Skip to main content

View Diary: How Radioactive Is the Ocean? (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's much like sunlight (btw, another form of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryfry

    radiation) . . . .  which kills alot of people, yet a whole lot of other people survive mild amounts of exposure.

    A few even seek it out, strangely enough, considering it's deadly effects.

    •  I'm with you on dat. As far as sunlight, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy

      many people are limiting exposure to the extent that vitamin D is now regularly prescribed by doctors. Skin cancer is no joke, people have gotten the message. Unnecessary exposure to radiation is not good.

      Man is a Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. - Mark Twain

      by the fan man on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:06:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        the fan man

        too much vitamin D can be bad for you too!

        The point being, pretty much anything is toxic if you get too much, but OK (and even beneficial) if you get the correct amount . . . .

        •  Now I'm off the roadbed. I know, water (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy

          can kill.

          Arsenic is not good for you in any amount, but depending on where you live, it's in your drinking water and in most commercial chickens (much more in commercial chicken poop). Not enough to get us sick, but it's not doing anything good as far as we can tell, even though the mythical arsenic eaters of Turkey claim long lives by ingesting copious amounts. Same with mercury, lead, thallium and a few other heavy metals and metalloids. I'll throw in plutonium, cesium, strontium and uranium in there. Our bodies have mechanisms to cope with dna damage, but we live in a very polluted world. We've been witnessing illness from our industrial way of life for decades. Maybe what we could handle a long time ago no longer applies.

          By the way, what do you think of TWR technology by Terrapower? Seems very interesting.

          Man is a Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. - Mark Twain

          by the fan man on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:17:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some blame things like plutonium (0+ / 0-)

            for human ailments - for example, the ancestral burden in the human body (~100,000 plutoniums) increase to about 1 billion upon contamination of the atmosphere during cold war weapons testing.

            But, if I had to assign causes for poor human health of late, I'd bet it would be much less due to toxic metals than to stuff like PAH from fossil fuels and shit we willingly ingest in huge quantities (HFCS, for example . . . .).

            •  Oh noes, HFCS! When I was a young man, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy

              white sugar was teh evil. Now it's HFSC. If you had said tobacco use I'd agree. Arsenic is a potent carcinogen, also used in cancer treatments. Go figure. The other heavy metals more associated with neurological issues. Yes, now it's organic chemicals, animal fat from animals fed shit and yes, ODing on sugar. Too bad cancer doesn't come with little tags of origin. Radioactive elements are considered EPA Group A substances: Carcinogenic to humans.

              Man is a Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. - Mark Twain

              by the fan man on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 12:14:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I just mosey'ed over and perused the (0+ / 0-)

                list of things that are "Carcinogenic to humans"

                it includes

                Chinese style salted fish
                wood dust
                alcholic beverages
                coal, indoor emmisions from combustion

                Scary, scary stuff!

                Yet, only about 1/3rd of us get cancer . . .. .

                The ramp up to similar numbers of us getting metabolic disease/diabetes/obesity is well under way.

                Can you explain that?  Well, if you read the research papers that have come out over the past few months about HFCS, they really are quite damning.

                •  Dont' forget lutefisk. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roadbed Guy

                  I'm quite sure that lutefisk is carcinogenic.

                •  The EPA is regulating Chinese salted fish? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ebohlman

                  I dare say getting cancer from alcohol is a hell of a lot more fun than getting it from wood dust, coal, radioactive particles, and indoor pollution, It's also, like Chinese salt fish, something you can decide to avoid. If you want to put radiation on the safer end of involuntarily ingested carcinogens, you may. There's some good evidence to support your position.

                  You're a smart guy, studies of white sugar consumption show the same, almost identical metabolic disease promotion. (Yes, fructose is handled differently by your body. We don't guzzle a 32oz oj with a hamburger, and if we did, you'd see even more pronounced effects.) I think most of the negative effects from HFCS epidemiologically is better explained through the increase in beverage size and overall sugar consumption over the years.  If beverage manufacturers switched to white sugar tomorrow, we'd still have the same metabolic disease epidemic on our hands. It's more the quantity than the substance itself, in my and more than few medical researcher's opinion.

                  Man is a Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. - Mark Twain

                  by the fan man on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 01:03:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Comparing sucrose with HFCS, if the (0+ / 0-)

                    former were still used even in the same quantity, at least these problems would be progressing 22.2% slower than they currently are.

                    It might not be much, but it'd be * something * !

                    •  Sucrose is 50% fructose, HFCS is 55%. Sure it (0+ / 0-)

                      takes a little energy to break the bonds to convert to monosaccharides, how do you figure 22.2% difference? That's pretty precise. Like Ivory soap 99.9% pure. It floats!

                      Man is a Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. - Mark Twain

                      by the fan man on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 03:07:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The amount of fructose to glucose in sucrose (0+ / 0-)

                        is 100% (50/50 x 100%).

                        In HFCS it is 122.2222222(add 2's to infinity)% (55/45 x 100%).

                        Then subtracting 100 from 122.2 (note the restrained use of decimal points) you get that HFCS is 22.2% worse.

                        It's not really rocket science.

                        •  Again, it's quantity. 5 grams a day isn't a (0+ / 0-)

                          big deal. 50 or 500 is. The precision of your calc is swamped by the bigger picture. We can handle small amounts, not glugging 7-11 mega slurpies.

                          Same for radioactive nucleotides, no? Dose is relevant in both cases.

                          Man is a Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. - Mark Twain

                          by the fan man on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 04:25:09 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Actually life expectancy is higher now (0+ / 0-)

              than it has been through most of history.

              This is subject to change of course, but it is worth noting.

              In many countries, including Japan, the high life expectancy is something of a social problem, because in effect, the young employed must support more and more retirees.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (165)
  • Community (76)
  • 2016 (49)
  • Environment (48)
  • Elections (46)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • Culture (41)
  • Republicans (40)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Media (33)
  • Education (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (29)
  • Labor (28)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Law (25)
  • Congress (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Spam (24)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site