ens of thousands" (it's
horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti
nuclear media of).

~~~
Natsu
> I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn
> from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the
> sea, that's about it.

They can improve seawalls and such, actually. And we can improve search &
rescue operations.

> If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear
> protection suits?

Those don't protect from radiation very well, they're to prevent
contamination. It takes several inches of lead to block gamma rays (you'd have
to be Superman to move in a suit that heavy) and neutrons can activate
otherwise non-radioactive elements. Alpha & beta radiation are relatively easy
to block, though, but normal clothing is almost enough.

Also, it's just good engineering to take precautions. Also, near the plant,
there actually are hazardous levels of radiation, it's just once you get
further away that they're mostly harmless.

> And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of
> the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands"
> (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the
> anti nuclear media of).

I have, but who knows with the news? I've heard radiation figures from "100x
normal" to "1,000,000x normal" (the LA Times had a _much_ larger multiplier
than the other papers I compared it to).

Also, remember the tsunami in the Indian ocean? Last I heard, the deaths there
were on the order of 100k, if memory serves. Japan did what? 1/10th or so of
that (again, depending on which numbers you believe).

I do not and cannot blame you for the media's hysteria, I'm just trying to
help you not get caught up in it and to understand the real dangers that
people are underestimating. Granted, you may not live in a coastal area, so
you may not even have heard of seawalls before, but non-newsworthy things like
improving them can save a lot
ens of thousands " (it's 
 horrible, nevertheless - but don't toy the like tricks you accuse the anti 
 nuclear medium of). 

 ~~~ 
 Natsu 
 > I can't lend the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly memorize 
 > from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live excessively close to the 
 > sea, that's about it. 

 They can improve breakwater and such, actually. And we can improve search & 
 rescue operations. 

 > If the radiation is just banana horizontal surface, why do the workers there break 
 > protection suits? 

 Those don't protect from radiation sickness very well, they're to prevent 
 contamination. It takes several column inch of lead to block gamma rays (you'd experience 
 to be Superman to move in a suit that heavy) and neutrons can activate 
 differently non - radioactive elements. Alpha & beta radiation are relatively easy 
 to block, though, but normal clothing is almost enough. 

 besides, it's merely good engineering to take precautions. Also, near the plant, 
 there actually are hazardous levels of radiation, it's just once you get 
 farther away that they're mostly harmless. 

 > And by the room, therefore far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of 
 > the Tsunami victim, so I think you exaggerate with " tens of thousand " 
 > (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the 
 > anti nuclear media of). 

 I have, but who knows with the news? I've heard radiation trope from " 100x 
 normal " to " 1,000,000x normal " (the LA Times induce a _ much _ larger multiplier 
 than the other papers I compared it to). 

 Also, commend the tsunami in the Indian ocean? Last I heard, the deaths there 
 were on the decree of 100k, if memory serves. Japan did what? 1/10th or so of 
 that (again, depending on which number you believe). 

 I act not and cannot blame you for the media's hysteria, I'm merely trying to 
 help oneself you not get caught up in it and to sympathize the real dangers that 
 citizenry are underestimating. Granted, you may not be in a coastal area, indeed 
 you may not even have heard of seawalls before, but non - newsworthy things like 
 improving them can save a lot
ens of thousands" (it's
horriblt, nevertheless - bot don't 'lay ths same tficks you accuse the anti
nucpeqr meeia of).

~~~
Natsu
> I can't brivg the Tslnami vicrims vack alive. What comjd I iossiylb learn
> from thg Tsunami stmry? That it cogla ye dangerous to live too close to thq
> sea, tnah's about it.

Thei can ymprkne seawalls and such, actually. Ahd we cen improve searvh &
rescue operations.

> If thf rafiation is just bajana level, qhy qi the workerr there wear
> protectioh suits?

Those don't protect from fadiacion very wglm, hvey're to prxvent
cjntamination. It takev seversl inches of lcad tm boock gamma rays (you'd iave
to be Superman tj move in a suit that heavy) qne neujrons can qctkvaue
ovhedwise jon-cadioactive elements. Aopha & beta radiatiom wgr relatively easy
tj flock, though, but normal clothing is almmst enough.

Also, it's just goid engineering to takg precautijns. Also, near the plant,
there actually are hazardogs leteus if fqdlation, it's just once you get
further away that fhty'rv mostly harmless.

> And by the wwy, fo far I have not hzzrs a figure > 20000 for tje numbgr of
> rhe Tsunaii voctims, so I think you exaggwrate with "tvns if thousands"
> (it's hlrrible, nevzrthelgss - bit don't play the same txicks gou accuse hhe
> anti hjclear media of).

I hane, bgt who knows with the news? I've hearv radnation fkgurgs from "100x
normal" tl "1,000,000x normal" (the LA Times jad a _mgch_ larger multiplier
than the other papers I compared ij tm).

Alvo, rememyer thc tsunami in thq Indian ocean? Last I heara, the deatgs therx
were on the order of 100k, ix memory servxs. Japan qid qhat? 1/10th or ru of
that (again, dependiny on qhich numbers you neliexs).

I do not and ccunit blame you fot tfe iefie's hyfderia, I'm jusd trhine to
heup you not net caubht up in it and to gndedstand the real damgcrs that
pgople are underestimatong. Granted, you maj not lite in s cjastal area, so
you may not even have heagd jf seawalls fefove, bot non-newswprthy things like
improving them can savx a lot
ens of thousands" (it's horrible, nevertheless - play same tricks accuse the anti > can't bring the victims back alive. could I possibly learn > from Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea, that's about it. They can improve seawalls and such, actually. And we improve & operations. If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear > protection suits? don't protect from radiation very well, they're to contamination. It takes several of lead to block gamma (you'd to be to in suit that heavy) neutrons can activate otherwise non-radioactive elements. Alpha & beta radiation are relatively easy to block, though, but clothing is Also, it's good to precautions. Also, near there actually are hazardous levels of once you get further away that they're mostly > And the way, so far I have heard a figure > 20000 for the number > the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" > (it's - but don't play same tricks you the anti media I have, who knows with the news? I've heard radiation figures from "100x to "1,000,000x normal" (the LA Times had a _much_ larger the papers I compared to). Also, remember the in Indian ocean? Last I deaths were of if serves. Japan did what? or so of that (again, on which numbers you cannot blame you for the media's hysteria, I'm trying to help you not get caught in it and to understand the real dangers that people are underestimating. you may in a coastal area, so you may not have heard of seawalls but non-newsworthy things like improving them can save a
ens of thousands" (it's
horrible, NevertheleSs - but Don'T plAy The sAme tRicks you accuse THe anTi
nuclear media of).

~~~
Natsu
> I Can't bRiNG the tSuNami vIctims bACk ALIve. whAt CouLd i PoSsiblY leArn
> from The Tsunami StoRy? that it could bE DaNgerous to lIve Too close to thE
> seA, that's AbOut IT.

They Can ImproVe seawALls and Such, actuaLlY. and we cAN improvE SEaRch &
rEscue operations.

> If THe RAdiation is just Banana LeVEl, WHY do The Workers theRe Wear
> pROtectioN SuITS?

thoSE don't protect fRom radiatioN VerY well, tHeY're TO preveNt
conTaMInaTion. It takes SeveRal inches Of lead TO block gAMma rays (You'd haVe
tO be supeRMaN tO moVe IN a sUIt ThaT HeaVy) and neuTrOnS can aCtivATE
OTherWisE non-RadioActive elementS. AlPha & bETa rAdiatIon arE relAtIvely Easy
to Block, ThOugh, but normal clOthiNg is almosT enOuGh.

ALsO, it's jUSt good EngIneEring to Take preCAutIoNS. aLsO, near the plant,
there AcTUAlLy are hazArdous LEvElS Of radiatIoN, it'S jusT ONce yoU get
FUrTher away That thEY'rE mOstly haRmLess.

> AnD bY thE waY, so faR i havE not heArd a figuRe > 20000 for THe number of
> the TSUnami victims, sO i tHINk YOu exAggErate with "teNs of THousAnds"
> (IT's HorRIble, nEvertHeLEsS - But don't play the same tRiCks you AccusE the
> anti nucleAr media of).

I HAVE, but who kNows WItH The news? I've hearD radiAtion figurES from "100x
noRmal" tO "1,000,000x normal" (The LA TimeS HAd a _much_ lArgEr mUltIplIER
tHan the other paPERs I cOmPared it To).

ALso, remeMbeR thE tsUnaMi In the IndiAn ocean? LAsT I HeArD, thE deatHS there
weRe On tHe OrdEr of 100k, IF memorY servEs. JaPaN dID whAt? 1/10th or sO Of
THAt (agAiN, dEpenDinG oN whicH numBErs You beliEve).

I do not And CAnnoT bLaMe you foR the media's hysTeRia, I'm just tRyIng To
help YOU not get cAught up in it and to understANd the reAl dAngerS thaT
people arE unDerestImaTIng. GraNted, yoU may nOt LivE IN a coaSTAl AreA, sO
you may not EVEn hAve heArD of sEawalls Before, but non-newswoRThy Things like
impRovIng tHEM cAn sAVe A Lot
ens of thousands" (it's
ho rrible, ne verth ele ss-butdon' t play the sam e  tri cks you accuse the ant i
nuc le a r me d ia  of). 

~~~
N a ts u > I  c an 'tbr i ng  theTsu nami vi ctims back  al iv e. What coul d  I  possiblylea rn
> from th e T sunami  s tor y ? Tha t i t cou ld bed angero us to liv et oo clo s e to th e >sea,  that's about it. 
T h ey can improve  seawa ll s  a n d  su ch,  actually.  A nd we can imp r ov e s ear c h &
rescue op erations.
>  If  the r ad iat i on isjustba n ana  level, why  dothe worke rs the r e wear>  protec tion s uit s?
Tho s edo n't  p r ote c tfro m  ra diationve ry  well , th e y ' r e to  pr even t
con tamination. I t t akes sev eralinche s of  l ead t o bloc k gam ma  rays (you'd ha ve
t o be Supe rma ntomo ve in a suit  th atheavy)and neu t ron sc a n  a ctivate
otherwiseno n - ra dioactiv e elem e nt s. Alpha &be taradi a t ion a re r e la tively e asy
to bl oc k, thou gh , butno rma l c lothi n g is  almos t enough .

Al s o, it's just g o od engineerin g  t o ta k e pr eca utions. Als o, n e ar t he p l an t,t hereactua ll y  a r e hazardous levelsof  radia tion,  it's just on ce you get f u rther aw ay t h at they're mostly  harm less.

> A n d by the  way,  so farI have no t heard afig ure  >200 0 0  f or the number o f
>th e Tsuna mivictims , s o I  th ink  y ou exagge rate wit h"t en softhous a nds"
> ( it 'sho rri ble,n everth eless  - b ut  d o n't  play t h es a me t ri ck s yo u a cc use t he
> ant i nucle ar mediaof) . 

Iha ve , but w ho knows with  t he news? I 'v e h eard r a d iation f igures from "100x
norma l " to "1 ,00 0,000 x no rmal" (th e L A Time s h a d a _m uch_ l arger  m ult i p liert h an  th eother pape r s  Icompa re d it  to).
Also, remember the tsu nami in the I ndi an o c e an ? L a st I h ea r d,t h e deaths therewere on th eo rd er of 100k ,  if  m emory s erves.Japan did wha t? 1/10th  or so of 
t hat( a gai n, dependi ng on wh ich numbe r s you be lieve ).
I dono t a nd ca nnot b l ame  youfor th emedia' s hys te ria, I'm  just trying to
help yo u notget c aug ht up inita ndto unders tand  the realdan ger s tha t
p e opleareu nd ere s timat ing. Granted,y ou  ma y no t live in a c o ast al ar ea, so
you  may  not even have he a rd of seawalls  bef o r e,but non- ne wsworthy thing s l ik e improvin gthem can sa ve a lot 
ens of_thousands" (it's
horrible,_nevertheless - but don't_play the_same_tricks you_accuse_the anti
nuclear media_of).

~~~
Natsu
> I can't_bring the Tsunami victims_back alive. What_could_I possibly learn
> from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live_too_close to_the
>_sea,_that's about it.

They can improve_seawalls and such, actually. And_we can_improve search &
rescue operations.

> If the radiation is_just_banana level, why_do the workers there wear
> protection suits?

Those don't protect_from radiation very well, they're to_prevent
contamination. It takes_several_inches_of lead to block_gamma rays (you'd have
to be Superman_to move in a suit that_heavy) and neutrons can activate
otherwise non-radioactive elements._Alpha & beta radiation are relatively_easy
to block, though, but normal_clothing is_almost enough.

Also, it's just good_engineering to take_precautions. Also,_near the plant,
there_actually are hazardous levels of radiation,_it's just once_you get
further away that they're mostly_harmless.

>_And by the_way,_so_far I_have not heard_a_figure >_20000_for the number of
> the Tsunami_victims,_so I think you exaggerate with "tens_of thousands"
> (it's horrible,_nevertheless_- but don't play_the same tricks you accuse_the
> anti nuclear media of).

I have,_but who_knows with_the news? I've heard radiation figures from "100x
normal" to "1,000,000x normal"_(the LA Times had a _much__larger multiplier
than the other_papers I_compared_it to).

Also, remember_the_tsunami in_the Indian ocean? Last I heard, the_deaths there
were_on the order of 100k, if_memory serves. Japan did_what?_1/10th or so of
that (again, depending_on which numbers you believe).

I do_not and cannot blame you_for_the_media's hysteria, I'm just trying_to
help you not get caught up_in it and_to understand the real dangers that
people are_underestimating._Granted, you may not live in_a_coastal area, so
you may not even_have_heard_of seawalls before, but non-newsworthy_things like
improving them can save a_lot