Buy an SSD now, or wait?

[jdow]

On 2011/12/23 23:34, Marko Vojinovic 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

Marko, look up Ramsar, Iran. It has a background radiation that would probably
leave you panicked if you found yourself there. On the average the people there
live longer and healthier than average for human beings.

The dangers of radiation are vastly overplayed by people who do not have YOUR
best interests in mind.

{^_^}