So, rendering thousands of square miles non-poisoned and non-useless IS a non-event, at least by comparison to significant events of the past decade or so.The GIT wrote:The fact you think rendering thousands of square miles as poisoned and useless is a "non-event",
Thoughts on Thorium Molten Salt Reactors?
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
You don't get it Kite. The land is poisoned and useless for all intents and purposes. It doesn't matter that you don't like the definition of what is poisoned and useless--the land is not going to be used. If you want to protest, go move your family there.
Why is it there are no qualified people making an issue of the linear zero-tolerance model? You do understand, the way out of this mess is through the courts, and it will be too late to have the hormesis model put in place when we have a "disaster" here.
Why is it there are no qualified people making an issue of the linear zero-tolerance model? You do understand, the way out of this mess is through the courts, and it will be too late to have the hormesis model put in place when we have a "disaster" here.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
I see people are still SHOUTING, and choosing their own data that fits their world view.
Radiation is not trivial. Neither is it all devastating. It all depends on the dose, type and purpose. Perhaps some would feel comfortable feeding contaminated milk (by current standards) to their children. There are broad arguments about what contamination means. Most standards for radiation risks are conservative, and personally I am glad of this. As a population, substantially higher risks are tolerable, but tell that to the father of a child with bone marrow failure, of thyroid cancer. In the same sense a vaccine might be considered safe if less than 1/100,000 recipients have a serious side effect. But tell that to the parent of the child that gets Guillain–Barré syndrome. Certainly medical radiation treatments can cause significant delayed risks. But, when you are fighting for a few months of survival, consequences 10-20 years later are of little concern. It all depends on your perspective.
Certainly accepted standards of governments has resulted in large exclusion zones with significant economic consequences. That individuals may wish to use their own separate numbers is not really relevant.
Though I will mention that an acute exposure of 100Rads being a threshold, is true (i would say closer to 50 Rads). But, it is a threshold for acute radiation sickness- hair falling out, diarrhea, near term bone failure, rampant infections, etc. This does not include the delayed radiation effects, such as delayed leukemia, thyroid cancers, and many other cancers. At 100 Rads only a few would die of acute radiation sickness, and ~ 1/2 half would get sick but recover (assuming the medical establishment survived to provide antibiotics, platelet transfusions, etc). Most deaths by far though would be delayed deaths and disability from, cancers, etc. This consideration is what drives the safe exposure standards to fairly low levels. Perhaps the standards are overly cautious, but again, I prefer this to erroring on the other side.
PS: I shouldn't say erroring. The statistics are fairly well known. The standards are based of risk/ cost analysis. Is it worth spending 1 billion dollers, to prevent excess cancer deaths from rising by 1 %, 0,1%?. If you are a poor society you cannot afford such concern, nor can you afford to treat the increased cancers. You can only concentrate on other more important things,like food. Again, I am glad to be in an affluent society that can afford to address such concerns.
Dan Tibbets
Radiation is not trivial. Neither is it all devastating. It all depends on the dose, type and purpose. Perhaps some would feel comfortable feeding contaminated milk (by current standards) to their children. There are broad arguments about what contamination means. Most standards for radiation risks are conservative, and personally I am glad of this. As a population, substantially higher risks are tolerable, but tell that to the father of a child with bone marrow failure, of thyroid cancer. In the same sense a vaccine might be considered safe if less than 1/100,000 recipients have a serious side effect. But tell that to the parent of the child that gets Guillain–Barré syndrome. Certainly medical radiation treatments can cause significant delayed risks. But, when you are fighting for a few months of survival, consequences 10-20 years later are of little concern. It all depends on your perspective.
Certainly accepted standards of governments has resulted in large exclusion zones with significant economic consequences. That individuals may wish to use their own separate numbers is not really relevant.
Though I will mention that an acute exposure of 100Rads being a threshold, is true (i would say closer to 50 Rads). But, it is a threshold for acute radiation sickness- hair falling out, diarrhea, near term bone failure, rampant infections, etc. This does not include the delayed radiation effects, such as delayed leukemia, thyroid cancers, and many other cancers. At 100 Rads only a few would die of acute radiation sickness, and ~ 1/2 half would get sick but recover (assuming the medical establishment survived to provide antibiotics, platelet transfusions, etc). Most deaths by far though would be delayed deaths and disability from, cancers, etc. This consideration is what drives the safe exposure standards to fairly low levels. Perhaps the standards are overly cautious, but again, I prefer this to erroring on the other side.
PS: I shouldn't say erroring. The statistics are fairly well known. The standards are based of risk/ cost analysis. Is it worth spending 1 billion dollers, to prevent excess cancer deaths from rising by 1 %, 0,1%?. If you are a poor society you cannot afford such concern, nor can you afford to treat the increased cancers. You can only concentrate on other more important things,like food. Again, I am glad to be in an affluent society that can afford to address such concerns.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
GIT, you don't get it. Just because the government is throwing it's weight around making proclamations doesn't make it so. You might as well call Area 51 poisoned and useless to the populace since the government claims it is deadly to go in there. The government is WRONG about C&F just as you are wrong. Indeed all you, and they, have to do is change your mind.GIThruster wrote:You don't get it Kite. The land is poisoned and useless for all intents and purposes. It doesn't matter that you don't like the definition of what is poisoned and useless--the land is not going to be used. If you want to protest, go move your family there.
I wouldn't call the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) "no qualified people". But there are a LOT of useful idiots out there. The users have been fear-mongering for half a century to develop you all. What UNSCEAR says is that anything under about 300 mSv/a is low level, indetectable negative effect. The red zone at F is less than that. The politics has not caught up with the corrective science.GIThruster wrote: Why is it there are no qualified people making an issue of the linear zero-tolerance model? You do understand, the way out of this mess is through the courts, and it will be too late to have the hormesis model put in place when we have a "disaster" here.
Dude, learn and rethink your position. It is untenable.
Hey, someone found a solution to much of the fear-mongering!
Another tiny miracle: Graphene oxide soaks up radioactive waste
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/report ... e_999.html
Sorry, for some reason it stuck a [/URL] label in there. Try it now.
Another tiny miracle: Graphene oxide soaks up radioactive waste
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/report ... e_999.html
Sorry, for some reason it stuck a [/URL] label in there. Try it now.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Link is broken, but kitty litter is nothing new. The Hanford cleanup team spent tens of millions developing kitty litter back in the 90's. News flash--you still have to put it in a container and the containers still don't last as long as the waste is dangerous, which is why all nuclear waste needs active monitoring.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
My understanding is right now the cleanup is not going very well because the government of japan will not allow outside contractors to help and the company’s in japan do not have the experience necessary to do the job. so they are just bagging waste and letting it lie or improperly disposing of it until they can figure out what to do with it. In the process creating even more cross contamination and by some estimates made the situation worse.