Positive Effects of Nuclear Radiation: Explained

15 Responses to “Positive Effects of Nuclear Radiation: Explained”

1. Uncle B Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 12:27 am

   1 Come on boys, don’t blow one of the best big oil propaganda schemes in their history. Of course, we knew all along that radiation isn’t really that bad, after all, the Ruskies ran subs on it and their crews all retired and lived to tell the story, so did ours. No tumors! Nothing! Irradiated food is actually edible, and we can cure cancer with radiation. As long as the US public is stupid enough to buy controllable radiation dangers over the true killer, the ubiquitous, cancer causing benzine molecule in oil we will run gas cars and die of that miserable mystery group of diseases called cancer while the dividends roll in for the story spinners. Reply to this comment.

2. Carp Flounderson Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 4:00 am

   2 Uncle B, please don’t try to blame “big oil” for radiation hysteria. Unless, of course, Greenpeace, Ralph Nader, and hippies everywhere are secretly pawns of Exxon and Texaco. The simple fact is that the fear and irrational avoidance of nuclear power comes squarely from the political left. Reply to this comment.

3. Bob Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 4:20 am

   3 Just goes to show humans fuck things up more than an atomic bomb. Somehow I’m not surprised. Reply to this comment.

4. El Dude Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 4:43 am

   4 Radiation is not necessarily “poison” to every living thing. A mysterious black “slime” was found to be living within the sealed off container that currently houses the highly radioactive Chernobyl reactor, and this black “slime,” or mutated fungus, as it turns out to be, is actually thriving off of the gamma radiation emitted from the reactor. This strange fungi actually thrives off of this high energy radiation. Reply to this comment.

5. Ado Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 4:44 am

   5 Come on boys, don’t blow one of the best big oil propaganda schemes in their history. Of course, we knew all along that radiation isn’t really that bad, after all, the Ruskies ran subs on it and their crews all retired and lived to tell the story, so did ours. No tumors! Nothing! Irradiated food is actually edible, and we can cure cancer with radiation. As long as the US public is stupid enough to buy controllable radiation dangers over the true killer, the ubiquitous, cancer causing benzine molecule in oil we will run gas cars and die of that miserable mystery group of diseases called cancer while the dividends roll in for the story spinners. Interesting, but I’d have wanted more information. And to Uncle B, I disagree. Nuclear submarines and most things nuclear limit radioactivity leaking out to workers to an insignificant amount (though earlier technologies did cause quite a lot of problems for them: many crews did in fact die early). So lack of health-related issues is not related to radioactive exposure because there is usually very little exposure. Irradiate food is not radioactive. Radiation is used in concentrated amounts to eradicate parts of our body that happen to be causing problems (cancerous)- like saying knife cuts aren’t dangerous because they are occasionally used for amputations that ultimately save someone’s life. I’m all for nuclear power, which does not release radiation into the environment (except for in a carefully-handled way), but radiation is most definitely harmful in a lot of ways, possibly excluding this interesting phenomena in nature. Reply to this comment.

6. Cora Judd Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 4:47 am

   6 Unfortunately, our current threat of annihilation comes from our consumptive lifestyles. Nuclear winter is SO last century. Reply to this comment.

7. CharlyO Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 4:48 am

   7 Well, I worked for 10 years producing radiopharmaceuticals and live a pretty healthy life. Uncle B, you have a fairly rational point to consider. Furthermore, plastics - made from petroleum - were never tested to, for example, contain, package or feed us (straws and cups) our foods. (Not to my knowledge, anyway) Seems to me the advent of cancer was somewhere in the timeline of plastics’ rise to power. Reply to this comment.

8. Suave Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 5:42 am

   8 You don’t cure cancer with radiation; you kill it. Reply to this comment.

9. oz Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 5:48 am

   9 Uncle B you are a jackass beyond all measurable standards. Reply to this comment.

10. Tim Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 7:11 am

    10 Please don’t confuse great bio-diversity with a good life. As creature reach reproductive age then die off they leave more room for the youngsters. Since I am not a youngster, death at a young age doesn’t appeal to me anymore. Reply to this comment.

11. Tuqui Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 9:31 am

    11 Ubviously the most poisonous element for the nature are the humans. Humans didn’t go inside this radioactive places, and they flourish. Reply to this comment.

12. A curious chat Posted: Apr 18th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    12 I hate to burst bubbles but the science abuse here is horrible. Some rant points 1) It’s not plastics or benzine or [insert something else random] that causes the large cancer rates increase (they may have a tiny effect). It’s that fact that the chance of cancer is very strongly age dependent. Now a days we live longer. A fact not entirely unrelated to our knowledge of plastics and the cheapness of energy. As medical care gets better cancer rates go up. Check out any developing country. In the UK Prostate rates shot up over the last 2 years. Due to the demise of concord? Eh no,we simply got better at detecting it so now more cases are recorded. 2) Unless you mess up you don’t kill cancer you cure cancer it’s a disease not a separate entity. Although funding drives make it sound like it is a lurking monster. 3) The background level in Bikini atoll is far too low to cause the increase in bio diversity. Thou it would slightly increase the mutation and thus evolution rate. But speeded up evolution is still bloody slow. People do research where bacteria are blasted with radiation at thousands of times the atoll level and then is still bloody slow. This is for bacteria the fastest evolving living stuff on the planet! 4) I agree the biomass (not counting humans) and biodiversity increase is purely due to the lack of humans there breeding like fools and raping the resources. (Acting very much like a planetary cancer which would then make the nukes radiotherapy I guess). 5) Normally “wild” animals don’t live long enough to get cancer. For this reason and others biodiversity is actually a good measure of a ecosystem thats why zoologists use it. Rant Over! Reply to this comment.

13. leila Posted: Apr 19th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    13 none of you guys has the slightest clue Reply to this comment.

14. A curious chap Posted: Apr 21st, 2008 at 8:20 pm

    14 Do you leila? I notice you offer no peer reviewed references to disprove my statements. Reply to this comment.

15. Gwenny Posted: Apr 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm

    15 You mean, there isn’t going to be a Godzilla or the Blob. DARN IT! Reply to this comment.