Not very often......to keep it as a special moment...to enjoy the moment with something enjoyable for the 'senses'....can be wine, rum or whisky. Not to get drunk...but to be happy. I’m no Professor, no Doctor...I had luck that I have got a little bit talent for Chemistry.
I'm of the same school of thought on alcohol. These days, I don't drink, with the exception of hard cider on the holidays. And even then, I'm very careful to limit it to one drink.
It can be homebrew beer in a beer-garden (Biergarten) or a glass of wine that fits well to the meal… IMHO to good cuisine there belongs a good wine. I like homemade stuff that is made with love and has a quality. Some things need time to age. Here we have lots of local home breweries and wine grower. Germany is famous for homemade beer and white wine (Riesling) and Schnaps ..also dishes of wild game, homemade sausages..... The rare and more expensive alcohol I like to share with friends to have a good moment. Actually I do not drink alcohol when I am alone. (Except when I am eager to try new stuff...) BTW: The rum has arrived.....but I did not open it yet.
I received my latest "... Drinking Water Quality" report last week & went thru it & underlined what I didn't like seeing. Where did all that Uranium & Strontium come from! I didn't input it into the comparison spreadsheet yet but am shocked @ the levels even tho it says no MCL (max. contaminant level) violation!
To make statements it strongly depends on the related Isotope. Both Elements are actually widely spread and can be found naturally at the earth crust. Some Isotopes are related to radioactive exposition (leakage) from nuclear plants / waste, though. Natural Uranium consists mainly of 238U (99.2%), a bit of 235U (0.7%) and 234U (0.005%) and only traces of 236U…all them are radioactive though. All 4 natural Strontium Isotopes aren’t radioactive. The main natural Isotope is 88Sr. 90Sr is artificial and a beta emitter. Natural Strontium is not radioactive, but natural Uranium is. Only synthetic Strontium can be radioactive. Natural Strontium is no problem. It belongs to the alkaline earth metals. There is actually no MCL needed. Uranium can be a problem. AFAIK the MCL in the water here is 10 µg / L and if attributed for 'baby use' 2 µg / L
How about this, then...??? https://www.theguardian.com/environ...undates-remote-uk-coasts-endangering-wildlife Never mind a bit of radioactivity...
From my understanding, you can get 1 ton of uranium if you dig up 1 foot of soil over 1 square mile ! So not surprising it's in the water table.
When I was picking out granite countertops for our place, I was surprised to learn that a lot of types will emit low levels of radioactivity and slowly release radon gas. I was also surprised to learn that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Returning to alkaline water: out of curiosity, I ordered pH test strips to test the remaining alkaline water I had and the strips said the water was pH 7 (neutral). The machine at the store was set to pH 9.5 when it was made fresh for me, so I now assume that thing doesn't really do much at all (except make a lot of profit for the water store ).
There's low-level radioactivity in many things, including some Uranium based pigments. There are dishes and plates from the 50's / 60's that are radioactive. Yup. A classic MLM scam. Personally, I prefer to drink slightly acidified water, which can be done by slicing up lemons and / or limes, and adding them to the aforementioned DHMO. ( )
One has to separate natural radioactivity from elevated caused by pollution. Even though out of context, you've posted the worst case and most effective of pollution humankind is doing....to waste our oceans. The pollution of the oceans is by far the biggest crime concerning pollution. When I was 15 I walked somewhere at the Black Forest. I picked up an interesting piece of stone. It looked like that: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Gammaspektrum_Uranerz.jpg A year later I had Physics exams, special subject Nuclear Physics...and 1986 Tschernobyl blew up...I borrowed a GM counter.....and pointed it towards the stone I have found. It started to crackle vividly and I got shocked...I had that stone for more than a year in my room....in a cupboard..the teacher took it away, immediately. This might be interesting as well, an natural nuclear fission reactor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor And yes Radon is a natural radioactive noble gas which is product of Uranium and Thorium decay. It's a problem there where both are present. Radon has a high density and does stay in cellars and the like (low regions of a building).... Wow. They do not even deliver the crap they advertise. This is like a double ripoff!
It's hard to present a proper evidence when it comes to (ionizing) radiation. It depends strongly on where you live. Every human is exposed to such radiation and the body counteracts with repair mechanisms. -natural environmental radioactivity -uptake of radioactive substances -sunlight, especially in high regions (flights), X-rays.... I know in Switzerland there are regions where Radon is considered as second most cause of lung cancer after smoking..... Yes. Such as: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/U_glass_above.jpg (Uranium glass has been famous in France, Belgium, England and the US besides of Bohemian glassworks.) And also Uranium varnish : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Gebäckdose_aus_Keramik_mit_Uranglasur-9701.jpg/1024px-Gebäckdose_aus_Keramik_mit_Uranglasur-9701.jpg Their radiation is actually no problem IF there is no uptake of the material itself...
A lot of it is just natural. I used to live in Devon. It's a problem that has be recognised and dealt with. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...silent-killer-in-the-countryside-2047987.html
The fact that it's heavier than air is a real problem. It concentrates in basements and can wreak havoc, because it's take into the body through the lungs.
As said it’s not that easy to classify and some articles are flawed. Concerning way of contamination one needs to differentiate the kind of radiation. There are alpha emitters. Alpha radiation is actually a particle bombardment of Helium-4 nucleuses (2 protons and 2 neutrons). It is charged 2+ They are (relatively) heavy and hence can do huge harm, but they do have only small distances. The probability to collide with contents of the air is high, around 10 centimeters. At higher humidity only a few centimeters. Beta emitters (beta-minus) do actually emit electrons by transforming a neutron to a proton. They are charged 1-. Electrons’ mass is around 1/2000 of a proton. They pass the air but can be stopped by a few millimeters of Aluminum. Gamma radiation is emitted at the nucleus transition from a higher energy level (exited state) to a lower. It’s difficult to stop and you need thick lead…. Alpha radiation is harmless when observed from a short distance. Beta radiation can burn skin and damage it, but cannot go deeper. Gamma radiation goes through body… BUT if inhaled or swallowed alpha emitters do much more harm than gamma radiation. The reason: alpha particles are huge and in vivo they can do their destruction on site. The linked article is talking about Becquerel. This quantifies activity, not the dose. Becquerel is NOT sufficient (actually useless) to make statements about human damage. It would make sense when used Gray or Sievert. Another thing I had noticed. Countries (governments) who are more pro-nuclear energy do have higher MCL. AFAIK people who are affected with nuclear radiation due to their profession are alowed to get here a dose of 20 millisievert / year. In the US they are 50. 100 are supposed to be carcinogenic. (Evidence of statistical significance). 2 are considered as 'normal' natural... There is no MCL or limit value for ‘common’ people generally the less the better. One can imagine it as a constant bombardment. There are places with more and less of it. And there are human repair mechanisms. When it gets out of balance and by what exactly is not easy to determine.
Isn't the real problem that DNA repair processes are not perfect and that such radiation can damage it permanently?
It's not perfect 'with intent'. Well mutation itself is actually a natural process and ‘wanted’ for evolution. Means a change is replicated for 'future interactions'. AFAIK there are repair mechanisms at the DNA when damage is detected and there is repair function of DNA polymerase while replication. The construction plan of the enzymes who can detect damages is also stored in the DNA. That means can lead to malfunction when changed. The creation of cancer has several factors which have to be true. What exactly then has caused the change of the cells is retrospectively not determinable. We need (individual)changes / differences to develop. But ‘uncontrolled’ change / growth kills. This can be considered as generic ‘rule’ and applies to many human matters…
Yet anoyher ex-Yugoslav who has endebted humanity... http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/41ed0c9a-e295-4354-bffe-798fab6fed9a