I posed a question on another thread last night. Everyone was tripping all over themselves to come up with nightmare scenario after nightmare scenario, panicking over each new announced development.
Here was my question:
“Okay, show of hands...how many of us here know what the helll we’re talking about, as in, we’re actual nuclear scientists, vs. those who are reacting to the chicken-little media?”
Many admitted that they, like I, were clueless laymen.
Not one nuclear scientist in the bunch.
You don't need to be a nuclear scientist to become somewhat educated on the situation, and the consequences of it. My hubby, SirKit, has been following this, and has been doing a lot of reading on the subject. He'd been hearing a lot about the LEVELS of radiation to which folks may have been exposed, but nothing about the DOSES represented by those levels. This story gives that information, so that's why I pinged him to this thread.
We were talking about the levels of exposure this evening, and how there are places in the world where the 'background radiation' is fairly high, and folks in those places still don't have people dying of cancer or other radiation related diseases in any larger amounts than anywhere else. It's even possible that small amounts of radiation might be GOOD for people, to encourage activity in their immune systems, but as he said, the anti-nuke people would NEVER believe that, so they keep up the drumbeat and hysteria about how radiation exposure is BAAAAD.
There are a few people on FR who are well versed on nuclear power, radiation and such, not like some of the people at places like “Beyond Nuclear” who see the whole issue from one single perspective: It is bad. That’s it.
While discussing the run on iodide pills with a liberal today, I asked him how many people died because of Three Mile Island. He answered that he didn't know. Appalling that liberals tend to believe whatever "sky is falling" warnings drilled into their heads by alarmist compliant media.