5 ms·
Living downwind from certain coal plants is worse. It's as the article said: we're looking at increase of a few percentage points risks and shitting ourselves
by lukeschlather 16y ago
Living downwind from certain coal plants is worse.
It's as the article said: we're looking at increase of a few percentage points risks and shitting ourselves without regard to the wide variety of things like cigarette smoke that cause four-fold increases in cancer rates.
- Tichy 16y agoThe article did not say that at all. It says that fear harms people, it did not say that radiation does not harm people. The cigarette comparison is extremely silly, as most people actually choose to not smoke cigarettes out of concern for their health.
- lukeschlather 16y ago>it did not say that radiation does not harm people. Neither did I.
- Tichy 16y agoThe article did not even mention radiation levels at Fukushima, yet you quoted it as radiation being not worse than cigarettes.
- tptacek 16y agoThe radiation levels at the plant gate at Fukushima are quite probably much less carcinogenic than a cigarette habit.
- Tichy 16y agoSo why don't they evacuate 50km radius around everybody who lights up a cigarette? Don't get me wrong, I want to believe you, and I am actually hopeful that no lasting damage has been done at Fukushima. But somehow all the optimism does not seem to add up 100%.
- tptacek 16y agoBecause standing 50km away from someone who lights up a cigarette produces no measurable elevation in cancer risk. Next question?
- tptacek 16y agoDo most people avoid fried food out of a fear of the breakdown of polyunsaturated fats in heat? Do they avoid more than one serving of dairy in a day? Do they avoid red meat? Do they take pains to eat kale and chard and spinach to avoid cancer risks? Do they measure their basements for radon? Do they refuse to live downwind from coal-powered nuclear plants? Do they avoid breathing the fumes at gas stations? Do they keep their car ventilation on internal-circulation-only on congested highways? If they fail to do any of these things, they are in all likelihood far more exposed to cancer than anyone who does them and sustains a 100msv exposure to radiation. Your attempt to swat away the cigarette point isn't going to succeed. Radiation simply isn't as significant a cancer risk as you're portraying it to be.
- Tichy 16y agoSo you claim that cigarettes are worse than radiation? I think that is bullshit, sorry (obviously it depends on the level of radiation, and I assume average cigarette consumption - of course you can consume a lethal dose of nicotine, I think). And you are constructing a lot of strawmen. I am simply calling for precise arguments. Maybe those things you quote are true, but then cite the correct sources, not XKCD charts and articles that do NOT contain the information you claim they do. Btw some people actually worry about the stuff they eat.
- tptacek 16y agoCigarettes are far worse for you than radioactive contamination. Cigarettes will almost reliably give you fatal cancer, no matter who you are.
- Tichy 16y agoI wonder why they even bothered to build containments for those reactors.
- tptacek 16y agoBecause if they didn't build containment for the reactors, the fuel itself could oxidize and ignite, dispersing massive quantities of radioactive material over one of the most populated areas on the earth with virtually no time for anybody to react and mitigate the disaster. Any other questions, I'm happy to take a crack at!