Ekologia - słuszna sprawa czy wielki przekręt ?

[Gootek]

słuszna sprawa czy wielki przekręt...
ale to dzieki niej przybędzie na Dolnym Śląsku trochę miejsc pracy:
http://www.samar.pl/__/3/3.a/70196/

[Konto usunięte]

Лукашэнка, będzie co wycinać

[Gootek]

Лукашэнка, będzie co wycinać

Możesz się zdziwić niedługo...

coś tam ostatnio słyszałem, że nasz reżim przymierza się do wprowadzenia prawdziwych przeglądów rejestracyjnych

[Konto usunięte]

Tratatata, a ciekawe jak to zrobią 

[damaz]

Jakiś czas temu w tym wątku próbowałem wyjaśnić, jaką głupotą są te "zielone" elektrownie, których budowa powinna być natychmiast zaprzestana (tzn zatrzymane powinny być subsydia - jak ktoś chce stawiać wiatrak, to niech to robi po rynkowych cenach i za prąd dostaje potem tyle samo, co elektrownie konwencjonalne, lub atomowe )

izdown, jarmaj, izdown
gdyż albowiem do węgla też dopłacamy. gaz kupujemy po cenach... wynegocjowanych. na benzynie nasze osobiste państwo zarabia kokosy. pytanie za 100 punktów: czym różnią się 17 pensje dla górników dołowych od akcyzy na paliwo i od dopłat za wiatraki?
odpowiedź: jak na razie, to do wiatraków dokłada się "Unia", czyli ja + jakiś Niemiec i jakiś Francuz. do akcyzy i do węgla dokładam się ja + ja + ja. różnica subtelna, ale znacząca.

druga sprawa:
tzw. alternatywne źródła nie są zupełnie bez sensu. tylko trzeba ich używać zgodnie z ich przeznaczeniem (dokładnie tak, jak napisałeś: wiatrak ma zarabiać produkując po cenach rynkowych).

i na koniec pojadę wręcz anarchizmem. niestety - popartym obserwacją:
każda firma (która jest grupą ludzi, tak jak kiedyś plemię) dąży do coraz większej kontroli (niezależność też jest formą kontroli. to jest kontrola nad tym, kto kontroluje). za wszelką akceptowalną cenę, z czego "akceptowalna" jest każda cena, której nie musi bezpośrednio płacić wydający decyzję. firmy produkujące energię, żywność i lekarstwa (czyli dobra podstawowe) to obecnie najsilniejsze plemiona. silniejsze od lokalnych (krajowych) partii politycznych i silniejsze od banków. u nas (dzisiaj) firmy farmaceutyczne się poddały (większym tego świata), energia - z powodów historycznych (tam mięczaków wyeliminowano nieco wcześniej) - się trzyma, natomiast żywność (czyli ekologia) to temat na osobną manifestację jest. Polska jest KRAJEM ROLNICZYM. jakim, q...wa, cudem jemy supermarketową solankę o nazwie "szynka"? jakim cudem W KRAJU ROLNICZYM pojawia się problem GMO ????
TO jest rzecz do dyskusji w wątku "ekologia...". TO jest coś, co trzeba wbić do łba wszystkim dookoła. jesteśmy wielkim producentem zdrowej żywności. z tego powinniśmy być znani. ale nie. to też rozmieniamy na drobne. i niestety, winą za to można obciążyć tylko i wyłącznie naszych wybitnych działaczy solidarnościowych i - UWAGA UWAGA - działaczy chłopskich.
rząd, znaczy. ten (PSL), poprzedni (SAMOOBRONA), poprzedni (PSL) itd...

[Azrael]

damaz, ale Ty wiesz że my koło 30% żywności w sklepach importujemy np. z Czech, Niemiec....?

[Gootek]

[Polska jest KRAJEM ROLNICZYM. jakim, q...wa, cudem jemy supermarketową solankę o nazwie "szynka"? jakim cudem W KRAJU ROLNICZYM pojawia się problem GMO ????

Zaraz, zaraz.
Może jednak ROLNICZO-PRZEMYSŁOWYM?

Bo przecież do produkcji naszej supemarketowej solankowej "szynki" używa się surowca jak najbardziej przemysłowego:
http://www.anwil.pl/PL/NaszaOferta/Chem ... padowa.pdf
(podobnie zresztą do produkcji chleba naszego powszedniego)

Szczęście w nieszczęściu, że nie jest to jakiś import z Chin czy z Bangladeszu, tylko produkt jak najbardziej naszego POLSKIEGO przemysłu chemicznego.
Czyli nic nie traci na aktualności hasło "zdrowe - bo polskie"!

[Gootek]

damaz, ale Ty wiesz że my koło 30% żywności w sklepach importujemy np. z Czech, Niemiec....?

Azrael,
akurat w handlu żywnoscią mamy bardzo dodatni bilans w handlu zagranicznym, w tym roku to będzie około 3 miliardów euro nadwyżki.

Wspomniani przez Ciebie Czesi bardzo głośno lamentują (i ma to potwierdzenie w statystykach), że są zalewani produktami polskimi,
kiepskiej jakości jak twierdzą...

[Konto usunięte]

jakim, q...wa, cudem jemy supermarketową solankę o nazwie "szynka"?

Prostym. Ludzie to nie Ty czy ja, albo znakomita większość użytkowników tego forum, których stać wywalić 120 zł na kilo PRAWDZIWEJ szynki. Nie mówię, że codziennie, nie mówię, że chętnie, ale - stać. Natomiast ludzie mają tylko na gówno zwane szynką za 15 zł za kg. Niech będzie i 30. Widziałem jak się robi takie rzeczy, i nie ma to nic wspólnego z produkcją prawdziwej żywności. Nie bez kozery żywność produkuje PRZEMYSŁ (i to jest kluczowe słowo) spożywczy.

Nie będziemy my produkować, to sprowadzimy z Niemiec czy innej Danii. Tam tego śmiecia produkuje się na tony.

my koło 30% żywności w sklepach importujemy np. z Czech, Niemiec

To nie ma nic do rzeczy, Niemcy też importują samochody

A poważnie - czyje są te sklepy? Lidl, Biedronka, Tesco, real... Taki np. Zott ma podpisany kontrakt z realem na 500 tys ton jogurtu rocznie, to się sprzedaje...

Polskiej oliwy z oliwek też raczej w sklepach nie będzie.

A czeskich produktów to jest akurat mało - a ja bym więcej knedlików prosił.

Może jednak ROLNICZO-PRZEMYSŁOWYM?

Słusznie, jakiś przemysł jednak mamy.

[Gootek]

A poważnie - czyje są te sklepy? Lidl, Biedronka, Tesco, real... Taki np. Zott ma podpisany kontrakt z realem na 500 tys ton jogurtu rocznie, to się sprzedaje...

Jeśli juz mówic poważnie, to handel jest w rękach biznesu, a biznes jest zainteresowany biznesem.
A w mniejszym stopniu sentymentami.

Problemem polskiego rolnictwa jest rozdrobnienie i zacofanie oraz mentalność.
Z 8-procentowym udziałem w całej powierzchni ziemi uprawnej w UE moglibyśmy być potęgą na tych rynkach.
A tymczasem robimy jakieś postępy, jednak powolne.
Międzynarodowe sieci handowe potrzebują duzych partiu towaru o jednolitej jakości.
Trudno to dostarczyć jeśli produkcja jest rozdrobniona, a producenci nie są skłonni do lojalnej współpracy miedzy sobą.
Trudno produkować jogurt w bardzo dużych ilościach, jesli mleko trzeba pozyskiwać z setek małych gospodarst. Trudno jest kontrolować jego jakość jeśli są to setki lub tysiące niewielkich partii.
I podobnie w innych dziedzinach.
Jak mechanizować uprawę niewielkich poletek, które dominują w dużej części kraju?
To są strukturalne problemy, które są hamulcem rozwoju ilości ale też jakości produkcji.
Przekonanie, że jeśli ktoś produkuje coś w mniejszej ilosci to na pewno jest to lepszej jakości, nie jest niestety uzasadnione.

[Azrael]

Лукашэнка, w całości żywności tak, ale okazuje się ze większość eksportu to wysoko przerobione rzeczy równe batony i słodycze z surowców importowanych - czytałem dość szczegółowe analizy. Ogólnie nasze rolnictwo produkuje coś koło 2% PKB i nas nie żywi. Gros gospodarstw nie żywi nawet samych siebie.

[Azrael]

Лукашэнка, Twój 2. post w 100% jest w punkt. Do tego zmierzałem.

[Azrael]

To nie ma nic do rzeczy, Niemcy też importują samochody

Problem w tym, że my importujemy surowce rolne mając większe zatrudnienie w ich produkcji od sąsiadów, powielamy pokoleniową strukturalną biedę i rozdajemy ludziom ryby a nie wędki. Innymi słowy przejadamy dotacje do rolnictwa zamiast inwestować i racjonalizować.

[FUX]

Co za bzdura! 700 milionów wydano na...


Szokujące ustalenia dziennikarzy!
Na przejścia dla zwierząt pod autostradą A2 wydano 700 milionów złotych.
Przez wiele z nich nie przeszło ani jedno zwierzę!


Przejścia dla zwierząt są bardzo potrzebne. Sęk w tym, że nie dla zwierząt, a dla firm, które zajmują się ich budową. Tak jest w przypadku oddanej do użytku autostrady A2. Przez wiele przejść zrobionych pod tą autostradą nie przeszło ani jedno zwierzę. Wiadomo o tym z monitoringu prowadzonego od roku m.in przez leśników, myśliwych i zoologów.

– Czasem bywa tak, że autostrada stanowi tak wielką ingerencję w ekosystem, że zwierzęta porzucają dawno utarte szlaki i przenoszą się w nowe miejsce – mówi jeden ze znających sprawę ekspertów.

Tymczasem budowa jednego dużego przejścia dla zwierząt kosztuje 20 mln złotych! To suma, jaka można wygrać w rekordowej kumulacji lotto. Na liczącym 106 km odcinku autostrady A2 z Nowego Tomyśla do Świecka wybudowano ich aż 35. Wydano na nie ok. 700 mln zł





Z innego forum.

[esilon]

jaki prosty sposób na skuteczne ograniczenie emisji bez zmiany technologii : jarać drewno

http://www.wykop.pl/ramka/1338017/rober ... nie-wegla/

[FUX]

Z tego tytułu nie powinni dostawać kasy za zielone certyfikaty.
W projekcie nowej ustawy raz jest współspalanie, raz go nie ma.

[Piter 35]

Ciekawe jak wygląda utylizacja modeli z początku produkcji
http://moto.wp.pl/kat,55194,title,Toyot ... omosc.html

[barton]

Ciekawe jak wygląda utylizacja modeli z początku produkcji
http://moto.wp.pl/kat,55194,title,Toyot ... omosc.html

nijak dalej jeżdzą

Złomnik i spotkanie z Priusem 1 gen:
http://www.zlomnik.pl/index.php/2012/06 ... a-prius-i/

[Arno]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/19066/Cla ... ture-Trend

Claims of 'Warmest Year' For Continental U.S. (Less than 2% of Earth's Surface) Ignore Flat Global Temperature Trend

Leading German Daily Declares: 'Global Warming Has Stopped', Questions IPCC Models It took them 15 years to notice it: CO2 is not driving the climate'

NOAA Claim: 2012 was warmest year ever for US, second most 'extreme'

Reality Check: Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: 'If you used the stations used in 1930s -- in other words --measured temps today with what we used in 1930s, it is not warmest year on record' --'We have many more stations and so many, many more records that can be broken over shorter time spans. US is only 2% of the globe that’s only .04 above'

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: 'Since we are going to tout US warmth ( 2% of globe) lets look at that global temp trend shall we?'

Dr. Judith A. Curry said 2012 GLOBAL avg. temps will not set a record — 2011 will probably be 8th warmest. 'Natural variability continues to dominate the occurrence of extreme weather events'

New Report: 'Extreme Weather Report 2012': 'Latest peer-reviewed studies, data & analyses undermine claims that current weather is 'unprecedented' or a 'new normal'

Leading German Daily Announces: 'Global Warming Has Stopped', Questions IPCC Models It took them 15 years to notice it: CO2 is not driving the climate -- 'German online daily Hamburger Abendblatt here has a story titled: Global Warming Takes A Break, citing the leaked copy of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, which is due to be released in September, 2013'

UK Daily Mail: 'GLOBAL warming is NOT as bad as feared': Met Office under fire as it claims Earth's temperature is rising more slowly than first thought (and could even have stalled) -- 'Global warming is not causing temperatures to rise as quickly as previously feared, the Met Office has claimed. Today the weather agency released its revised forecast which was quickly seized upon by climate change skeptics who used the data to claim global warming has stopped'

BBC: A new global temperature forecast 'has scaled back projections of the amount of warming they expect' -- 'The UK Met Office explained that the leveling off of global temperatures that we were experiencing can be expected at time periods of a decade or less, because of the computer models internal climate variability. But intriguingly, the research ruled out zero trends for time periods of 15 years or more. The new projection, if correct, would mean there will have been little additional warming for two decades despite rising greenhouse gases'

The other big story today: BBC forced to admit global warming 'static': 'Forecast for warming revised downward' -- 'The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years'

Dr. David Whitehouse of Global Warming Policy Foundation on global temps: 'We are at the point where the temperature standstill is becoming the dominant feature of the post-1980 warming' '...and as such cannot be dismissed as being unimportant even when viewed over 30 years. 'It is time that the scientific community in general and the IPCC in particular acknowledged the reality of the global temperature standstill and the very real challenge it implies for our understanding of climate change and estimates of its future effects'

AP warmist reporter Seth Borenstein cranks the hype meter to 12: In describing an average temperature of 55.32 degrees F, uses words like 'superhot' and 'roasts'

Meteorologist discovers U.S. government announcing records before all data analyzed; 'warmest ever' July not true -- Meteorologist Anthony Watts announced on Sunday that he has discovered serious inconsistencies in the temperature data released to the public by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of NOAA. This finding is important since it reveals that the widely-reported assertion that July 2012 was the hottest month in the instrumental record for the contiguous U.S. is wrong'

Claim: UN IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Reality Check: 'There's been no warming since the mid-1990s despite 8% more CO2 in the atmosphere'

2010 tied for 'hottest' year?! Relax, it is 'purely a political statement' -- Even NASA's Hansen admits it is 'not particularly important' -- Prof. mocks 'hottest decade' claim as 'a joke' -- 'Claims based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree'

Related links on 16 year GLOBAL warming pause:

UK Daily Mail: 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago' according to UK Met Office 'quietly released' report -- 'Pause' in warming lasted about same time as when temps rose, 1980 to 1996' -- 'The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land & sea, was issued quietly on internet, without any media fanfare, & , until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to release of previous figures 6 months ago, which went only to end of 2010 – a very warm year...From beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temps.'

UK Daily Mail: 'Claim that there has been any statistically significant warming for past 16 years is therefore unsustainable' -- Reaffirms 'a 16-year 'pause' in rising temps' -- 'Two new separate peer-reviewed studies, published in prestigious academic journals last week [challenged 'Hockey Stick'] -- 'The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th Century, equaled or slightly exceeded the mid-20th Century warming.' There was also a pronounced warming period in Roman times'

Flashback 2011: A PNAS peer-reviewed admission that 'global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008'

Prof. Judith Curry on 16 year global temps: ' Nothing in Met Office's statement...effectively refutes [UK Daily Mail] Rose's argument that there has been no increase in global avg. surface temps for past 16 years' -- Curry defends UK Daily Mail article: 'How does this refute Rose's argument? No statistically significant positive trend, and it makes it look like [warmist Skeptical Science] hasn't done their homework with the latest data'

Prof. Curry: 'I think Rose's 2nd article is well done. He lays out arguments the other 'side' is making, & provides his response. It is a reasonable portrayal of debate surrounding this issue' -- Judith Curry: 'The trend since 1997 is very small, much smaller than the decadal trend of 0.2C that we have been led to expect by the IPCC for the early part of the 21st century...'

Analysis on 16 year 'pause' in global wamring: 'Regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer claimed 17 years was the period needed' -- 'They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.' -- MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said something similar in a WUWT guest post: 'There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.'

Lüning/Vahrenholt On HadCRUT's 16 Years Of No Warming: 'Tough Times Ahead For Climate Science' -- 'It turns out that everything that had been suspected was confirmed' -- 'This is a completely unexpected development when one considers how all the boldly confident forecasts from the IPCC predicted more warming. The release of new HadCRUT figures occurred almost in absolute silence, without any media buzz whatsoever...One really has got to wonder that Jones has suddenly extended his personal threshold of pain to 20 years, and now claims that phases of no warming 15-16 years long had always been expected.'

Prof. Judith Curry: 'The data confirms existence of a 'pause' in warming': 'The natural variability has been shown over past 2 decades to have a magnitude that dominates greenhouse warming signal' -- Curry: 'It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance. I sincerely hope that the AR5 provides an assessment of what we know and what we don't know and areas of disagreement, rather than trying to manufacture a consensus.'

New Phil Jones quote: 'We don't know what natural variability is doing' -- 'We don't fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans' -- '...and because we don't fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don't know what natural variability is doing..'

Climategate's Phil Jones 'insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said' in 2012 -- 'Yet in 2009, when the [temperature] plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: 'Bottom line: the 'no upward trend' has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.' -- 'In other words, though 5 years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him 'worried', that period has now become 20 years'

Flashback 2009: Prof. Pielke Jr.: 'Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions -- 15 years of no warming'

'The UK Met Office says world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997...But what the Met Office doesn't say is that this is statistically insignificant' -- 'There is no case to be made for a statistically significant increase in global temperatures as given in the Hadcrut4 dataset between 1997 and August 2012. The Met Office says the 15-year standstill is not unusual. This is true but again the Met Office is being economical with the truth'

NOAA's '15 year statement' from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office 'insignificance' claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years -- 'Yet, today, we see evidence of the goalposts being moved again as the Met Office tries to paint this lack of warming 'plateau' as being insignificant...So we are at 16 years, soon to be 17 years. What happens when we hit 20 years? Either the models are worth something or they aren't. In this case it seems they aren't'

UK Met Office: CO2 causes warming; other factors cause cooling -- 'We have known for some time that [multi-decadal oceanic cycles] may act to slow down or accelerate observed warming trend' -- 'We also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by 'external forcings', such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research'

Analysis: Global Warming Standstill Confirmed: 'There is now no consistent increase in temperature seen in this data. The data, displayed this way, reveals that far from showing a steady underlying rate of warming the global temperature has had two standstills, with curiously, the 1998 super El Nino delineating them.'

Watch Now: CNN Climate Debate! Climate Depot's Morano Debates Bill Nye the Science Guy on Piers Morgan -- Updated Transcript Includes Citations

[Arno]

Specjalnie dla osób interesujących się promieniowanie: TO JEST WIELKA ZMIANA

Linear No Tthreshold Theory Wrong UN Admits - Media keeps Quiet

For 60 years the Linear No Threshold theory (LNT), that low level radiation is harmful, has been the foundation of the anti-nuclear movement. It has never had any scientific justification whatsoever and this has now been publicly acknowledged by the The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).

The fears engendered by this scare story have been directly responsible for the standstill in nuclear energy generation and thus in most energy generation overall in the world since 1970. Without that scare the world would be producing at least twice as much electricity and would thus be toughlt twice as well off.

Such paradigm shattering news is of massive wotldwide significance and has thus been ignored by virtually all the world's conventional media with the almost sole exception of this from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... s%3Aenergy

Like We've Been Saying -- Radiation Is Not A Problem

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has finally admitted that we can't use the LNT hypothesis to predict cancer from low doses of radiation. Now the Japanese people can start eating their own food again and stop being as afraid. Source: United Nations

A very big report came out last month with very little fanfare. It concluded what we in nuclear science have been saying for decades – radiation doses less than about 10 rrem (0.1 Sv) are no big deal. The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv), which is the region encompassing background levels around the world, and is the region of most importance to nuclear energy, most medical procedures and most areas affected by accidents like Fukushima.

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (UNSCEAR 2012) submitted the report that, among other things, states that uncertainties at low doses are such that UNSCEAR “does not recommend multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or below natural background

You know, like everyone’s been doing since Chernobyl. Like everyone’s still doing with Fukushima.

Finally, the world may come to its senses and not waste time on the things that aren’t hurting us and spend time on the things that are. And on the people that are in real need. Like the infrastructure and economic destruction wrought by the tsunami, like cleaning up the actual hot spots around Fukushima, like caring for the tens of thousands of Japanese living in fear of radiation levels so low that the fear itself is the only thing that is hurting them, like seriously preparing to restart their nuclear fleet and listening to the IAEA and the U.S. when we suggest improvements.

The advice on radiation in this report will clarify what can, and cannot, be said about low dose radiation health effects on individuals and large populations. Background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 350 mrem (3.5 mSv) will not raise cancer rates or have any discernable effects on public health. Likewise, background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 100 mrem (1 mSv) will not decrease cancer rates or effect any other public health issue....

UNSCEAR also found no observable health effects from last year’s nuclear accident in Fukushima. No effects.

The Japanese people can start eating their own food again, and moving back into areas only lightly contaminated with radiation levels that are similar to background in many areas of the world like Colorado and Brazil....

To recap LNT, the Linear No-Threshold Dose hypothesis is a supposition that all radiation is deadly and there is no dose below which harmful effects will not occur. Double the dose, double the cancers. First put forward after WWII by Hermann Muller, and adopted by the world body, including UNSCEAR, its primary use was as a Cold War bargaining chip to force cessation of nuclear weapons testing. The fear of radiation that took over the worldview was a side-effect (Did Muller Lie?).

Background Radiation Differences on Annual Cancer Mortality Rates/100,000 for each U.S. State over a 17-Year Period. There is no correlation with radiation dose. States with significantly higher doses, greater than 2.7 mSv/year (270 mrem/year) like Colorado, have lower cancer rates than States with much lower average doses like Georgia, and vice versa. (from Frigerio and Stowe, 1976 with recent radon data)

Of course, doubling the dose doesn’t double the cancers below 10 rem/yr (0.1 Sv/yr). It has no effect at all. The millions of nuclear workers that have been monitored closely for 50 years have no higher cancer mortality than the general population but have had several to ten times the average dose. People living in New Mexico and Wyoming have twice the annual dose as those in Los Angeles, but have lower cancer rates. These cannot occur if LNT were true, because LNT states this could not occur.

There are no observable effects in any population group around the planet that suggest LNT is true below 10 rem/yr (0.1 Sv/yr) even in areas of the Middle East, Brazil and France where natural background doses exceed 10 rem/yr (0.1 Sv/yr).

UNSCEAR is an independent body of international experts that has met regularly since 1955 and helped establish radiation as the best understood, though weakest, carcinogenic agent in the world through its studies of atomic bomb survivors, the effects of the Chernobyl accident, industrial radiological accidents, and medical radiation treatment.

Many of us have been at them for years to stop procrastinating and prevaricating on something so important that the inaction itself is harmful. This report is a welcome change. The report, approved by the United Nations General Assembly, will now serve to guide all countries of the world in setting their own national radiation safety policies...

Accepted global limits on radioactivity levels in foods is 1000 Bq/kg (1,200 Bq/kg in the U.S.). Dominated by cesium-137 and Sr-90, these levels were set by organizations like the IAEA and UNSCEAR after decades of study. Because of public radiation fears broadcast in the press after the Fukushima accident, Japan cut the limit in half hoping it would have a calming influence. But the level of fear remained high, so Tokyo lowered the limits to one-tenth of the international standards.

This was supposed to induce calm? Telling the public that radiation is even more deadly than they thought? That their food is toxic? Were they nuts?

This has had the unintended (?) consequence of making people even more afraid of what they are eating, moving safe foods into the scary category and limiting food exports, causing even further economic and social damage.

Suddenly, all sorts of normally safe foods are now banned. Wild mushrooms from Aomori Prefecture are now banned because they have cesium levels of about 120 Bq/kg. This cesium has nothing to do with Fukushima, it’s the same type as is in everyone’s food around the world, and it wouldn’t have rated a second look before the accident.

The Japanese people should not be punished for nothing. But these new results and the UNSCEAR reports demonstrate that they are being punished. There was no reason to lower the rad limits on food, especially after the short-lived nuclides have long decayed away. One of the incorrect assumptions was that people in Japan would be eating only contaminated food, which is quite wrong. The international limits were set for very good reasons, lowering them makes no sense except to further hurt farmers and consumers in Japan.

UNSCEAR’s chair Wolfgang Weiss stated that no radiation health effects had been observed in Japan among the public, workers or children in the area of the damaged nuclear power plants, in keeping with studies already published by the World Health Organization and Tokyo University....

Ingestion of the short-lived isotope iodine-131, with its well-known risk of thyroid cancer when absorbed in the thyroid glands of children and young people, was the only major radiation-related health effect of the Chernobyl accident on the public. And the Soviets could have prevented that by acting quickly and openly. Of course, the Soviets didn’t much care about the public.

This will not happen in Japan. Iodine-131, with a half-life of only 8 days, decayed away in a few months following the accident and no one was found to have ingested any significant amount.

According to the reports, six Fukushima workers received total doses of over 0.25 Sv (25 rem) during their time fighting the emergency, while 170 workers received doses between 0.1 and 0.25 Sv (10 to 25 rem). None have shown ill effects and most likely never will. Radiation played no role in the coincidental deaths of six Fukushima workers in the time since the accident, who died from accidents, e.g., being crushed by debris or being swept out to sea.

Yes, there are health effects of radiation above 0.1 Sv (10 rem) that statistically increase up to 1 Sv (100 rem) but even in this higher range it’s hard to see them without a big enough population. The only radiation events on this scale, where large populations received 0.1 Sv (10 rem) to 1 Sv (100 rem) have been the atomic bomb blasts from World War II.

The effects of radiation only start to become clear at high acute absorbed doses of over 1 Sv (100 rem), and even then it is necessary to eliminate other potential causes before radiation can be unequivocally said to be the cause, advised UNSCEAR.

What this means for nuclear waste disposal is even more dramatic, but more on that later!

In the end, if we don’t reorient ourselves on what is true about radiation and not on the fear, we will fail the citizens of Japan, Belarus and the Ukraine, and we will continue to spend time and money on the wrong things. I’m sure the anti-nuke ideologues and conspiracy theorists will not accept these U.N. reports, but then…tthey don’t like the United Nations anyway.


Background Radiation Differences on Annual Cancer Mortality Rates/100,000 for each U.S. State over a 17-Year Period

I have reprinted almost the entire Forbes article here - it is all that important. Indeed looking at the graph it seems UNSCEAR are still understating - the graph clearly shows effect predicted by the hormesis theory (that at fairly low levels radiation actually improves health) from above 2.7 mSv.

[FUX]

Arno, ze specjalna dedykacją...


Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvTVdI_7 ... r_embedded

[Arno]

Właśnie powiedzieli, że w Polsce pogoda będzie przez najbliższe ch. wie ile lat taka jak w Szwecji na oko. oziębienie. A nie ocieplenie.
Więć ja się pytam - jak my wytrzymamy finansowo, jeśli będziemy musieli więcej grzać, a ceny prądu i gazu będą z kuli C02 rosnąć sobie?
Obniżymy jak w średniowieczu temperature w domu do 16 stopni, kupimy se szlafmyce - przypomną się dawne słowa.
I o ile mniej wydamy na lodówki!

[FUX]

Arno, na lodówki wydasz tyle samo, gdyż latem będzie ocieplenie.
Szwedy błądzą i robią koniunkturę pod zakup oleju opałowego i gazu.
16 degris jest do doopy, bo to ani ciepło, ani zimno.
Teraz mam 23 w chałupie i siedzę w krótkim rękawie.
Sam se siedź w szlafmycy.

[Arno]

FUX nic właśnie ma być kolejna epoka lodowa.
Mała na szczęście.Modlić się żeby nam lądolód nie przyszedł.
Takie zlodowacenie fajowa rzecz. Latem śnieg nie topnieje i już za kilka lat masz wszędzie tak po kilka metró∑ śniegu.
W dzisiejszych czasach, dzięki energii jądrowej człowiek mógłby przeżyć i w takich warunkach, no ale energia jądrowa jest be, więc zdechniemy marnie.
No chyba żeby lądolód nas jednak nie przykrył 5 kilometrową warstwą. No to wtedy OK.
Ale wyobraźcie sobie jak cudownie by było, przez 20.000 lat biało, a potem powolne topnienie i najfajniejsze, że nowe doliny rzek, nowe jeziora, brzegi morskie. Zupełnie inna Europa. Extra!

[FUX]

To idę drewno rąbać do kozy....