mwm@ea.UUCP (08/02/84)
#R:tty3b:-44700:ea:3400017:000:1162 ea!mwm Aug 2 13:59:00 1984 /***** ea:net.followup / tty3b!mjk / 5:14 pm Jul 30, 1984 */ Come on, Henry, everyone should know by now that ALL radiation is dangerous. There is no such thing as a "safe level"; there is only a officially approved "acceptable level". "Acceptable" to whom is never talked about. "Stuff at that level" is most certainly dangerous, but there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about it. We can, however, try to avoid adding any more exposure. Mike Kelly /* ---------- */ Mike, last time I checked, the above statement was just flat *false*. We don't know *anything* about what radiation at low levels (such as those involved with standing in Grand Central Station, or near a nuke plant, or between two of your friends) does to people. For safety studies et. al., people like to *assume* that the effects can be extrapolated linearly. This doesn't make it so. Some think that we could be better off than that assumption; that there is a "cutoff" at low enough levels, such that there is no damage. Then again, things could be worse, and all radiation levels below our horizon could have the same effect as levels immediately below our horizon. <mike
jejones@ea.UUCP (08/03/84)
#R:tty3b:-44700:ea:3400018:000:472 ea!jejones Aug 3 15:54:00 1984 What ea!mwm says is true, however, lest the anti-nuke bozos flame about the linear assumption, let what should be obvious be known, namely that the linear assumption is a more cautious one than that of a threshold, and is the one used in practice, so it doesn't really matter whether a threshold exists for purposes of the nuclear monologue (as Petr Beckmann calls it). Socrates drank organically-grown hemlock (which has an infinite half-life), James Jones
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/10/84)
I never saw the original of the following -- our news feed was a bit erratic for a week or so -- so I'll have to hope that the followups quoted it accurately. > Come on, Henry, everyone should know by now that ALL radiation is dangerous. > There is no such thing as a "safe level"; there is only a officially > approved "acceptable level". "Acceptable" to whom is never talked about. > "Stuff at that level" is most certainly dangerous, but there isn't a whole > hell of a lot we can do about it. We can, however, try to avoid adding any > more exposure. Actually, there almost certainly *is* a safe level somewhere; trouble is, we know very little about the chronic effects of low-level radiation. So the health calculations all assume that the effects are linear right down to zero. The idea that they assume a "safe threshold" is a vicious lie promulgated by the more fanatical antinuclear people. Granted, all radiation is dangerous. Including the radiation from, say, a coal-burning power plant's exhaust. Yes, coal-burning plants do emit radioactive materials: there are natural radioactive isotopes in coal, as in most other things, and they end up in the atmosphere when the coal is burned. A coal-burning power plant of a given capacity emits *far* more radioactive junk than a comparable nuclear plant. In fact, it emits more than the nuclear plant is *allowed* to emit; if coal power plants were subject to the same rules as nuclear plants, they would all be shut down at once. Nuclear plants in fact emit very little radioactive material. I probably got more radiation exposure from my trip to Salt Lake City (which has a higher background radiation level because of its higher altitude) than I would from living next to a reactor for years. The only reason I say "probably" is that I haven't checked the numbers; I'm almost sure of it. >I can't believe this. This man is comparing "a few centuries" worth of >high-level radioactive waste with a fall from a rooftop. This is incredible. Frankly, I would take a slight rise in the background radiation level over the fall from the rooftop any day. Falling from a rooftop has a high probability of being fatal. More seriously, why the hell *not* compare them?!? The two are different animals only if your attitude toward radiation is ignorance and hysterical fear. Both can kill you. Both involve quantifiable risks. Which involves the least risk per kilowatt-hour of power? Turns out to be nuclear power. This may be surprising, but there is nothing incredible about it. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (08/13/84)
> Nuclear plants in fact emit very little radioactive material.
You should try telling that to the people who live near Windscale/Sellafield
in England. Some years ago there was a major leakage from there which they
tried to play down, but it was notable that they bought up ALL milk that was
produced in the region for several years afterwards. There have for many
years been other lower level leakages from Sellafield. Beaches down-current
from there were recently discovered to be dangerously radio-active (that it
they shut them off) and though they have now been re-opened, there are still
warnings against collecting things from the beach.
You should add to this the suspiciously higher rate of leukaemia in
children in the district. When I lived in the region a few years ago, the
daughter of some acquaintances of mine died from the disease, and there was
no doubt in their minds what the cause was.jejones@ea.UUCP (08/16/84)
#R:utzoo:-419700:ea:3400020:000:609 ea!jejones Aug 16 02:44:00 1984 /***** ea:net.followup / utzoo!henry / 9:09 am Aug 10, 1984 */ >Nuclear plants in fact emit very little radioactive material. I probably >got more radiation exposure from my trip to Salt Lake City (which has a >higher background radiation level because of its higher altitude) than I >would from living next to a reactor for years. The only reason I say >"probably" is that I haven't checked the numbers; I'm almost sure of it. You're correct. (BTW, Grand Central Station is too "hot" to be a reactor containment vessel; the granite in the walls is too radioactive.) /* ---------- */ James Jones