Posted on 05/19/2024 2:55:09 PM PDT by Twotone
Seems “scientists” don’t actually believe in science.
We have eight decades of experience with radiation workers now. That is more than a sufficient sample size. If LNT was true, they should easily be able to prove it through epidemiological studies. ‘They’ have not.
BTW....highest lifetime occupational radiation exposure belongs to...
Airline pilots.
I always thought that the biggest long term problem with nuclear power was how to store/handle/protect the spent radioactive fuel.
…..for centuries
“Nuclear regulation” might be better declared as “unclear regulation”.
Nearly eighty years since the designation of nuclear radiation as a “zero-tolerance”, apparently the actual effects have never been revisited and a considerable amount of research has either been left undone, or what has been studied in that time has been largely ignored.
Modern designs of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors have NONE of the design flaws that lead to large releases of radioactive materials. And the radioactive byproducts can be used to “seed” thorium-fueled molten salt reactors, using up what is now termed to be “spent” uranium fuel rods.
Now, more than ever, the world NEEDS copious quantities of CHEAP electricity, and there is no safer or more economical means of generation than nuclear power, be it fueled with uranium, or the newer designs that are fueled by thorium.
We only lack the will to use what we already know how to do.
Thanks for posting!!
I’m an HPS member….
The globalists don't want us to have clean, cheap energy of any kind.
That's the reason we don't use the technology we already have.
““Nuclear regulation” might be better declared as “unclear regulation”.”
For a second there I thought you meant UN Clear regulation.
as in United Nations
Exactly so. There is considerable evidence the Liniar No Threshold (LNT) model is false. Yet, our whole nuclear regulatory scheme is based on it.
Not only that, but it has been extended to most other poisons.
We can detect poisons to extremely low levels now, which have, essentially, no effect. Yet the EPA keeps pushing to lower the acceptable thresholds. This makes everything cost much, much more.
>> I always thought that the biggest long term problem with nuclear power was how to store/handle/protect the spent radioactive fuel.<<
That’s because Jimmy Carter prohibited recycling spent rods into new fuel. The French have been doing it without issues.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/jimmy-carter-killed-technology-50-004249906.html
“However, it’s been stifled for decades based on one deeply flawed scientific model: the linear no-threshold (LNT) model. “
Having worked at over 15 nuclear plants including 10 new startups that has never been stifling.
“Nearly eighty years since the designation of nuclear radiation as a “zero-tolerance”
Having worked with radiation for over 40 years, that is the first time I heard that.
“That’s because Jimmy Carter prohibited recycling spent rods into new fuel. “
Reversed by Reagan.
From what I get out of the article, they are most concerned with ionizing radioation from reactors. But exposure is far more common than people believe.
Ionizing radiation is the most energetic form of radiation. X-rays are perhaps the best known type of ionizing radiation; other types include alpha, beta and gamma rays. (Gamma rays are emitted from radioactive materials while aslpha and beta require inhalation or injected to include entrance through open wounds of exposed skin for a problem) Ionizing radiation is naturally present in our environment and exposure to certain levels of it can’t be avoided. In fact, approximately 80 percent of all exposure can be attributed to naturally-occurring sources.
Only about 20 percent of exposure to ionizing radiation comes from man-made sources. Medical procedures, like diagnostic x-rays and radiation therapy, are the most significant contributors. But some consumer products, such as smoke detectors and televisions, also give off low levels of it. Individuals who smoke are exposed to ionizing radiation in tobacco smoke. So people who work in the field have to be aware of intake. People like lab techs, xray people, and military are especially instructed to keep count.
While exposure to ionizing radiation can be potentially dangerous, it’s believed that the body is able to successfully defend itself against and repair the damaging effects of low level exposures. This article reeks of chicken little.
wy69
From what I get out of the article, they are most concerned with ionizing radioation from reactors. But exposure is far more common than people believe.
Ionizing radiation is the most energetic form of radiation. X-rays are perhaps the best known type of ionizing radiation; other types include alpha, beta and gamma rays. (Gamma rays are emitted from radioactive materials while aslpha and beta require inhalation or injected to include entrance through open wounds of exposed skin for a problem) Ionizing radiation is naturally present in our environment and exposure to certain levels of it can’t be avoided. In fact, approximately 80 percent of all exposure can be attributed to naturally-occurring sources.
Only about 20 percent of exposure to ionizing radiation comes from man-made sources. Medical procedures, like diagnostic x-rays and radiation therapy, are the most significant contributors. But some consumer products, such as smoke detectors and televisions, also give off low levels of it. Individuals who smoke are exposed to ionizing radiation in tobacco smoke. So people who work in the field have to be aware of intake. People like lab techs, xray people, and military are especially instructed to keep count.
While exposure to ionizing radiation can be potentially dangerous, it’s believed that the body is able to successfully defend itself against and repair the damaging effects of low level exposures. This article reeks of chicken little.
wy69
Not only is low-dose radiation not harmful, but there is a great deal of evidence that it is beneficial.
In one of the most dramatic cases, apartments in Taiwan were constructed with materials contaminated with Cobalt-60. Nearly 10,000 residents lived there for ten years before the radiation was discovered.
Surprisingly, the cancer rate among the residents was less than 5 percent the rate for the rest of Taiwan. Note that, is was not 5 percent less - it was 5 percent or twenty times less!
There are numerous other studies that support benefits of low-dose radiation.
Yes...being exposed to a neutron flux in a critical reactor will kill you...quickly.
But to put things in perspective:
You have four cookies...a gamma cookie, an alpha cookie, a beta cookie, and a neutron cookie. You can eat one, hold one in your hand, put one in your pocket, and throw one away. What do you do?
Eat the gamma cookie...gammas have no mass, thus they are very low energy and do little biological damage, and are just as likely to pass through you without hurting anything.
Hold the Alpha cookie in your hand...your skin is dense enough to keep that particle out of your body.
Put the Beta cookie in your pocket...the fabric is dense enough to shield you from absorbing it.
You throw the neutron cookie away...it is high mass and high energy, and will do the most damage of any ionizing radiation.
With a reactor, all other fission products are contained within the cladding of the fuel pellets, and neutron levels fall very quickly after the reactor is shut down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.