Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
1–10 of 619 posts
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#2Radiation is good. Without it we would not have mutation and then there would be nothing for natural selection to operate on. Ergo, if you are against radiation you are against evolution.
QED.
Also, I have shares in companies that can build nuclear power stations in your neighborhood.
Also, because I want to keep driving and heating my uninsulated suburban single-family house while I eat beef 3 times a week and I am starting to realize that this might cause the climate destruction that those econuts warble about I might need to get my power from somewhere else.
Next question?
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#3Without even reading it, "yes".
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#4Radiation is good. Without it we would not have mutation and then there would be nothing for natural selection to operate on. Ergo, if you are against radiation you are against evolution. QED. Also, I have shares in companies that can build nuclear power stations in your neighborhood. Also, because I want to keep driving and heating my uninsulated suburban single-family house while I eat beef 3 times a week and I am…
And flying. Don't forget the flying. What the planet needs is more nuclear and more covid.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#5The attitude on risks of radiation have little to do with the economic and technological failures of nuclear power. With multiple schedule and cost failures it seems like fission nuclear is an exercise in what is possible, but not really practical compared to what is accessible via renewables + storage and it's far less constrained financial and technological foundations.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#6Yes, too anxious about nuclear energy generally.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#7After you ionize the straw man to death, ask the engineers wtf are we going to do with hazardous waste byproducts for which the current plan is to let sit and rot on site at various plant sites.
When you look at the inevitable destruction that will be wrought on the Columbia river ecosystem by the Hanford site, perhaps it’s worth considering what will happen in the coming years as uneconomical nuclear plants are shut down.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#8> "we know that things like bad diet, inactivity, obesity and alcohol can also cause cancer"
No, we actually don't know that.
I would say that correlation isn't causation, but for at least 3 of those factors I'm pretty sure we don't even have the correlation.
This sentence here spoiled the entire article for me, as this is IMO an unacceptable mistake for a science journalist.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#9I think it's definitely true people are overly anxious about radiation, and irrationally so. For example, it's easy to find people who get anxious about xrays but not about flying even though it gives you roughly the same amount of exposure.
I know I was pretty anxious when I had a chest xray as a kid. It's just the invisible nature of radiation. Coupled with the real and brutal effects of extreme doses, it just lends itself to horrifying media portrayals.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#10Radiation is good. Without it we would not have mutation and then there would be nothing for natural selection to operate on. Ergo, if you are against radiation you are against evolution. QED. Also, I have shares in companies that can build nuclear power stations in your neighborhood. Also, because I want to keep driving and heating my uninsulated suburban single-family house while I eat beef 3 times a week and I am…
Right, let's keep burning coal and gas for electricity, instead of getting clean and immensely plentiful electricity from nuclear.