Scottish⑦Canuck Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 14 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said: But before you stop eating fish caught in the Pacific, it’s important to keep things in perspective. Even that sample with relatively high radiation is about 500 times lower than the U.S. government’s safety standard for radioactivity in drinking water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 1 minute ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said: Good find. Put it in a library. Of course, the US government has merely increased the level of acceptable radiation in drinking water to put our fears at ease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 55 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said: Good find. Put it in a library. Of course, the US government has merely increased the level of acceptable radiation in drinking water to put our fears at ease. Not by 500x they haven't. People really don't understand what radiation is. We are constantly exposed to it. The Earth emits it. The human body emits it. The sun emits a lot of it. It's not a case of being exposed to even a tiny bit increasing health risks or small bits accumulating over time. You have to be exposed to relatively large amounts all at once for it to have any impact. It was the same deal with the whole "Smart Meter" fiasco. Yes, Smart Meters emit radiation. Is there any evidence to show that radiation is dangerous, absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 29 minutes ago, taxi said: Not by 500x they haven't. People really don't understand what radiation is. We are constantly exposed to it. The Earth emits it. The human body emits it. The sun emits a lot of it. It's not a case of being exposed to even a tiny bit increasing health risks or small bits accumulating over time. You have to be exposed to relatively large amounts all at once for it to have any impact. It was the same deal with the whole "Smart Meter" fiasco. Yes, Smart Meters emit radiation. Is there any evidence to show that radiation is dangerous, absolutely not. Actually, it's 27,000x. I the wake of Fukushima, the EPA basically ducked out and left it to the IAEA, which would be the largest international nuclear energy agency in the world. An example of the relaxed regulations: Old EPA regulations called for 3 picocuries of radioactive iodine 131 per liter. IAEA is 81,000. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/10/epa-draft-stirs-fears-of-radically-relaxed-radiation-guidelines/ Basically, cancer rates will go up, and this will also be viewed as 'acceptable.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 1 minute ago, TOMapleLaughs said: Actually, it's 27,000x. I the wake of Fukushima, the EPA basically ducked out and left it to the IAEA, which would be the largest international nuclear energy agency in the world. An example of the relaxed regulations: Old EPA regulations called for 3 picocuries of radioactive iodine 131 per liter. IAEA is 81,000. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/10/epa-draft-stirs-fears-of-radically-relaxed-radiation-guidelines/ Basically, cancer rates will go up, and this will also be viewed as 'acceptable.' Firstly, this was in the USA, which has no bearing on Canada. Iodine-131 also has an extremely short half-life (8 days): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131#Radioactive_decay Fukushima was 4.5 years ago. Not really sure how this relates to Fukushima having an effect on thyroid problems in BC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 2 minutes ago, taxi said: Firstly, this was in the USA, which has no bearing on Canada. Iodine-131 also has an extremely short half-life (8 days): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131#Radioactive_decay Fukushima was 4.5 years ago. Not really sure how this relates to Fukushima having an effect on thyroid problems in BC. The disaster is ongoing. Do you honestly think the problem just goes away on it's own in 4.5 years? It doesn't. This is why warnings are on the rise. But all we can do is just assume the reports that drinking water is still safe are correct, hope that they ultimately contain the disaster, and continue on with our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/03/national/fukushima-radiation-level-highest-since-march-11/ 6 years later, no progress Should be an International group working on a fix not just the Japanese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.