Granite counter tops and cat litter is radioactive.
Radiation is all around you, and if it’s that big of a concern, you better not go out into the sun or to a beach.
Radiation isn’t well understood, and yes you are right that you want to minimize exposure, especially from beta emissions, but in the real world it’s a matter of weighing the options, not eliminating it from our lives since that cannot be done. Many building materials are radioactive: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/building.html#:~:text=What%20building%20materials%20contain%20radioactive,emit%20low%20levels%20of%20radiation.
Uranium used in a reactor is not man made or some synthetic product. It’s in the ground that you walk on every day. They simply concentrate it.
No, the area around Chernobyl isn’t dangerous and really is a wild life refuge, no you don’t have massive mutations, no there isn’t some danger living by a reactor, and there are areas in Colorado that naturally have higher radiation levels than ground zero at Trinity test site today, where they detonated the first atomic bombs and you can go visit: https://www.nps.gov/thingstodo/alamogordo-visit-the-trinity-site.htm
“Stupid talking points” are facts you cannot argue against, but have strong feelings about. So as usual, you use fallacies and rhetoric in an ignorant attempt to make a point.
Yes, they do feed patients radioactive isotopes, they inject them into their blood (contrast), put pellets into their prostate (seeding)... You might have smoke detectors in your home that use an isotope derived from nuclear power, and you likely don’t know it: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/eason1/
There is no “radioactive waste released into our food, water and air.” A reactor is a closed loop. The uranium is not burned and released as with a chemical process which is the case with (((ALL))) fossil fuels. The cooling water is recirculated and you theoretically could go swimming in it (outside the reactor). The water which goes in and out of the reactor does not come in contact with the water used inside, the heat is transferred in the cooling process. The turbines run on the steam... point being is that unlike burning a fuel, nothing is released and it’s far cleaner.
Fukushima, an older reactor design and not built in the best location, ironically is an example of how reactors are safe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster How bad was it really? All the over exaggerated horror stories in the news are garbage. There is no rise in cancer, miscarriages or birth defects and you have folks watching, looking at it with a microscope. How many people really died? The few that did were injuries from the tsunami itself...
I live not to far from a reactor: Comanche Peak. Just about everything else concerns me more regards my health and safety, than that reactor. But because of all the idiots and fear mongering, getting a tour of that place isn’t even a remote possibility anymore :(
Of the two alternatives, nuclear power poses LESS of a health risk than building more gas and coal fired plants, period.
Granite counter tops and cat litter is radioactive.
Radiation is all around you, and if it’s that big of a concern, you better not go out into the sun or to a beach.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once again you go with the irrelevant comparisons. And then from there you go down hill with the talking points.
I know Uranium is not man made! I walk on dilute uranium embedded under ground - the greater the distance, the less the dose. Walking over a particle is a brief exposure. Consuming or inhaling particles result in higher, potentially lifetime continuous exposure. The greater the dilution, the less the dose. You simply bank on people having no idea what you are talking about.
I say ‘stupid talking points’ because I already dug up the research and debated people like you and you people are STILL OUT THERE with the same lame comparisons and excuses.
The nuclear power industry accepts zero oversight and zero responsibility, and then talks down to the public in a lordly way. Sickening.
Yes - there are areas that naturally have higher radiation levels - that does not give the nuke industry the excuse to dig it up, refine it to concentrations and then blow it up into the atmosphere like it ‘ain’t no thang’. A person with a conscience would know this - I get tired of trying to explain it to people who don’t care. You don’t care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no “radioactive waste released into our food, water and air.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uh, yes there is. When Fukushima blew fuel rods into the air and water, when the ground water started testing positive for radioactive waste, when all of that can’t be cleaned up - it’s just time to open a new reactor and ridicule anyone bringing up the ones that blew up.
Chernobyl has much higher radiation than ‘normal’ and so the staff work 3 weeks on and 3 weeks off (outside the zone) to slow the accumulation of dosage.
Here’s an excerpt and link:
Risk
Generally the levels of radiation in Pripyat and the surrounding area, although far higher than the norm, are safe for the time you will be exposed to them (just don’t go licking stuff).
Those who work within the zone typically work 3 weeks on, 3 weeks off. The “off” period must be spent outside of the zone.
Radiation levels can change daily, dependent upon a number of factors including wind speeds. Just because you measured a level yesterday doesn’t mean it’ll be the same today as pockets of radiation move around. Large variations in levels can also occur within only a few metres of each other.
Weather cleansed tarmac, or hard standing, is preferable to standing on vegetation. Pay specific attention to moss, wherever it may grow, as it is great at absorbing radiation and therefore likely to emit far higher levels than the surface it is growing on. This sounds simple in theory but I found it easy to forget when confronted with the sights of Pripyat.
It depends on the nature of your visit but for longer, less chaperoned, trips it may be worth borrowing or buying a Geiger counter. I didn’t have one but many of those I went with did. All gave slightly different readings but functioned as a good guide. Clearly it’s pointless having one if you don’t know what the readings actually mean, accurate or not, partly why I didn’t take one on my first visit.
Dust is a potentially nasty. Ingesting radioactive particles is not something you want to make a habit of. I choose not to wear a mask. The majority of people I saw also didn’t but obviously make your own decision, it’s your health.
https://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~End of Excerpt
The more exposure, the higher the accumulated dose, the greater the risk.
Fires in overgrown areas sends the isotopes into the air.
I know Uranium is not combusted. I’ve experimented with radioactive sources.
Fukushima lost containment of nuclear fuel (ha- as in they blew it up and out) underground too, so the water table is flushing radioactive waste into the ocean, where the fish that people eat live. Food web, you know. But you do know - you’re just here to blow smoke and make it seem like NOTHING. People found portions of fuel rods blown ‘too far’ from the reactor to be the result of a conventional explosion. People watched the cameras around Fukushima and talked about fissures and cracks ejecting steam - so the fuel was still producing heat. Don’t tell me it was overblown when Japan made it illegal to report sickness or to even talk about it online.
The statement that got us into this debate was ‘clean energy’ and that’s my objection. It’s not ‘clean’.