Photos Show The Lingering Radioactivity At Chernobyl And Fukushima (mashable.com) 144
mdsolar quotes a report from Mashable: In areas of Russia and Japan that have been decontaminated by the government, allowing for people to move back, life has tried to continue but evidence of radiation remains. Greg McNevin, a photographer working with the environmental group Greenpeace, set out to visualize the radiation that persists in many of these areas. The resulting project juxtaposes radiation data onto long exposure photographs from the affected regions. Using a programmable LED rod that when connected to a Geiger counter (a device that measures ambient radiation) translates the analog signal into a light display, McNevin walked through long exposure photographs he was taking of affected areas, showcasing the live radiation data his counter was reading.
radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Insightful)
for it to be meaningful they should show other parts of the world for comparison.. I'm sure they'd find some inhabited places with higher levels of natural radiation.
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
I was expecting something like a map, but turns out it's just a photographer being cute and pretending it means something. N'mind there's a note "it's only art"; that's not how it's gonna be taken and he knows it. And really, this is just too sensitive to cherry picking for the prettiest pictures with the most LEDs lighting up.
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The pictures are indeed quite deceiving.
"A school in Starye Bobovichi, Bryansk Oblast, Russia.", oh my, look at that white trail of radioactivity going up the stairs of that school!
Then you read the explanation: the bars are just where the guy passed with the detector, and white means "background radiation". That means that there's absolutely no extra radiation at all. But that's not what it looks like when uninformed people see the picture.
Then orange and red mean a "higher radiation dose". How much higher? Twice the background level? Three times? Ten times? That's still way less than you get when living in the mountains or visiting a Brazilian beach.
If they would make the same kind of pictures in other places, they would look the same or a lot worse while no nuclear incident has ever happened anywhere near them, and local people are perfectly healthy.
The only picture that worries me, is the one of the nursery school in Soramame Fukushima City. Radiation levels there are so low there, I wonder if those children are getting enough bananas.
Re: (Score:1)
Heh. We can't even be sure he moved through the pictures at a uniform rate.
I'd like to see a similar photo essay of a trip to the local supermarket:
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the rate at which the user moves through the area wouldn't have to have an impact on the perceived radiation level in that given area if the resolution is high enough.
For instance, if the radiation level is sampled at once per second then yes - the speed moving could have an impact if they're moving very fast. However, if the sampling is per 100ms or so - that would give much more of a smoothing effect over inconsistencies in speed over time, since each sample is a given amount of radiation ove
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Chernobyl is not in Russia. It is in Ukraine. It is closer to Belarus than to Russia. To travel from Chernobyl to Bryansk, you would drive about 500km cutting across Belarus. In contrast, Kiev is less than 150km from Chernobyl, directly down river. Why not photograph a school there? It is hard for me to believe that Bryansk is a scarier place for radiation than Kiev.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Bryansk is both an Oblast and a city. The Oblast is quite large. The photographs identify the town as Starye Bobovichi, in the Bryansk Oblast.
2. Fallout/contamination patterns are not linear. They are dependent on the prevailing winds.
Re: (Score:2)
The pictures are indeed quite deceiving.
As opposed to the claims that everything around Tchernobyl is just dandy, in fact much better than before that gets thrown around in every discussion about nuclear power on Slashdot?
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bingo. It doesn't have to be scientifically accurate or in any way meaningful, it just has to be bounced around on social media with a scary caption to the point where the FUD moves faster than the facts. Standard Greenpeace MO. Notice how they opted to use images of schools and nurseries too, gotta work in that nice 'think of the children!' bonus.
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Evidence of their ignorance is even further shown in the schoolhouse, where they assume there is no background radiation.
Basically, they just arbitrarily decided what to call Chernobyl radiation. They have no clue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its even worse than that. They claim they can distinguish between background and Chernobyl radiation, but that is impossible to do with a radiation detector. What they erroneously assume is that background radiation is steady, and that all that changes while you walk around are due to Chernobyl. This demonstrates the ignorance of the author, because background radiation varies as you move around, and probably accounts for all of the measured radiation they show. Evidence of their ignorance is even further shown in the schoolhouse, where they assume there is no background radiation. Basically, they just arbitrarily decided what to call Chernobyl radiation. They have no clue.
Actually you can distinguish natural and man made isotopes with a gamma-ray spectrometer. There are various energy peaks associates with each radioelement that can be easily identified. For instance Cs-137 is what is usually measured to map areas of contamination from things like Chernobyl. You are right about the background radiation varying everywhere, and with no scale these 'charts' are useless.
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, they just arbitrarily decided what to call Chernobyl radiation. They have no clue.
"Pssht. Science. Science is, just, like, a bunch of numbers. They can mean anything you want. This is art, man."
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. It doesn't have to be scientifically accurate or in any way meaningful, it just has to be bounced around on social media with a scary caption to the point where the FUD moves faster than the facts. Standard Greenpeace MO. Notice how they opted to use images of schools and nurseries too, gotta work in that nice 'think of the children!' bonus.
Personally I am an enemy of the left and of "greenies", but I recognize the following:
Greenpeace tarnishes the integrity and reputation of everything and everyone associated with "leftist" or "green" political opinions when they pull stunts like this. They may sway the sheep, but they're only making enemies of people who otherwise might be allies such as many of the posters on this story.
To go way out on a limb and burn karma:
It often seems that the left and the right don't care about the actual facts
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:4, Insightful)
In any article of this type, you can stop reading at "Greenpeace."
Re: (Score:2)
You probably didn't RTFA. Quote:
While these images are compelling, they should be considered art and not an accurate representation of radiation science, field technician Lucas Hixson said in an interview with Mashable. “It is a very, very cool art presentation,” Hixson, who measures radiation in various parts of the world, said. “I am less inspired about the public health aspect or the scientific usefulness."
Hixson added that he wouldn’t want government officials using this project
Re: (Score:2)
They're just showing where the settlement boundaries are in Fallout 4.
Re: (Score:2)
I read it as an expression of boredom or indifference, a shrug of the shoulders same as using 'dunno' when you don't actually care either.
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all radiation is the same. The stuff that can accumulate inside your body and slowly irradiate your organs for decades is much more dangerous than external radiation that can't penetrate the skin.
Besides, the issue of "hot spots", that is areas that have not been fully decontaminated, is only one of many problems preventing people returning to Fukushima.
Re: (Score:3)
"hot spots", that is areas that have not been fully decontaminated,
Exepecting full decontamination is not useful either. I take full decontamination to mean nothing measurable above the background level. The problem with that of course is that instruments for detecting radioactivity are exquisitely sensitive. Seawater contamination of 1Bq/cubic meter (1 disintegration per second per cubic meter) are measurable which is far, far below the background leve. And with a gamma ray spectrometer, you can even tell
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I take full decontamination to mean nothing measurable above the background level.
Then you have a different definition to the Japanese government and the residents of Fukushima. They consider decontamination to be fully complete when the danger is reduced to a level safe for human habitation. Unfortunately we are a long way from there, because while the ambient radiation levels are acceptably low there are still many areas with dangerous levels of contamination.
The main issue is that much of what was release from Fukushima Daiichi is now in the environment, in the soil and in plants and animals. If it gets inside humans it can damage internal organs that are normally protected from radiation by skin and flesh.
This sort of contamination is hard to detect and hard to clean up. You can't just wonder around with a dosimeter, you need to do a careful inspection and dig up the surface soil. Digging is inevitable, as construction takes place, animals forage, children play, people tend their gardens etc. The government was hoping that removing the top layer of soil would mostly fix the problem, but it hasn't. Material from un-decontaminated areas keeps migrating back, or they miss some spots and have to return multiple times.
Even once that is complete, it doesn't do anything to address over five years of decay, lack of repairs to the initial earthquake damage and the fact that many key parts of the community no longer exist or have moved away permanently.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all radiation is the same.
That's true. We are talking about ionizing radiation of which there are several kinds too.
The stuff that can accumulate inside your body and slowly irradiate your organs for decades is much more dangerous than external radiation that can't penetrate the skin.
Well, yes but now you are talking about consuming radioactive particles, not kinds of radiation. Radiation in itself doesn't accumulate.
Besides, the issue of "hot spots", that is areas that have not been fully decontaminated, is only one of many problems preventing people returning to Fukushima.
If everything _could_ be decontaminated what other problem is there?
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Informative)
If everything _could_ be decontaminated what other problem is there?
Firstly, due to the evacuation the area was not repaired after the earthquake, and has not been maintained for over five years now. There is a lot of damage, and paying for fixing it is now complicated by the fact that TEPCO is partially liable and legal time limits for insurance claims have run out. This has now moved to the lawsuit stage.
Actually fixing the damage is going to take much longer now. Some areas have huge amounts of contaminated waste that needs to be disposed of, and discussions about where to put it are still on-going. In other areas nature has been left unmanaged. Animals need to be culled, plants removed and cut back, and damage done by roots fixed. Many buildings now need to be simply pulled down and replaced.
Then you get to personal possessions. Most of them need to be discarded (contamination) and replaced. Lots of insurance claim wrangling. People can't go back until that is at least substantially completed, because they need basic things like home appliances and furniture. Of course, all utilities need fixing, e.g. the water network has decayed and started severely leaking in places with full restoration estimated at several years.
Services need to be replaced. Hospitals and schools refurbished. New staff need to be found and hired because many of them have moved away. New shops need to be brought it. Existing businesses have suffered massive losses, with all their stock being lost and employees simply moving away. Keep in mind it has already been five years, so people who could get work elsewhere often have, and most of the people returning will be elderly and retired, and thus in need of care and reliant of local services.
It isn't clear if those communities will ever fully recover now, and if they do it will take decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that too all the people that die each year to various skin cancers
Why not, as it's a fact?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He also says not all radiation is the same, and that there are other problems preventing people returning to Fukushima. Also facts. What are you disputing exactly?
As for telling "that to all the people that die" etc, shock horror, it is normal and expected that a doctor will te
Re: radiation compared to what? (Score:1)
Where does the GP say that people don't die of skin cancer (mostly caused by sunbathing BTW)?
Thank you for pointing out a shill and their pet strawman (can even picture the dumbass stroking the evil thing on his lap?). ;)
Schrodinger's cats fight! (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me like a Schrodinger's cats fight. You are both right and wrong at the same time.
You just do not take into account there is no such thing like two types of radiation: internal vs external. These are only the exposure to the actually four types of radiations: high-energy photons (UV, X-rays and gamma-rays), beta radiation (electrons in fact), alpha radiation (helium nucleus or any other atom fragments) and neutrons. Some of these are actually blocked by the skin and a very thin layer of it in fact and others are not.
But skin cancer is due to exposition to high-energy photons which are penetrating (think about why we use X-rays in first place).
However, it is true, if the radioactive isotopes are ingested, they are much more likely to reach, damage critical organs and cause death. It doesn't mean exposition to radiation without ingesting it is harmless.
So, in conclusion, both arguments are strictly wrong. Opening the box shows us both cats are dead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The artist is welcome to do my basement, my house is built on granite and radon gas is a recognized problem in this area. The photos are interesting and have artistic merit, Greenpeace however are just behaving like cancer. I support environmental awareness and have done since the 70's but I regard Greenpeace as an enemy of the environment because of their moronic publicity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The expected radiation dose of living near a power station is 0.3 microsieverts a year ...that is a Coal fired station ... !
Re: (Score:2)
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The artist is welcome to do my basement, my house is built on granite and radon gas is a recognized problem in this area.
They're welcome to do Ontario too. My house is built on limestone and radon is a recognized problem here as well, some parts of Southern Ontario have higher radon levels then Michigan where the homes are built directly on granite and require venting. The problem of course, is that radon detection isn't a requirement here, even though it's one of the leading causes of lung cancer in Canada for non-smokers. But I can go out on a 10 minute walk and find entire neighborhoods in my city where radon venting is done, and one area where the levels are so high that building houses was fully scrapped back in the 1970's and was considered a threat to human health. The area is was built over as a park in the 1990's, but they had to install a mitigation system to reduce the chance that people would develop lung cancer even being in the open air.
The photos are interesting and have artistic merit, Greenpeace however are just behaving like cancer. I support environmental awareness and have done since the 70's but I regard Greenpeace as an enemy of the environment because of their moronic publicity.
Agreed, artistic merit but that's about it. Greenpeace has long since become a hyper-partisan political group, and they'll happily whine about nuclear power, or GMO foods while people die from lack of refrigerated medicines, foods, or simply starving to death. A good reminder is that Greenpeace is against drought resistant corn(for Africa), and vitamin A-enhanced rice(for Africa and Asia), despite millions of people either dying due to a lack of food or having increased serious illnesses risk or other serious health problems(like childhood blindness which is easily treatable) due to a lack of proper nutrition.
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is something actually useful. http://ramap.jmc.or.jp/map/eng... [jmc.or.jp]
It is a map of the area surrounding fukushima with radiation measurements in microsieverts
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:5, Informative)
When looking at that map, bear in mind that the scary red threshold, 19 microsieverts per hour, corresponds to the natural radiation level of Guarapari’s beach, a popular Brazilian tourist attraction.
And background levels in Ramsar, Iran, are even higher: 250 mSv per year, which is 28.5 microsieverts per hour. Yet studies showed that people living there had a slightly lower rate of lung cancer.
http://webecoist.momtastic.com... [momtastic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:radiation compared to what? (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a photographic art series. It's a piece of public deception to further Greenpeace's agenda. They try to silence critics by adding the disclaimer "it's just art, it doesn't mean anything" but meanwhile they have reinforced the image of "nuclear power is dangerous" in the minds of the majority of people who don't even bother to read what the lines mean and who don't know that it's perfectly normal for granite stone to emit higher radiation levels.
Typical of Greenpeace. Scare tactics with total disregard of the facts, and hiding behind some lame excuse like "it's just art, it doesn't mean anything".
Meanwhile you can expect news networks to pick this up and show the pictures while saying how all this radiation is threatening the health of those poor school children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As the creator stated in the story. It was attended as art not hard science to push decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sure it can be political, but not meant to be a scientific evidence to show if it is safe or not. The goal is to express the long term effect of radiation on the community. However it isn't meant to show what areas are safe and dangerous. Art is an expression of an idea, science is the data to prove it.
Re: (Score:3)
As the creator stated in the story. It was attended as art not hard science to push decisions.
The story is fiction. There is no way to distinguish between background and Chernobyl radiation with a radiation detector, so the line was just arbitrarily made up. Assuming all variances are due to Chernobyl radiation is the obvious sign of ignorance. Background radiation varies a lot as you move around. And, with no actual radiation measurements numbers shown, it can't be used for anything policy related.
It appears the idiot even assumed there is no background radiation indoors.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do this for general areas, everyday areas, and don't claim what is background or not, then publish as art. That might actually help people really better understand the world around them, but I suspect no attempt to do so using the sam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an English site from the Fukushima-ken tourist folks. http://www.tif.ne.jp/lang/en/r... [tif.ne.jp] I'm not sure that it's a reliable source. My bet would be otherwise. But it may be better than the silly numberless photoshoot the article links to. It does have some comparative numbers. If you believe them, the background counts in Rotterdam (0.33 us/h) are ten times those in Tokyo(0.03 us/h)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be really interesting if they could compare this to the Far East F***up. (See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov] for more information. The title is mine.)
If the levels and effects turn out to be comparable, this could turn into some very in-demand real estate.
Art (Score:5, Insightful)
But since we're talking about Greenpeace here, the PR mouthpiece for both the fossil fuel and solar/wind industries, I'm not shocked at this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not supposed to be a scientific study, there are plenty of those available. It's to draw attention to the problem, since many people seem to either be in denial about it or just hoping it goes away. There is a reason why people don't return to Fukushima, and this is an interesting and eye-catching way of illustrating it.
Re:Art (Score:5, Insightful)
It's to draw attention to the problem, since many people seem to either be in denial about it or just hoping it goes away.
What problem? The problem of abnormally low radiation levels in nursery schools near Fukushima? Because that's what that picture is actually showing: lower than background level.
If they took the same kind of pictures in the Alps, they would probably be all red.
Re:Art (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) model having been discredited decades ago, one can at most say that they put it together in a pretty fashion.
That is a claim at odds with the most up to date research into ionizing radiation [nap.edu] and a big claim like that really needs a citation.
If you are you talking about radiation hormesis [wikipedia.org] that is a hypothesis who's claims are rejected by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements [wikipedia.org] and United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation [wikipedia.org].
If such a claim is true then you should make regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure aware as they continue to use the LNT model to e
Re: (Score:3)
As a biochemist, LNT doesn't really make much sense when applied to a biological system. It seems odd that there wouldn't be any threshold when we know that there are biological mechanisms for repairing radiation induced damage. Also, a linear response is at odds with the saturation of these mechanisms which usually manifests as a sigmoidal dose-response and with normal immunological recognition and destruction of cancerous cells.
LNT is used because it is very conservative and a better model hasn't been sou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple way to check what? A tumor prone mouse line would have been specifically modified to not handle cancer cells properly and typically develop spontaneous tumors due to non-radiogenic causes (ie doesn't relate to the topic at hand).
What results would you expect and what significance would you give to those results?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a biochemist, LNT doesn't really make much sense when applied to a biological system. It seems odd that there wouldn't be any threshold when we know that there are biological mechanisms for repairing radiation induced damage.
Thank you for your insights. To be clear are you referring to external exposure from ionizing radiation as opposed to internal exposure to ionizing radiation from absorbing radioactive isotopes that remain in the body?
Also, a linear response is at odds with the saturation of these mechanisms which usually manifests as a sigmoidal dose-response and with normal immunological recognition and destruction of cancerous cells.
Very interesting, is this in humans or animals? This work says [lww.com]:Linear extrapolation of high LET radiation from high to low doses probably underestimates the risk at low doses in some cases. Is this what you mean?
LNT is used because it is very conservative and a better model hasn't been soundly demonstrated yet. From a public policy standpoint, that is perfectly reasonable. Don't mistake policy for scientific proof, though.
Sure, however that is a far cry from the OP's claim that the Linear Non-Threshold
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your insights. To be clear are you referring to external exposure from ionizing radiation as opposed to internal exposure to ionizing radiation from absorbing radioactive isotopes that remain in the body?
The source of the exposure isn't really important to the repair mechanisms. What is important is the extent and nature of the damage: DNA modifications, protein modifications, and heating. Internal vs external exposure only determines which tissues are affected, the rate/duration of the dose, and the specific type of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma). But as far as an individual cell is concerned, all that is important is the rate of exposure.
Very interesting, is this in humans or animals?
Is what in humans or animals? I don't personally study radiation-ind
Re: (Score:2)
A threshold would imply perfect repair. This is not possible. Assuming a tiny residual risk after repair gives you linearity for extremely small doses. For higher doses linearity is an empirical fact. Saturation is at much higher doses.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't imply perfect repair, only the complete mitigation of tumorigenicity. If, eg, a double break in DNA can't be repaired, the cell is killed (typically through apoptosis). If the cell is completely removed from function, then the chance of it becoming a tumor is zero and thus we have a threshold. There are cases of perfect repair, too, as in certain single strand breaks or protein damage. Not every bit of radiation is absorbed by DNA or even hits anything.
The threshold may be low and is almost certa
Re: (Score:2)
You are right that a threshold doesn't imply perfect repair but complete mitigation. But with "perfect" I meant that is is *always perfect*, i.e. zero residual risk. This is what is impossible and implies linearity at extremely low dose, because tiny residual risks must add up. Zero residual risk is what is impossible and therefor linearity must be true at extremely low doses and a threshold can't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect mitigation is a far fetched assumption, not that there is a residual risk. And that tiny risks add up is basic math. So what is the unfounded assumption in my post?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it is used to manipulate the emotions of the uninformed for political reasons. This is called propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Chernobyl is not in Russia (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Go and tell that to Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it wouldn't. You don't know much about Canadians. They are patriotic, and have pride and determination and skills. They are not the least little bit like sissy Ukrainians. The US invading Canada would make getting our asses whipped by a bunch of savages in Afghanistan look like a picnic.
Read up about the Devils' Brigade and the Canadian Army and Navy and Air Force in WW II. Especially the raid on Dieppe, the Battle of the Atlantic, covering the Invasion in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I clicked on "Don't show this" (Score:5, Funny)
I am quite sick of mdsolar's crap. How does this shill get all his diarrhaea on Slashdot's front page?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably you are one of the reasons of why this article posted on Slashdot. More people comments on the article, more ads are seen.
And people complaining about shit this, shit that, means more comments, becouse angry people is more complelled in write comments. The math is simple.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, typical stupid biased crap. What I'd like to see is some photos showing all that SOLAR radiation... Oh, wait...
Art for nerds (Score:2)
Maximum emotional impact (Score:2)
Greenpeace proven Liars (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
They may not be perfect, but if you aren't outraged by some things that big business and mercenary government are doing then you haven't been paying attention.
Re:Greenpeace proven Liars (Score:4, Insightful)
I am extremely outraged about things done by big businesses and governments.
But I also so dearly, dearly wish I could wholeheartedly support Greenpeace without being a hypocrite. But I can't. I really want to, but I can't.
They lie and they deceive, and they oppose things that are objectively speaking both good for the environment, and absolutely necessary in order to prevent catastrophe.
I just really, really wish they got their act together. Or that somebody better came along to take up the cause.
Re: (Score:2)
utter garbage (Score:2)
If you find yourself somewhere that evidence of radiation doesn't exist then you aren't on this planet! what would be shocking is if there was no evidence of radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Well one could make a room from pure tungsten and fill it with ultra-purified air and it could come close to radiation free. Close as there still would be neutrino radiation present.
I'm not that good with physics but perhaps placing the room in the middle of a neutron star would be enough to remove neutrino radiation too. :P
Use a gamma camera? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Banana equivalent dose, for scale (Score:2)
We need a baseline (Score:3)
While this is an interesting experiment we'd need to see some sort of baseline to place any meaning on this. I propose walking around some nuclear power plants that didn't have a reactor core breach. I have a few more suggestions, like walking around a coal fired power plant, in a few of those big old granite buildings that governments like to construct for people to gather, some rocky beaches, and just some random homes.
I recall reading that the radiation levels in New York's Grand Central Terminal exceeds that considered acceptable by the Nuclear Regulatory Committee for a nuclear power plant. With regulations like that it's no wonder the nuclear power industry is in such a sad state today.
Art with no real data. (Score:2)
My house will show higher radiation than the homes in Japan as mine is brick and stone. All of this is simply art with an attempt to deliver alarmist reactions to information that is not calibrated nor has a reference.
You'd think they'd finally be happy? (Score:1)
Considering Greenpeace's main anti human mission/message, you'd think they'd be happy with anything that kills or drives people away.
For example, there's no place in Europe that has such a flourishing, healthy ecosystem as the area around Chernobyl.
Three Mile Island and natural radiation (Score:5, Insightful)
Stone Mountain Georgia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then so are your hopes for stemming climate change without reverting to a stone age existence.