"Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be extremely low to none."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...
And California is much further away from the nuclear incident than anyone liv. ing near the reactor and nuclear power is a very safe way to produce electricity. We receive 300 times more radiation from nature than from nuclear power. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/...
Natural gas and coal more harmful than nuclear power
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs...
And don't worry about incidents that happened in California in the 1950s. Most of the radioactivity from those incidents is long gone. The half life of Strontium-90 is 29.1 years.
http://www.webelements.com/strontium/iso...
And the half life of Cesium-137 is 30.2 years.
http://www.webelements.com/caesium/isoto...
Your link from my second link expresses radiation in millisieverts.
"Quantities that are measured in sieverts are designed to represent the stochastic biological effects of ionizing radiation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
In other words, you have in the past mentioned holding a glass of milk which contains a certain amount of radioactive materials. When measured in millisieverts, the dose of radiation which a person would recieve by holding the glass of milk is a mere fraction of what one would recieve by drinking the milk. The statistics in the second link do take internal vs. external radiation into account.
<"300 times more radiation from nature than from nuclear power."
And you're saying that people did not know how to measure radiation in the 1980s? If you want to know temperatures from the 1980s, would you use tree rings, ice cores, boreholes or would you use http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/mon...
<"The explosions produced the radioisotope iodine-131, which floated east over the Pacific Ocean and landed through precipitation on West Coast states as well as other Pacific countries. The levels of that isotope were measured in levels hundreds of times greater than supposedly safe levels.">
That quote refers to external radiation.
The fact that global warming is happening and we are causing it is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
As I have demonstrated by my links, the evidence that nuclear power is a threat to our children's health has clearly not been demonstrated. The fact that a scientist like James Hansen would be willing to sacrifice his career to warn about global warming is itself a very good reason to be concerned.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integri...
Not according to the link and the quote above. And Sv/yr = Sieverts per year.
Housing costs are horrendous in California. Miami is good if you speak Spanish, otherwise your job opportunities are limited. I can't respond about Australia. North Carolina is a very good area if you are in the Triangle area of the state with very good schools. With Atlanta you will have to live right where you work as the traffic is the worst in the country. Tampa is a friendly, low cost place to live, but you have to live in the right place to have good schools. Are you US citizens? If not, you have to check into getting sponsored by an employer to work in the US
Southern California has the best overall climate. The south east gets way too hot and humid in summer.
I personally like Denver Colorado. Their weather changes every day. Because it is so high and dry, the weather always seemed balmy to me.
There's one benefit of global warming that nobody ever discusses and this question highlights a good example of it.
There's no need to move to a warmer climate. With global warming, a warmer climate will move to you.
Edit: PS. I would move to Australia in a heart beat. Been there several times, love it, love it, love it.
Also consider the problem with nuclear fallout. http://healthyliving.msn.com/blogs/daily...
It seems to be affecting the health of children in California. http://tinyurl.com/bv7bspu
That is the part of North America most affected by the Fukushima disaster. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es20...
Here is a map of how it goes: http://enenews.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
Government officials have been worried about this. http://enformable.com/2012/02/nrc-worrie...
It will increase the likelihood of getting cancer. http://enenews.com/radiation-expert-nort...
Even the Europeans are worried. http://www.euractiv.com/health/radiation...
It is difficult to say how much fallout is still happening from Fukushima. The maximum rate of fallout measured was in March 2012 (1 year after the problem began), but the monitors were turned off in May 2012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...
Of course, in California, the Fukushima problems are hardly the only nuclear problems that you need to worry about. http://tinyurl.com/dxozrzb
Simi Valley has had serious problems for some time now. [1]
" In July, 1959, the site suffered a partial nuclear meltdown that has been named "the worst in U.S. history", releasing an undisclosed amount of radiation, but thought to be much more than the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979. Another radioactive fire occurred in 1971, involving combustible primary reactor coolant (NaK) contaminated with mixed fission products.
"At least four of the ten nuclear reactors suffered accidents. The AE6 reactor experienced a release of fission gases in March 1959, the SRE experienced a power excursion and partial meltdown in July 1959; the SNAP8ER in 1964 experienced damage to 80% of its fuel; and the SNAP8DR in 1969 experienced similar damage to one-third of its fuel." -- [1a]
As for living in Southeastern USA, there are serious environmental problems there as well. [2]
The economy has been "recovering" since 2009. [3]
Edit @Climate Realist
Your first link only led to another link [4] that failed to support the contention that the risk of serious health problems are minimal. The assertion that cancer risk is minimal is predicated on not observing the case of internal radiation which is where the real danger is, and also, considering only standard exposures of external radiation, and not the variation that would naturally exist in the exposed population. The cancers would naturally be expected to happen most in those who got the most exposure. The article stated that: "Brenner emphasizes that the uncertainties in his calculations are high." There was no discussion about the more likely serious health risks like hypothyroidism addressed by my 2nd link. Your link only discussed cancer. Even then, it gave no indication of the basis it had for ignoring overwhelming data that much lower doses result in massive increases in cancer rates. [6]
"300 times more radiation from nature than from nuclear power."
And you would support that with an irrelevant link from the 1980s? Here is the new reality according to my first link above:
"The explosions produced the radioisotope iodine-131, which floated east over the Pacific Ocean and landed through precipitation on West Coast states as well as other Pacific countries. The levels of that isotope were measured in levels hundreds of times greater than supposedly safe levels."
Your contention: "Natural gas and coal more harmful than nuclear power"
is supported by a link that only addresses Global Warming based on the dubious theory that CO2 is the major driver. [5] The notion that CO2, which might cause some global warming is more harmful than destroying the health of our children only demonstrates that you need to rethink your priorities.
Based on your 30 year half lives of 2 of the shorter half lived problematic isotopes remaining, even those are still there at 25% of the original concentration.
Sieverts are for external radiation. Sv/yr is for Internal radiation.
Your link had Nothing about internal radiation, which is continuous. That is why internal radiation is measured as the rate at which the energy is damaging the victim from the inside rather than the amount of energy that hit his cloths during a fixed time period for external radiation. Read your link again. It is clearly only talking about external radiation.
My family currently lives north of Toronto and is considering moving to a warmer climate as we don't like the cold and would prefer to spend more time outdoors. Our thoughts are California, Atlanta, North Carolina, Tampa or Miami or Australia. We have 3 young kids. California is probably the best in terms of overall not being too hot or cold. But cost of living and the ability to get a job (accounting) along with schooling for the kids would also need to be considered.
