It IS Nuclear Physics

Let me start by saying, no emails. No anonymous questions that need unprofessional advice. The offer is still there, write me if you need anything craigsundaysession@yahoo.ca


You know, the worst thing about having an unpopular blog as it currently is, is that most of the people reading it don't typically need an education. I know most of you, I assume, and you all keep up with current events somewhat, and if you fall into this category of people then you aren't a moron. Its the people who are too fucking stupid to know shit that need to be reading this sometimes, but then again, they probably still wouldn't get it. Another frustrating thing is that research on the internet is incredibly hard to come by unless you know creditable sources that you can refer to for just about anything. If you try and do research via Google, its fairly difficult depending on the nature of what you're searching for. This blog entry is about as creditable as I could make it.


At the same time as all these earthquakes began to rattle Japan, it was almost like the media had to warn North Americans about nuclear fallout crossing the Pacific and deforming our unborn babies, and poisoning our fish, and rotting our lungs. It seems now that the media may have slightly toned down on the fear mongering as headlines typically still read "Nuclear fallout not likely a threat to Western Coast", "Threats of nuclear meltdown still present, North America still okay" or whatever, but why is it that I still flip open the newspaper to read "Discovery" articles outlining the side effects of nuclear radiation on the human body?Before I get to an example, here is a little information for you. The Sievert (Sv)is the SI unit of dose equivalent radiation.


"The unit gray measures absorbed radiation which is absorbed into any material. The unit sievert specifically measures absorbed radiation which is absorbed by a person. The equivalent dose to a person is found by multiplying the absorbed dose, in gray, by a weighting factor (W). The weighting factor (sometimes referred to as a quality factor) is determined by a combination of: the radiation type, the tissue absorbing the radiation, and other pertinent factors."


The quote was taken from the non creditable source, Wikipedia. Sorry, best I could do.  The following information was taken from the Calgary Sun from Tuesday March 22, 2011 in reference to radiation effects on the body, and some intake values;


1 Microsievert = 0.000001Sv
1 Millisievert (mSv) = 0.001 Sv


-On average, a human will intake 10 microsievert in one day. This equals approximately 3650 microsivert  or 0.000365 Sv yearly.


-100 mSv (0.1 Sv) yearly intake is linked to increased cancer risks. The cancer risks associated with this number are however incredibly minuscule, and almost obsolete.


-161 mSv (0.161 Sv) is the highest level of radiation currently recorded in Japan. (Funny how nuclear fallout isn't a threat but they make mention of Japan?)


- 2 Sv can cause severe radiation poisoning that IS treatable. 
- 4 Sv causes extreme poisoning, most often fatal
- 8 Sv no chance of survival from poisoning, even with treatment
- 50 Sv was the average radiation level after 10 minutes of standing NEXT TO the Chernobyl reactor after meltdown.




Something else worth mention is that there is over 50 nuclear fission products (so those that are created through the process of refining uranium 235, 238 and 239 as well plutonium 239, sorry I don't know exactly how it all works) some of which have a half life as little as several minutes, and some which range up to 300 million years. Half life is the period of time in which it takes a material to become half as potent in release of radiation from its original state, so it exponentially cuts itself in half through whatever period of time is related to is specific properties. Unfortunatly I was unable to surface the fission products that are found highest, and what their half lives are respectively.


So in relation to current events, here is some information about the Chernobyl reactor meltdown, and its effects on the surrounding area;


-A 30 km radius around the Chernobyl reactor site was evacuated after meltdown. The distance between Tokyo to Vancouver is ~7574 km (or in other words a RADIUS of ~7574 km if you use Japan as a reference of center, or 0,0 whatever).


-The Chernobyl incident happened due to flawed reactor design operated by inadequate personnel


-Although it is unclear how many people died as a result of the Chernobyl meltdown, its is estimated to be around 5000, including 31 initial deaths of the explosion and 28 firemen whom suffered from acute radiation poisoning due to immediate response to the situation and were exposed to large amounts of radiation

-UNSCEAR says that apart from increased thyroid cancers, "there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident."

- The number 4 Chernobyl reactor responsible for the explosion was OPEN, in the sense that there was nothing protecting it from leaking radiation had it exploded, while the Japanese nuclear reactors are enclosed and built in a manner to encase nuclear fission products, and prevent an explosion in the event of a meltdown.

So I ask the question, why is anybody scared of nuclear fallout reaching North America? The Japanese are smart as hell, have trained professionals looking after their reactors and have built there country based around the chance of earthquakes. If there ever was a real threat of nuclear fallout wouldn't the entire west coast be evacuated and relocated by now? There is no evidence that suggests that nuclear radiation is able to travel 7000 km in a potent enough dose to even get anybody SICK, let alone kill them. I just found all this information on nuclear energy very interesting, and quite enlightening. The bottom line is, don't live in fear of, well of anything that is thrown in your face really, but especially not something so stupid. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning then dying of radiation poisoning anytime soon. Don't like it? Read a fucking article dummy. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

-Swanny

After Thought

So, I lied a bit. I did have something this morning to blog about, but I couldn't quite figure out how to write it out, and I mulled it over all day and I came to something. You got homework kids. That's right I am giving YOU a homework assignment.

I want you readers to talk to talk with your significant others, or call your parents, a friend you haven't talked to in a while or someone you really care about and tell them how much you really do. Maybe its just calling someone and letting them know that even though you haven't talked for a while, you're thinking about them, hope they are well and just wanted to see what was up. Call your parents and ask them how their weekend was and when you hang up the phone tell them that you ACTUALLY care about them. Email a friend of yours and tell them a few things that makes them special to you. Or guys, take your girlfriend out for dinner, like a real date like what you used to when you first started dating. If you're a bit cheap for that then make them dinner, or buy them some flowers just because. Its not valentines day, or someones birthday, or Christmas. You're not in trouble, in the doghouse, and their wasn't a death in the family and it shouldn't have to be like that to make someone feel special. Oh and girls you can feel free to take your man out too, or get him some roses. I bet he would really like you thinking about him too :)


The point is everyone is involved with a lot of people in their lives, coworkers, teachers,  many acquaintances, and it almost seems that we never take enough time to actually stop and let those people that we really care about know how much they mean to us. The best part of it is, you won't get anything immediate in return for just telling someone you care, and you might never get anything in return, but I guarantee it will make them feel good, and let them have a good day. Its the booze, the TV, the Internet, the texting, the Facebook the drugs, that are all taking away from our ability to reach out and really communicate with each other, and communicating with the people you really care about is a skill better kept strong. There are just some things in this life that are worth holding on to, you just have to decide the best way of doing it.

-Swanny

Email Me!

There was something I wanted to do with my blog when I kicked it off. It was a suggestion given to me that I have people email in a question or concern of theirs, or something that they particularly want me to write about and I would do my best to answer it. I would like to extend that invitation, completely anonymous. If you have a question that you would like an answer from me, if I get any emails I might post it and my comment to it next week. Serious questions, concerns or comments only please as I won't respond to trolling. Well I might but your going to get a stupid answer in return. Email: craigsundaysession@yahoo.ca

I don't have much to write about today, sorry. Check back on Tuesday.

The Great Music Debate

Before I get started, I hope you all like my new look. I was told it was a bit hard to read before, and to be totally honest, I am not sure how I ended up with the scheme I did. The way the colours change and whatever.. didn't make sense.

Also, I am not posting twice today just because I missed last week. If you care, tough.

So a couple weeks ago now I was having a conversation with a friend of  mine and he told me that I should blog to explain what the division of music is from requiring the most talent to the least talent. The division went something along the lines of (from greatest to least) Jazz, Classical, Metal, Rock, Pop, Punk, Hardcore, Hip Hop (no sub genres, and that is a guess at the order.) Anybody who knows me, knows that for years I have always defended my music as being superior, more talented or better to listen to than anything else, but here is the bottom line.

You CANNOT compare music from DIFFERENT  genres directly on what is "better" or takes "more talent" unless they are close enough related on a musical, lyrical and sound level that it is physically possible to do so. Its like comparing apples to oranges. Its like saying 100km an hour is the same as 100mph. It doesn't fucking work. They are completely different styles and require a completely different skill set to make and produce. Here's why;

So you're a Jazz musician, and you understand music fundamentals and you can take your saxophone and SHRED it. You can pick up a piano and SHRED it. You can DECIMATE a jazz bass. You have magic fingers and can do all these great instrumental things, BUT you can't sing deep gutteral vocals at all, you can scream high pitched vocals at all, hell, as a matter of fact you can't even sing NORMAL and play an instrument. But say some guy in a metal band can shred guitar, knows how to play drums, and can sing while playing instruments, what requires more talent? What is harder to do? Duuuuuhhh ummmm I dunno.. thats kind of a weird comparison ya know.. two totally different things.. duhhhhh....

Guy who writes hip hop, can scratch, mix beats, rap, write rhymes, great stage performance, can't play guitar. Guy in a punk band can play guitar reeeallly fast, can write excellent lyrics, has great stage performance, can't really rhyme anything lyrically, can't mix music, has no idea how to mix a beat. What requires more talent?

Some girl has the highest qualification on playing the flute, some guy has the highest qualification playing piano, WHAT REQUIRES MORE TALENT? YOU CANNOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS!

If somebody is good at one instrument that doesn't mean that they have less talent credibility in the music world than someone who is not as good at two. The whole argument of saying that hip hop requires less talent than someone in a metal band is absolute crap. It is all dependent on what a specific person is GOOD at and has nothing to do with what requires more talent. You can go directly across the board and say "Said Metal band is more talented for these reasons" because you can directly compare their music styles and determine what is actually better! And also, just because someone plays 3 chords in a punk band doesn't mean that the don't have the ability to play in a metal band as lead guitar, they choose NOT to.

Music is based solely on preference alone, and its impossible to denounce another persons taste in music based strictly on "mine is better than yours because they play faster." You like what you like, and thats it! No arguments! Its good to you, bad to someone else! Whats better an apple or an orange? Well I dunno, do you need Vitamin C? If so I would recommend the fucking orange!

In addition, in many cases music is a "team sport" meaning that it is comprised of several individuals all good at a specific thing. So again what requires more talent, Pop, or Metal? Well a metal drummer is good at drumming, and a lousy singer, but Michael Jackson was (arguably, not my personal opinion) a good singer. Together as a BAND though, they can be good in their own respective genres.

Now that being said, there IS music that exists that is just absolutely awful, regardless of what genre its in. Made from recycled beats, artificially recorded voices to make you sound good when you can't sing, stupid, pointless lyrics. There is TALENTLESS music out there, that pretty much any band above them could reproduce in their respective genre. We all know these types of music, no need to really get into detail.

Now, I know there is exceptions to this argument and yes some areas may in fact require a bit more talent, but the bottom line is its a stupid argument that just causes people to talk in circles and throw sand at each other. So drop it!

-Swanny