31–40 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it could have been much worse, say like Chernobyl, and it wasn't due to good engineering.
How could it have been like Chernobyl? The Fukushima reactors didn't have graphite moderators. Totally different reactor technologies, equivocating them is spurious at best.
As an experiment, I volunteer to expose myself, my wife and my children to a yearly dose of radiation that is three times the maximum safe-level recommended by The International Commission on Radiological Protection. i.e. we happily live in the Denver area ;-)
Really? Are you serious? BTW, there's a big difference between "background radiation" and ingested radiation (either through air, food, water, etc.) The scientific consensus is that there is no amount of radiation that is safe to ingest. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 Do you really want to test your theory?
As an experiment, I volunteer to expose myself, my wife and my children to a yearly dose of radiation that is three times the maximum safe-level recommended by The International Commission on Radiological Protection. i.e. we happily live in the Denver area ;-)
Really? Are you serious? BTW, there's a big difference between "background radiation" and ingested radiation (either through air, food, water, etc.) The scientific consensus is that there is no amount of radiation that is safe to ingest. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 Do you really want to test your theory?
1. The paper you link to does not discus ingestion. Ever. It clearly described to the dosimetric estimates of gamma and neutron, but no information on metabolic pathways.
2. If there really was a scientific consensus that NO radioactive material was safe, why does the EPA allow it in drinking water(http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/radon/upload/ep...)? And the FDA is quite happy to allow us to eat bananas when they are a veritable feast of radioactivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose).
I hate to tell you sir, but you in fact do test this every day you breathe, drink and eat. There ARE in fact many natural sources of radioactivity, that we have been eating for quite some time, with never a though of cancer.
To the author of this article: I will believe you if you agree to move to Fukushima and live there for the rest of your life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, we don't have the data. Yep, it's non linear, but all of our data is basically on two ends of the spectrum. Low amounts of radiation on one end, accumulated from natural sources or working at nuclear plants, and high amounts of radiation on the other, accumulated from survivors of Hiroshima, Cherynobyl, and some nuclear accidents. So, given those data points, with clusters on two ends of this spectrum…
A little radiation is good for you! The science says otherwise. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/low-level-doses-of-ra...
Studies Ive read, completely contradict your statements (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?artic...) for one. There are others, and I am sure that I will not be convincing you, but I didn't want your voice to be the only one on the issue here.
Physicist Richard Muller should clearly demonstrate his beliefs by moving to Fukushima, instead of discussing the panic from the other side of the world. And he should also put nuclear risks in perspective, and contradict Seaborg: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom....
He should leave his tenured position at a major university to demonstrate his conviction? That's not a meaningful point or challenge.
To the author of this article: I will believe you if you agree to move to Fukushima and live there for the rest of your life.
As for me, I live in Denver with my family which according to the exposure map, is about the same as living within 25 miles of Fukushima
The German Embassy didn't either: they knew better by themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing his point, which is that he lives in Denver and is happy with his decision. :)
I was pointing out that the (background) radiation in Denver is not the same as the fallout from Fukushima.
Radioactive isotopes are one source of radiation, insolation and cosmic background radiation are others. In this case the OP was referring specifically to maximum radiation exposure levels as defined by some big-"I" international organization.
Physicist Richard Muller should clearly demonstrate his beliefs by moving to Fukushima, instead of discussing the panic from the other side of the world. And he should also put nuclear risks in perspective, and contradict Seaborg: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom....