It means when we foul up the planet beyond all recognition, at least the plant life will survive. However, earth doesn’t have enough time left to allow intelligent plants to evolve, so I’m afraid the plants won’t be able to escape their own impending destruction. Perhaps earth can be the source of future panspermia though.
Also, you have presented no evidence that the Slovak Academy of Sciences has any special relationship with the nuclear industry. An observation, even a surprising observation that plants adapt well to nuclear contamination is not a pro-nuclear political statement.
Did you guys read “The World Without Us” by Alan Weisman? He addresses nuclear contamination in it, refers to the accidents we’ve had (including Chernobyl). It was interesting.
So very nice! We don’t know each, but, I feel, we are friends! Thank you!
Intrachresodist, no I didn’t present any connection between the industry and these investigators. And, I don’t know if there is any.
And, maybe “when we foul up the planet beyond all recognition, [which beyond doubt we are doing] at least the plant life will survive.” But, this work makes nuclear power, nuclear weapons, etc. look a little like … you know … it’s not so bad. So go ahead Chernobyl do your stuff (again).
And, Obama, those bunker busters, they’re just little bombs. And, those deformed kids in Iraq? There’s just a few of them. So, go ahead keep stockpiling for your war with Iran.
These researchers have a reason to demonstrate that wildlife (plants in this case)in the region is not affected by radioactivity. Because, there is an industry connection!
These researchers are from the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Nitra, Slovakia. And, they work in conjunction with International Atomic Energy Agency. (Check out the academy’s website and follow the work on “proteomics”)
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established in the 1950s to promote nuclear energy.
And, even though it is recognized that nuclear energy will not decrease global warming (because of the amount of fossils fuel necessary to attain the level of prosperity for its widespread use) it is still promoted by IAEA and the G8 nations.
Further, the IAEA, the UN and WHO report on Chernobyl said only 56 people died as a direct result of the accident and only 4000 will die as consequences of it. This report has been criticized from day one of its publication, particularly considering the amount of radioactivity released was 200 times that of the combined explosions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Other research groups have come up with much higher numbers of injured. Of course, there’s debate, because that is the nature of science. But, as Adi Roche (who is head of Chernobyl Children’s Project) said IAEA “has done nothing to enhance our learning and knowledge about the scale of the tragedy.” (Irish Times, Dec 28, 2005) It is as though what IAEA says is correct and everyone else’s studies are wrong. End of story, no further research needed. That’s not science.
Pro-IAEA advocates claim that the other studies found higher rates birth defects because people in the region affected drink a lot and their diets lack folate. And, it is true after the introduction of (“shock”) capitalism the economy of the region dropped to that of a Third World country and drinking was widespread, but not among women! This I know having lived there, and is also verified by other demographic and sociological studies. Life expectancy dropped dramatically in Russia and Ukraine, but primarily among men, not the women.
(a source: Ed Holt, Debate over health effects of Chernobyl re-ignited, The Lancet 2010; 375(9724):1424-5)
Chernobyl’s reactor design is obsolete. Contemporary reactors can’t suffer meltdown, so I don’t see Chernobyl’s disaster as an argument against widespread deployment of nuclear power generation. Also there are designs for self-contained mini-reactors which can provide power to a whole African community for 20 years requiring no maintenance and no input except perhaps water for cooling.
Ok, what do we with nuclear wastes? It doesn’t seem anyone wants nuclear waste in their backyard. For, decades, literally, the people at Yucca Flat fought both the nuclear industry and government not to store nuclear wastes in presumably one of the safest places to store it. It wasn’t until recently, finally, when Obama claimed there will be no storage of nuclear waste at that location. So, nuclear wastes are laying around all over the country in containers and conditions of various levels of safety. Some may be contaminating local environments.
Secondly, even nuclear industry analysts claim nuclear energy will not help global warming. In fact, it will make it worse, because of all the fossil fuel necessary to raise the standards in those countries that need it. Yet, G-8 nations continue to promote it.
Thirdly, when you play or work with fire, someone some where will always get burned, not matter how “safe” the engineering and design. How many people die per year in deep sea oil rigs? How big are the annual spills, on average? How many people will be affected in the next “nuclear accident” one? a million? When you play with fire …
Fourth, can we dare think beyond petrol and nuclear sources for energy? If all the taxpayers’ money that goes into expanding nuclear energy were placed in alternative forms of energy research, don’t you think we’d be further along than wind farms?
“… endures radioactivity …. shrug off the contamination …. quickly this ecosystem has been able to adapt …”
This message was paid for by:
FRIENDS OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
thinking of you
for our radioactive tomorrow.
You nailed it, Ann.. definitely fluff. The vegetation is doing well, but that doesn’t mean there are no mutations or that the area is in any way safe.
It means when we foul up the planet beyond all recognition, at least the plant life will survive. However, earth doesn’t have enough time left to allow intelligent plants to evolve, so I’m afraid the plants won’t be able to escape their own impending destruction. Perhaps earth can be the source of future panspermia though.
Also, you have presented no evidence that the Slovak Academy of Sciences has any special relationship with the nuclear industry. An observation, even a surprising observation that plants adapt well to nuclear contamination is not a pro-nuclear political statement.
Did you guys read “The World Without Us” by Alan Weisman? He addresses nuclear contamination in it, refers to the accidents we’ve had (including Chernobyl). It was interesting.
So very nice! We don’t know each, but, I feel, we are friends! Thank you!
Intrachresodist, no I didn’t present any connection between the industry and these investigators. And, I don’t know if there is any.
And, maybe “when we foul up the planet beyond all recognition, [which beyond doubt we are doing] at least the plant life will survive.” But, this work makes nuclear power, nuclear weapons, etc. look a little like … you know … it’s not so bad. So go ahead Chernobyl do your stuff (again).
And, Obama, those bunker busters, they’re just little bombs. And, those deformed kids in Iraq? There’s just a few of them. So, go ahead keep stockpiling for your war with Iran.
Intrachresodist,
These researchers have a reason to demonstrate that wildlife (plants in this case)in the region is not affected by radioactivity. Because, there is an industry connection!
These researchers are from the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Nitra, Slovakia. And, they work in conjunction with International Atomic Energy Agency. (Check out the academy’s website and follow the work on “proteomics”)
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established in the 1950s to promote nuclear energy.
And, even though it is recognized that nuclear energy will not decrease global warming (because of the amount of fossils fuel necessary to attain the level of prosperity for its widespread use) it is still promoted by IAEA and the G8 nations.
Further, the IAEA, the UN and WHO report on Chernobyl said only 56 people died as a direct result of the accident and only 4000 will die as consequences of it. This report has been criticized from day one of its publication, particularly considering the amount of radioactivity released was 200 times that of the combined explosions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Other research groups have come up with much higher numbers of injured. Of course, there’s debate, because that is the nature of science. But, as Adi Roche (who is head of Chernobyl Children’s Project) said IAEA “has done nothing to enhance our learning and knowledge about the scale of the tragedy.” (Irish Times, Dec 28, 2005) It is as though what IAEA says is correct and everyone else’s studies are wrong. End of story, no further research needed. That’s not science.
Pro-IAEA advocates claim that the other studies found higher rates birth defects because people in the region affected drink a lot and their diets lack folate. And, it is true after the introduction of (“shock”) capitalism the economy of the region dropped to that of a Third World country and drinking was widespread, but not among women! This I know having lived there, and is also verified by other demographic and sociological studies. Life expectancy dropped dramatically in Russia and Ukraine, but primarily among men, not the women.
(a source: Ed Holt, Debate over health effects of Chernobyl re-ignited, The Lancet 2010; 375(9724):1424-5)
Interesting thanks, I’ll check it out.
Chernobyl’s reactor design is obsolete. Contemporary reactors can’t suffer meltdown, so I don’t see Chernobyl’s disaster as an argument against widespread deployment of nuclear power generation. Also there are designs for self-contained mini-reactors which can provide power to a whole African community for 20 years requiring no maintenance and no input except perhaps water for cooling.
Ok, what do we with nuclear wastes? It doesn’t seem anyone wants nuclear waste in their backyard. For, decades, literally, the people at Yucca Flat fought both the nuclear industry and government not to store nuclear wastes in presumably one of the safest places to store it. It wasn’t until recently, finally, when Obama claimed there will be no storage of nuclear waste at that location. So, nuclear wastes are laying around all over the country in containers and conditions of various levels of safety. Some may be contaminating local environments.
Secondly, even nuclear industry analysts claim nuclear energy will not help global warming. In fact, it will make it worse, because of all the fossil fuel necessary to raise the standards in those countries that need it. Yet, G-8 nations continue to promote it.
Thirdly, when you play or work with fire, someone some where will always get burned, not matter how “safe” the engineering and design. How many people die per year in deep sea oil rigs? How big are the annual spills, on average? How many people will be affected in the next “nuclear accident” one? a million? When you play with fire …
Fourth, can we dare think beyond petrol and nuclear sources for energy? If all the taxpayers’ money that goes into expanding nuclear energy were placed in alternative forms of energy research, don’t you think we’d be further along than wind farms?