| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Another New Nuclear Reactor Energizes U.S. Clean Energy Hopes, Red6 wrote: |
We live in a world where our ability to measure things exceeds the practical limits of their relevancy. For example, we can still see the background radiation of the big bang, you can still see radiation from the above surface atomic tests we conducted... But other than knowing a cool fact or in the sciences themselves, does it matter in your day to day life? That’s why granite counter tops and cat litter do matter. You’re exposed to alpha and beta radiation from natural sources or in medical applications that FAR exceed anything you get from Chernobyl, Fukushima or all the nations of this world and their above surface nuclear tests combined. You get more radiation when going skiing in Colorado than if you went to ground zero at Trinity. You get more radiation from your dentist, going to a beach... You are probably not afraid of going into an underground basement of a building, to stay in a concrete building... You define any and all exposure as to much, and since we can measure radiation and even often determine their source to a miniscule and irrelevant level, you’re basically making a big deal out of NOTHING. If this is a conversation about health and safety, if I were you, I would worry more about that particle board furniture and its offgas, the carpet in your home, or better yet the >50% chance of you being obese. Cat litter and granite matter because you’re worrying about threats that are basically irrelevant, while ignoring things which do matter. |
WOW are you bad at this. You have to go back to 'talking-points' school because you just don't 'get' what you're saying while talking down to the public.
I mean you're so obviously disingenous:
"You’re exposed to alpha and beta radiation from natural sources or in medical applications that FAR exceed anything you get from Chernobyl, Fukushima or all the nations of this world and their above surface nuclear tests combined."
I've seen that worn out old tactic before - you're averaging the resulting impacts of radiation spills from the heavily impacted areas to 'smooth them out' as if the radioactive isotopes had actually been evenly distributed world-wide so that the problems caused by the nuke industry are of less significance than granite counter tops. That means you can blow up MANY MANY nuke plants, shower the terrain with fuel rods as in Fukushima and Chernobyl, and walk away sneering that "If I were you, I would worry more about particle board furniture."
Obviously there's nothing but distortion and disinformation in your posts - that's how you roll. You aren't even embarrassed - you don't 'get' how you exposed your backside here.
AN international organization visited villages hit hard by the Chernobyl blast and reported, "Every child is ill..." The public had nowhere to go so many families were forced to raise their families in contaminated regions for generations. The illness and damage to quality of life, death from cancer etc. just 'disappear' when the Russians make it illegal to report its relationship to radioactive waste in their food, water etc.
In Japan, TEPCO bragged that they had learned the 'lessons of Chernobyl' and so the government made it illegal for doctors to report radiation related health impacts or deaths, and Japanese people could be arrested and jailed for talking about Fukushima online.
And people like you trot along, chirping that kitty litter is worse. Disgusting.
So-
Talking points
Mis information
Dis information
Bla bla bla
As usual, when there is no substance, when someone lacks an argument, out come the fallacies and rhetoric.
Yes, the average US citizen will get more radiation from the earth, all naturally, than from any other source.
Specifically, Radon gas which is often found in basements...
Yes, you will get more radiation from the sun on a nice beach day than from any other source.
Nuclear power in all its facets (including accidents), accounts for LESS than 1/100 of 1%. Do you understand what that means? That’s less than .01 of 1%.
“Emissions of radiation from nuclear power plants are carefully monitored and controlled. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), nuclear power plant operations account for less than 1/100 of 1% of the average American’s total radiation exposure.” Quote from link since you’re likely to lazy to read the link provided.
Stick with facts.
Avoid the the junk.
Pretend to construct a logical argument.
Radiation is something that’s natural. You will never get rid of it. In fact, even burning coal sets lose radiation in the atmosphere, the link I provided in an earlier post regards some of the details. The question is merely, of all the imperfect solutions available, which one has the greatest net benefit to us?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Please, tell me, where does nuclear power lose out to coal or gas?
- the environmental impact in getting the source material?
- the volume of residue left after power generation?
- hydrocarbons let lose in the atmosphere?
- CO2 let lose in the atmosphere?
- acid produced during power generation?
- amount of pipelines, rail, truck (logistics) required to sustain power generation?
- amount of soot let lose in atmosphere?
- amount of radiation let lose in the atmosphere?
- amount of people exposed to various dangers in the power generation: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/niosh-mining/MMWC/Fatality/NumberAndRate
It’s a simple question really, do you want coal and gas, or nuclear? Nuclear being the OBVIOUS winner when it comes to health and environment. But today we live in the day of Gretta Thornburg, Silent Spring, and Global Warming (now rebranded as Climate Change). Environmentalism has become political, economic, a media sensation, and the begining of the end for rational/sensible environmental policy was DDT and its bann which was entirely a political and media story, not one of science and a sound pragmatic approach.
Here’s an analogy: a breast exam exposes a woman to harmful radiation. But the net benefit of this radiation exceeds the hazard. There is no perfect answer here but one is obviously better than the other.
Nuclear power DOES carry with it risks. It does require some mining, it does produce some waste... But it’s a far better solution than the alternative coal and gas, where you merely accept the risks because those are familiar to you. If you fly with me (I’m a private pilot), you may feel uncomfortable, even some anxiety, but statistically you are FAR safer than if you drive your car the same distance. You’re arguing “perceptions and feelings” but this debate needs to remain in the realm of logic and statistics. When you debate the house, car, food, color, cloths, vacation, sexual preferences of your liking... your feelings and perceptions are paramount. But when you debate the energy policies of our nation, it needs to remain objective, empirical, pragmatic.