Wild monkeys with radiation collars to help Fukushima researchersresearchers from Fukushima University are planning to equip local,
The monkeys will wearing radiation-measuring collars as they go deep into forests oe an area that has only been studied from the air via helicopters
We would like to know how much impact (the radiation has) on the natural world, such as forest, river,
We will draw the map to show the movement of radioactivity. This will help reveal the long term effects of radiation on animals as well as how radiation spreads in the forest as it transfers between animals and plants.
The collars worn by the monkey assistants will be equipped with: a dosimeter, a small radiation-measuring instrument GPS tracking a device that detects the monkey s distance from the ground as the radiation level is measured.
As the radiation moves from the forest to the ocean, it is important to set a baseline of knowledge to see how it affects humans and animals in the long run,
 Takahashi adds. The team plans to study the mountainous region up against Minamisoma city, about 16 miles north of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
As many as 14 groups of monkeys are residing in those forests. As early as February
According to the press release, Gina Mccarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation stated:
An increasing number of coal and nuclear power plants as well as dams are being authorized to fuel a growing energy appetite.
then a chest x-ray from a few days ago showing some fluid build up in the lungs.
and other radioactive elements not commonly found in nature thanks to our nuclear weapons testing. And we have created some new compounds that will be in the geologic record for a long time to come, the most ubiquitous
Reversing radiation's bad PRWOULD you eat a banana? Would you install a smoke detector in your home?
Would you want nuclear power? Â Many people would roar no to that interrogative. Â The tamer ones would say,
All that radioactivity?!Forget it! The more hotheaded types-of which there are many-would chose spicier words.
You'll get far more radiation from your bananas, smoke detectors and trips to Yosemite than you ever ever will from a nuclear power plant.
That's how I interpret a concise, handy new guide called Radiation: The Facts  by former Dartmouth professor Robert Hargraves.
Radiation is safe within limits, Hargraves reminds us throughout the easy-to-read 6-page brochure.
His point: The public is misinformed so about radiation that it is missing a golden opportunity to move the world onto a low-CO2 diet by shifting to nuclear power.
In his words: Â Nuclear power is a green environmental solution. It generates no CO2. The fuel is cheap and inexhaustible.
Green nuclear power can solve the global crises of air pollution deaths and climate change. Cheap energy can help developing nations escape poverty
and let industrialized nations improve economic growth. Is it safe? The primary obstacle to nuclear power is misunderstanding of radiation safety.
Hargraves doesn't actually state that bananas and smoke detectors give us more radiation than nuclear plants do,
but that's the message between the lines. He does indeed point out that bananas and smoke detectors emit.
and Chernobyl for instance-they do not emit radiation to the general public. It's all contained.
The average coal plant has spewed far more radiation over the years than has nuclear. Coal operators are allowed to do this under naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) exemptions.
But back to the brochure. Hargraves reminds us that in our daily lives we encounter constant natural background radiation from sources like cosmic rays, breathing radon, ingestion of food and water,
and proximity to rocks such as granite (There's your Yosemite. I love its granite cliffs and domes.
I'll blow a kiss to their radiation). He points out that people living in places like Denver
and Finland incur higher natural background radiation-presumably because they are closer to the sun. Yet are they aglow?
Hargraves debunks an old guideline called Linear No Threshold (LNT) that states that the cumulative effect of repeated exposure to radiation can be devastating.
pointing out that the human body has natural healing powers that overcome any damage from small doses of radiation.
Yes, radiation can kill. Be careful with the stuff. But that's not a reason to oppose nuclear power.
 Especially alternative forms of nuclear reactors under development in some countries, which improve nuclear's safety performance to an even higher level,
Yes, it's time for more nuclear power. Â And for that to happen, it's time for the public to take a more measured view of radiation.
Not only is radiation all around us, it sustains us in many ways. The radioactive decay of Earth's core provides much of the heat that keeps us alive on the planet.
Radiation sterilizes food. Radiation serves us broadly in the medical field, both as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool.
In fact we are currently enduring a shortage of medical isotopes, which we could rectify if we had more nuclear reactors from
which to pull them. Radiation reminds me of the albatross: It performs wondrous things and it generally doesn't harm you,
yet it has a villainous reputation. The bird made famous in The Rime of the Ancient Mariner can fly incredible distances with a single flap of the wings.
The feathery creature used to be a good omen, until Samuel Taylor Coleridge's seafarer got hold of one and turned it into an impediment around  your neck.
Likewise, radiation can do so much good for mankind. It can provide clean power and medical miracles.
Updated Jan 29 around 10:05 a m. PST adding reference to alternative nuclear's improved waste managementcover photo of Half Dome at Yosemite is from Diliff via Wikimediathe land of milk and honey-and radiation:
Nuclear power 1, Polar Vortex 0business! Innovation! Startups! It must be nuclear powerbombs away: Key uranium supply to U s.,from Russian weapons, ends.
A new type of nuclear power
Rolling stones keyboardist Chuck Leavell on smart growthwashington-Last week, Rolling stones keyboardist, Mother Nature Network cofounder and conservationist Chuck Leavell was in Washington to talk about his new book
which measures large-scale changes On earth, like cloud cover and radiation, but not height. So who has the tallest trees?
one Sukagawa farmer noted that the government approves of shipments of food that test below 100 becquerels (units of radioactivity) per kilogram,
When we ask them about the possible reduction of the rate of radiation, they answer,
 While natural iodine from some seafood helps cancel out the radioactive iodine in fast-moving fish
which are known to concentrate radioactive iodine, â Â she says, as opposed to the healthy,
and they have imposed even stricter limits on radiation in foodstuffs from Fukushima prefecture than we have for our own produce in the U k. and the U s. â Â Â Dr. Ian Fairlie,
an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment who is closely monitoring Fukushima says that Japanese should fear radiation just not necessarily in the region food. â Å Contaminated food intakes are a relatively small part of the problem.
People near Fukushima are exposed more via direct radiation (groundshine: smaller doses also come from water intakes,
â Å Both the World health organization and the United nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation agree that the biggest threat to health post Fukushima is the fear of radiation, not the radiation itself.
But a person can t just eat a radioactive chemical and hope to be healthy,
but excludes nuclear power. This upside-down perspective has led Germany (via subsidies) to spend more than $350 per ton CO2 avoided by mass harvesting of forests around the globe.
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011