| Nuclear physics (1) |  |
| Nuclear reaction (8) | |
| Radiation (87) | |
| Radioactivity (19) | |
| Nuclear physics (1) | |
| Nuclear reaction (8) | |
| Radiation (87) | |
| Radioactivity (19) | |
What if there is a radiation leak? Do you send rodents into it? You can see the moral and ethical issues that need to be worked out.
#Cold war Nuclear Radiation Creates Anti-Poaching Tool (ISNS)--Radioactive carbon atoms created during 20th-century nuclear bomb tests could help save elephants
They can t the radiation in space is DEADLY. Not just the Van allen belts the Van allen belts protects us from the sun
If the radiation belts in the Earth's magnetosphere were really that deadly because we have been shielded improperly this whole time we probably would have noticed by now...
because all of those astronauts would have died of radiation poisoning. And we DID in fact land on the moon the proof is in the retroreflectors that we can use on a regular basis to measure (with extreme precision) with lasers the distance between Earth and the moon.
The International atomic energy agency may be known best for dealing with nuclear disasters such as the Fukushima reactor meltdown but it also works on crop science techniques that use radiation.
with a tiny bit of radiation enough to damage their DNA. That created a pool of seeds with different random mutations any
but the FAO/IAEA Joint Programme doesn't use it because the IAEA focuses on radiation technologies.
Radiation is believed widely to be the element fueling mutation in evolution. To the point that mutation based on radiation is accepted as a biological dating system.
The plant is not radioactive it s only accelerated evolution with human selection. The wisdom in human selection is the greatest risk factor here. tmarti69 As the Earth is currently in the beginnings of a magnetic polar flip with a ongoing to zero reduction of magnetic field more wild life will be subject to the the sun comsic radays
If asked they will say that they did not have the kind of understanding of the nature of the cell that would indicate that radiation could harm them.
âÂ# Just like a century ago âÂ#Âoescientificã¢Â# evidence of radiation harming cells didn't exist either!
despite no radiation from the Sun reaching the planet ever again. Tough but doable. The caveats in that previous paragraph are the much larger obstacles to overcome in my opinion.
I read somewhere that coal fire power plants release more radiation (in the form of radioactive impurities being vaporized) into the atmosphere every year than all nuclear power plants ever (including meltdowns.
but we're at such a point in our'advancement'that our diluted pollutants are reaching toxic levels. 1. Nuclear power plants emit dangerous radiation into the air and water during their DAILY operations.
Cancer-causing radiation such as Iodine-131 Cesium-137 Tritium Krypton Strontium...2. A NEW Gallup Poll says over 70%of Americans want more WIND
and Ecological Consequences of Fukushima in which the amount of cancers caused by radiation in our food
The total amounts of deaths birth defects miscarriages heart attacks cancers etc. due to nuclear radiation is in the millions upon millions;
and Fukushima. 3 mile island caused less extra radiation than you'd get from a cross-country flight.
and about as mature as your avatar. 1. A quick trip to wikipedia shows many many nuclear meltdowns and accidents such as Santa Susana in California and the Urals in Russia which spewed tons of radiation
over unsuspecting populations. 2. Comparing radiation received from an airplane flight to exposure to nuclear radiation
which is inhaled/ingested is a hugely false comparison (so is comparing it to bananas or radiation from watching TV etc.)
These comparisons are made by pro-nuclear propagandists to try to minimize the dangers of nuclear radiation. 3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous
and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation. Dr. Romeo F. Quijano said this about nuclear radiation:
The small amount of radiation claimed to be safe by authorities added to our increasingly fragile environment will cause serious harm to the health of human beings and other living organisms all over the world.
Radioactive particles especially Plutonium Strontium and Cesium are bioaccumulative extremely persistent and highly toxic. They travel long distances
and will contaminate all regions on earth. www. abs-cbnnews. com/insights/04/01/11/nuclear-radiation-there-no-safe-dose4.
Dr. Yablokov found ONE MILLION deaths due to Chernobyl. 5. Dr. Wing found that lung cancers rose dramatically in people exposed to the Three Mile Island radiation plume. 6. Dr. Gould
coast. 9. Dr. Gofman did studies on the increases of breast cancer due to nuclear radiation. 10.
and predicts a 70%increase thyroid cancer risk in females exposed to Fukushima radiation as infants. 11.
It's not just cancers and death that nuclear radiation causes. Dr. Wertelecki found teratomos conjoined twins mocrophthalmia NTD microcephaly horrible birth defects and a decrease in cognitive skills due to Chernobyl.
and health effects caused by nuclear radiation. Again I highly recommend everyone watch the speakers at the Fukushima Symposium to learn more. www. totalwebcasting. com/view/?
/id=hcfthe doctors at the Symposium have spent decades studying the effects of nuclear radiation and their grim analysis is in their presentations.
And nuclear radiation is not just affecting humans. Animals are showing signs of radiation exposure.
Fish have been caught with radiation. An entire species of nails is extinct due to Fukushima. Radiation is being in found in seaweed zooplankton and sea life in the oceans.
Animal and plant mutations are being found everywhere. There is no doubt about it. Man-made nuclear radiation is wreaking havoc on human genetics human health and our environment.
NEW Gallup Poll: Americans Want More Energy From Wind Solar Gasno fewer than two in three Americans want the U s. to put more emphasis on producing domestic energy using solar power (76%)wind (71%)and natural gas (65%.
%Far fewer want to emphasize the production of oil (46%)and the use of nuclear power (37%.
of Onihikage's comments he's exactly right about there being only two nuclear power plant incidents in history that resulted in significant radiation release
Interestingly no one died from radiation released in the Fukushima Daiichi accident. That averages out to a little over 1 fatality a year.
%This UN Scientific Committee Report on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) published in 2008 says there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident.
and Dr. Sternglass claiming a million deaths due to the radiation release from Three Mile Island. What you're missing in your extremely narrow
and warped view on nuclear radiation is balance and perspective. Onihikage was right to call you out on your radiation junk science.
Do you know how much radiation was released from Three Mile Island? I'll tell you. The radiation released resulted in an average dose of 1. 4 mrem to the two million people near the plant.
The report compared this with the additional 80 mrem per year received from living in a high altitude city such as Denver.
As further comparison you receive 3. 2 mrem from a chest X-ray âÂ#Âmore than twice the average dose of those received near the plant. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Three mile island accidentdo
you seriously think a million people die from receiving a chest X-ray? If that were true chest X-rays would have been abolished long ago by the FDA.
Your claim 3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation is also rubbish.
Nuclear radiation is used daily to irradiate foods to prevent spoilage with no adverse health effect whatsoever.
In fact it saves lives by preventing deadly bacteria from forming. Nuclear radiation is used safely countless times every day in numerous ways in medical and diagnostic procedures on humans;
all of which results in the prolonging of life and improving the quality of life for millions of people each year.
The effects of nuclear radiation have been studied carefully for over 60 years and extremely conservative dosage limits set in place to protect the safety of people who work in environments where radiation exposure is commonplace.
The U s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates âÂ#Âbelow about 10000 mrem (100 msv).
Studies of occupational workers who are exposed chronically to low levels of radiation above normal background have shown no adverse biological effects. http://www. nrc. gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad
-exposure-cancer. htmlhere's a graphic comparison of different levels of radiation dosages: http://xkcd. com/radiation/And here's an MIT study from 2012 which suggests that the established long-term radiation dosage limits may be 10 times too conservative due to the way the cancerous effects are measured;
not from actual experiments of long-term radiation but from EXTRAPOLATING the effects from single high-dosage events like the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima or the exposion at Chernobyl:
http://web. mit. edu/newsoffice/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515. htmlto sum up do as Onihikage suggests
and read up on the remarkable safety of nuclear power and get some perspective on the vast array of other things that pose much greater health risks than nuclear power.
As for the Gallup poll Listenup it says nothing about what forms of energy Americans want to prioritize.
It simply shows that Americans want the country to produce more energy from all of the sources named.
Second of all although most of the facts previously stated about radiation and nuclear energy are true you do realize that most of that info is talking about decades old nuclear technology?
#A Huge Burst Of Gamma rays Hit Earth--And No one Noticedlast year Japanese scientists found evidence that in 775 AD Earth was hit with a sudden blast of high-intensity radiation--a blast
So what could have caused the massive burst of radiation and the high influx of energetic particles that led to the elevated levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere?
The radiation either came from an especially intense solar flare or the explosion of a nearby star.
Second--and perhaps more importantly--such flares would also have destroyed the Earth's ozone layer exposing all of life to harsh radiation
A nearby supernova would have sent gamma rays flying in all directions. Those rays would have created high-energy particles in our atmosphere
which could then go on to form the carbon-14 present in such abundance in the Japanese cedars.
But in order to send out enough gamma rays to do the trick the supernova would have had to be bigger and brighter than other historical bright spots that were documented in fact.
a short-duration gamma ray burst produced by the collision of two nearby neutron stars. Though immensely powerful (we're talking two 10-mile wide boulders each with the mass of our sun) the collision would only have been visible from Earth for about a day
Nondestructive imaging of ancient fossilsby integrating high-resolution X-ray imaging (termed microct) 3d image segmentation and computer animation a new study conducted by Carole Gee at the University of Bonn Germany demonstrates the visualization of fossils without destroying the material.
Using this technique X-ray images similar to those used in the medical field are captured providing virtual cross-sections of the specimen without ever cutting into the sample.
and radiation and show promise for stacking in three-dimensional arrays. Rudimentary silicon memories made in the Tour lab are now aboard the International Space station where they are being tested for their ability to hold a pattern
when exposed to radiation. The diodes eliminate crosstalk inherent in crossbar structures by keeping the electronic state on a cell from leaking into adjacent cells Tour said.
The nanostructured black silicon coating features very low reflectivity meaning that a larger portion of the Sun's radiation can be exploited.
Not just the intensity but also the waveform of emitted terahertz radiation totally and dynamically changes in response to molecular adsorption and desorption.
Laser pulses generated coherent bursts of terahertz radiation through a built-in surface electric field of the indium phosphide substrate that changed due to charge transfer between the graphene and the contaminating molecules.
and radiation as well as elements that enable wireless connectivity between the greenhouse and mobile devices like cell phones.
The research team investigated adaptive radiation--the explosive evolution of species into new ecological niches powered by natural selection--of New world Leaf-nosed bats.
This kind of engineering model may illuminate many other adaptive radiations and the origin of so much diversity On earth.
valos of Stony Brook University and support from the National Science Foundation studied the evolutionary histories of the adaptive radiation of New world leaf-nosed bats based on their dietary niches.
As the authors point out adaptive radiations that is the explosive evolution of species into new ecological niches have generated much of the biological diversity seen in the world today.
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011