[Rob Instigator]

http://memolition.com/2013/10/16/tim...ever-on-earth/

Crazy when you see how many. Since 1950 cancer rates have skyrocketed around the USA and the world. The nuclear weapons program put tons and tons of radioactive material into the ecosystem, which was previously buried deep deep underground. Not only that, they spread radioactivity throughout the atmosphere.

[dale_gribble]

sickening, what was the god damn point??

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

the cancer isn't from nuclear testing, its from industrial pollution, urban waste, and the terrible things we eat which we mistakenly called "food". That, and point blank, 40 years ago over HALF of all Americans smoked tobacco, and now those people continue to pay the piper. I'd be willing to wager that since smoking rates are down to 20% and more particularly smoking habits (indoors to outdoors) and attitudes have changed that in twenty years our cancer rates will drop significantly. Just a hunch

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Unfortunately smoking is on the rise around the world, so I fear a lot of "developing nations" will suddenly in a few decades time find themselves burdened with cancer related mortality

[Rob Instigator]

2056 times we humans have spread radioactive uranium, and plutonium thorughout our oceans and atmosphere. SUUUURE that did not affect cancer rates, which skyrocketed after 1950.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by dale_gribble

sickening, what was the god damn point??

wasting money, scaring our "enemies", giving the military/industrial complex a fat boner.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

I'd be willing to wager that since smoking rates are down to 20% and more particularly smoking habits (indoors to outdoors) and attitudes have changed that in twenty years our cancer rates will drop significantly. Just a hunch

Oh I'd guess what with Fukushima continuing to pump radiation into the environment for what, 2 years without restriction and no end in sight,the nuclear wars the US has been promoting in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years, and the use of deadly high fructose corn "syrup", and the absolute total saturation of our environment with wifi microwaves and other electromagnetic pollution, the psycopathic addition of toxic fluoride in the water supply, I disagree, cancer is a huge growth industry and will continue to be for generations.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

2056 times we humans have spread radioactive uranium, and plutonium thorughout our oceans and atmosphere. SUUUURE that did not affect cancer rates, which skyrocketed after 1950.

 

Figure 11. Average doses in milligray (mGy) for adults (unless accompanied by a superscripted "a," which denotes a child born January 1, 1951) living in the contiguous United States during the era of atmospheric testing are shown for the most important radionuclides. Note that the radionuclides are organized by half-life, from longest to shortest (in years, y, or days, d), descending, rather than by atomic weight.

Accept for people living in the four corners regions particularly much of Nevada, yeah, that is exactly what I am saying. The world is a HUGE place, and dilution and dispersion work magic. Its not a conspiracy, its obvious, industrial pollution and smoking were rampant for a long time.

Originally Posted by tesla69

Oh I'd guess what with Fukushima continuing to pump radiation into the environment for what, 2 years without restriction and no end in sight,the nuclear wars the US has been promoting in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years, and the use of deadly high fructose corn "syrup", and the absolute total saturation of our environment with wifi microwaves and other electromagnetic pollution, the psycopathic addition of toxic fluoride in the water supply, I disagree, cancer is a huge growth industry and will continue to be for generations.

(a) The radiation coming out of Fukushima is much less dangerous than say Chernobyl, it has a much shorter half-life.

(b) I don't understand why y'all aren't seeing the obvious, over half of Americans between 1930-1970 smoked tobacco, a known carcinogen, and these put out tons and tons of tobacco smoke a year, into their local homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods. The combined effects of this on smokers and as decades of second hand smoke have easily contributed to our terrifying cancer rates. That, and from the 1920s to the late 1970s industrial pollution was an afterthought, companies literally dumped immense volumes of this shit into the air and water with impunity. Its no brainer. As industrial pollution and smoking rates decline, significantly, we should logically see a decline in cancers. Of course, in the "developing world" both pollution and smoking are on the rise exponentially so as our rates drop the overall rates globally will increase

[Rob Instigator]

Industrial pollution and smoking do not account for the rise in leukemia, brain cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer, bone cancer, etc. It is a factor in skin, throat, lung cancer, but humans smoked for hundreds of years before 1950. HUmans nuked the Earth 2056 times since 1943.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Industrial pollution and smoking do not account for the rise in leukemia, brain cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer, bone cancer, etc. It is a factor in skin, throat, lung cancer, but humans smoked for hundreds of years before 1950. HUmans nuked the Earth 2056 times since 1943.

I'm not saying that nuclear testing was harmless, indeed, in Nevada and Arizona, as you've said, there are perhaps a fifty-fold increase in such cancers than should be expected on average. However, you're implying a global impact, and the data just doesn't support it. There isn't a direct correlation between all cancers and the number of nuclear tests, but I'm just not seeing how you can be so dismissive of industrial pollution, which has been a plague. The combination of this pollution with high smoking rates surely has a more significant impact because its been more far reaching. Either way, with all three in decline (nuclear testing, smoking, and pollution) in "developed" world, our cancer rates surely will be in decline, but with all the same increasing around the world, global rates should rise

[Rob Instigator]

I fully agree. China will have MILLIONS of cancer victims. Their pollution levels are at Mexico City high.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I fully agree. China will have MILLIONS of cancer victims. Their pollution levels are at Mexico City high.

Agreed, especially considering that there are almost ONE BILLION cigarette smokers in China and India combined. YIKES!! Yes, and in the 1970s-1990s we had horrifying cancer rates in Europe and the US. The world is catching up just as we're getting better. Its sort of like the turn of the 19th/20th century around the world, slums and fucked up industrial wastelands. Where are the "third-world" muckrakers? Where is Nigeria or Bolivia or Ukraine's The Jungle??

[Rob Instigator]

for every regulation in the USA "protecting" kids from tobbaco, or mandating stiff penalties etc., there are international trade deals which allow Phillip Morris and their ilk to market cigarrettes directly to children all over the developing world.
http://youtu.be/x4c_wI6kQyE

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

for every regulation in the USA "protecting" kids from tobbaco, or mandating stiff penalties etc., there are international trade deals which allow Phillip Morris and their ilk to market cigarrettes directly to children all over the developing world.
http://youtu.be/x4c_wI6kQyE

I know, this is a fucking HUGE tragedy. I was watching a documentary about "pygmies" living in the "jungles" in Gabon, these folks were in what we could call "abject poverty." They had ONE single bullet and went on a hunt for two days to bring back game large enough to supplement the diet of an entire village. The whole time, dudes were smoking Marlboro reds. Sure, the film crew might have brought some along to share, but how do folks living in the bush in Gabon develop a habit for filtered cigarettes in the first place? Because they are passed out free like penny candies across the developing world. Its called branding, the middle class is rising exponentially, yesterday's countryman is tomorrows urbanite, so if they are branded when they are too poor to afford a product, when they get money its the first thing they buy, hence Nike billboards in the slums of Lagos.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

(a) The radiation coming out of Fukushima is much less dangerous than say Chernobyl, it has a much shorter half-life.

Chernobyl released most of its radiation in one burst. Fukushima continues to spread radiation into the environment, 2 years later. They are examples of pure human evil at work.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

(b) I don't understand why y'all aren't seeing the obvious,

sure, I hear your argument, but I would argue back pollution is not being reduced, just being transformed. So we use unleaded gas now, but the chemical frakking process is poisoning the deep water table, forever. We don't burn off garbage anymore, but we have saturated the environment with micoowave wifi.

You're just too positive in your outlook, man!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by tesla69

Chernobyl released most of its radiation in one burst. Fukushima continues to spread radiation into the environment, 2 years later. They are examples of pure human evil at work.

Yes, but what is being released frm Fukushima and what was released by Chrenobyl are significantly different. The majority of radioactive contaminants from Fukushima will decay within two years, whereas much of Chernobyl's release have half-lives between 20-1,000 years. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if in the long arc, the BP oil spill in the gulf will have more of a global impact than the Fukushima disaster. Radiation is part of life, the toxicity of petrochemicals, even in their pure/natural state, is much more severe.

sure, I hear your argument, but I would argue back pollution is not being reduced, just being transformed. So we use unleaded gas now, but the chemical frakking process is poisoning the deep water table, forever. We don't burn off garbage anymore, but we have saturated the environment with micoowave wifi.

Pollution has not only changed form, its been significantly reduced. From factories to our homes, America was a rather toxic place until Ralph Nader badgered the EPA into having something somewhat resembling teeth. I like you am also very concerned about the potential impact of the exponential increase in microwave radiation from "smart phones" we've never had anything on this scale (we're talking about BILLIONS of devices in use).. Even if it doesn't cause cancer, what other kinds of cognitive harm might it have?

You're just too positive in your outlook, man![/quote]

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

the terrible things we eat which we mistakenly called "food".

this. in many places healthy food is an expensive option as well. many poor people in america have to eat garbage to sustain themselves.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by dale_gribble

this. in many places healthy food is an expensive option as well. many poor people in america have to eat garbage to sustain themselves.

I don't buy that argument, when I was poor and unemployed I ate well, but frugally. And I ate my meals and was done with eating. but it took some effort, I had to shop consciously and not just buy shit.

What I do understand is for a single parent working 2 jobs it is not easy to cook healthy.

So you can spend $20 at mcDonalds on shit, or $20 on beans and rice and some veggies that will feed you for several days.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Yes, but what is being released frm Fukushima and what was released by Chrenobyl are significantly different. The majority of radioactive contaminants from Fukushima will decay within two years, whereas much of Chernobyl's release have half-lives between 20-1,000 years. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if in the long arc, the BP oil spill in the gulf will have more of a global impact than the Fukushima disaster. Radiation is part of life, the toxicity of petrochemicals, even in their pure/natural state, is much more severe.
]

Doesn't most of the oil decay within a certain period of time?

The wikipedia makes it like Fukushima was fine, nothing to see here move along, but I do note "In a leaked TEPCO report dated June 2011, it was revealed that plutonium-238, −239, −240, and −241 were released "to the air" from the site during the first 100 hours after the earthquake, the total amount of plutonium said to be 120 billion becquerels (120 GBq) — perhaps as much as 50 grams" - we don't really know what happened at either environmental disaster, the truth was suppressed.

I'm going to go with my instincts, that tell me and a nuclear plant pumping out radiation for 2 years+ is just not a good thing. I take your point about half life of iodide and cesium. Supposedly, they can't eve located the uranium fuel it has melted so far down into the bedrock.

[gast30]

nucliar? hmmm
nucliar? hmmm
nucliar? hmmm

those are my alphabrainwaves effected by nucliar radiation

it is time to do something usefull with the nucliar bombs

i know many of you are in favor of blowing isreal and palestina headache of the planet together with afganistan, iraque, iran, pakistan, somalia and maybe so more places

it was designed to end war and it did for a short time
and then ..

it went bad again, propaganda machines where started and weakminded people believed the propaganda and wars started

hate for americans
hate for jews
hate for muslims
hate for this and that

all orginased by psychopats who want revenge
blind lowbrain apes

one big mess of war

wich nucliar boms didn't stop

the message of peace didn't send out on tv
the message to stop humantraffic didn't send out on tv (now these days it do with the cnn freedom project )
everthing went into war, terrorist and whores, humantraffic, internet millionairs, overpopulation ( 4 doubled in 100 years time)
on top of that nature disasters

so nucliar bombs didn't stop that
the psychopats machines drove the people into the agression and deaths
not to peace and love

another strategie is used suicide bombers
now it is drones vs suicide terrorist

ugly war
still not ended

i don't follow an apespecie with 93% chimpansee simulair DNA
not even if they name jesus or mohamed

c'mon be real

information used as tool to kill people or hate people??

it is up to everyone to follow peace and love
and not crazy apes who have information online or in books

peace and love is peace and love
it is not another message
it is clear