Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We should stop running away from radiation

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 130 posts

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#111

Post by VladRussian »

shadowsun7 wrote: post #84
VladRussian wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your post didn't provide any contra argument, instead you went for personal attack and "karma-bombing".

A counter-argument to what, exactly? You took a statement that he made, concluded that he was a 'moron who does not know what he's talk about', and then backed that summary statement up with a lifted quote from cancer.gov that had nothing to do to the original statement? Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment. His over-arching point is tha…

>Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment.

why do you repeat this utter and obviously incorrect crap? do you really think that localized deep tissue dose has the same health effect as if it was received whole-body? Do you just happen to possess the winning combination of being uneducated and too lazy to Google things up? If you ever make you brain moving, try to think how it can be "similar in principle" when 20S deposited to healthy tissue around cancer (out of total 60-80S dose the patient receives) rarely kills the patient while 4-5S received "environmentally" during comparable period of time would almost always be lethal.

The article looks like it was written by somebody who is uneducated and has problems with logic, i.e. moron. Too bad it was written by a professional with an agenda. Intellectual dishonesty is much worse than plain stupidity and ignorance.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#112

Post by eliasmacpherson »

JanezStupar wrote: post #92
lispm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greens are definitely not fascist. I think you are confusing this. Fascist is the influence of huge corporations over people. Not the influence of people over themselves. Wow, Fukushima is caused by the Greens now? And I though it was caused by a greedy and incompetent company not willing to invest into safety. No company would invest into a newer model. These are extremely expensive. Like 5 billion Euro in weste…

Excuse me. I didn't mean to imply that all greens are fascist. And I also meant Green in the broadest possible sense - as in environmentalists of all denominations. And this context I meant the extremist faction(s) when I said fascist green extremists. Because they only have one agenda: Stop corporations. Stop Nuclear Power. Stop Consuming Carbon power sources. But I don't see an alternative proposal how to deal with…

"If we want everybody to own a Xbox, a car and a week of vacation per year - we need more energy."

We don't. That's your premise, and you argue that reducing energy consumption represents a regression. A week of vacation per year would consume less energy than someone working in many of the places I have worked. "Our demands" for energy are not realistic, valid or sustainable. We don't need more energy.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#113

Post by VladRussian »

gommm wrote: post #83
VladRussian wrote: post #71

the moron who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about: >Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment. From http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-... : "Late side effects may first occur 6 or more months after radiation therapy is over…

And this is with a dose of around 20,000mSv. He recommends setting the limit at 100 mSv/year with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv. I also agree shadowsun7, you could cut down on the name calling and be a bit more civilized in your comments. It doesn't contribute anything to the conversation but weakens your message.

>And this is with a dose of around 20,000mSv. He recommends setting the limit at 100 mSv/year with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv.

this article is a clear propaganda piece designed to evoke such primitive logical conclusions. But even primitive logical analysis by a rudimentary educated person shouldn't have missed the significant difference between localized deep-tissue dose delivery ("meat cooking") in the radiotherapy where 2-3S is delivered per session normally without any lethal risk and 25-50% lethality of 2-3S delivered whole-body (100% lethal if repeated several times during period of several weeks).

>be a bit more civilized in your comments

yep, taking an intentionally misleading propaganda by a professional for a blabbing of a moron isn't that civilized.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#114

Post by shadowsun7 »

VladRussian wrote: post #111
shadowsun7 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A counter-argument to what, exactly? You took a statement that he made, concluded that he was a 'moron who does not know what he's talk about', and then backed that summary statement up with a lifted quote from cancer.gov that had nothing to do to the original statement? Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment. His over-arching point is tha…

>Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment. why do you repeat this utter and obviously incorrect crap? do you really think that localized deep tissue dose has the same health effect as if it was received whole-body? Do you just happen to possess the winning combination of being uneducated and too lazy to Google things up? If you ever make you…

All this name calling makes me sad. There was a time when trolls like you were banned from HN. Sigh. How times have changed.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#115

Post by Natsu »

Tichy wrote: post #110
Natsu wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea, that's about it. They can improve seawalls and such, actually. And we can improve search & rescue operations. > If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection suits? Those don't protect from radiation very well, they're to prevent…

Nonsense, Japan already has invested a lot in Tsunami protection, they will not starve funding for that. Who says it is an "either invest in anti-Tsunami or anti-nuclear-power measures" kind of thing? And no, I don't live in a coastal area, so enhancing seawalls is not my interest or priority. As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument rea…

> As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense.

How radiation affects one's body is a complex issue. The inverse square law also comes into effect. So something can be dangerous close up, but no threat to anyone who doesn't get close.

Ars Technica has a nice article about radiation that goes into these issues in more detail than I can:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-...

My main point about bananas, though, is that radiation is normal. You experience it every single day, even if you don't realize it. All sorts of background radiation is constantly going through your body. Not to mention intentional exposures like chest X-rays.

It's sort of like fire, then. You can burn yourself and you should treat it carefully. You should fear it enough to avoid burning yourself, but not much more than that. It's also going to become just about as necessary to civilization as fire, soon, from the look of things.

Maybe fusion will pan out and I hope so, but people are then going to have to learn all about neutrons and why they can make normal materials become radioactive.... But maybe clever moderator designs will make it so that most neutrons are absorbed by easily replaceable things that don't become anything nasty.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#116

Post by shadowsun7 »

VladRussian wrote: post #113
gommm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is with a dose of around 20,000mSv. He recommends setting the limit at 100 mSv/year with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv. I also agree shadowsun7, you could cut down on the name calling and be a bit more civilized in your comments. It doesn't contribute anything to the conversation but weakens your message.

>And this is with a dose of around 20,000mSv. He recommends setting the limit at 100 mSv/year with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv. this article is a clear propaganda piece designed to evoke such primitive logical conclusions. But even primitive logical analysis by a rudimentary educated person shouldn't have missed the significant difference between localized deep-tissue dose delivery ("meat cooking") in the radiother…

Thank you for your time. You should go back to Reddit now.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#117

Post by VladRussian »

shadowsun7 wrote: post #114
VladRussian wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in principle to one received from the environment. why do you repeat this utter and obviously incorrect crap? do you really think that localized deep tissue dose has the same health effect as if it was received whole-body? Do you just happen to possess the winning combination of being uneducated and too lazy to Google things up? If you ever make you…

All this name calling makes me sad. There was a time when trolls like you were banned from HN. Sigh. How times have changed.

You post an illogical, intelligence insulting crap and become "sad" when somebody calls the crap out.

You're right - the HN debate culture has gone down. The strongest and most logical argument you've managed in the discussion on radiation doses [non]equivalency is to call me a troll.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#118

Post by Tichy »

Natsu wrote: post #115
Tichy wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense, Japan already has invested a lot in Tsunami protection, they will not starve funding for that. Who says it is an "either invest in anti-Tsunami or anti-nuclear-power measures" kind of thing? And no, I don't live in a coastal area, so enhancing seawalls is not my interest or priority. As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument rea…

> As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense. How radiation affects one's body is a complex issue. The inverse square law also comes into effect. So something can be dangerous close up, but no threat to anyone who doesn't get close. Ars Technica has a nice article about radiation that goes into these issues in more de…

Radiation is normal, and so is water. I drink water every day with no ill side effects, yet it killed thousands of people in a Tsunami.

How long does supply of nuclear fuels last anyway? Isn't it a limited resource? Will it be as necessary to civilization as SUVs?

From the article it seems clear that inhaling or digesting contaminated stuff is dangerous.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#119

Post by Natsu »

Tichy wrote: post #118
Natsu wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense. How radiation affects one's body is a complex issue. The inverse square law also comes into effect. So something can be dangerous close up, but no threat to anyone who doesn't get close. Ars Technica has a nice article about radiation that goes into these issues in more de…

Radiation is normal, and so is water. I drink water every day with no ill side effects, yet it killed thousands of people in a Tsunami. How long does supply of nuclear fuels last anyway? Isn't it a limited resource? Will it be as necessary to civilization as SUVs? From the article it seems clear that inhaling or digesting contaminated stuff is dangerous.

A lot longer than any of our other energy sources, except maybe the sun, so fusion is a good thing to be able to manage, because hydrogen is so abundant.

However, entropy will ultimately kill the universe. Once the entire universe runs out of available energy (which it can manage without any human help), then we're screwed barring radical new physics that can give us answers like "this is how you create another universe and then travel there."

The good news is that it will take a looooooong time before anybody seriously has to worry about that.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#120

Post by innes »

callmevlad wrote: post #95
innes wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hang on, chernobyl deformed countless children? Countless as in "too many to count", or faultless as in "i can't help indulging in hyperbole".

Countless as in "we don't have the ability to accurately count" ... "immeasurable" would have been more accurate.

Sorry, that's a misuse of countless, which means immeasurable in the sense of being too many to count.
Post reply on HN