Buy an SSD now, or wait?

[Marko Vojinovic]

On Friday 23 December 2011 10:49:57 jdow wrote:
> On 2011/12/23 08:57, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > On 12/23/2011 12:44 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> >> Also, give it time...
> > 
> > How much? We're still waiting for signs of major mutations from
> > Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show up.
> > 
> >> Fukushima radiation mapped
> > 
> > Yeah. What they don't tell you, probably because the reporters don't
> > know it, is that much of the reason we're finding so much radiation is
> > because our detectors are a lot better than they were back in the days
> > of Chernobyl.

That's not exactly true. The radiation is quite easy to measure, and there is 
no need for increased sensitivity of the detectors. It is true that todays 
technology of making those detectors is better than it was in the time of 
Chernobyl, but the detectors used back then were equally precise for the 
purpose of measuring the excess radiation. If a detector can measure properly 
the natural background radiation, it's good enough for everything stronger as 
well.
 
> What they are also not teaching you about is the number of now ripe old
> people who have been living in the exclusion (high radiation) zone after
> refusing to move out. They seem to live quite normal and healthy lives as
> do the herds of wildlife, horses and so forth.

Are talking about Fukushima or Chernobyl?

AFAIK, those are just old people who refused to leave the Chernobyl exclusion 
zone (or rather kept coming back after being removed). But there are no young 
people living there. There are no children there either (nor living nor being 
born). And there probably shouldn't be any, for a long time to come. I am not 
so sure how "normal and healthy" that can be.

I am sometimes quite surprised about people downplaying the seriousness of 
nuclear pollution. The common argument that "nobody has died yet" is 
irrelevant --- it takes a fairly large amount of exposure to actually kill a 
human by radiation. However, it takes a rather smaller amount of radiation to 
contaminate the human DNA to the point of problems in reproduction. In 
addition, it's a matter of future planning --- the "hot spots" in the 
contaminated zone are dangeorous now, and they are going to stay dangeorous 
for a very very long time. If the hot spots are not cleaned out (which may be 
impossible in some cases), the pollution in those areas is to be considered 
*permanent* for all intents and purposes, on the scale of the lifetime of 
human civilization. Noone can faithfully claim to be able to keep those areas 
"off limits to population" for the next 10 000 years or so.

I'd say that uncontrolled nuclear pollution is the single most irresponsible 
thing that humans could ever do to this planet (bar a global thermonuclear 
war). Oil spills, CO2 emmision and other "environmental" stuff that people are 
talking about these days are a complete childsplay compared to this.

Best, :-)
Marko