I hope my American friends don't take this out of context but I really hope that one day the people of America regain control of their country from the vested interests that are controlling it.
What seems to be the state of the union at the moment is a parody of the original goals set down as the purpose of America for American people and indeed all freedom loving people. I don't mean a hippy commune where we all hold hands and sing kom-by-yah but real freedom as opposed to the image of freedom, real democracy instead of the lobbying for vested interests that occurs today and real capitalism instead of the propping up of the "Too big to fail"s. Somehow the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness has been converted to the pursuit of wealth because money must mean all those things, right?
I don't see it as a political issue anymore more but a series of structural issues designed to deceive and contrived to limit choices. Even Benjamin Franklin said the constitution, as it was framed, would not stop the U.S being a victim of despotism. Perhaps it's a day when Americans accept discomfort for things that are important and real. Noble pursuits.
I hope you don't think I'm a troll, because I'm sincere about missing the nice America who used to be a champion of freedom. It will be a truly awesome and frightening thing to watch a people finally regain control of their country.
This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...
You claim the problem is "polarization" and then only argue that one side is blinded;
Simply examining the moderated 5 comments exposes the imbalance of the argument here at slashdot.
what about the other side of the argument, about the nuclear detractors grasping at any minor flaw they don't even barely understand and trying to scream that it's horribly dangerous and the world is ending?
The other side of the argument barely exists here, so I don't need to criticise the other side of the argument because everyone else does.
Despite the science and available evidence the slashdot audience seems convinced that Nuclear power is a viable option for producing electricity. Ask yourself what objective analysis of the facts you have actually done and be honest about it.
The arguments here are between "This problem is not significant at this time, so everything is fine" and "This shit isn't perfect, so the world is ending."
The argument here is between "ok, things have gotten pretty bad right now we should stop while we can" and "fuck it, we're fucked anyway so who cares". I just happen to care. Tell you what give this article a read and tell me if you have a reasonable solution - just to this problem.
It's like arguing that any exposure to any sort of fat is going to give you a heart attack; versus arguing that fat is not dangerous and the medical reasoning behind the link between saturated fats and heart disease is flawed (it is, but that doesn't mean it's wrong).
Except that it isn't. Exposure to radioactivity has no safe level. All damage from exposure to radiation is cumulative ranging from minor to fatal. As more radioactive *isotopes* make it into the food chain there is a greater chance of internal exposure from ingesting them - which is the main concern. Once you understand that and begin educating yourself about the actual facts do you start to understand the actual ramifications. Have some objectivity with how you form your opinions and ask yourself if they were developed with any basis in fact.
We've had that technology for 40 years. There is absolutely no technical limitation that would prevent us from building a reactor that could run unenriched uranium with burnup ratios approaching 100%.
Ok, then let me be more specific. Burnup of U-235. My criticisms are directed at the *existing* commercial Nuclear Industry.
The problem is that breeder reactors have been banned by statute and the industry has stagnated ever since the late 70s since a de facto ban on new construction.
Because they create more plutonium, three times more, than goes in which creates a nightmare scenario for Plutonium containment. The technology I am speaking of would be a burner reactor which creates deadlier waste products (i.e more radioactive) but are radioactive for less time (less than 1000years vs less than 25000 years).
There's a Google Tech Talk video that describes one way that we could start building reactors that would eliminate address every downside that you can reasonably put forward. (It doesn't address the "I don't like nuclear power because it's icky" objection, but nothing ever will)
Actually it addresses none of my concerns, and if you look carefully it reinforces my concerns. There is no way it deal with existing waste concerns and the output of thorium reactors, thallium-208 a gamma emitter to quote him is "very nasty stuff to deal with...very hard to deal with" may actually increase our containment woes.
However, this is a completely different technology stream from the one I am discussing and therefore out of scope for my criticisms. It certainly looks more benign than the existing nuclear industry, with all it's flaws, as it has more of a chemical base for separating products that poison the reaction and certainly looks like a better reactor design. If advance designs and projects were carried out to contain the thallium-208 output product of the reactor and good studies were carried out on the failure mode of the reactor I think it would not warrant the criticisms the existing nuclear industry does.
I do Ju jitsu, even competed recently. There is a real strategy to fighting this way and it is really good if you are a coder. The results of my training are that I sleep very well and can focus on the IT tasks I have to do. My colleagues are often amazed at how laid back and relaxed I am and it does wonders for your confidence.
I find that it's hard to sit around all the time and my body forces me to get up walk and stretch when I am working. It's a great way to make new friends to.
If I am on the pro-nuclear side, then naturally I would want to discredit you as an opponent, by pointing out your ad hominem attacks and hypocrisy if necessary. If I am perfectly disinterested, then naturally I would want to discredit you, if only to discourage others from writing such unpleasant posts in the future. If I am on the anti-nuclear side, then naturally I would want to discredit you,
It's very clever position you have constructed. Your use of ambiguity, designed to lend credibility to your claims, warranted a closer look at your position;
So from that we can see you are a smart guy, prepared to make claims without references to back them up, likely you are the 'pro-nuclear' type and not above making an ad-hominem attack yourself. As you repeated three times, 'I would want to discredit you' your motivation and method is quite clear, you want to discredit me by calling me a hypocrite thus discrediting my argument.
as your vitriol and hypocrisy are actually detrimental to the anti-nuclear side of the debate.
On the contrary I think a bit of vitriol is what is required. You excoriate me as a hypocrite yet you construct a mendacious argument to disguise a sophisticated ad-hominem attack. Obviously you have pigeon-holed me so by your own standards I guess you are unpleasant like "most", as I characterised, other Nuclear fanbois. Actually you follow the characterisation precisely.
It illustrates the deceit and insincerity of your argument. Your double standard expects that I must make an extra effort to be diligent and not display the frustration I suffered from having my fact checked, proof read and polite post modded a troll as an ad-hominem attack. Be honest - do you see any reason why it should have been moderated that way. If you were a "professional" scientist, as you claim, you would assess the information.
That said, I still maintain that it is highly inappropriate to open what you implicitly claim is a carefully reasoned, polite, fact checked, and well informed post with a string of ad hominem attacks on your opposition (which is certainly not polite, has no relationship to any relevant facts, and involves no reasoning or well-informedness), followed by a denouncement of ad hominem attacks by your opposition. *You at once use a weapon and condemn its use.* This is your hypocrisy. The validity, real or imagined, of your ad hominem attacks does not change it in the slightest degree.
I made no such claim implicitly or otherwise. What I said was To them no proof is possible no matter how fact checked, proof read and polite you are about the shortcomings of Nuclear Power.. In fact, anyone who has read my posts will discover that I have a low-tolerance threshold for Nuclear fanbois, I will be polite to a point. Your attempt to construct a very subtle strawman illustrates deceit and judgmental arrogance.
To my humble opinion, a good ISP needs to have good reliable equipement.
I don't think that is the point. Motorola's commercial gear does not support nearly the functionality AirOS and MicroTik do. It's great gear - you just can't make it do some of the stuff you need to do.
You can make ssh plugins with Nagios, AirOS supports ssh and key exchange. You should be able to achieve most things with that combination, what is it you are trying to do?
MicroTik has a strong API, have you tried doing what you need to do by using that?
Well, the old hypocrisy acting up these days, MrKaos?
It would only be hypocrisy if I hadn't gathered a reasonable body of knowledge on the subject. Typically this is the effort I put into my posts. Want to meet me with some actual facts, then by all mean argue with me. Until then I'll stand by the amount of experiences I've had pertaining to these discussions.
The juxtaposition of those two sentences just threw up all kinds of red flags, and I felt something had to be said.
Thank you for your comment, it quite neatly illustrates my point.
It is much less dangerous than the radioactive potassium humans have evolved with in their bodies.
I checked out some actual medical studies of the effects of Tritium. Feel free to use the references provided to search for the actual papers I have provided as references.
I had mod points and decided to check out what you had been submitting. I saw your submission and modded it up, to my surprise when I read/. at lunch, there it was.
The problem with this debate is it has become so polarised. Most of the Nuclear supporters here have a rabid fanboi attitude which puts the in the realm of Dogmatic Skeptics. To them no proof is possible no matter how fact checked, proof read and polite you are about the shortcomings of Nuclear Power. Once their belief systems are challenged they resort to ad-hominem attacks as I'm sure you have experienced.
Energetically the numbers do not add up for Nuclear power, maybe in 50 years time when we have materials technology to support engineering a burner reactor that has a conversion rate of uranium fuel to fissile ash greater than %1 of the fuel load. Unless we invest heavily in solar, wind and geothermal - and get them right - we risk leaving future generations a radioactive legacy much worse than the carbon legacy previous generations have left us.
I use the acronym Not In My Generation (NIMG) to characterise the mindset of people who want their power now to maintain their living standards whilst imposing the cost of disposal on a future generation. It's quite selfish really, but I don't really blame them, after all the Nuclear Industry has had plenty of time and money to construct a quite effective and convincing image thats easy to get sucked into.
So I provide a comprehensive list of scientific studies on the effects of tritium *WITH REFERENCES TO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS* and it's a moderated as a troll.
Well obviously there is a fanboi out there with moderator points who has an axe to grind, who could not actually conduct an intelligent conversation and decided it would be a good idea to mod me down. I have a message for you;
Grow up.
Responsible Nuclear advocacy involves a process of acknowledging the problems of the nuclear industry so they can be fixed, not just living in a fantasy world where we make believe there is nothing wrong. The effects of radioactive isotopes have been studied and the medical consequences of things like tritium are know - who are you really serving holding this information back from people who *do* want to educate themselves.
So here is my post over again - I will re-post it over and over until you have no more mod points or until some moderator who does appreciate the information mods it up. This is the most pathetic abuse of the slashdot moderation system I have ever seen.
I don't understand why the following was moderated a troll;
In case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings the following information may help. Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects, so I'll just quote from those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
For those who think "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones"
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
References;
Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water. Health Physics. 58. 5:625-629. 1990.
Dobson, RL. The Toxicity of Tritium. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203. 1979.
Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium. Mutation Research. 50: 101-110. 1978.
In case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings the following information may help. Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects, so I'll just quote from those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
For those who think "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones"
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
References;
Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water. Health Physics. 58. 5:625-629. 1990.
Dobson, RL. The Toxicity of Tritium. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203. 1979.
Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium. Mutation Research. 50: 101-110. 1978.
Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness. Health Physics. 65 (6):657-672; 1993. [This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium]
Laskey, JW, et al. Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation. Radiation Research.56:171-179. 1973.
Rytomaa, T, et al. Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339. 1979.
For some strange reason it's controversial here to mention the formation of an organisation that acts on behalf of it's members but wouldn't part of the function of an IT Union be to asses and represent the interests of it's members when it comes to organisations like these? Seems to me IT professionals need an organisational structure to support them from bureaucrats.
Asides from a bidding war lowering IT professionals pay rates towards slavery there is the matter of protecting our interests amongst many other issues. It seems to me, if we were as smart as we really think we are, we would work together to protect ourselves and have a focal point - aside from/. , for gathering intelligence on issues such as these.
Slashdot Mirror
ok, send me a link and I'll look at it.
I hope my American friends don't take this out of context but I really hope that one day the people of America regain control of their country from the vested interests that are controlling it.
What seems to be the state of the union at the moment is a parody of the original goals set down as the purpose of America for American people and indeed all freedom loving people. I don't mean a hippy commune where we all hold hands and sing kom-by-yah but real freedom as opposed to the image of freedom, real democracy instead of the lobbying for vested interests that occurs today and real capitalism instead of the propping up of the "Too big to fail"s. Somehow the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness has been converted to the pursuit of wealth because money must mean all those things, right?
I don't see it as a political issue anymore more but a series of structural issues designed to deceive and contrived to limit choices. Even Benjamin Franklin said the constitution, as it was framed, would not stop the U.S being a victim of despotism. Perhaps it's a day when Americans accept discomfort for things that are important and real. Noble pursuits.
I hope you don't think I'm a troll, because I'm sincere about missing the nice America who used to be a champion of freedom. It will be a truly awesome and frightening thing to watch a people finally regain control of their country.
This one is the biggest one you've never heard of, operates in all western democracies, everything from prisons to nuclear weapons handling.
Sounds (and looks) pretty cool though - I think I want one.
Simply examining the moderated 5 comments exposes the imbalance of the argument here at slashdot.
The other side of the argument barely exists here, so I don't need to criticise the other side of the argument because everyone else does. Despite the science and available evidence the slashdot audience seems convinced that Nuclear power is a viable option for producing electricity. Ask yourself what objective analysis of the facts you have actually done and be honest about it.
The argument here is between "ok, things have gotten pretty bad right now we should stop while we can" and "fuck it, we're fucked anyway so who cares". I just happen to care. Tell you what give this article a read and tell me if you have a reasonable solution - just to this problem.
Except that it isn't. Exposure to radioactivity has no safe level. All damage from exposure to radiation is cumulative ranging from minor to fatal. As more radioactive *isotopes* make it into the food chain there is a greater chance of internal exposure from ingesting them - which is the main concern. Once you understand that and begin educating yourself about the actual facts do you start to understand the actual ramifications. Have some objectivity with how you form your opinions and ask yourself if they were developed with any basis in fact.
A metaphor with many meanings
Well I for one welcome our new stream of Chuck Norris jokes.
I guess thats because the password is so tough that...oh never mind.
Ok, then let me be more specific. Burnup of U-235. My criticisms are directed at the *existing* commercial Nuclear Industry.
Because they create more plutonium, three times more, than goes in which creates a nightmare scenario for Plutonium containment. The technology I am speaking of would be a burner reactor which creates deadlier waste products (i.e more radioactive) but are radioactive for less time (less than 1000years vs less than 25000 years).
Actually it addresses none of my concerns, and if you look carefully it reinforces my concerns. There is no way it deal with existing waste concerns and the output of thorium reactors, thallium-208 a gamma emitter to quote him is "very nasty stuff to deal with...very hard to deal with" may actually increase our containment woes.
However, this is a completely different technology stream from the one I am discussing and therefore out of scope for my criticisms. It certainly looks more benign than the existing nuclear industry, with all it's flaws, as it has more of a chemical base for separating products that poison the reaction and certainly looks like a better reactor design. If advance designs and projects were carried out to contain the thallium-208 output product of the reactor and good studies were carried out on the failure mode of the reactor I think it would not warrant the criticisms the existing nuclear industry does.
It would be a completely new industry though.
I find that it's hard to sit around all the time and my body forces me to get up walk and stretch when I am working. It's a great way to make new friends to.
Interesting - thanks.
I can't see how I can expand on that in a way that would make it any more meaningful, less agism and more story, please.
It's very clever position you have constructed. Your use of ambiguity, designed to lend credibility to your claims, warranted a closer look at your position;
IAAParticle Physicist, working on the Collider Detector at Fermilab, looking for the Higgs boson. Am I sufficiently credentialed for you, or will you "call my bluff" like the poor AC below?
beta particles from tritium are highly atypical, and in a manner which makes them much less dangerous than other beta radiation. I am a particle physicist, and I approve this message.
I'm pretty mad at uninformed and unthinking environmentalists like the anti-nuclear crowd right now.
I've long thought the entire anti-nuclear lobby was UNSTABLE, too...
So from that we can see you are a smart guy, prepared to make claims without references to back them up, likely you are the 'pro-nuclear' type and not above making an ad-hominem attack yourself. As you repeated three times, 'I would want to discredit you' your motivation and method is quite clear, you want to discredit me by calling me a hypocrite thus discrediting my argument.
On the contrary I think a bit of vitriol is what is required. You excoriate me as a hypocrite yet you construct a mendacious argument to disguise a sophisticated ad-hominem attack. Obviously you have pigeon-holed me so by your own standards I guess you are unpleasant like "most", as I characterised, other Nuclear fanbois. Actually you follow the characterisation precisely.
It illustrates the deceit and insincerity of your argument. Your double standard expects that I must make an extra effort to be diligent and not display the frustration I suffered from having my fact checked, proof read and polite post modded a troll as an ad-hominem attack. Be honest - do you see any reason why it should have been moderated that way. If you were a "professional" scientist, as you claim, you would assess the information.
I made no such claim implicitly or otherwise. What I said was To them no proof is possible no matter how fact checked, proof read and polite you are about the shortcomings of Nuclear Power.. In fact, anyone who has read my posts will discover that I have a low-tolerance threshold for Nuclear fanbois, I will be polite to a point. Your attempt to construct a very subtle strawman illustrates deceit and judgmental arrogance.
The dictionary defines a h
I don't think that is the point. Motorola's commercial gear does not support nearly the functionality AirOS and MicroTik do. It's great gear - you just can't make it do some of the stuff you need to do.
You can make ssh plugins with Nagios, AirOS supports ssh and key exchange. You should be able to achieve most things with that combination, what is it you are trying to do?
MicroTik has a strong API, have you tried doing what you need to do by using that?
It would only be hypocrisy if I hadn't gathered a reasonable body of knowledge on the subject. Typically this is the effort I put into my posts. Want to meet me with some actual facts, then by all mean argue with me. Until then I'll stand by the amount of experiences I've had pertaining to these discussions.
Thank you for your comment, it quite neatly illustrates my point.
PBMR and AP1000.
Medical effects of Tritium
I checked out some actual medical studies of the effects of Tritium. Feel free to use the references provided to search for the actual papers I have provided as references.
I had mod points and decided to check out what you had been submitting. I saw your submission and modded it up, to my surprise when I read /. at lunch, there it was.
The problem with this debate is it has become so polarised. Most of the Nuclear supporters here have a rabid fanboi attitude which puts the in the realm of Dogmatic Skeptics. To them no proof is possible no matter how fact checked, proof read and polite you are about the shortcomings of Nuclear Power. Once their belief systems are challenged they resort to ad-hominem attacks as I'm sure you have experienced.
Energetically the numbers do not add up for Nuclear power, maybe in 50 years time when we have materials technology to support engineering a burner reactor that has a conversion rate of uranium fuel to fissile ash greater than %1 of the fuel load. Unless we invest heavily in solar, wind and geothermal - and get them right - we risk leaving future generations a radioactive legacy much worse than the carbon legacy previous generations have left us.
I use the acronym Not In My Generation (NIMG) to characterise the mindset of people who want their power now to maintain their living standards whilst imposing the cost of disposal on a future generation. It's quite selfish really, but I don't really blame them, after all the Nuclear Industry has had plenty of time and money to construct a quite effective and convincing image thats easy to get sucked into.
I have listed some information from medical studies of the effects of Tritium.
So I provide a comprehensive list of scientific studies on the effects of tritium *WITH REFERENCES TO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS* and it's a moderated as a troll.
Well obviously there is a fanboi out there with moderator points who has an axe to grind, who could not actually conduct an intelligent conversation and decided it would be a good idea to mod me down. I have a message for you;
Grow up.
Responsible Nuclear advocacy involves a process of acknowledging the problems of the nuclear industry so they can be fixed, not just living in a fantasy world where we make believe there is nothing wrong. The effects of radioactive isotopes have been studied and the medical consequences of things like tritium are know - who are you really serving holding this information back from people who *do* want to educate themselves.
So here is my post over again - I will re-post it over and over until you have no more mod points or until some moderator who does appreciate the information mods it up. This is the most pathetic abuse of the slashdot moderation system I have ever seen.
I don't understand why the following was moderated a troll;
In case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings the following information may help. Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects, so I'll just quote from those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
For those who think "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones"
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979) References;
In case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings the following information may help. Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects, so I'll just quote from those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more. For those who think "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones"
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
References;
For some strange reason it's controversial here to mention the formation of an organisation that acts on behalf of it's members but wouldn't part of the function of an IT Union be to asses and represent the interests of it's members when it comes to organisations like these? Seems to me IT professionals need an organisational structure to support them from bureaucrats.
Asides from a bidding war lowering IT professionals pay rates towards slavery there is the matter of protecting our interests amongst many other issues. It seems to me, if we were as smart as we really think we are, we would work together to protect ourselves and have a focal point - aside from /. , for gathering intelligence on issues such as these.
So next the Secondlife interfaces to robot sex doll interfaces. I wonder how long that will take.
Anyone got a stopwatch?