100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: continuing nuclear power in the U.S. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I don't know anything about radiation sickness. http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2011/06/10/japan-radiation-concerns/ I wonder who I should believe. A source like this, or some pro-nuclear right-wing posters on a message board. Obviously you should believe the green, anti-nuclear activist's blog without question. You are a leftist after all and you certainly don't want any facts to confuse you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The lower the wavelength the better the penetration power of radiation. Radiation with very short wave lengths have a difficult time penetrating further than the skin. The most danger from radiation poisoning comes from the stomach and the thyroid, if the radiation can't penetrate to those organs, then you'll probably be fine. In the case of beta radiation, the radiation is stopped at the lower skin layers and clothing provides some protection.
Also, there is an effect called "radiation hormesis", which actually is very beneficial to people who are irradiated. I've been told so many times by Conservatives, "You liberals don't let facts get in the way". Well, I've been looking and looking for some credible medical and scientific sources that will validate these claims that 'nuclear radiation is good for you', and I just can't find any. The way science is done is normally with published studies that get peer-reviewed before receiving validation from the scientific community, and I haven't been able to find any such validation for these claims. As I understand your claims, All people need is to use enough sunscreen to remain safe from nuclear radiation. I just don't find any credible support for your claims. There are lots of peer-reviewed studies that indicate just the opposite. It would be quite a historic event to discover that we had been wrong all these years. The world would want to know who it is that made this new discovery. No doubt, a Nobel prize would be in order. Perhaps you can help me out here. Give me a source. Who knows? I might even become a nuclear power-lover. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The lower the wavelength the better the penetration power of radiation. Radiation with very short wave lengths have a difficult time penetrating further than the skin. The most danger from radiation poisoning comes from the stomach and the thyroid, if the radiation can't penetrate to those organs, then you'll probably be fine. In the case of beta radiation, the radiation is stopped at the lower skin layers and clothing provides some protection.
Also, there is an effect called "radiation hormesis", which actually is very beneficial to people who are irradiated. I've been told so many times by Conservatives, "You liberals don't let facts get in the way". Well, I've been looking and looking for some credible medical and scientific sources that will validate these claims that 'nuclear radiation is good for you', and I just can't find any. The way science is done is normally with published studies that get peer-reviewed before receiving validation from the scientific community, and I haven't been able to find any such validation for these claims. As I understand your claims, All people need is to use enough sunscreen to remain safe from nuclear radiation. I just don't find any credible support for your claims. There are lots of peer-reviewed studies that indicate just the opposite. It would be quite a historic event to discover that we had been wrong all these years. The world would want to know who it is that made this new discovery. No doubt, a Nobel prize would be in order. Perhaps you can help me out here. Give me a source. Who knows? I might even become a nuclear power-lover. Have a look at Cohen's book in my first reply and it has a number of sources of information. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 06/30/11 02:52 PM
|
|
I don't know anything about radiation sickness. http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2011/06/10/japan-radiation-concerns/ I wonder who I should believe. A source like this, or some pro-nuclear right-wing posters on a message board. Here do some reading for yourself, and if you really want to know, I work with radiological equipment, and have extensive knowledge of dosages. It literally is my job to understand the dangers. No need to trust me however here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation First read this, so you can get the basics under your belt first. http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/info.html Then look at this to see what standards are in place for my industry, which its our job to get dosed. (For myself, I am not being dosed regularly, I do not actually performs the tests on local with any regularity, I am a remote tech/physicist, ie I do not get dosed, but have to know the standards regardless.) High Radiation Doses
Because radiation from nuclear material is strictly regulated, humans seldom experience large doses (~50 rem) of radiation. Nonetheless, lower doses can still damage or alter the genetic code (DNA) of irradiated cells. Moreover, high radiation doses (particularly over a short period of time) have a tendency to kill cells. In fact, high doses can sometimes kill so many cells that tissues and organs are damaged immediately. This, in turn, may cause a rapid whole-body response, which is often called "acute radiation syndrome." In general, the higher the radiation dose, the sooner the effects will appear, and the higher the probability of death. (The time between radiation exposure and cancer occurrence, for example, is known as the "latent period.") This syndrome was observed in many atomic bomb survivors in 1945, as well as emergency workers who responded to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in 1986. Approximately 134 plant workers and firefighters battling the fire at the Chernobyl power plant received high radiation doses of 70,000 to 1,340,000 mrem (700 to 13,400 mSv) and suffered acute radiation sickness. Of those 134, 28 died from the radiation injuries that they sustained. Although radiation affects different people in different ways, it is generally believed that humans exposed to about 500 rem of radiation all at once will likely die without medical treatment. Similarly, a single dose of 100 rem may cause a person to experience nausea or skin reddening (although recovery is likely), and about 25 rem can cause temporary sterility in men. However, if these doses are spread out over time, instead of being delivered all at once, their effects tend to be less severe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The lower the wavelength the better the penetration power of radiation. Radiation with very short wave lengths have a difficult time penetrating further than the skin. The most danger from radiation poisoning comes from the stomach and the thyroid, if the radiation can't penetrate to those organs, then you'll probably be fine. In the case of beta radiation, the radiation is stopped at the lower skin layers and clothing provides some protection.
Also, there is an effect called "radiation hormesis", which actually is very beneficial to people who are irradiated. I've been told so many times by Conservatives, "You liberals don't let facts get in the way". Well, I've been looking and looking for some credible medical and scientific sources that will validate these claims that 'nuclear radiation is good for you', and I just can't find any. The way science is done is normally with published studies that get peer-reviewed before receiving validation from the scientific community, and I haven't been able to find any such validation for these claims. As I understand your claims, All people need is to use enough sunscreen to remain safe from nuclear radiation. I just don't find any credible support for your claims. There are lots of peer-reviewed studies that indicate just the opposite. It would be quite a historic event to discover that we had been wrong all these years. The world would want to know who it is that made this new discovery. No doubt, a Nobel prize would be in order. Perhaps you can help me out here. Give me a source. Who knows? I might even become a nuclear power-lover. Have a look at Cohen's book in my first reply and it has a number of sources of information.
slowhand's reference is comprehensive without being too technical. Basically, radiation exposure is being hit by particles like photons, electrons,neutrons, or bigger chunks which shed smaller particles like alpha and beta particles. The electrons shed by a beta particle have trouble getting through cloth or a few feet of air. You have to ingest them through contaminated air, food or water to do much damage. This is the vast majority of radiation hazard usually dealt with at a site. Since it can't penetrate much, it is stopped by the classic "radiation suit" you so often see in film. "Hard radiation" such as x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays (usually protons) and neutrons will pass right through you and break a molecular bond if one is struck. This damage can cause cancer, ionize water in your cells (which can kill you) and such. The press is not astute enough to discern the difference so they lump it all together. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernard Cohen seems to be an academic heavyweight. I had never heard these ideas be fore, except from Ann Coulter. Not someone your really want out there spreading your message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernie is great. Really.
He is incredible and his book is a real accomplishment. You could not learn about nuclear power from a better source. Coulter is just comic relief. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen has been speaking about this issue since at least 1983. telling us things that go completely opposite to everything we have ever heard about nuclear radiation. It's a hard adjustment to make, but then, maybe he is the new Aristotle. He certainly has impressive credentials. I am reminded of William Shockly, the inventor of the transistor who got a Nobel Prize. He believed in eugenics.
People who have taken on these ideas don't seem to have been able to find any peer-reviewed studies that he has published. It is human and natural for people with political agendae to jump on the talking point memo that supports the argument that they wish to promote, so it's not surprising that the Ann Coulter memo should have grown to a major policy advocacy. For myself, I am inclined to keep an open mind on the issue. Here is what I've decided. As soon as the Insurance industry begins issuing insurance policies to cover nuclear power plant liabilities, and as soon as the operators of those power plants are willing and able to pay the premiums on those policies, I will be interested in supporting nuclear energy as a viable part of America's energy landscape. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen has been speaking about this issue since at least 1983. telling us things that go completely opposite to everything we have ever heard about nuclear radiation. It's a hard adjustment to make, but then... Cohen is his own man. His views are very mainstream in fact they define the mainstream. He is the past president of the American Physical Society Nuclear Physics Division. He's just a good scientist. Insurance is already required for Nuclear Facilities by the Price-Anderson Act. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The science of radiations hasn't changed in decades. Neither is the "all things related to radiation is a disaster" mentality of the press.
|
|
|
|
|
