The entire point is that current concept of "dangerous" is derived from debunked LNT. We keep using it regardless because we err massively on the side of caution with radiation.

The video I posted shows a concrete, factual demonstration of people who live of far more radioactive food for decades with no significant health complications. When you consider how many carcinogens we pump into our agriculture to boost output, it's not a large surprise, because we serve as their control group - not some hypothetical "no carcinogens at all" human race that doesn't exist.

Radiation is a carcinogen, just like chemical carcinogens are. The whole idea of elevating it to a special status among carcinogens is mainly rooted in our fear because unlike chemicals, we are unable to feel radiation in any way, shape or form. It's an irrational fear.

The main problem was I-131. It's quite nasty, but it has a half life of only eight days. As a result, you have high levels of lethality for short period with thyroid problems caused by it, which abruptly end after it decays.

And now, well over twenty years after the case, it's essentially all gone. The problems are now with long term irradiators like Sr-90 and Cs-137, but these appear to be very much benign in comparison for long term exposure and there wasn't a lot of them released. These are mostly sitting in the soil, and when consumed through those mushrooms appear to come in very low concentrations that do not seem to have the "scary" impact that many thing they do.

At most, they appear to be on par with most of the common chemical carcinogens we are exposed to daily.

Watch the linked video to see people who have been living off the land for well over 20 years now.

It's really hilarious when people demand something that has been given to them in the very post they reply to.

Except that if you were right, we should be urgently researching all the carcinogens contained in goods our children use and eat. And yet we don't.

Reason is same as here. The actual risk is so low, its negligible.

Aye. This is mostly because LNT is basically mandated for safety reasons and studies that would prove otherwise are shut down by decisions from above.

It's pretty ironic considering the sheer amount of chemical toxins and carcinogens we expose ourselves to every day.

And then, guy with best blowjobs to admis wins.

Welcome to wikipedia.

Scientists, outside those few who suggest that LNT is real (and most are not at this point, they're just sticking to it because "err on safe side") do not in fact suggest things you suggest.

As for the rest, have you seen this?
http://www.bbc.com/travel/feat...

Some people on the other hand did just that and came out with flying colours:

http://www.bbc.com/travel/feat...

Problem with it is that it's not actually scary. People have been living in Exclusion Zone itself and right outside it for a long time. Mainly cleanup crews and their families.

So long as you don't go rolling in the hay of Red Forest, it appears you're going to be pretty much fine living there. Locals are even living off the land and eating local produce like fruit and mushrooms. Which apparently scared the pants off the BBC cuisine reporter who went into the region until they thawed him off with some good old moonshine. Which they told him afterwards, was made from the local produce.

http://www.bbc.com/travel/feat...

As far as I know, there are several just outside the zone. Not sure if there are any inside.

No problems so far. And considering that locals do things like eat local mushrooms and such, you'd expect LNT to hit them hard over last years if it was true.

Actually it doesn't. Pay attention. If you try to edit to correct for errors, your edit will be instantly reverted, and guys like the one that article talks about will request that you get banned from ever editing wikipedia again.

Because, best blowjobs.

This is normal for wikipedia. When you have a contested issue, you'll have pundits duke it out and one who gives best blowjobs to admins wins.

Here's a good example of even more hilarious controversy:
http://techraptor.net/content/...

Wikipedia has been getting noticeably worse as certain kinds of editors and admins became entrenched. You can see some very questionable edits, in some case straight up corruption which even gets Jimbo Wales himself to argue against them go uncontrolled and unpunished, with pundits being allowed to basically poison the well.

Wikipedia's main advantage is quantity. It has an article on almost everything at this point. It's quality on the other hand is anything but good for any even marginally controversial subject.

Eneloops are fine for high discharge tasks. They still retain their main advantage, ability to retain most of the charge over many recharge cycles and years of usage.

High capacity Eneloop-Pros are much worse. The main advantage of Eneloops is the isolation layer inside the battery. This improves both their ability to retain charge over time as well as their expected lifetime to almost a quarter of normal AAs. In the high capacity version, this layer is thinned to make room for more active elements, reducing life expectancy of the battery .

I currently use 3rd gen eneloops (HR-3UTGB). Best AA NI-MH batteries I ever used by far and wide, and I used Ni-Cd and Ni-MH rechargeables since the days of portable cassette-radio players back in 1990s.