How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation

reply to post by SirMike


Agreed. We simply disagree about the dialog.

You appear to contend that concern about the radiation propagating from Fukushima is a non-issue. That it is an irredeemable cost associated with our process of civilization, so to speak. That, along with numerous similar examples, it is hardly noteworthy. I could characterize it as conveying the notion that time spent on this subject is time lost; except it is not that harsh. You have offered noteworthy facts and logic to underscore that this is not a matter of life and death.

I respect that.

I however, perhaps of late, have chosen not to conducting myself as if it doesn't merit recognition that given the choice, we should stay away from radiation.... and that it is not unreasonable to aspire to a world with no "additional" radiation, aside from what we evolved with, or what we've been living with thus far. if you prefer.

I've heard the analogy of a frog, placed in a pot of cold water, and then set on a stove; it will sit there, slowly acclimatizing itself to the temperature of the water, until it dies, never realizing it was boiling to death. Radiation, PCBs, all the ills of expedient commerce and industry, perhaps we can overcome, or acclimatize ourselves, to what we face. But it is not reasonable, in my opinion, to believe we are immune to the cumulative effects; that we can expect others to restrain the temptation to exploit our environment into short term gain at the cost of a better, or at least equal, future; that a government which fears its people will trust them to react to the truth, as they want them to; so they lie.

Sorry, it's late, and I ramble... come stick pins tomorrow.

I cringe every time someone points to or used models to make their decisions.

Blind faith and statistics.

Assumptions.

It shouldn't happen on a basis that may not even exist.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I'm sorry people are scared of nuclear power and I don't understand why they don't think coal is worse!

I DO think coal is worse if there were no meltdowns or explosions in nuclear plants.

It's the meltdowns and explosions of nuclear plants that concern me.

I'm not in favor of stopping nuclear power from existing plants, but I do think the issue of how to dispose of the waste needs to be resolved before building any new ones.

Regarding the Ann Coulter piece, you have to take those statistics with a grain of salt, but some of them are interesting. Denver has a higher radiation level, should we evacuate it?

Nuclear Radiation - Should we Evacuate Denver?

Denver has a higher radiation level and lower death rate than most of the country.

In the highest radiation areas there are no indications of harmful health effects. Indeed, there is no observed radiation danger below a level of 10,000 mr; some 30 times as high as nature's average (300mr) level.

An example that comes to mind is eating apple seeds. If you eat an apple and accidentally swallow a few seeds, it won't kill you and probably doesn't hurt you at all. Some people even think it might be good for you, but I wouldn't go that far. But eat too many apple seeds and you'll get sick, and eat way too many and they will kill you.

That's how I see radiation, as analogous to the arsenic in apple seeds.Yes they are both potentially life-threatening in high doses, but both seem to pose relatively low risk in small doses we are typically exposed to. As others have said, the radiation risk at levels just above background are so low as to be almost impossible to measure.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Maxmars

 

I do not consider everyone who has a different opinion from me as a sensatinalist scaremonger .

When you post stuff like

"....no dose of radiation is safe...."

seems rather unequivocal, no?

then IMO you fit the bill and I say so.

There is plenty of room for debate about nukes and Fukushima without such rubbish - by all means engage in it.

Here's the complete quote from the OP:

Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

Is that sensationalist too? Because I have never see declarations from the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report called sensationalism or scaremongering, having 'gone for the throat' you failed to notice that this was part of a government-sponsored institutional report of facts.... not opinions.

I will ask once only, do not call me names.

You may not like what the report says, or the fact that I singled out the principle fact "....no dose of radiation is safe...." and noted how unambiguously it was stated. Feel free to characterize that as you wish.

Do not, however, characterize me. I won't do the same to you.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"Risk Analysts" concluded that melt downs shouldn't happen. So they went ahead with it. Stop thinking these negative thoughts that these models don't apply or even describe anything but themselves, let's all be optimists and "realize" that the chances of so and so happening are so small that they wont happen.

It's easy to size down issues, only 1 in 100,000 right? Maybe 3,090 in 309,000,000?


What ever happened to the good old beat it til it breaks then build it again mentality in industry? Now it's just "well our models say that a 7.0 earthquake here isn't possible so we built it to withstand a 6.5" Why are they settling for less? Why do they leave so much room for error?

And why do actuaries and risk analysts get payed so much money for bull#ting?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Maxmars

 

I do not consider everyone who has a different opinion from me as a sensatinalist scaremonger .

When you post stuff like

"....no dose of radiation is safe...."

seems rather unequivocal, no?

then IMO you fit the bill and I say so.

There is plenty of room for debate about nukes and Fukushima without such rubbish - by all means engage in it.

Whether or not that comment is debatable, due to evolution on low level background radiation, I'd say some is necessary, BUT not the manmade destruction of our planet.

However, this is 4 X Chenobyl and in our back yards in north america. Chronic levels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Maxmars

Here's the complete quote from the OP:

Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

Is that sensationalist too?

no it isn't - but you decided to focus on a very small part of it and make that a feature.

Perhaps if you had quoted the whole thing it would not be sensationalist - but you chose to post it in the manner you did, and by doing so sensationalised it.

Taking stuff out of context to sensationalise it isn't something you invented, and you won't be the last person to do it.

But you still did so.

Posting the whole content later jsut shows that you know you made a mistake - that's something of an improvement I guess.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Excellent find. Protecting the future of the human race. Wotta concept.

No dose of radiation is safe.

S&F&




PS - Does no one here know about the lies and BS that happened with Chernobyl? ...People weren't even told about the meltdown - kids went outside to play, the town had parades. It took days for even a bit of truth to come out, and by then, it was too late for many. ...Seems to me we have the same cover-ups and dismissals going on now.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Maxmars

Here's the complete quote from the OP:

Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

Is that sensationalist too?

no it isn't - but you decided to focus on a very small part of it and make that a feature.

Perhaps if you had quoted the whole thing it would not be sensationalist - but you chose to post it in the manner you did, and by doing so sensationalised it.

Taking stuff out of context to sensationalise it isn't something you invented, and you won't be the last person to do it.

But you still did so.

Posting the whole content later jsut shows that you know you made a mistake - that's something of an improvement I guess.

While I prefer normally to let things like this lay... in what manner was the quoted segment "out of context"? The full context is even more 'frightening' than the snippet I chose, which was exactly the sentiment conveyed by the full quote. Is "No dose of radiation is safe." somehow an incorrect summation of the full quote?