News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
[dead]
Re:After 100 years World War I battlefields are poisoned and... by dpark on Friday July 29, 2016 @08:06PM (#12190945)
You are clearly and intentionally being misleading. I'm kind of embarrassed for you.

> The exposure of the Norwegians was 2 medical xrays

A whole body CT scan delivers way significantly more radiation than a typical "medical xrays".

"The authors cite estimates that Norwegians in the hardest-hit areas were exposed to an annual radiation dose equivalent to about twice the dose one would receive from a whole-body computed tomography (CT) scan, and about 60 times the external dose from an X-ray mammogram."

Come on. That's not the same as getting an X Ray for a broken bone. This is a 1/1000 chance of fatal cancer directly from the radiation exposure.

Re:After 100 years World War I battlefields are poisoned and... by PhasmaFelis on Saturday July 30, 2016 @03:20AM (#12192001)
Spare me your outrage. You used deliberately vague language to make a dangerous procedure used only in cases of pressing need sound like something safe and routine. This is playground lawyer stuff. You're not fooling anyone.

> Norwegian exposure was well within regular medical norms = fact.

No, now you're straight-up lying again. Norwegian exposure was double that of a dangerous and uncommon medical procedure.

And then you're completely ignoring my point about the Castle Bravo disaster and cover-up, and deploying argument-by-distraction. (Car crash deaths are bad! Therefore, cancer deaths don't matter!)

Let's get back to the original point. You said: "follow on health effects from nuclear testing on the continental USA are negligible. You're more at risk getting an x-ray at the dentists office." I clearly can't trust your unsourced statements on this subject, so I really would like to see a credible source, please.