Buy an SSD now, or wait?

[Christopher Svanefalk]

@Linda : I think that is about what I feel as well

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> users mailing list
> users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20111224/20c65eeb/attachment.html>