"La Conspiración Anti Tabaco" - Podcast 2 Para las 2

La verdad más allá de esta supuesta "REALIDAD IMPUESTA" a base de repeticiones de una mentira, hasta implantarla en las mentes de millones de personas que NO CUESTIONAN, y menos utilizan el pensamiento crítico, para entender que INTERESES hay detrás de esta realidad.

Antes de que Rusia, Inglaterra y Norteamérica prohibieran los tests atmosféricos el 5 de agosto de 1963, más de 4.200 kg de plutonio habían ya caído de la atmósfera.
Sabiendo que menos de un microgramo (millonésima parte y un gramo) de plutonio inhalado causa cáncer terminal de pulmón en el humano, sabemos que sus queridos gobiernos han arrojado 4.200.000.000 (4.2 mil millones) de dosis letales a la atmósfera, con una vida media de la partícula radioactiva de 50.000 años.
Desafortunadamente el asunto se pone peor. El plutonio mencionado más arriba existe en el armamento nuclear actual antes de la detonación, pero por lejos el mayor número de mortales partículas relativas son esas derivadas de la basura común o arena absorbida del suelo, e irradiada a esta viajando verticalmente a través de la bola de fuego del arma.Esa partículas forman holgadamente la mayor parte del “humo” en cualquier foto de una detonación nuclear atmosférica. En muchos casos varias toneladas material son absorbidos y permanentemente irradiados en tránsito, pero seamos increíblemente conservadores y afirmemos que solamente 1000 kilos de material de superficie es chupado en cada test nuclear atmosférico.Antes de ser prohibido por Rusia, Inglaterra y Norteamérica, se realizaron un total de 711 test nucleares atmosféricos, por consiguiente creando 711,000 kilos de mortales microscópicas partículas radioactivas, a las cuales deben ser agregados los 4200 kilos originales de las mismas armas, para un aproximado pero muy conservador total de 715,200 kilogramos.

A quién o a qué le echarían la culpa de un padecimiento como el cáncer pulmonar?

Cuándo se habla de que:

Hay más de un millón de dosis letales por kilogramo, significando que su gobierno ha contaminado su atmósfera con más de 715,000,000,000 [715 mil millones] de tales dosis, suficiente para causar cáncer de pulmón o cáncer de piel 117 veces en cada hombre, mujer o niño en la tierra.

La Conspiración Anti Tabaco

                              Podcast 2 Para las 2 

All about MOX fuel and reactor grade PLUTONIUM and URANIUM

"MOX" LA PALABRA DEL DIA EN FUKUSHIMA, UNA PÉSIMA NOTICIA PARA EL MUNDO ENTERO.

With four busted reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site, engineers and rescue workers have plenty to do just to keep all their plates spinning. But over the past few days, there always seems to be one reactor causing them more headaches than others. Yesterday it was reactor 4, with its coolant pool  empty of water and the spent fuel rods stored there emitting massive waves of gamma radiation.
Today it's rector 3. The day began—at least in the West—with images of helicopters flying over the reactor building, dumping seven-ton loads of water in an attempt both to cool the containment vessel and prevent that storage pool from drying up as well. But what makes reactor 3 so special? In one acronymic word: MOX.
All of the fuel rods in all of the other reactors are made essentially of uranium with a zirconium cladding to seal in radioactive emissions. Reactor 4 uses something different. Its fuel rod are only 94% uranium, with 6% plutonium stirred in and then the same zirconium shell. This mixed oxide (hence the MOX moniker) formulation has one advantage—and a number of disadvantages.
The advantage—no surprise—is money. Plutonium is a natural byproduct of radioactive decay and spent fuel rods are thus full of the stuff. You can always put them into long term storage for a few dozen millennia—which is where most spent rods have to go–but you can also reprocess some of the waste and combine it with pricier uranium for a cheaper and still energy-intensive rod. With nuclear power still more expensive than fossil fuels like coal, manufacturers need to save where they can to remain competitive, and MOX is a good budget cutter.
But MOX is also temperamental. Physicist Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takma Park, MD., spoke to TIME earlier in the week and heaped scorn on the Mark 1 reactors used at the Daiichi site. His criticism in that conversation was the comparatively flimsy (by nuclear reactor standards at least) containment vessels used in the Mark 1s. But he's no fan of the use of MOX either.
"This sort of fuel is more difficult to control than uranium fuel," he told the Augusta Chronicle. "The risk of accidental criticality are different. You have the same kinds of problems, they are just more intense with plutonium."

What Makhijani means by "accidental criticality," of course, is that the stuff just combusts more easily. That's particularly dangerous in a Mark 1, according to some studies. A report by the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, for example, found that in the event of a core meltdown, a Mark 1's containment vessel has a 42% chance of failing—a whole lot closer to a coin flip than you want with something like a nuclear reactor
And when plutonium is dispersed into the wind you want to be pretty much anywhere else.

As I reported last week, there are four kidns of carcinogenic isotopes released when a nuke plant blows: iodine-131, cesium-137, strontium-90 and  plutonium-239.

Plutonium is not only the most lethal of the four ("extrordinarily toxic" is how Dr. Ira Helfand, a board member for Physicians for Social Responsibility, describes it), it also hangs around the longest.

It's half life is a whopping 24,000 years, and since radioactive contamination is dangerous for 10 to 20 times the length of the isotope's half.life, that means plutonium emitted in Fukushima today will still be around in close to half a million years.

 http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/17/mox-the-fukushima-word-of-the-day-and-why-its-bad-news/#ixzz1GtvLMpoF