Waiting on the End Times

And it has been pointed out to you before that your idea that global warming means less rain is wrong. Therefore you have made it clear that this prediction is wrong too.In addtion, it isn't "great heat" or scorched we are worried about. Clearly the global warming climate model predictions are opposed to what your predictions say.

---

Common sense isn't

And exactly how much, as a percentage of background, did Chernobyl raise the radiation levels in Edmonton for how long?http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c04.htmlSays:The whole body doses received during the first year following the accident generally ranged from 0.05 mGy in Europe, form 0.005 to 0.1 mGy in Asia, and of the order of 0.001 mGy in North America. The total whole-body doses expected to be accumulated during the lifetimes of the individuals are estimated to be a factor of 3 greater than the doses recieved during the first year (UN88).In summary:'The doses recieved by populations outside the former Soviet Union were relatively low, and showed large differences from one country to another depending mainly upon whether rainfall occured during the passage of the radioactive cloud.Note that thyroid doses were higher.Also note that it may be possible to detect effects of as little as the .001 mGY but that this is a very low dose.from:http://www.orau.gov/...orkshop/Abstracts/PSykes_abstract.pdf

quote:

---

A CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (abbreviated mSv; 1 mSv = 1 mGy in the case of x rays.) may be associated with an increase in the possibility of fatal cancer of approximately 1 chance in 2000. This increase in the possibility of a fatal cancer from radiation can be compared to the natural incidence of fatal cancer in the U.S. population, about 1 chance in 5. In other words, for any one person the risk of radiation-induced cancer is much smaller than the natural risk of cancer. Nevertheless, this small increase in radiation-associated cancer risk for an individual can become a public health concern if large numbers of the population undergo increased numbers of CT screening procedures of uncertain benefit.

---

from: Page Not Found | FDANote that the CT scan dose seems to be about 10,000 times higher than the Chernobly dose in North America.I think you were claiming some large world-wide effect for the reactor accident. I also thing you are demonstratably wrong.

---

Common sense isn't