3 ms·

One of these stations will not give me cancer while a typical nuclear reactor very much might. The laws of physics sure are harsh. Such as there is no safe leve

One of these stations will not give me cancer while a typical nuclear reactor very much might. The laws of physics sure are harsh. Such as there is no safe level of radiation, radiation releases usually happen around fission reactors and any fission nuclear reactor will make life more dangerous for people around it. Furthermore, it should be noted that new sources of energy usually start out as being small and expensive and inefficient. After some time and investment the more promising ones can prove to be plentiful and efficient. Solar and wind were once considered to be esoteric and expensive. Now they are both vastly cheaper than nuclear and even somewhat cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago
> One of these stations will not give me cancer while a typical nuclear reactor very much might. The laws of physics sure are harsh. Such as there is no safe level of radiation, radiation releases usually happen around fission reactors and any fission nuclear reactor will make life more dangerous for people around it. Is this the real truth as to why nuclear hasn't caught on?
- steeve 7y ago
  While the OP's statement is factually untrue, fear of nuclear is one of the biggest reason indeed.
steeve 7y ago
IECC and UNSCEAR disagree with you.
User23 7y ago
> The laws of physics sure are harsh. Such as there is no safe level of radiation This is debatable[1]. I'm not saying you're wrong, but this isn't settled science and there are some interesting experiments planned to help us better understand whether or not there is radiation hormesis. Given that we and all of our ancestors have lived with some level of radon exposure, it could be an adaptive trait that has been selected for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
- steeve 7y ago
  If there is no safe levels of radiations, then I hope OP doesn't get near other people because a human body radiates 5000-7000 Bq. Hopefully he lives in a lead bunker because the earth telluric a background radiation ranges from 1mSv/year to 35 mSv/year. I hope he doesn't take the plane, too. And so on...

MuffinFlavored 7y ago

> One of these stations will not give me cancer while a typical nuclear reactor very much might. The laws of physics sure are harsh. Such as there is no safe level of radiation, radiation releases usually happen around fission reactors and any fission nuclear reactor will make life more dangerous for people around it. Is this the real truth as to why nuclear hasn't caught on?

steeve 7y ago
While the OP's statement is factually untrue, fear of nuclear is one of the biggest reason indeed.

steeve 7y ago

IECC and UNSCEAR disagree with you.

User23 7y ago

> The laws of physics sure are harsh. Such as there is no safe level of radiation This is debatable[1]. I'm not saying you're wrong, but this isn't settled science and there are some interesting experiments planned to help us better understand whether or not there is radiation hormesis. Given that we and all of our ancestors have lived with some level of radon exposure, it could be an adaptive trait that has been selected for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

steeve 7y ago
If there is no safe levels of radiations, then I hope OP doesn't get near other people because a human body radiates 5000-7000 Bq. Hopefully he lives in a lead bunker because the earth telluric a background radiation ranges from 1mSv/year to 35 mSv/year. I hope he doesn't take the plane, too. And so on...