5 ms·

That's the kind of argument that sounds OK only if you already accept the conclusion. Here's another one - The amount of radioactive material in the atmosphere

That's the kind of argument that sounds OK only if you already accept the conclusion. Here's another one - The amount of radioactive material in the atmosphere is higher since nuclear testing than ever before in human history. Radioactive material causes cancer so we've clearly caused at least a portion of higher rates of cancer. Call to action - We must all do our part to help clean the radioactive material from the air so we don't die of cancer!

pjc50 8y ago
During the post-Chernobyl period we had almost exactly this - vast amounts of European food production had to be discarded because it had absorbed excessive radioactive material from the "plume" from the fire which blew west over Europe.
dpark 8y ago
> Radioactive material causes cancer so we've clearly caused at least a portion of higher rates of cancer. I don't think anyone argues that radioactive testing has significantly (or even measurably) increased the background radiation level on Earth. Contrast with carbon dioxide, where we have increased by ~40%. If we had evidence that nuclear testing had significantly increased background radiation levels, then the assertions that it's increased cancer rates and that we should try to clean it up would both be true.
- smueller1234 8y ago
  Err, wait a minute. Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests HAVE measurably increased background radiation. Source: See for example both the table and the C14 graph at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation Source 2: Grad degree in physics. Worked at nuclear physics lab.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Well then. I was not aware that we had done that much with our nuclear testing. Obviously then we did probably cause an increase in cancer. On the bright side it looks like we’re almost back to baseline.
    - southern_cross 8y ago
      Be careful about making too much cancer attribution here, though. For one, naturally occurring background radiation levels can be (and often are) far higher than most people realize, and our bodies have long ago adapted to that as best they can. Two, in addition to other pollutants, burning coal also releases quite a bit of radiation, far more than you average nuclear plant or whatever. Third, for the longest time a dose of radiation received all at once vs. that same dose of radiation received over time were treated as if they were exactly the same biologically. But now that we have actual long-term results to go by, it turns out that radiation received over time is generally somewhere between 10x and 100x less dangerous biologically than if that same radiation were received all at once. Also, it matters a lot what the type of radiation received is and where you receive it. For example, radiation received by the skin (dead tissue) may be all but inconsequential, while that same radiation received in the lungs or gut or bloodstream (live tissue) may potentially be disastrous.
      - smueller1234 8y ago
        Those are all good points and for anyone reading along with curiosity, I'd actually recommend the Wikipedia link two posts up as a nice starting point for learning more. Wikipedia on this general subject area isn't too shabby, I thought when I last went down the rabbit hole.
adrianN 8y ago
They did ban nuclear testing in the open air fairly quickly and resorted to underground tests which produce much less fallout. Then they did ban those too.
bonesss 8y ago
We've found particles of radioactive fallout in newly contacted remote tribes, those particles exist throughout the ecosystem and are present in all of us... Yeah, we have caused a slightly higher cancer rate with atmospheric testing. Cleaning is a non-starter, but anyone with sense is working to prevent more radioactive material in our atmosphere. If what you are suggesting were remotely viable it would be a wonderful way to, for example, capture radioactive particles released by burning coal. Swapping out coal plants with nuclear reactors being the 'final solution' there...

pjc50 8y ago

During the post-Chernobyl period we had almost exactly this - vast amounts of European food production had to be discarded because it had absorbed excessive radioactive material from the "plume" from the fire which blew west over Europe.

dpark 8y ago

> Radioactive material causes cancer so we've clearly caused at least a portion of higher rates of cancer. I don't think anyone argues that radioactive testing has significantly (or even measurably) increased the background radiation level on Earth. Contrast with carbon dioxide, where we have increased by ~40%. If we had evidence that nuclear testing had significantly increased background radiation levels, then the assertions that it's increased cancer rates and that we should try to clean it up would both be true.

smueller1234 8y ago
Err, wait a minute. Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests HAVE measurably increased background radiation. Source: See for example both the table and the C14 graph at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation Source 2: Grad degree in physics. Worked at nuclear physics lab.
- dpark 8y ago
  Well then. I was not aware that we had done that much with our nuclear testing. Obviously then we did probably cause an increase in cancer. On the bright side it looks like we’re almost back to baseline.
  - southern_cross 8y ago
    Be careful about making too much cancer attribution here, though. For one, naturally occurring background radiation levels can be (and often are) far higher than most people realize, and our bodies have long ago adapted to that as best they can. Two, in addition to other pollutants, burning coal also releases quite a bit of radiation, far more than you average nuclear plant or whatever. Third, for the longest time a dose of radiation received all at once vs. that same dose of radiation received over time were treated as if they were exactly the same biologically. But now that we have actual long-term results to go by, it turns out that radiation received over time is generally somewhere between 10x and 100x less dangerous biologically than if that same radiation were received all at once. Also, it matters a lot what the type of radiation received is and where you receive it. For example, radiation received by the skin (dead tissue) may be all but inconsequential, while that same radiation received in the lungs or gut or bloodstream (live tissue) may potentially be disastrous.
    - smueller1234 8y ago
      Those are all good points and for anyone reading along with curiosity, I'd actually recommend the Wikipedia link two posts up as a nice starting point for learning more. Wikipedia on this general subject area isn't too shabby, I thought when I last went down the rabbit hole.

adrianN 8y ago

They did ban nuclear testing in the open air fairly quickly and resorted to underground tests which produce much less fallout. Then they did ban those too.

bonesss 8y ago

We've found particles of radioactive fallout in newly contacted remote tribes, those particles exist throughout the ecosystem and are present in all of us... Yeah, we have caused a slightly higher cancer rate with atmospheric testing. Cleaning is a non-starter, but anyone with sense is working to prevent more radioactive material in our atmosphere. If what you are suggesting were remotely viable it would be a wonderful way to, for example, capture radioactive particles released by burning coal. Swapping out coal plants with nuclear reactors being the 'final solution' there...