General Discussion

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)

38. Then there is plutonium

Wed Oct 15, 2014, 09:32 PM

Oct 2014

Which emits actual particles. And is quite toxic even when not emitting.

You seem to know a lot about all this, so I am surprised you just pick one type of radiation. We've heard the saying that bananas radiate. That is true. But they don't make nuke power reactors from bananas, do they? No, and the reason they don't is because the stuff they make nuke reactors with are not anything like bananas or x-ray machines.

What is known is that man-made radiation is not good for natural life forms.

If you care to use your vast knowledge for the good of life on this planet, this would be a good time to start. Frankly, most of those who claim to know about all this nuke stuff only let on to just the good, and never the bad. But then we do have the Caldicots and Gorfman and Gunderson people, who do tell all sides.

So.... plutonium in someone's lung, or food. Good, or bad for life?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I thought the sea star 'melting' was a problem related to acidification? [View all] RobertEarl Oct 2014 OP

Some background RobertEarl Oct 2014 #1

Thank you very much for your explanation. sadoldgirl Oct 2014 #5

Thanks RobertEarl Oct 2014 #9

Nuclear chemistry failure quaker bill Oct 2014 #14

I agree, sadoldgirl Oct 2014 #20

Good point? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #21

Trouble is, none of that would melt a starfish Scootaloo Oct 2014 #29

All matter of any sort quaker bill Oct 2014 #37

Then there is plutonium RobertEarl Oct 2014 #38

What is "man-made radiation"? Recursion Oct 2014 #44

This message was self-deleted by its author RobertEarl Oct 2014 #51

Sigh. Modern physics 101, lecture 3: particle/wave duality Recursion Oct 2014 #53

So, what about plutonium that makes it so deadly? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #55

Plutonium is toxic quaker bill Oct 2014 #67

The vast majority of all matter is empty space Recursion Oct 2014 #47

This, again? MineralMan Oct 2014 #2

Yep, again RobertEarl Oct 2014 #3

Well, it certainly isn't Fukushima. longship Oct 2014 #6

No. Wrong again, lonship RobertEarl Oct 2014 #7

Projection, my friend. Projection. On your part. nt longship Oct 2014 #11

Link or slink RobertEarl Oct 2014 #17

Well, if they haven't determined what it is, then it must be Fukushima. NuclearDem Oct 2014 #4

Not yet, sadoldgirl Oct 2014 #8

The fish is going to kill you! NuclearDem Oct 2014 #10

No, because I don't eat fish, sadoldgirl Oct 2014 #12

Yes, because being skeptical about the nonsense claims about Fukushima NuclearDem Oct 2014 #13

What fish? Our cats have gobbled down most of the things. Scootaloo Oct 2014 #28

There are quite a few nuke facilities along the coast RobertEarl Oct 2014 #15

"On ENEnews.com" NuclearDem Oct 2014 #16

No response other than that? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #18

I'll only comment if you have a link to whale.to or educate-yourself. NuclearDem Oct 2014 #19

I've heard more often that its related to the warming of the oceans bhikkhu Oct 2014 #22

It does and it doesn't RobertEarl Oct 2014 #23

There is a good explanation of the radiation levels here: bhikkhu Oct 2014 #24

No. Not really RobertEarl Oct 2014 #26

What does "over 1,000 isotopes" mean? Recursion Oct 2014 #46

Yes: Where did they go when they left Fukushima? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #56

Note particularly that coal plants are three times as radioactive as nuclear plants, and living Recursion Oct 2014 #45

You have a link to that? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #57

Check out Centralia, PA some time Recursion Oct 2014 #58

Plutonium from coal plants? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #59

What is your obsession with plutonium, and why do you call it "man made"? Recursion Oct 2014 #60

So, you don't know much about plutonium? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #61

What does "man-made plutonium" even mean? Recursion Oct 2014 #62

How much was on the planet before we started fission reactors? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #63

Read up on Oklo hobbit709 Oct 2014 #66

and I fully support the research at the link you provided bhikkhu Oct 2014 #25

The answer is RobertEarl Oct 2014 #27

Here's a model of the atmospheric deposition: bhikkhu Oct 2014 #34

Tell ya what RobertEarl Oct 2014 #48

Oceanic background radiation levels were about 1 to 3 bq/cubic meter bhikkhu Oct 2014 #69

One of these days they will prove that sea star "melting' has nothing to do with radiation hobbit709 Oct 2014 #30

Here's how EneNews concluded the article Generic Other Oct 2014 #31

I'm not the one continually blaming Fukushima. hobbit709 Oct 2014 #35

One of these days? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #40

There's a big difference between saying radiation has nothing to do with the sea stars hobbit709 Oct 2014 #64

Starfish facepalm. randome Oct 2014 #32

Importantly there is no evidence at all that links the current wasting event to the ongoing disaster reddread Oct 2014 #33

See post #1 RobertEarl Oct 2014 #41

I wish nothing but healthier ecosystems reddread Oct 2014 #68

Even enews is having problems finding people to write what they want. NCTraveler Oct 2014 #36

We are not out of the woods RobertEarl Oct 2014 #39

North Pacific ocean is hotter than ever RobertEarl Oct 2014 #42

You certainly are a wealth of misinformation. zappaman Oct 2014 #43

Sure RobertEarl Oct 2014 #49

No, I stayed on topic and called your bullshit. zappaman Oct 2014 #50

No you did not. RobertEarl Oct 2014 #52

DUs greatest performance artist. zappaman Oct 2014 #54

He's not quite up there with LoZo and Random. hobbit709 Oct 2014 #65