9 ms·

> In other words, if a beach is made of eroded granite, its radioactivity will be between 25,000-500,000 Bq/t: assuming the sand is more than a feet deep, I thi

> In other words, if a beach is made of eroded granite, its radioactivity will be between 25,000-500,000 Bq/t: assuming the sand is more than a feet deep, I think it's safe to assume > 25,000 Bq/m^2. I don't think this computation is valid, because you have to consider what and how much radiation makes it out of the solid. So converting from activity per mass to activity per surface area cannot be done, I think, by simply assuming a given depth.

Gibbon1 8y ago
Yeah this is just a version of the 'chest x-ray' fallacy/lie/propaganda. You just simply cannot compare radiation hazzards based on gross disintegration's per second. Anyone doing that is either lying because they know better or ignorant.
- yongjik 8y ago
  > You just simply cannot compare radiation hazzards based on gross disintegration's per second. Anyone doing that is either lying because they know better or ignorant. You know, the really nice thing about this part of your statement is that there's no way to tell which side you're standing... This whole thread started with Bq/m^2 (i.e., "gross disintegrations per second" per square meter), after all. Of course you can accept some numbers and reject others as invalid/irrelevant, but when your whole argument looks like "I reject this number because nuclear is dangerous", it starts to look awfully like circular reasoning, or propaganda, if you prefer.
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    > You know, the really nice thing about this part of your statement is that there's no way to tell which side you're standing... Two points that inform my position. There is no civilian nuclear industry. Military and civilian are two sides to the same coin. Due to it's black budget military origin, that industry lies about risks out of habit. None of the public debate deals with the complex risks, dubious economics, and long tail waste issues. I actually know almost nothing and I can see the public debate is just a bunch of deeply ignorant people spouting off. So my position, given the industry lies, the risks, and the existence of alternatives, the sooner we stop mucking around with radio-isotopes and sequester the stuff we've made the better.

Gibbon1 8y ago

Yeah this is just a version of the 'chest x-ray' fallacy/lie/propaganda. You just simply cannot compare radiation hazzards based on gross disintegration's per second. Anyone doing that is either lying because they know better or ignorant.

yongjik 8y ago
> You just simply cannot compare radiation hazzards based on gross disintegration's per second. Anyone doing that is either lying because they know better or ignorant. You know, the really nice thing about this part of your statement is that there's no way to tell which side you're standing... This whole thread started with Bq/m^2 (i.e., "gross disintegrations per second" per square meter), after all. Of course you can accept some numbers and reject others as invalid/irrelevant, but when your whole argument looks like "I reject this number because nuclear is dangerous", it starts to look awfully like circular reasoning, or propaganda, if you prefer.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  > You know, the really nice thing about this part of your statement is that there's no way to tell which side you're standing... Two points that inform my position. There is no civilian nuclear industry. Military and civilian are two sides to the same coin. Due to it's black budget military origin, that industry lies about risks out of habit. None of the public debate deals with the complex risks, dubious economics, and long tail waste issues. I actually know almost nothing and I can see the public debate is just a bunch of deeply ignorant people spouting off. So my position, given the industry lies, the risks, and the existence of alternatives, the sooner we stop mucking around with radio-isotopes and sequester the stuff we've made the better.