Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

*********Follow

#1 Nov 04 2011 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Reading through a followup report here, It looks like the effects of the release have a noticeable impact on fallout touchdown sites in the US.

It also gives evidence for rethinking our mathematical models for particulate dispersion, and methodology for environmental detection systems
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2 Nov 04 2011 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
in before paulsol

...or not. Smiley: crymore
#3 Nov 04 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'd be interested in seeing more studies confirming their theories but I certainly don't have any objection to more robust monitoring.

I don't just assume they're wrong but rather they're using circumstantial evidence that could perhaps be better supported through medical examination of the mothers, infants born during that period (alive or dead) and other harder evidence of the role of radiation in the statistics. Their study should be a catalyst for more research.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Nov 04 2011 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
How are we going to get more monitoring if the Republicans want to dissolve the EPA, though? NOAA is already critically underfunded. Maybe the reason US radiation monitoring sucks is because nobody wants to pay for it.
#5 Nov 04 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing more studies confirming their theories but I certainly don't have any objection to more robust monitoring.

I don't just assume they're wrong but rather they're using circumstantial evidence that could perhaps be better supported through medical examination of the mothers, infants born during that period (alive or dead) and other harder evidence of the role of radiation in the statistics. Their study should be a catalyst for more research.


Right, it's by no means an exhaustive study, but one that points to the need for further research.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#6 Nov 04 2011 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
catwho wrote:
How are we going to get more monitoring if the Republicans want to dissolve the EPA, though?

Halliburton probably does it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Nov 04 2011 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
catwho wrote:
How are we going to get more monitoring if the Republicans want to dissolve the EPA, though?

Halliburton probably does it.


Ah, that explains why it's so badly done in the first place, then.
#8 Nov 04 2011 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Right, it's by no means an exhaustive study, but one that points to the need for further research.
I don't want my tax dollars paying for dead west coast babies.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 Nov 07 2011 at 7:42 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Reading through a followup report here, It looks like the effects of the release have a noticeable impact on fallout touchdown sites in the US.

It also gives evidence for rethinking our mathematical models for particulate dispersion, and methodology for environmental detection systems

Yet we still have US law-makers insisting that air pollution control/regulation is a state issue. [:roll-eyes:]
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#10 Nov 07 2011 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Right, it's by no means an exhaustive study, but one that points to the need for further research.
I don't want my tax dollars paying for dead west coast babies.
What do they cost?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#11 Nov 11 2011 at 11:27 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Right, it's by no means an exhaustive study, but one that points to the need for further research.
I don't want my tax dollars paying for dead west coast babies.
What do they cost?


Depends on how much the communists charge in tax for garbage pick up
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 314 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (314)