Yellowcake hysteria
October 30th, 2011 at 11:54 am by David FarrarGood God, the war against science never stops. The SST front page tells us how radioactive uranium has been passing through NZ ports, and the Greens say it should be banned.
Five thousand tonnes of radioactive uranium is being transported through New Zealand waters and docked at Kiwi ports every year. …
“Radioactive yellowcake uranium is on between six and 30 containers on these fortnightly shipments and it is deeply concerning that the government has allowed these shipments to occur. I think many Kiwis will be shocked.”
Last night a spokesman for Prime Minister John Key described yellowcake as “Australian dirt, which is essentially harmless”.
“The occasional transport of yellow cake through New Zealand ports has been taking place for many years. The shipments meet strict international regulations, and are described by the National Radiation Laboratory as posing little risk to the general public,” the spokesman said.But Hughes said that stance was far too carefree.
If we are going to ban uranium from our ports, are we going to ban it from our soil also?
If you have a 10 by 20 metre lawn, then the top metre of soil will have around 1 kg of uranium in it. Quick let’s ban soil also.
Of course we can’t stop there. Uranium exists in water also. We better ban water to be safe.
And then oh shit uranium particles are also in the air we breathe, Not sure how the Greens will ban air, but am sure they will try.
But of course uranium is not the only substance that is radioactive. So is potassium. And guess who is chock full of potassium giving off radiation? Bloody human beings.
So just to be safe, we better ban human beings also, along with the air, the water and the soil.
October 30th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
A fact I enjoyed pointing out during the great Depleted-Uranium-Iraqi-Cancer-Cluster campaigns of the mid-1990′s, led by the usual suspects such as John Pilger. One of the endless claims was that during Gulf War I the US had “dropped” 900 tons of depleted uranium in the country: the horror, the horror.
The other half-truth as a lie that I’ve always loved is when people making the shocking claim that depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.4 billion years. My God, this toxin will be with us forever. Missed in all this is the fact that the longer the half-life the less radioactive the substance is.
Of course this reminds me one of my favourite rejoinders on this topic:
Greenie: If you’re so smug and confident about living with uranium how would you like to live with it in your backyard?
Me: I already do
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Ban smoke detectors!
That said, I’m of the opinion that the yellowcake transhipments are illegal. They involve bringing uranium into New Zealand waters, which is generally considered to be an importation (e.g. someone who brings heroin into New Zealand waters, even if they never land or drop it off, has committed the offence of importing it into New Zealand etc.). I made an OIA request last year, when the yellowcake story first came up, and the Ministry of Economic Development confirmed that the Minister of Energy had not given permission under the Atomic Energy Act 1945. I happen to think that in such circumstances, the law would require it.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
What the greens really wish for , is to ban people!!! These pesky bi-pedal creatures are simply a nuisance to Gaia.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
The hypocracy of the Greens is breathtaking. Quite happy to jump on the scientific moral high horse when it suits them, but also happy to whip up unscientific hysteria when it doesn’t.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
“Yellowcake” has so many uses.
Vote:I thought the greenies would like the stuff as uranium dioxide looks quite promising as a material for longer lasting rechargeable batteries.
October 30th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Luddite hysteria without scientific foundation. Just normal behaviour for the watermelons.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
One of my favourite nicknacks I keep at home is a piece of melted sand from the Trinity bomb test
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
An hysterical newspaper article followed by an equally hysterical blog-post. Go figure.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Homer Simpson thought bubble:
“Hmmmm….Yellow cake”
Serious greenies don’t give a toss about yellow cake.
Personally I welcome it. Nuclear energy is a good thing. Will prove to be our saviour in the long run, both as a deterrence to global war and a provider of clean energy.
If only everyone had a true sense of proportion.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
If we are going to ban uranium from our ports, are we going to ban it from our soil also?
If you have a 10 by 20 metre lawn, then the top metre of soil will have around 1 kg of uranium in it. Quick let’s ban soil also.
This is very stupid, since yellowcake is a powdered uranium concentrate, but it also seems totally wrong – according to Wikipedia, uranium exists in soil at [2.0mg/kg], so you’d need about five thousand tons of soil to produce a kg of uranium. I have no idea how much soil weighs, but my totally random guess is about 1 ton/cubic meter.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Greenies are the biggest hypocrites around .. they all use “things” made from mined materials not to mention oil BUT want to ban such mining/drilling. They give me the shits
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
It’s too bad it’s not Russian yellowcake.
If it was, I bet the Gweens wouldn’t be saying anything.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Interestingly the Greens are about 7 times more popular than ACT. They both sell snake oil it is just the greens target audience is more gullible I guess.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
You’re a factor of 10 out. 2 mg/kg means you need 500 tonnes, not 5000. Soil is about 2.6 tonnes / m³. So 20m x 10m x 1m deep = 200 m³ = ~ 520,000 kg of soil, or 520 tonnes. @ 2mg / kg, that is about a kg of uranium.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
>> This is very stupid,……. it also seems totally wrong
OK let’s calculate:
Uranium concentration in soil : 2 parts per million ( http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/du_qaa.shtml )
Density of soil : let’s say 1.5g/cc ( various sources, but reasonable -it’s clearly more than water at 1g/cc)
10 x 20 x 1 meter = 200 cubic meters.
Weight 300,000 kg or 300,000,000 grams
Amount of Uranium = 300,000,000 x 2 parts/million = 600grams
So DPF’s figure of 1kg is a bit high, but if soil density is higher than my figure then you can get 1kg. Also if NZ soil concentration is higher than 2ppm
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
how old are you reid..?
..your (delightful) output of retro-cold war rhetoric…(have you met p.g. yet..?..)
..makes me think you are either quite ancient..(not that there’s anything wrong with that)..
..and regurgitating how you felt/argued then..
..or a younger collecter of 50′s cold-war-themed comics…
..a bit too close to their job..
..which is it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Danyl Mclauchlan says:- “This is very stupid, since yellowcake is a powdered uranium concentrate”
Sorry Danyl, I know what you mean I think, but the wikipedia description is misleading.
Yellowcake is milled, purified (but not pure) uranium oxide (U3 O8).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/07/what_is_yellowcake_anyway.html
But I take your point that Farrar’s saying, “are we going to ban it from our soil also” was a facile comparison.
beautox says:- “okay let’s calculate”
Crikey, stretch the analogy any further and it will disappear
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
All this assumes you don’t eat bananas.
The best source of information about radiation doses is, of course, xkcd – despite Randall’s disclaimer.
http://www.xkcd.com/radiation
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Well it’s certainly not correct to say that yellowcake is just Australian dirt since it’s uranium oxide, cleaned of all the dirt and even extracted from the original minerals such as pitchblende. So it’s a hell of a lot more concentrated than any soil measure of uranium.
However, given the hysterical, unscientific crap that has surrounded this subject for decades and been boosted by endless numbers of Greenies pushing the usual emotive argumentys embodied in the magic word “uranium” – I’m prepared to cut Key some slack as he fights fire with fire.
Still – I’ll bet the NZ public will lap it up. No complaints about the scientific illiteracy and ignorance of the public or key media figures will be expressed by Labour or the Greens on this issue. John Campbell will be all over it like a rash.
Which translates into an area of 10m x 50m – so a big backyard! But of course others have already pointed out the math problems created by lack of sleep with newborns.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Wrong Danyl. From Wikipedia – The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers).
So if we use the mid-range of 6ppm then you require 166 million grams, or 166 metric tonnes, of soil to produce 1kg of uranium. The 1 x 10 x 20m lawn is probably over 340 tonnes so if anything DPF has well over estimated the size lawn required, and far less again is needed for fertilized soil.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
But without il-informed hysteria about a non-existent problem, what would the Greens have to talk about?
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
The more I hear from the Greens the more I wonder why they are rating so well in the polls.
Vote:Every week they find another crisis, another problem and blow it up, completely out of proportion.
They are a bunch of irrational negative whinging moaning the-end-is-nigh doomsayers.
They are the antithesis of the Kiwi can-do culture.
October 30th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Burning coal puts a lot of uranium into the air if I remember correctly.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Wow, everyone with their calculators out completely failed to see the straw man.
Yellowcake is not the same stuff as the uranium in your lawn.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
What’s really funny about this is that the Greens appear so worried about yellowcake here, and yet supposedly not much concerned when Saddam had his hands on it and it can be used to manufacture WMDs. The US Govt under Bush removed yellowcake stockpiles from Iraq. From 2008 –
From MSNBC – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.TqyqTUPfpM0
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Simple fact is that uranium is one of the most ubiquitous of metals.
Vote:I did the soil calculation about twenty years ago and got a slightly higher figure than Farrar because the percentage of Uranium in your soil depends on the nature of the soil.
IF you have clay soil it is much higher than other soils.
I notice the Greens raise more hysteria over the use of “depleted uranium” in weapons.
I wonder if they know what “depleted” means. Most of the radiation from un-depleted uranium comes from particular isotopes. The purification of uranium for weapons grade etc actually removes these isotopes (U-235 in particular) and so depleted uranium has virtually no radioactivity worth thinking about.
Consequently it is used as a lead substitute in weapons because it is heavier than lead and is less toxic in the environment than lead.
I have somewhat simplified the science but hope you get the general gist.
October 30th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Every university, major hospital and significant private radiology practice in the country uses radioactive material on a daily basis. Why aren’t the Greens consistent? If we’re nuclear free, we should be banning the lot.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
AND ………….. lets ban corflute election hoardings. Oh, that’s right the Greens use corflute for their hoardings, so it must be GOOD for the environment.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Another dihydrogen monoxide scare?
And yeah, let’s ban smoke detectors.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/uranium-deals-prove-most-lucrative-on-nuclear-demand-real-m-a.html
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
So David Farrar, you clever man, I take it from your points that the yelowcake uranium on these ships is as safe as the soil, water and air in our garden?
Yes?
Or no?
If yes, then ok, point taken. If no, then your are a dumbarse shithead with points made in argument as weak as a pansy in a gale, shredding your credibility to smithereens and further.
So, what is it?
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
If the yellowcake is safe then why is it being disposed of in this manner? Why is it not simply bunged in a landfill? Or spread onto our gardens and backyards?
I smell horse shit coming from this site again…
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
vto: get a grip. No, Yellowcake isn’t as safe as soil. If, however, you blended yellowcake containing 1kg of uranium with, say, 10 backyards worth of soil, yes, it’d be approximately as safe as that soil (it’d increase the radioactivity in the soil by 10%).
It isn’t being disposed of, I should imagine. It’s being shipped somewhere to be refined and put into a reactor. It’s not the same thing as waste.
Really, you do need to try to get your head around the science before you mouth off. I seem to recall you being very much in favour of science in the case of global warming.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
More like troll shit, vto.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
vto, you, of all people, would be the most qualified person in the land to know the smell of horse shit.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
PaulL, it is Farrar who needs to get a grip. What a prick writing a post like that, implying that the yellowcake is harmless because uranium is found in soil, air and water.
Farrar could have provided some more science in the post to outline a little more for those who are not familiar with such things. But no, instead he writes horse shit. Or he could have used a comparison that was even remotely comparable.
I am all for science but I am all against crap like this post. Farrar is deceptive and misleading in his points. Obviously not to be trusted that his posts are anything like credible.
My point was about his liar post, not the science. It is no wonder that in our corner of the world the nats are rapidly coming undone over their credibility. You cannot trust what they say.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
The same people that become hysterical at yellow cake are happy to walk out under and enormous nuclear explosion spewing forth cancer causing rays up and down the spectrum. Many of which make it through the van-Allen belts.
Do they run away in terror, put on tin foil hats (well some do)?
No they walk around exposing themselves to the sun. Often without even the basic protection of sun tan lotion.
More perspective and less hysteria needed.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
It is clear from everybody’s posts above that yellowcake is dangerous and our soil, air and water is safe.
So why does Farrar talk shit?
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Hey, Chicken Little!
Read:
“The shipments meet strict international regulations, and are described by the National Radiation Laboratory as posing little risk to the general public.”
Got it?
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
No, vto, it is not clear that yellowcake is dangerous. In fact, that’s just you repeating your preconceived bias. Which of the comments suggests that yellowcake is dangerous? And your level of emotion on this seems out of all proportion to the discussion – have you not noticed that everyone else is talking calming and politely, and it’s only you throwing around the abuse?
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
So, having now read the article in detail (had a little more spare time after mowing the lawns), I can say there is a lot more unsaid than said. I guess that’s the SST for you, and maybe Gareth too, although I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the SST that butchered his words.
5,000 tonnes of uranium, or 5,000 tonnes of dirt containing 4,000 tonnes of uranium, of which 1% or 40 tonnes would be U235
But most of which, if not all of it, would be used in power plants to produce low carbon power, since almost no new nuclear weapons are being made, and those that are seem to use weapons grade uranium recovered from existing weapons.
Why would we object to this uranium being turned into low carbon power in those countries that don’t have their heads in the sand about nuclear power and it’s benefits? Surely we’re getting all the benefits (such as they might be) of lower CO2 without actually having any power plants ourselves.
What the hell are they? Definitely not nuclear ones, since the uranium, once depleted, cannot explode. Again, this is laziness or deliberate scaremongering. Maybe it’s being used in bullets or tank armour in place of lead, but that’s not what Joe average will interpret in reading that line.
But not the radioactive bits. Honeywell make control systems, so this is a very tenuous link. It’s kind of like saying that these bits are beingused in a plant run by IBM, who also make computers that are used by the US Defence Force.
Would it be any different than dealing with a coal spill?
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
From the “Clean Green New Zealand” site
So is Yellowcake dangerous?
Well, not really, but like any mined and treated mineral, it is toxic if inhaled or swallowed, and prolonged or repeated exposure could cause severe damage to the liver and lungs.
http://www.cleangreennewzealand.info/2010_06_01_archive.html
Potting mix and compost is more dangerous than yellowcake.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4541773/Legionnaires-disease-cases-hit-record-high-in-Canterbury
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Just to repeat – my point is about Farrar’s deception in comparing soil, air and water to yellowcake.
Horse shit.
surprise surprise …
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
And now you mention it vto
While potting mix an compost is dangerous, horse shit is dangerous too.
Danger lurks in the dung
Horse owners have just been given one more reason to compost their animal’s manure – antibiotic-resistant genes.
Assistant Professor Amy Pruden-Bagchi showed that drug-resistant DNA is an environmental contaminant.
Apparently, even if cells carrying antibiotic-resistant genes have been killed, some of their DNA still winds up in the environment just waiting to find its way into other living cells.
surprise surprise …
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
@vto – the hypocricy is the Green’s incredibly consistently bad science – yellowcake is less toxic than vinegar for instance and a damn site safer than any waste involving heavy metals. The Greens got GM wrong, acid rain wrong, anti free trade etc etc They have a history of horrible poor science based bollocks of the highest order.
What is sad is that thanks to their politics rather than green attitude they purport to represent the true environmental problems don’t get a look in.
this is anti-capitalism not pro environment as per pretty much every Green issue
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Radiation Protection Act 1965 No 23 (as at 01 July 2011), Public Act
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1965/0023/latest/DLM373115.html#DLM373115
This is the legislation in New Zealand
shipping of yellow cake would be under the http://www.imo.org/Publications/IMDGCode/Pages/Default.aspx IMDG code
pay to view
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Other_Andy: I like the concept of pointing out that vto is wrong. But your suggestion is also wrong:
Is there any plausible mechanism by which DNA “finds its way into other living cells”? I suggest not. It’s about as practical as suggesting that washing your hands will kill cancer.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
One presumes yellowcake isn’t shipped in your average tramp steamer and there hasn’t been any accident to date, so what the fuck are the mentals on about?
I mean, really. It’s never happened before. Obviously, this is the first pointer, when one is in the real world, to the possibility it might be an anomaly or as we say in the stats world, an outlier. A special cause variation which requires investigation and correction but which doesn’t require a wholesale change of course in the way we as a country treat all the other thousands of sea vessel journeys which happen all around the country every single day all the time 24/7/365.
But no, oblivious to this, the Gweens, like a hysterical 11-year-old, immediately shoot from the hip, pwetend it’s weally weally bad and could happen again at any time at all and this time, it’s nuclear.
I mean if so many thousands of urban
mentalsvoters weren’t going to be completely taken in by the utter stupidity, it would be OK, but they will be.Sad, isn’t it. Sad in that, I suspect we, as in, the whole country, know exactly what we should do to rid the nation of this mental scourge, yet by law we’re just not allowed to.
I mean, White Island off Whakatane is in fact, weally nice and there are lots of seagulls so the Gweens and their supporters would have a gweat time, swimming and gaily chasing seagulls all day long. But we, as a nation aren’t allowed to do that. What sort of country is this, I ask myself. Do we want to fail? Really?
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Look you eggs, I aint wrong. Farrar’s comparison of soil, air and water to yellowcake is deceptive horse shit, that was my point.
but just keep ignoring it and pretend I was on about something else
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
They’re radioactive solid slugs of depleted uranium metal which:
– IF it hits the metal of a tank and
– IF all/most of the weapon vapourises and
– IF all/most of the resulting metal then catches fire (because it can be pyrophoric under certain conditions) and
– IF a resulting tank fire then spreads the uranium “cloud” great distances from the attack site and
– IF this results in a concentration of uranium in the soil many sigma times greater than normal soil and
– IF humans are eating food grown from this soil (or around the burned out tanks)
… then there might be an increased risk of cancer, maybe even enough to cause the dreaded “cancern clusters” beloved by crusading left-wing journalists desperate to throw something, anything, into the gears of the US war machine.
It was fun while it lasted in the mid-1990′s – so much so that whiny Milošević supporters tried cashing in on it after the 1999 war in the Balkans. As might have been expected of such daisy-chain causality the investigators found nothing scientifically or medically conclusive.
Really, the only thing you need to know is the following:
– radioactive
– uranium
– very, very scary (do I need to say that?)
Oh, and Vote Green Party.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
What would be the consequences of a maritime shipping accident that released large quantities of yellowcake into the marine environment?
Has such an event ever happened elsewhere in the world?
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Re: the DU others above are discussing, one might consider that (a) it’s dust will last in the desert sands for 10,000 years; (b) it attacks DNA as evidenced by the foetal abnormalities one witnesses in gulf war veteran families as well as the arabs, who apparently don’t count quite as much, as the white people in these things. So it affects all of us, not just arabs.
And like I said, it lasts for 10,000 years, it shreds DNA, it can get into the jetstream and probably is already there, and it won’t go away and it can’t be elminated.
Naturally this isn’t what the Pentagon says, but then you wouldn’t expect them to say that, would one.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
@vto – actually the comparison of solil and air to yellowcake is accurate – it emphasises the relative dangers which are minimal
follow the science
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
What would be the consequences of a maritime shipping accident that released large quantities of yellowcake into the marine environment?
Let’s hope gump, most of the Gweenies would think that White Island off Whakatane is the only safe haven and mass-migrate themselves there voluntarily.
follow the science
No that’s a dumb idea, slj. Much better idea to follow one’s tummy. It feels much warmer that way, regardless of what in fact is happening outside, that’s not important.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
on the questions:
Seawater has natural uranium concentration of 3.3mg per cubic metre. Which is enough that people have considered trying to get the uranium out for commercial purposes. Assume that each 40 foot container holds the maximum permitted weight of 27 tons, and there are 6 containers per ship. Assume some catestrophic incident occurred that emptied all 6 containers into the sea, that’s 162 tonnes of yellowcake, or assuming 80% pure, 130 tonnes of uranium.
Next, assume that it dilutes into a 10 km square surrounding the ship, and the water is 20 metres deep. That is 10000x10000x20 cubic metres of water, or 2,000,000,000 cubic metres. At 3.3mg per cubic metre, that water already contains 6,600,000,000mg of uranium, or 6,600 tonnes. So we have increased the concentration of uranium in a 10km square that’s 20m deep by 2%. If it’s 200m deep then 0.2%, if it’s a 1km square that’s 200m deep, then 20%.
You’re missing the point that there’s already uranium in the dusts of the desert.
So does granite. Which is also radioactive.
Only if ingested in high quantities.
Sorry, again, try a bit of science before we get too excited. People keep putting granite benchtops in their house, despite that granite benchtop doubling their exposure to radiation. That’s going to have far more impact than depleted uranium.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
@PaulL
“Other_Andy: I like the concept of pointing out that vto is wrong. But your suggestion is also wrong”
Not my suggestion…
Amy Pruden-Bagchi’s (An assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Colorado State University.) suggestion.
http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/archives/2007/12/133.shtml
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Other_Andy: yup, but still wrong. There’s DNA all over the place in the wild. From trees, plants, insects, bacteria. We don’t see that just slipping into the cells of any creature accidentally – if it were going to happen with any frequency life as we know it would have ended long ago. In fact, DNA really only gets into cells when they’re infected by something deliberately trying to insert some DNA – like a virus. And even then they have to work pretty damn hard to get it in there. Sorry, just not seeing it.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
@vto – The Greens are being equally deceptive. They just want to use the magic words “uranium” and “radioactive” to get the public scared.
When people hear the word uranium they immediately think of nuclear fuel, or in other words enriched uranium with at least 3-4% U235. Yellowcake is neither enriched uranium nor is it plain soil, but its emissions and the danger it presents is much, much closer to soil than to enriched uranium. David is exaggerating, but he’s being less deceptive than the Greens are.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
try a bit of science before we get too excited.
I have Paul. Of course I have. It just wasn’t the Pentagon’s science. I hope that’s OK in that it doesn’t make my science invalid, cause it’s not what the Pentagon says about it.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Some facts:
http://www.nrl.moh.govt.nz/regulatory/yellowcake.pdf
Oh, and regarding ToM hunter @ 4:56:
“Really, the only thing you need to know is the following:
– radioactive
– uranium
– very, very scary (do I need to say that?)”
Crap. You obvioiusly don’t know anything about science. You’re perfectly free to keep on praying at your green temple, but your anti-science rant (in this case regarding yellow cake uranium) has no basis or substance.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
“So just to be safe, we better ban human beings also, along with the air, the water and the soil.”
Remember guys, the Greens are the ones who wanted to introduce a limit on the number of kids we could have.
It is not only light bulbs that they want to control.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Projectman
86 comments – hmmm.
Sarcasm fails again in a blog environment – plus the fact the people never seem to read the whole comment thread (or the entire comment it would seem)
Re the gulf war veterans – Last time I looked 37 of the Gulf War I guys are walking around with chunks of depleted uranium in their bodies as a result of blue-on-blue events. The doctors decided it was less dangerous to remove the chunks than leave them there. Given the incredibly low risk of modern surgery that should tell you much about the risk of depleted uranium.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
@PaulL
“Other_Andy: yup, but still wrong.”
Well Paul, can I suggest you take it up with Professor Amy Jill Pruden-Bagchi.
Here are her details.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech
Vote:Amy Jill Pruden-Bagchi, Associate Professor
E-mail: apruden@vt.edu
Phone: 540-231-3980
Address: Civil & Environmental Energy
403 Durham Hall
Postal Code: 0246
October 30th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
So, the way I do science, there isn’t “the Pentagon’s science” and then “my science.” There’s just science. Not sure what I’m missing.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Had to laugh at the idea of tom hunter praying in the temple of Gaia.
I’m trying to socially engineer what I call the “sarcon meme”
That is, using the Tilde Mark (~) to denote sarcasm or irony.
For example:
I ~admire~ Winston Peters.
Phil Goff ~is~ a charismatic leader.
tom hunter ~loves~ big government.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Punter: Some dirty bastard is letting dihydrogen monoxide run into Wellington Harbour.
Sue Kedgley: Holy Shit, whats the government doing about that?, I say ban it.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Thanks PaulL. I didn’t realise there was so much naturally occurring Uranium in sea water.
So if there’s the maximum 30 containers on board, a maritime area that’s 1km x 1km x 20m would see an increase in Uranium levels of 20% x 10 x 5 = 1,000% ?
I realise that the levels will decline over time as the Uranium disperses into the wider ocean, but that seems a worryingly high increase for a bioaccumulative toxin.
It would certainly be enough cause to close the fisheries in the area. But having said that, if the accident was large enough to see the loss of 30 x 40 foot containers – there would be plenty of other reasons to close the fisheries.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
WE have to realise that there even at government level there is now Green Science just as there is now Maori science.
Both are a nonsense. HItler tried to brand Einstein’s work as Jewish Science.
What happened to our secular society?
Maori have rebranded their pre-enlightenment religious beliefs as Culture and we have fallen for it.
Vote:If you don’t believe me have a look at any District Plan or Regional Policy Statement.
October 30th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
gump: I think they said maximum of 6 containers on a ship. And I’d expect the containers aren’t standard, so some of that 27 tonne net weight would be taken up by lead shielding or some such.
I went with 20m on the basis that ships generally get into trouble in shallow water. But most coastal water is obviously way deeper than that. And, unless there’s an accident in a harbour, things in water dilute very fast. I can’t find a google result for that quickly, but my gut feel was that within a day you’d have diluted far wider than 10km. I don’t have any metrics to prove or disprove that though.
If it’s bioaccumulative, wouldn’t it be accumulating just from the uranium already in seawater? I.e. if there’s 3.3mg per cubic metre, wouldn’t all the sea life be gradually filtering it out and accumulating it? Seems counterintuitive for that to be the case.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
@PaulL
The SST news article linked in DPF’s blog post says that there’s between 6 to 30 containers per shipment.
I am neither a chemist or an atomic physicist. But I’m pretty sure that Uranium bioaccumulates when ingested. Here’s what wikipedia says on the subject:
“Most ingested uranium is excreted during digestion. Only 0.5% is absorbed when insoluble forms of uranium, such as its oxide, are ingested, whereas absorption of the more soluble uranyl ion can be up to 5%. However, soluble uranium compounds tend to quickly pass through the body whereas insoluble uranium compounds, especially when ingested by way of dust into the lungs, pose a more serious exposure hazard. After entering the bloodstream, the absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue because of uranium’s affinity for phosphates. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.”
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Right, so the soluble stuff (which is dissolved in the water) doesn’t bioaccumulate. The insoluble stuff would presumably sink to the bottom, and maybe some localised life (shellfish and other bottom feeders) pick some up, but otherwise it disappears into the sludge.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
You missed out Midwife Science.
See the NZ Guidelines for the management of women with breech presentation or previous caesarian delivery. Go to http://www.nzgg.org.nz/search and search on ‘breech’ or ‘moxibustion’.
The NZGG proudly describe themselves as “an independent, not-for-profit organisation that promotes the use of evidence in the delivery of health and disability services. We have been providing evidence-based services to the New Zealand health sector since 1999″ and they still allow crap like moxibustion as a means of accomplishing the progress of a difficult delivery to be included in their medical guidelines.
Mind you, if someone tried to set my toes on fire, I might push a bit harder too.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Perhaps the child MP studied the wrong subjects at University.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
PaulL (4,233)
>So, the way I do science, there isn’t “the Pentagon’s science” and then “my science.” There’s just science. Not sure what I’m missing.
In an ideal world, there’s just be science.
In the real world, science is skewed by politics, by whoever’s paying for the research, etc.
One bunch of scientists say human activity causes global warming. Another bunch say it doesn’t.
They can’t both be right.
And when it conflicts, most people believe the science they want to believe.
Of course, science is just the sum of human knowledge at any given time. Today’s science is tomorrow’s “ha, ha, how could they have been so stupid?” (Asbestos, lovely safe stuff. Lead in petrol, brilliant idea. Etc).
As a non-scientist, it would be really nice to know of truly impartial sources on any given subject. Right-wingers say X is safe, Greens say it’s dangerous. Both with scientists to back them up…
Leaves the ordinary majority in the middle just plain confused.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
You forgot to add banning cosmic rays.
Also while we are at it how about banning neutrinos, they are also passing through NZ without the correct documentation, the Sun is a bit slack in filling the necessary forms it.
Vote:October 30th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Mary Rose says:- “One bunch of scientists say human activity causes global warming. Another bunch say it doesn’t.
They can’t both be right.”
The science isn’t conclusively settled, however it is highly likely that human activity is causing the climate to change. Temperature change thus far matches the predictions. There *is* consensus amongst *climate scientists* that the observed rise in global average temperature is caused by human activity. Whilst there are financial incentives for these scientists to study in this field, the peer review system is extremely robust.
Surely not all of them could be corrupt?
The dissent comes from a small minority of *other speciality* field scientists who are no longer saying that climate change isn’t happening, only that it hasn’t been conclusively proved that human activity is causing it.
Even if you remain skeptical, be wary, because the actual global average temperature *is* rising in accordance with the ‘warmists’ predictions.
Funny coincidence don’t you think?
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 12:35 am
Well, newsflash for the Greens, you will totally shit yourselves over GNS at Gracefield in Welington. And the Capitial and Coast DHB and Bowen Hostpital, they have much yummier stuff. Don’t tell Mohamad though.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 12:42 am
For the benefit of the smelly hippies who like mountains and snails and shite, the “N” in GNS stands for something, you know. And it’s heavy Man. Periodically tablely speaking.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 11:49 am
I remember quite well handing around nuclear fuel rods in a physics class at university. Pretty radioactive still too, judging by the Geiger counter the lecturer had.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 2:30 pm
“Someone left the cake out in the rain…”
Vote:
October 31st, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Democracy:
My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
Vote: