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

The Radiation Exposure Lie

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: The Radiation Exposure Lie

#101

Post by antonvs »

masklinn wrote: post #17
comrade1234 wrote: post #7

They studied the population in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for generations and found that in the first generations after the bombs there were elevated levels of hard-tissue cancers and in later generations elevated levels of soft-tissue/blood cancers. They're still dealing with the population effects of radiation 75-years later. No one will be able to live in Chernobyl or Fukushima for hundreds of years. Or, well, they co…

Much of the Fukushima area is inhabited again (the exclusion zone has shrunk from an original 1250km2 down to 371) and there is ample evidence that the overreaction evacuation did a lot more harm than good.

I love the way people try to make the case that "we only made 371 km^2 uninhabitable, it's fine!"

Re: The Radiation Exposure Lie

#102

Post by Paradigm2020 »

antonvs wrote: post #98
lisper wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> attempting to build nuclear power plants results in big increases in electric rates Largely due to the costs of complying with draconian regulatory regimes.

Why do those regimes exist, do you think?

Because rich people would be impacted by nuclear fallout in an unlikely event but are not impacted by fallout of daily coal/gas etc burning...

Also can read up on the bootleggers and baptist scenario that happened between the oil industry and greenpeace...

Re: The Radiation Exposure Lie

#103

Post by amarant »

kmoser wrote: post #78
amarant wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your not wrong, but you seem to be missing one significant detail: we have altered the biosphere even more by not engaging in nuclear activity, instead opting for less-scary-but-worse alternatives like coal, oil and gas.

You're not wrong, but you seem to be missing one significant detail: if we had invested in renewable energy resources like solar and wind to begin with, we wouldn't have needed (as much) assistance from nuclear, coal, oil, and gas.

I didn't miss that at all! I think we should definitely build more solar and wind.

I also think we should build more nuclear. I've seen estimations saying we could supply the current grid demands with renewables in about 10 years time if we start building now. Thing is, in ten years, power demand will have doubled. So we should build renewables and nuclear. Any other plan will end up using coal oil and gas.

Re: The Radiation Exposure Lie

#104

Post by pu_pe »

gurjeet wrote: post #70

> Drinking one beer a night for a year is a lot less harmful than drinking 365 beers in one go. The same applies to radiation exposure, but regulation doesn’t agree. I know I may be overreacting, but when the dentists try to convince me that the annual x-ray of my family members is the same as being outside in the sun for a whole day, I try to explain it with a similar analogy; getting exposed to small amounts of x-r…

The amount of radiation exposure on a dental x-ray is still tiny though, we are talking like 5 or 6 orders of magnitude lower than radiation poisoning thresholds. Plus there is extensive epidemiological data about their safety.

Re: The Radiation Exposure Lie

#105

Post by masklinn »

antonvs wrote: post #101
masklinn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the Fukushima area is inhabited again (the exclusion zone has shrunk from an original 1250km2 down to 371) and there is ample evidence that the overreaction evacuation did a lot more harm than good.

I love the way people try to make the case that "we only made 371 km^2 uninhabitable, it's fine !"

Nobody said “it’s fine”, I’m pointing out that it’s nowhere near as bad as the fear-mongers claim, and it’s being cleaned up, not to mention the exclusion zone was decided under the linear no threshold model so it’s nowhere near uninhabitable.

If you want uninhabitable areas go take a hike in the ww1 red zones.

Re: The Radiation Exposure Lie

#106

Post by peterfirefly »

cwillu wrote: post #84
glitchc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No safe low radiation dose, you say? Well then, you had better stay away from red meat, brazil nuts and even bananas. Consumed them already, you say? Well I guess you're screwed then.

I believe you misread the comment you are replying to.

I don't think so. It was a "support" comment, not a "you're wrong" comment.

Re: The Radiation Exposure Lie

#107

Post by formerly_proven »

antonvs wrote: post #101
masklinn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the Fukushima area is inhabited again (the exclusion zone has shrunk from an original 1250km2 down to 371) and there is ample evidence that the overreaction evacuation did a lot more harm than good.

I love the way people try to make the case that "we only made 371 km^2 uninhabitable, it's fine !"

Thousands of times of that area is lost permanently every year to climate change, extractive industries, desertification, pollution etc. (just desertification is estimated at around 2500x that number). With nuclear we always proceed with extreme to absurd levels of caution, in no small part because radiation is extremely easy to measure - unlike almost every other contaminant we put in the environment, which are harder to quantify and our risk response is generally "oh it's totes fine". See: PFAS, microplastics, endocrine-disrupting chemicals dropping sperm count and reproductive health indicators on the entire planet, PM air pollution, UPFs, blood lead levels, military chemicals etc. etc.

But if the Geiger counter ticks too fast once everyone in a 100 mile radius loses their mind. Nuclear accidents are not fine. Obviously. The impact is dramatically, comically overstated compared to literally any other environmental concern.

Re: The Radiation Exposure Lie

#108

Post by Symmetry »

MomsAVoxell wrote: post #95
throw0101a wrote: post #19

Reminded of something that Geraldine Thomas, founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, wrote when the Fukushima drama was going on, "Look at the science – smoking and obesity are more harmful than radiation": * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-... > I can assure you that none of us are in the pay of the nuclear industry. I was anti-nuclear until I worked on the after effects of the Chernobyl ac…

>rubbish about a nuclear winter we were fed during the Cold War If it weren't for the deterrent factor in the radiation narrative, the Cold War would've become hotter - and there is some truth in the observation that younger generations, not having had this fear of radiation inculcated in them, are too flippant about the idea of a nuclear hot war as a consequence. So I hope folks will stop thinking that the radiation…

It's unfortunate that we only have one vocabulary for radiation to cover both a 100 uS dose of fallout and a 10 S one. If a quantity of rock drops on someone we have different words like "pebble" and "boulder" that tell us how concerned we should be. I was shocked to learn that "fallout" in the context of a nuclear war could mean something that could cause you to die in hours, not raise your lifetime risk of cancer somewhat.

Re: The Radiation Exposure Lie

#109

Post by tomq »

It sounds like the shape of the dose response curve for chronic low dose radiation is controversial. There's a lack of definitive evidence either way and reasonable arguments in both directions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis and other independent sources.

This article is making the case in one direction and is biased. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I wouldn't walk away using this as your only source on the topic.

Re: The Radiation Exposure Lie

#110

Post by shakow »

antonvs wrote: post #98
lisper wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> attempting to build nuclear power plants results in big increases in electric rates Largely due to the costs of complying with draconian regulatory regimes.

Why do those regimes exist, do you think?

Because for some reason, our societies decided that cancer caused by radiation = bad, cancer caused by air pollution = OK.
Post reply on HN