Prepare for a slow and agonizing death

I'm worried about government intrusion and over-regulation of the industry.

Would the PC police object to me using only Mormons and Catholics for breeders on my fuel farm? Or charging more for the races that burned better?

 

Lots of info at this site:

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/

 

I don't think it's a plot, just more evidence that DHS is not what it pretends to be. It's not concerned in any way at all with protecting citizens, and exists only to control them.

 

It would have been a start at least. Pretending there's no concern from the populace arouses suspicions of cover-up. Making a public statement acknowledging that they are aware there is a nuclear incident occuring would at least imply they take they job seriously, like a lazy office worker shuffling papers when the boss pops in.

 

This is the best banter I've read on S2. And Maris, it's never too late to bring in Homer.

 

Nowhere do I refer to CT scan doses, which fall in the 2-5 Rad range and yield a single dose of about 1/3 Rad which is what you get naturally over a year's time.

But this should clear up your confusion and misinformation about CT scans.

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2424.html

You are correct when you say that this is all confusing. The individuals who answered these questions tried to provide answers that could be understood by the individual submitting the question. Taken individually, each answer is good. However, when comparing all the answers, it might seem, as you correctly pointed out, that the answers are different. And, they may very well be depending on the area of the body subjected to CT scanning. A CT of the head will yield a different dose to the head than what a CT of the abdomen will yield to the abdomen. It is not any different from a plain x-ray image of the head vs. a plain x-ray image of the abdomen. The radiation dose required for the head x-ray image is different from the radiation dose required to produce an image of the abdomen image.

The confusion over rad and rem or mrad and mrem is easy to solve. When talking about x-ray exposures, 1 rad is equal to 1 rem and 1 mrad is equal to 1 mrem. Similarly, 1,000 mrad or mrem equals 1 rad or rem, respectively.

A further point of confusion is that some writers provide doses in mrad, mrem, rad, or rem to the part of the body, e.g., head or abdomen, being imaged. Others average the dose over the entire body to try to give an equivalent whole-body dose that would represent the same risk as the higher dose to the specific portion of the body. The calculated dose that averages the radiation dose over the entire body is called the “effective dose equivalent.” For example, a dose of 2 rad or 2,000 mrad to the head would be equivalent, in risk, to a dose to the whole body of perhaps 110 mrad effective dose equivalent.

While doses to the part of the body being imaged in a CT procedure will be typically in the range of 2 to 5 rad, the calculated effective dose equivalent, i.e., the calculated whole-body dose that would present the same risk as a dose to the portion of the body, will be less and in the range of 0.1 to 1 rad.

It should be noted that the dose that we receive from natural background each year is approximately 300 mrem. A 2 rem dose to the head that calculates out to have a 300 mrad or 300 mrem effective dose equivalent will present the same risk as one year’s worth of natural background radiation.

The exact risk from doses of 1 to 5 rad or rem to the total body is uncertain and quite low. It is inappropriate to try to even calculate an exact risk for such low doses.

Kenneth L. Miller, CHP, CMHP
Penn State Hershey Medical Center

 

The danger builds and the cover-up continues to build:

[video=youtube;CtYq70-71RI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtYq70-71RI&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

A second monster quake, about 7.9, is expected to hit within days.

[video]http://www.smh.com.au/environment/monster-aftershock-could-strike-within-days-20110313-1bt2p.html[/video]

 

Killer quakes more prevalent in recent years.

A seismology research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Gary Gibson, said the world averages one magnitude 8 quake a year, but the rate was inconsistent. The 1980s and 1990s had far fewer large quakes than average, for example.

''There is more variation than you would expect from a random occurrence of earthquakes, and we really don't have a mechanism to describe why that is the case,'' Dr Gibson said. ''But there is no question that the last two years have been very active and well above average.''

Dr McCue dismissed suggestions that melting glaciers due to global warming could escalate the earthquake risk.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/monster-aftershock-could-strike-within-days-20110313-1bt2p.html

 

Damn, you were almost there in this post, but you didn't take it to its obvious conclusion. It is nice to see the inspired version of barfo back, though. A very funny and relevant post.

 

I think I actually learned something from this thread, and it was MARIS who helped change my mind on nuke power. I can now see the dangers of them, especially in the NW USA.

What we need now are oil and natural gas rigs all over the USA. By far the most efficient and plentiful source of energy to fuel our economy.

 

We already have that, and a myriad of hydroelectric plants and coal plants. Now we need to make sure all new construction is for safer, less expensive sources, like solar and wind.

The earthquake issue alone is enough to put the brakes on geothermal sources as they usually involve purposely creating man-made earthquakes in fragile and unstable volcanic zones.

 

i'm dying so enough as it is

 

2nd reactor explodes...3rd on the way!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis

 

Injecting seawater is the last resort to cool it, because it destroys the plant. The place will now have to be torn down and rebuilt. That's a billion dollar hit to Japan's deficit. (Half a billion to clean up and tear down, half a billion to build.)

 

...not to mention all of the other reactors are eventually going to melt-down +/-!

 

Multiply those numbers by 7 to 10. A half-billion was the construction cost in the early 1970s, not now. See the box in the upper right corner of this article for the cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant