 of people.

But those kinds of projects will get starved for funding. So we'll end up with
a lot of panicked people in California who shoot down new nuke plants in favor
of coal/natural gas (the coal miners who die are in China, so there are no
political consequences) and underestimate things like seawalls. California is
said to be overdue for a big quake, but I hope they're wrong about that.

~~~
Tichy
Nonsense, Japan already has invested a lot in Tsunami protection, they will
not starve funding for that. Who says it is an "either invest in anti-Tsunami
or anti-nuclear-power measures" kind of thing? And no, I don't live in a
coastal area, so enhancing seawalls is not my interest or priority.

As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as
bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense.

I have little hopes for nuclear power to go away, nor fossile fuel plants. I
think it would be possible, but lifestyles would have to change too much (for
the better in my opinion, but many people would disagree). We certainly could
save a lot of power, so it would not have to be necessary to replace nuclear
power plants with fossile fuel plants.

~~~
Natsu
> As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as
> bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense.

How radiation affects one's body is a complex issue. The inverse square law
also comes into effect. So something can be dangerous close up, but no threat
to anyone who doesn't get close.

Ars Technica has a nice article about radiation that goes into these issues in
more detail than I can:

[http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-
nukes-...](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-
understanding-radiation-risks-in-japan.ars)

My main point about bananas, though, is that radiation is normal. You
experience it every single day, even if you don't realize it. All sorts of
background radiation is
of people. 

 But those kinds of projects will get starved for support. therefore we'll end up with 
 a lot of panicked people in California who film down new nuke plants in party favor 
 of coal / natural gas (the ember miner who die are in China, so there be no 
 political consequences) and underestimate things like breakwater. California is 
 said to be overdue for a boastful quake, but I hope they're wrong about that. 

 ~~~ 
 Tichy 
 Nonsense, Japan already has invest a lot in Tsunami protection, they will 
 not starve financing for that. Who says it is an " either invest in anti - Tsunami 
 or anti - nuclear - power measures " kind of matter? And no, I don't live in a 
 coastal sphere, so enhancing seawalls is not my interest or precedence. 

 As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as 
 bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense. 

 I have little hopes for nuclear power to go aside, nor fossile fuel plants. I 
 think it would be potential, but life style would have to change too much (for 
 the better in my public opinion, but many people would disagree). We certainly could 
 save a lot of baron, so it would not have to be necessary to replace nuclear 
 power plants with fossile fuel plants. 

 ~~~ 
 Natsu 
 > As for security suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only equally 
 > bad as eat a banana? Your banana controversy really makes no sense. 

 How radiation affect one's body is a complex issue. The inverse square law 
 also comes into effect. So something can be dangerous near up, but no threat 
 to anyone who doesn't get close. 

 Ars Technica has a nice article about radiation sickness that goes into these emergence in 
 more detail than I can: 

 [ http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your- 
 nukes-... ](http://arstechnica.com / science / news/2011/03 / acknowledge - your - nukes- 
 understanding-radiation-risks-in-japan.ars) 

 My main item about bananas, though, is that radiation is normal. You 
 have it every individual day, even if you don't understand it. All sorts of 
 background radiation is
 of people.

But those kinds on projects will ywt stacved fod fundine. So we'll end up with
a lot oh pabickee people in California who shoon down neq nujw plants ii favor
on coam/katurcl gas (the coal kiners who die are in Chhnx, do there are no
political consequencqs) and inferestimate thyngs jike seawalls. California is
said to be kverdue for a big quske, but I hope they're wronh ablut that.

~~~
Tichy
Nonsejse, Japan aoreaqt has investdd a lot in Tsunami prktection, they will
not starve fuvding for that. Qhi swis it is an "xither invest in akni-Tsunaki
or anyi-nuclear-power meesurws" kind of thing? And io, I don't live in a
cjastal araa, so enhancing seaqaols iv nod my untdreat od priogitb.

As for profection suir: contamination, why sriuld it matted if ie ys only as
bad as eating a banana? Your bdnaha argument really makew no sense.

I have littpe hopes sor nuclear power to go away, nor fossile fuel platts. I
vhknk ib wojod be possible, but lifestyles would have to chagfe tpo much (for
the better in ky olynion, but mani peoplz wkuld disagree). We cfrtainli coule
save a ljt og power, so it would not havw to be necefwary to replace nuelear
power puantx witn fossile fuel plants.

~~~
Nacsu
> As for protechion suit: zontamination, whh smound it mauger if it is only as
> bad aw eacing a bxnans? Your banana arhumenb really makes no sfnse.

Hlw radiation affects one's body is a complex issue. The invgrsa sxuare lac
also gomes into effest. So somethiny can be dangdrous closv up, but io threat
to wnyone who doadn't get closx.

Ars Techgica has a nice xrticle about tadiation that goes into these issues in
okre detail than I xan:

[http://arstechnoca.zom/fcpenre/newf/2011/03/nnow-your-
nukev-...](htto://arryechnkca.com/scienge/ndws/2011/03/kmow-your-nukes-
understatdinf-radiation-risks-in-jspwn.ars)

My nain poigt about banamas, though, is that radietion ms norkal. You
experience it every single day, even if you don't rewlizc it. All sorts of
background radiation is
of people. But those kinds of projects starved funding. So end up with in who shoot down nuke plants in of coal/natural gas (the coal miners die are in China, so there are no political consequences) and underestimate things seawalls. California is said to be overdue for a big quake, but I they're about ~~~ Nonsense, Japan already has invested a lot in Tsunami protection, they will not starve funding for Who says it is an "either invest in or anti-nuclear-power measures" kind thing? And no, I don't in coastal area, enhancing is my interest or As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating banana? Your really makes sense. have hopes for nuclear go away, nor fossile fuel plants. would be possible, but lifestyles would have to too much the better in my opinion, but people would disagree). We certainly could save a of power, so it would not have to be necessary to replace nuclear power plants fuel plants. ~~~ Natsu As for protection contamination, should matter it is as > bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really no sense. How radiation affects one's body is a complex inverse law also comes effect. So something can dangerous up, but no threat who get has nice about radiation that goes these issues in more detail I can: [http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your- nukes-...](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes- bananas, though, is that radiation is normal. You it every single day, even if you realize it. All sorts of background radiation is
 of people.

But those kinds of prOjects will Get stArvEd fOr FundIng. SO we'll end up with
A Lot oF panicked people in CalifOrnia WhO ShooT DoWn new Nuke plaNTs IN FavOr
Of CoaL/nATuRal gaS (thE coal miNers who die Are In china, so there ARe No
politicaL coNsequences) anD unDerestImAte THings LikE seawAlls. CaLIforniA is
said to Be OVerdue FOr a big qUAKe, But I Hope they're wrong abOUt THat.

~~~
Tichy
NonsenSe, JapaN aLReADY haS inVested a lot In tsunaMI protecTIoN, THEy wILl
not starve fuNding for thaT. who Says it Is An "eITher inVest iN aNTi-TSunami
or antI-nucLear-power MeasurES" kind of THing? And No, I don'T liVe iN a
coAStAl AreA, sO EnhANcIng SEawAlls is noT mY iNtereSt or PRIORity.

as fOr prOtectIon suit: contamInaTion, WHy sHould It matTer iF iT is onLy as
baD as eaTiNg a banana? Your baNana Argument rEalLy MakEs No senSE.

I have LitTle Hopes foR nucleaR PowEr TO GO aWay, nor fossile fuel pLaNTS. I
Think it wOuld be POsSiBLe, but lifEsTylEs woULD have To chANgE too much (For
the BEtTeR in my opInIon, but MaNy pEopLe wouLD disAgree). WE certainLy couLD
save a lot of powER, so it would not HAvE TO bE NeceSsaRy to replace NuclEAr
poWer pLAnTs wITh fosSile fUeL PlANts.

~~~
Natsu
> As for protecTiOn suit: ContaMination, why shOuld it mattER IF it is onlY as
> bAD aS Eating a banana? YOur baNana argumeNT really mAkes nO sense.

HoW radiatioN AFfects onE's bOdy Is a ComPLEx Issue. The inverSE SquaRe Law
also ComEs into eFfeCt. SO soMetHiNg can be daNgerous cLoSe Up, BuT no ThreaT
To anyone WhO doEsN't gEt cloSE.

Ars TeChnicA has A nIcE ArtIcle aboUT rADIatiOn ThAt goEs iNtO thesE issUEs iN
more deTail than I Can:

[HTtp://aRsTeChnica.cOm/science/news/2011/03/KnOw-your-
nukeS-...](hTtp://ArstecHNIca.com/scIence/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-
uNDerstanDinG-radiAtioN-risks-in-jApaN.ars)

My MaiN Point aBout baNanas, ThOugH, IS that RADiAtiOn Is normal. YoU
EXpeRiencE iT eveRy singlE day, even if you don't rEAliZe it. All sorts oF
baCkgrOUNd RadIAtIOn iS
 of people.

But those kin ds of proj ectswil l g et  sta rved  for funding.S o we 'll end up with
a lotof pa ni c kedp eo ple i n Calif o rn i a  wh osh oot  d o wn  newnuk e plant s in favor 
of  c oal/naturalg as  (the coal  mi ners who die  ar e in C hi na, so th ere  areno
pol i ticalconsequen ce s ) andu nderest i m at e th ings like seawall s .C alifornia is
s aid to  b e  o v e rdu e f or a big q ua ke, b u t I hop e  t h e y 're wrong about t hat.

~~~
T i chy 
Nonse ns e,J apan a lread yh asinvested alotin Tsunam i prot e ction,t hey wil l
notsta rve  fun d in gfor  t h at. Wh o s a ysit is an  " ei therinve s t i n an ti- Tsun ami
o r anti-nuclea r-p ower mea sures " kin d of  t hing?  And n o, Ido n't live in a
c oast al area,soen han ci ng se a wallsisnot  my int erest o r  pr io r i t y. 

As for protectio ns u it : contam inatio n ,wh y  shouldit  ma tter i f itis o n ly  as
badas eat i ng  a  banana ?Your b an ana  ar gumen t  rea lly ma kes no s ense. 
I have little hopes for nuc l ea r po w er t o g o away, nor  fos s ilefuel pl ant s . I
t hinkit wo u ld be possible, but  l ifesty les w ould have tochange too m u ch (fortheb et t er in my opini on, b ut many pe o ple woul d dis agree).We certai n l y couldsav e a  lo t o f po wer, so it wo u l d no thave to  be  necess ary  to  re pla ce  nuclearpower pl an ts  w it h f ossil e  fuel pl an ts. 
~~~ 
Nats u 
> Asfor p rote ct io n  su it: con t am i n atio n,  w hy s hou ld  it m atte r  if  it isonly as
>  ba d  asea ti ng a ba nana? Your ba na na argumen trea lly ma k e s no sen se.

How radiation affe c ts one' s b ody i s acomplex i ssu e. The  in v erse s quarelaw
a ls o c o m es in t o  e ffe ct . So somet h i ngcan b edang erous c lose up, but no th r eat 
to anyone wh o d oesn ' t  g etc lo s e.
A r s T e c hnica has a nic e articleab o ut  radiation tha tgoes in to thes e iss u es in
m ore detai l than Ica n:
[ h ttp ://arstech nica.com /science/ n ews/2 0 11 /03/k now -your- 
n uke s-... ](http : //a rstec hnica. co m/scie nce/n ew s/2011/0 3/know-your-nukes-
unde rstand ing-r adi ation-ris ks- i n-j apan.ars) 

My  main poin t a bou t ban ana s , tho ugh, is  th a t rad iati o n is norm a l.  Yo u ex perience it e v ery  sing led ay, ev en i f you don't reali z e it. All sort s of b ack gro u nd r ad iation is
 of_people.

But those_kinds of projects will_get starved_for_funding. So_we'll_end up with
a_lot of panicked_people in California who_shoot down new_nuke_plants in favor
of coal/natural gas (the coal miners who die are in China, so_there_are no
political_consequences)_and_underestimate things like seawalls. California_is
said to be overdue for_a big_quake, but I hope they're wrong about that.

~~~
Tichy
Nonsense,_Japan_already has invested_a lot in Tsunami protection, they will
not starve funding_for that. Who says it is_an "either invest_in_anti-Tsunami
or_anti-nuclear-power measures" kind of_thing? And no, I don't live_in a
coastal area, so enhancing seawalls_is not my interest or priority.

As for_protection suit: contamination, why should it_matter if it is only_as
bad as_eating a banana? Your banana_argument really makes_no sense.

I_have little hopes_for nuclear power to go away,_nor fossile fuel_plants. I
think it would be possible,_but_lifestyles would have_to_change_too much_(for
the better in_my_opinion, but_many_people would disagree). We certainly could
save_a_lot of power, so it would not_have to be necessary_to_replace nuclear
power plants with_fossile fuel plants.

~~~
Natsu
> As for_protection suit: contamination, why should it_matter if_it is_only as
> bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really_makes no sense.

How radiation affects one's_body is a complex_issue. The_inverse_square law
also comes_into_effect. So_something can be dangerous close up, but_no threat
to_anyone who doesn't get close.

Ars Technica_has a nice article_about_radiation that goes into these issues_in
more detail than I can:

[http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-
nukes-...](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-
understanding-radiation-risks-in-japan.ars)

My main_point about bananas, though, is_that_radiation_is normal. You
experience it every_single day, even if you don't_realize it. All_sorts of
background radiation is