CNN wants you to believe it's safe if you are > 50 mls away from a nuclear reactor

[Throckmorton]

LOL @ Ann Coulter's article. That is amazing.

 

[Throckmorton]

Dude, you have completely lost it. Not your crazy "radiation is good for you" position, but the one where you said "Sexy Ann Coulter". Gross. It's a man, baby.

It's called sarcasm

 

[rcpratt]

lol@everyone incapable of doing research and not realizing it's not all that crazy.

 

[herm0016]

modern reactors can not fail like Chernobyl. the Russian reactor did not have a containment vessel!

 

[charrison]

LOL @ Ann Coulter's article. That is amazing.

Congratulation on shooting the messenger. She was reporting on actual studies done about radiation and its effects.

The media by and large has done a terrible job on reporting current radiation risks. It is sad when a cartoon site does a better job of reporting the risks than any of the media.

 

[bfdd]

i would feel safe living across the street from one.

 

[Tom]

Nothing has been proven, but the theory of benefits of low doses of radiation ("Hormesis") is currently just as valid as the theory that any dose of radiation adds cancer risk ("LNTH"). More research is needed. Those that mock either theory are the only wrong ones right now.

It isn't appropriate ethical science to subject people involuntarily to radioactive isotopes via malfunctioning power plants.

So people who excuse such a release on the basis of unproven theories that is good for people are not the equivalent of people who fault the unintended release of radiation on the theory that it isn't actually known what a safe level of radiation is.

 

[charrison]

It isn't appropriate ethical science to subject people involuntarily to radioactive isotopes via malfunctioning power plants.

So people who excuse such a release on the basis of unproven theories that is good for people are not the equivalent of people who fault the unintended release of radiation on the theory that it isn't actually known what a safe level of radiation is.

I dont think anyone has excused this accident.

 

[wuliheron]

I dont think anyone has excused this accident.

I've heard nothing but excuses from people including flat out lies such as the idea that it was a completely unpredictable event like the meteor that killed the dinosaurs to this latest crap about "scientific evidence" that radiation is good for you. This kind of ridiculous nonsense despite overwhelming evidence that in just about every way imaginable significantly better precautions could have been taken and that at least Japan itself is at risk for serious contamination.

 

[Skitzer]

Exactly. That's why I microwave my cock daily for extra length and girth.

I was thinking about doing that too but couldn't figure out how to shut the door so it would turn on.

 

[rcpratt]

It isn't appropriate ethical science to subject people involuntarily to radioactive isotopes via malfunctioning power plants.

Pretty sure I never said that.

 

[Illyusha]

Exactly. That's why I microwave my cock daily for extra length and girth.

I thought only norwegians were capable of radiated cock detachment.

 

[charrison]

I've heard nothing but excuses from people including flat out lies such as the idea that it was a completely unpredictable event like the meteor that killed the dinosaurs to this latest crap about "scientific evidence" that radiation is good for you. This kind of ridiculous nonsense despite overwhelming evidence that in just about every way imaginable significantly better precautions could have been taken and that at least Japan itself is at risk for serious contamination.

And there are people out there acting like there were no safety built into the structure as well. The fact is every building put into place has engineering compromises. All things considered the building has performed reasonably well for what happened to it.

About the nnly thing that could have been done differently is located it further inland on higher ground, but of course they would have been father away from the seawater they are using to cool the plant in a emergency(these are the compromises I am talking about).

The plant design was a good design for when it was built 40 years ago. Yes we have much designs today, but those were not available the.

And I will add that the big loss of life in this event is not coming from this powerplant.

 

[wuliheron]

About the nnly thing that could have been done differently is located it further inland on higher ground, but of course they would have been father away from the seawater they are using to cool the plant in a emergency(these are the compromises I am talking about).

I have no idea if they could have moved the plant elsewhere or if that was about the only thing they could have done differently. In fact, it sounds just like the rest of the crap I'm hearing from people who obviously have no real idea of what they're talking about and just speculating wildly.

 

[Tom]

Pretty sure I never said that.

I didn't say you did. You quoted only the preface of my post, it's relevant to your previous post when my entire post is considered.

Your original post that I responded to seems to equate two views of the affects of radiation, all I'm saying is they aren't equal.

They might be equal in terms of their lack of scientific evidence, but they are not equal in terms of ethics and adherence to scientific methodology.

People who suggest the radiation isn't that bad, ie Ann Coulter, are using unsound "evidence" to excuse the unintended release of radiation, which is a wildly unethical position to take.

People who suggest radiation is more dangerous than rigorous scientific evidence has shown to be factual, are at worst being overly cautious. Which might be a mistake, but I wouldn't say it's unethical.

I'm not saying you ascribe to either position, btw.

 

[rcpratt]

While both theories may have equal merit at this point, obviously there is an ethical responsibility to err on the side of safety and caution. Which is why the NRC and the industry around the world has incredibly conservative dose limits and basically subscribes to LNTH. I don't disagree with that track at all, although I do think it only exacerbates the public's misunderstanding and fear of the topic.

I don't see the issue with someone sharing the other side of the research for once. Nobody is advocating that we should all go swim in a reactor. But people deserve to have the option to learn both sides of the story.

 

[crownjules]

I don't suppose any of you has seen this yet, just to put things into perspective a bit?
http://xkcd.com/radiation/

This is better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAnqRQg-W0k&feature=related

 

[Modelworks]

For the really paranoid, your very own dosimeter.
http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G15423

 

[wuliheron]

For the really paranoid, your very own dosimeter.
http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G15423

Do they make those in Japan?

 

[BladeVenom]

It isn't appropriate ethical science to subject people involuntarily to radioactive isotopes via malfunctioning power plants.

Do you drive a car? You're subjecting people involuntarily to toxic fumes.

 

[werepossum]

I live roughly 8 miles/12 km from Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, without fear. Frankly I worry more about the organophosphates the government left in the old TNT manufacturing plantation behind us than about Sequoyah (which was by the way built with Union labor.) On the other hand, if I lived 12 km downstream from Three Gorges Dam I'd be awake at nights.

Any great concentration of energy in any form is potentially dangerous, but I'm not terribly worried about nukes. Were ours built like Chernobyl, THEN I would be afraid.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

What I find most amazing is reports and people posting on the internet seem to have all the facts and know how horrible radiation is, but the experts and people that actually work in the field and have extensive knowledge and experience with high level radiation are ignored and told they don't know what they are talking about.

Anyone participating in this thread posting about how dangerous this really is. Please post your degree. Otherwise shut the fuck up about a topic you know absolutely nothing about excpet for what your talking head on MSNBC has told you.

 

[Nebor]

On the other hand, if I lived 12 km downstream from Three Gorges Dam I'd be awake at nights.

Do dams typically break more at night?

 

[Munky]

It is safe. The people who would want me to believe otherwise would no doubt prefer I regress to a 13th century lifestyle depending on their green energy, while they continue to parade around in private jets and multiple mansions.

 

[ShawnD1]

It is safe. The people who would want me to believe otherwise would no doubt prefer I regress to a 13th century lifestyle depending on their green energy, while they continue to parade around in private jets and multiple mansions.

Well actually the 13th century was quite clean. I crusade against nuclear power because I want us to burn more coal, completely fuck up the environment, and push full steam into the future.