Well obviously if you compare getting an xray to a years worth of coal plant exhaust then the reverse is true. Even with cars running around and plants firing, we do not match the amount of carbon nature creates and consumes itself anyway. Deforestation is an issue, since it removes the ability for the earth to recycle.
Radiation on the other hand, with the exception of sunlight, is not a positive thing for any living organism.
I'm not necessarily against nuclear power. A friend of mine is a nuke tech on Navy subs, so he's explained basically what you posted about what's going on over there, and it's not currently a big deal. But to suggest that a meltdown (Chernobyl style anyway) is better than extra carbon emissions has absolutely no foundation.
Roundup/other pesticides, petroleum fertilizers, and GMO seeds/animals, are doing much more to hurt the earth than either a meltdown or everyone driving a suburban and leaving their lights on all the time.
No one is suggesting that a Chernobyl style meltdown is better than anything. Just that a Chernobyl style meltdown is almost impossible (if not impossible all together) due to the design of the core system itself.
And frankly, radiation is radiation, and it comes from a variety of sources - it doesn't matter if it's origin is human or "natural". Your distinction between sunlight and other sources makes little sense. I mean, potassium is radioactive, and your body NEEDS it to function (a sodium potassium pump is used within the axon to transmit electric signals from neurons). By default, due to the natural radioactivity of many atoms - you yourself are radioactive. It could be argued that radiation is only bad for you in mega high doses (whether in a short period or long period of time)- for example, like the original (and
presumed current) levels at Chernobyl and its neighboring areas. Aside from the worse nuclear disaster to ever hit humanity due to negligence, radiation levels vary frequently depending on your location, giving a set number of what to avoid (like the EPA does) seems to make a bit less sense since places in Japan and Brazil have levels of natural radiation that exist on par to about 10-15 times the recommended amount of exposure per year. The populations there have no higher risk of cancer or disease. This leads some to believe that the current EPA laws dealing with radiation doses are actually rooted in fear, specifically in regards to the Chernobyl incident. Hell, the average amount of persistent radiation in Pripyat right now is 0.9 mSv a year, five times lower than the level in New York's Grand Central Station - but if you ask anyone alive today they will most likely assume that Pripyat is completely irradiated and should be avoided at all costs. And then of course there is the discussion that radiation may be good for you, specifically at low doses (which is delving into the hermetic hypothesis vs the LNT hypothesis).
---
Looking at the media right now, it's pretty infuriating how bad of a job they are doing. The Finns, Germans, Americans, and some of the Brits are just going ape-shit for scary headlines and avoiding coverage of other way more important things.
Also, apparently one of Japan's volcanoes just erupted. Many have said that it has been erupting for quite a bit though, and there seems to be no reason to fear it.
I'm not going to comment on the GMO or carbon cycle comments, this isn't the thread for it.
Now, have some pictures:
NYT interactive picture map - very cool in its implementation.
Check this out.
Nice, tidy and a bit
informative. This entry refers to the negative ad campaigns currently in effect. Greenpeace should be ashamed.
HPS factsheet; faq on some random radiation based things
, hopefully the aid from the countries that are helping will help shorten that time-frame. Apparently they also don't want to blow money out of their asses by destroying xxxxxxx amounts of dollars during a national emergency on top of everything else.
i love you man.
