radiation, but even then, protection from radiation is very important. Count me as another person interested in this subject you've brought up.

we have a nuclear power plant near bye.i was wondering how long it takes radiation to travel say 30 miles.

nuclear power plants are thought to be very safe cutelildevilsmom. they have done tests and found no evidence that people living near power plants have any ill effects. unless there is a meltdown they are pretty secure.

.... depends on the wind. whatever the wind speed and direction is is where the particles will be blown. e.g., If your 30 miles downwind and theres a 10 mph wind, then 3 hours. in the real world, there will be variables, like for example the wind would almost never be blowing directly at you from the plant.also, it would depend on how high it is injected in the atmosphere, if at all. winds aloft run at different directions and usually faster speeds than ground wind.
its possible that the winds aloft could carry any radiation right over you and you would be unaffected, as long as the stuff stays aloft.

yup. Chernobyl was a sodium rracor, which means that the coolant is liquid sodium. I believe they operate at about 800 degrees, unlike our reactors, which are not only better constructed, better shielded, and have more safeties built in, but they operate using liquid water as coolant, which means they run at a MUCH lower temperature. this means that there would me a lot more time for the operators to come up with a fix before it melted, as it would take longer to get to a really bad temperature.

depleted uranium is so mildly radioactive as to be irrevalant. any theory of damages done by depleted uranium is based on ignorance of the facts.
its actually less radioactive than your smoke detector. scare tactics notwithstanding, the stuff is less radioactive as a coleman lantern mantle, mabe about the same as a clump of banannas.
.... believe it or not...

It has less radioacivity than uranuim ore before processing, which miners wade thru all day every day without any harmful effects.

cutelildevilsmom. here is some info that can help you get the estimates for your area.


Can I see these estimates for the nuclear power plant in my neighborhood?
Yes you may. Copies of each facility's environmental report for the year can sometimes be viewed at the visitor center for the site. If not there, or if there is no visitor center, you may read the reports in the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, or PDR. The PDR is located in Washington, D.C., but there are sometimes local PDRs set up in the vicinity of licensed facilities. You can find out by calling the information line at your local power plant.

CBX,

LOOK UP radiation hormesis. im on the fence, but leaning toward the side where small levels are actually benificial. the data do seem to support this but theres much more research needed before im a believer.

Thanks, rambill. I am aware that there's good and bad stuff radiating and that even the right dillution of the bad stuff can tonify - That's one of the basis for homeopathy - ultra dilluted
toxins - but Long Island had a lot of nuclear power plants and lead the nation in cancer years ago. Check out maj. Doug Rokke
or captain Joyce Riley.

thanx rambill and kingbreeze for the info.

wow lots of info to ponder thanks

... the data i find everywhere just dont confirm that. that is what you would expect to find, yet the majority of the studies done on this just dont support the supposition. Mabe theres more pollution there... mabe the people there eat more fast food... mabe theres more elderly there. on the other hand, mabe people who live at higher elevations have better food or cleaner air. Mabe people who fly a lot have better eating habits. variables.. theres always variables to deal with that muddy the water so to speak.
i am convinced that it is true that nuclear workers and uranium miners have a lower incidence of cancer,and there is a lot of data to support this. they are among the most documented groups of any kind and the records clearly indicate a longer lifespan accross all groups. there are studies that seperate them into groups like smokers/ non smokers, drinkers/ non drinkers, length of time worked versus cancer rates, ect.
(mabe they just have better health plans, who knows) Also do a lot of other people who live in areas of higher background radiation seem to be healthier for some reason.

Rambill - To what do you attribute 10,000 dead and 200,000 sick U.S. and Brit. troops
from the '91 invasion? Is Gulf war illness a fantasy?

Ram
Where do u get a nuke plant runs at 800 degrees or less? lets try 4000. How hot do u think wormwood got anyway? 800?firebrick will be cool at that temp.. Miles

ya I am highly thrilled to know this ****!!!!

ignorance is the cause of all suffering......


damn america's got a terminal case of idiocy