Impact of drought on US power supply

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Sep 2012, 20:13

RenewableCandy wrote: I think they're referring to warmed cooling-water rather than water that's radioactive.

I suspect you are right. If not, the French people downstream may be interested.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 11 Sep 2012, 23:47

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Don't sweat it - the sea is already radioactive.

It's just a question of intensity.

But most (all?) French nuke stations discharge into rivers. That's why they had to stop in 2003: the heat plus drought wouldn't affect the sea.

Quite a lot of things are already radioactive. Like, Cornwall. We are built to repair DNA etc at such a rate to counter this, and no faster. Actually even Cornwall's levels are pushing it: I remember some actuarial-type research which showed that Cornish people lost a few months of life, on average, because of the increased radiation levels.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Sep 2012, 07:50

And not just Cornwall http://www.ukradon.org/

I live on a white bit.

Janco2 · Post by **Janco2** » 26 Sep 2012, 09:33

We live on a dark brown bit!

This knowledge does not seem to deter people from coming to live here!

Post by **adam2** » 26 Sep 2012, 09:52

Janco2 wrote:We live on a dark brown bit!

This knowledge does not seem to deter people from coming to live here!

Being in the dark brown bit only means that a significant proportion of homes in your area are potentialy at risk from radon.
It does mean that YOU are at risk, that depends on the design and construction of your home.

Janco2 · Post by **Janco2** » 26 Sep 2012, 10:02

Yes, we had our home tested about 20 years ago and we are in a high radon area. We are sitting on decomposing granite and had a sensor here for several weeks.

We had to build a chamber under the floor of our extension with pipes venting it outside.

Of course this was 20 years ago and even the planning officer was unsure what to do!

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 26 Sep 2012, 21:45

Eat well so that your bod can repair the cell/DNA damage faster than it's being done!

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 27 Sep 2012, 08:48

Also, do not smoke if you live in a radon area. It significantly increases the risk of getting lung cancer.

http://www.ukradon.org/article.php?key=risksradon

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Sep 2012, 11:39

Do not smoke. It significantly increases the risk of getting lung cancer.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 27 Sep 2012, 15:05

biffvernon wrote:Do not smoke. It significantly increases the risk of getting lung cancer.

Especially if you live in a radon area because the effects of radon and smoking are more powerful when the two factors are combined.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 27 Sep 2012, 15:32

Interesting, I didn't know that.

Sometimes I wonder how on earth RenewableGrandmere ever lived to 90, smoking away merrily in her dark-brown patch in Devon. She did live in an extremely drafty house, so perhaps that saved her life!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Sep 2012, 17:18

And didn't inhale.

Janco2 · Post by **Janco2** » 04 Oct 2012, 09:30

Well, we can rest easy about that. Neither of us have ever smoked and nor have either of our children.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 04 Oct 2012, 11:15

Just one little note about smoking and lung cancer, for those who don't already know.

There is nothing naturally carcinogenic about natural tobacco compared to any other plant you might smoke. It's not the nicotine or the smoke itself that increases the risk of cancer. No...the reason smoking increases the risk of cancer is that the tobacco that is sold on the open market, in all commercial tobacco products, is produced using a sort of rock-derived fertiliser which contains radioactive Polonium.

http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/

Radioactive Polonium in Tobacco

For over 40 years, researchers and tobacco corporations have known that cigarettes contain radionuclides(1). The contamination is sourced in naturally occurring radioactive radon gas(2) which is absorbed and trapped in apatite rock(3). Apatite, or phosphate rock, is mined for the purpose of formulating the phosphate portion of most chemical fertilizers(4). Polonium releases ionizing alpha radiation which is 20 times more harmful than either beta or gamma radiation when exposed to internal organs(5).

Lung cancer rates increased significantly during most of the 1900's(6). It's no coincidence that between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers and Persistant Organic Pollutant (POP) accumulation(7).

In other words, most of the cancer deaths from tobacco smoking could be eliminated by using organic fertilisers rather than rock-derived fertilisers. Of course, this would reduce the profitability of the tobacco industry.

If you think about it, tobacco would actually be the obvious crop to fertilise with human waste. Why? Because tobacco isn't eaten, so there is no health risk from the human waste, and at the same time you are eliminating the main source of radioactivity in the tobacco.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Oct 2012, 13:51

UndercoverElephant wrote: In other words, most of the cancer deaths from tobacco smoking could be eliminated by using organic fertilisers rather than rock-derived fertilisers.

Nice story. Pity it isn't true.