Geiger counters

[MBJ]

I think there is a difference between putting a view point out there and being openly mocked.


There is a proven link between radiation and cancer. That has been known for years.

It's not a fear, how can it be when there's literally nothing we can do about it.

Easy tiger, mocking is a bit strong, you have a view and seem to take it personally when someone was sarcastic about it. He gave a counter logic to yours in a form you didn't like, that's life.

Have you considered that the increase in cancer is due to other factors, one being our longevity. My missus works in cancer research (bowel), in a lab, and ken's her onions, they're not looking into anything Christmas Island related, they tend to concentrate on genetics. Like I say, other views on cancer are available, it just depends on where you choose to look.

I do agree that longevity is a factor, but there are towns in the US not far from where the bombs were tested, particularly in Nevada, where entire families and generations are being riddled with cancer. Now obviously this will be more concentrated what with their such close proximity to where the numerous bombs were set off, but if we're seeing such results there it is only reasonable to expect that we may see similar results to a much lesser extent in other parts of the world. We're not talking about a few bombs here either, we're talking over 2000 and all of those were more powerful than the two dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

As I said, thankfully the world's radiation levels have dropped since the PTBT treaty in October of 1963, but they still have a long way to go before they return to pre 1945 normal levels.

I also imagine that genes do play a part too, my point was more that if we're currently living on average to 80-90 years of age with the current radiation levels, how much longer could we have been living without them? Please remember that not everyone will reach the life expectancy, it's only an average and many people will die way before it. My own mother died at the age of 56, nearly 30 years before she should have.

[Deeps]

I think there is a difference between putting a view point out there and being openly mocked.


There is a proven link between radiation and cancer. That has been known for years.

It's not a fear, how can it be when there's literally nothing we can do about it.

Easy tiger, mocking is a bit strong, you have a view and seem to take it personally when someone was sarcastic about it. He gave a counter logic to yours in a form you didn't like, that's life.

Have you considered that the increase in cancer is due to other factors, one being our longevity. My missus works in cancer research (bowel), in a lab, and ken's her onions, they're not looking into anything Christmas Island related, they tend to concentrate on genetics. Like I say, other views on cancer are available, it just depends on where you choose to look.

I do agree that longevity is a factor, but there are towns in the US not far from where the bombs were tested, particularly in Nevada, where entire families and generations are being riddled with cancer. Now obviously this will be more concentrated what with their such close proximity to where the numerous bombs were set off, but if we're seeing such results there it is only reasonable to expect that we may see similar results to a much lesser extent in other parts of the world. We're not talking about a few bombs here either, we're talking over 2000 and all of those were more powerful than the two dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

As I said, thankfully the world's radiation levels have dropped since the PTBT treaty in October of 1963, but they still have a long way to go before they return to pre 1945 normal levels.

I also imagine that genes do play a part too, my point was more that if we're currently living on average to 80-90 years of age with the current radiation levels, how much longer could we have been living without them? Please remember that not everyone will reach the life expectancy, it's only an average and many people will die way before it. My own mother died at the age of 56, nearly 30 years before she should have.

Lots of if's, but's and maybes, you've fixated on a time (1945) and a radiation level and using that as your baseline. Since we figured out the whole atom splitting thing there has been an increase in radiation but being passingly familiar with radiation, most of my working life sleeping, eating and working feet from a nuclear reactor our 'experts' dealt with it by monitoring. The background radiation can increase quite a bit before it became an issue and it can drop reasonably quickly too.

Since 1945 life expectancy has gone up, no point throwing in a 'despite', its continuing to go up for people who look after themselves, you could throw in all sorts of factors, smoking (even passive), eating red meat, eating fat, whoops I mean sugar blah blah blah. You choose to fixate on one. Lifestyle is a huge part of cancer issues too, that's actually something the individual can do something about as opposed to a rise in background radiation which you pretty much can't.

If this is your particular prepping fantasy then crack on but don't be surprised that we don't all buy into it, other 'issues' will concern other people, you can be as evangelical as you like but don't be surprised if some are doubting. Now Zombies......

[MBJ]

If this is your particular prepping fantasy then crack on but don't be surprised that we don't all buy into it, other 'issues' will concern other people, you can be as evangelical as you like but don't be surprised if some are doubting. Now Zombies......

Radiation doesn't even come into my preps. I'm far more concerned about losing my job or what I would do if we had a 1 week powercut. I only brought up my initial point in relation to the OPs point about the radiation levels at Fukushima. My point being that the radiation there was small potatoes compared to the Earth's background levels, which are more of a concern if there is indeed a concern, which for some people there obviously is not. To put it this way, I don't have sleepless nights over it, in fact I hadn't even thought about it for a long time until this thread was posted. But I also think to ignore it is disengenerous too; those scientists had no idea what setting off 1 nuclear bomb off would do, nevermind what the subsequent 2000 would do either. That was grossly negligent.

Finally, in regards to radiation and preps RE nuclear related stuff I really couldn't care less. If there ever was a wide spread nuclear disaster that was big enough to effect the entire Earth, i.e a nuclear war, then I think I'd rather be incinerated with everyone else thank you much.

[Deeps]

If this is your particular prepping fantasy then crack on but don't be surprised that we don't all buy into it, other 'issues' will concern other people, you can be as evangelical as you like but don't be surprised if some are doubting. Now Zombies......

Radiation doesn't even come into my preps. I'm far more concerned about losing my job or what I would do if we had a 1 week powercut. I only brought up my initial point in relation to the OPs point about the radiation levels at Fukushima. My point being that the radiation there was small potatoes compared to the Earth's background levels, which are more of a concern if there is indeed a concern, which for some people there obviously is not. To put it this way, I don't have sleepless nights over it, in fact I hadn't even thought about it for a long time until this thread was posted. But I also think to ignore it is disengenerous too; those scientists had no idea what setting off 1 nuclear bomb off would do, nevermind what the subsequent 2000 would do either. That was grossly negligent.

Finally, in regards to radiation and preps RE nuclear related stuff I really couldn't care less. If there ever was a wide spread nuclear disaster that was big enough to effect the entire Earth, i.e a nuclear war, then I think I'd rather be incinerated with everyone else thank you much.

Um, you're welcome.

[diamond lil]

I prep only for things that I can deal with. WW3/nuclear strikes/radiation/asteroids/super volcanoes I don't bother with. I've got enough to be going on with

[shocker]

There's a few wee delicate flowers on here

awww, flowers, I like flowers

...or was that "flours" ? Curse this dyslexia..dislekzia...? Dammit, I give up

[Arwen Thebard]

Another day another nuclear cloud......

At least it seems like they are getting closer to finding the source.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-2 ... ation-leak

Hope the missus like the NBC suit shes got coming for Xmas......not the party frock she's expecting im sure

[Arzosah]

Just following up on Arwen's link - I do think that to prep for this sort of thing, plus a nuclear plant having a bad day or **possibly** a dirty bomb from terrorists, are legitimate forms of nuclear preps - not the end of the world stuff, but accidents that increase background levels to something that increases chances of developing something bad/cancerous. If a reactor in northern France did a Chernobyl, for instance, and the wind was in our direction, I'd be sheltering in place and possibly evacuating, if I considered it safe to do so.

[Yorkshire Andy]

Bit dated but might be worth a watch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=milbW4RDIco

[unsure]

given the latest leak from russia , ive been looking in to geiger counters . the problem is theres that many different ones i can`t figure out which is which and for what type of radiation they detect . any one got an ideas ? .