3 ms·

Where I live it is a lot more rational to be worried about radiation than about Tsunamis. I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly l

by Tichy 16y ago

Where I live it is a lot more rational to be worried about radiation than about Tsunamis. I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea, that's about it. It's not my fault if the media tries to milk Fukushima for all it's worth (they live on fear). Still, the kind of answer you give doesn't help much. If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection suits? I didn't follow the stories too closely, so I suppose you refer to some measurement somewhere that made it into the news. That's a complete strawman. What I heard is that radiation levels were rising in Tokyo's water supply, but not enough to be dangerous. Still I would consider it newsworthy that an accident 200km away that does not seem to be 100% under control affects the Tokyo water supply. The Tsunami probably also started just with a 1mm rise in water levels. And to be honest, I admit if I was living in Tokyo, I would probably still think twice about giving the water to my baby. Who knows how timely the official measurements arrive - maybe in the meantime the radiation levels rise some more (the real news is the movement in radiation levels, not any static data point). And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti nuclear media of).

Natsu 16y ago
> I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea, that's about it. They can improve seawalls and such, actually. And we can improve search & rescue operations. > If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection suits? Those don't protect from radiation very well, they're to prevent contamination. It takes several inches of lead to block gamma rays (you'd have to be Superman to move in a suit that heavy) and neutrons can activate otherwise non-radioactive elements. Alpha & beta radiation are relatively easy to block, though, but normal clothing is almost enough. Also, it's just good engineering to take precautions. Also, near the plant, there actually are hazardous levels of radiation, it's just once you get further away that they're mostly harmless. > And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti nuclear media of). I have, but who knows with the news? I've heard radiation figures from "100x normal" to "1,000,000x normal" (the LA Times had a much larger multiplier than the other papers I compared it to). Also, remember the tsunami in the Indian ocean? Last I heard, the deaths there were on the order of 100k, if memory serves. Japan did what? 1/10th or so of that (again, depending on which numbers you believe). I do not and cannot blame you for the media's hysteria, I'm just trying to help you not get caught up in it and to understand the real dangers that people are underestimating. Granted, you may not live in a coastal area, so you may not even have heard of seawalls before, but non-newsworthy things like improving them can save a lot of people. But those kinds of projects will get starved for funding. So we'll end up with a lot of panicked people in California who shoot down new nuke plants in favor of coal/natural gas (the coal miners who die are in China, so there are no political consequences) and underestimate things like seawalls. California is said to be overdue for a big quake, but I hope they're wrong about that.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Nonsense, Japan already has invested a lot in Tsunami protection, they will not starve funding for that. Who says it is an "either invest in anti-Tsunami or anti-nuclear-power measures" kind of thing? And no, I don't live in a coastal area, so enhancing seawalls is not my interest or priority. As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense. I have little hopes for nuclear power to go away, nor fossile fuel plants. I think it would be possible, but lifestyles would have to change too much (for the better in my opinion, but many people would disagree). We certainly could save a lot of power, so it would not have to be necessary to replace nuclear power plants with fossile fuel plants.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    > As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense. How radiation affects one's body is a complex issue. The inverse square law also comes into effect. So something can be dangerous close up, but no threat to anyone who doesn't get close. Ars Technica has a nice article about radiation that goes into these issues in more detail than I can: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-understanding-radiation-risks-in-japan.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-... My main point about bananas, though, is that radiation is normal. You experience it every single day, even if you don't realize it. All sorts of background radiation is constantly going through your body. Not to mention intentional exposures like chest X-rays. It's sort of like fire, then. You can burn yourself and you should treat it carefully. You should fear it enough to avoid burning yourself, but not much more than that. It's also going to become just about as necessary to civilization as fire, soon, from the look of things. Maybe fusion will pan out and I hope so, but people are then going to have to learn all about neutrons and why they can make normal materials become radioactive.... But maybe clever moderator designs will make it so that most neutrons are absorbed by easily replaceable things that don't become anything nasty.
    - Tichy 16y ago
      Radiation is normal, and so is water. I drink water every day with no ill side effects, yet it killed thousands of people in a Tsunami. How long does supply of nuclear fuels last anyway? Isn't it a limited resource? Will it be as necessary to civilization as SUVs? From the article it seems clear that inhaling or digesting contaminated stuff is dangerous.

by Tichy 16y ago

Natsu 16y ago

> I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea, that's about it. They can improve seawalls and such, actually. And we can improve search & rescue operations. > If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection suits? Those don't protect from radiation very well, they're to prevent contamination. It takes several inches of lead to block gamma rays (you'd have to be Superman to move in a suit that heavy) and neutrons can activate otherwise non-radioactive elements. Alpha & beta radiation are relatively easy to block, though, but normal clothing is almost enough. Also, it's just good engineering to take precautions. Also, near the plant, there actually are hazardous levels of radiation, it's just once you get further away that they're mostly harmless. > And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti nuclear media of). I have, but who knows with the news? I've heard radiation figures from "100x normal" to "1,000,000x normal" (the LA Times had a much larger multiplier than the other papers I compared it to). Also, remember the tsunami in the Indian ocean? Last I heard, the deaths there were on the order of 100k, if memory serves. Japan did what? 1/10th or so of that (again, depending on which numbers you believe). I do not and cannot blame you for the media's hysteria, I'm just trying to help you not get caught up in it and to understand the real dangers that people are underestimating. Granted, you may not live in a coastal area, so you may not even have heard of seawalls before, but non-newsworthy things like improving them can save a lot of people. But those kinds of projects will get starved for funding. So we'll end up with a lot of panicked people in California who shoot down new nuke plants in favor of coal/natural gas (the coal miners who die are in China, so there are no political consequences) and underestimate things like seawalls. California is said to be overdue for a big quake, but I hope they're wrong about that.

Tichy 16y ago
Nonsense, Japan already has invested a lot in Tsunami protection, they will not starve funding for that. Who says it is an "either invest in anti-Tsunami or anti-nuclear-power measures" kind of thing? And no, I don't live in a coastal area, so enhancing seawalls is not my interest or priority. As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense. I have little hopes for nuclear power to go away, nor fossile fuel plants. I think it would be possible, but lifestyles would have to change too much (for the better in my opinion, but many people would disagree). We certainly could save a lot of power, so it would not have to be necessary to replace nuclear power plants with fossile fuel plants.
- Natsu 16y ago
  > As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense. How radiation affects one's body is a complex issue. The inverse square law also comes into effect. So something can be dangerous close up, but no threat to anyone who doesn't get close. Ars Technica has a nice article about radiation that goes into these issues in more detail than I can: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-understanding-radiation-risks-in-japan.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-... My main point about bananas, though, is that radiation is normal. You experience it every single day, even if you don't realize it. All sorts of background radiation is constantly going through your body. Not to mention intentional exposures like chest X-rays. It's sort of like fire, then. You can burn yourself and you should treat it carefully. You should fear it enough to avoid burning yourself, but not much more than that. It's also going to become just about as necessary to civilization as fire, soon, from the look of things. Maybe fusion will pan out and I hope so, but people are then going to have to learn all about neutrons and why they can make normal materials become radioactive.... But maybe clever moderator designs will make it so that most neutrons are absorbed by easily replaceable things that don't become anything nasty.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Radiation is normal, and so is water. I drink water every day with no ill side effects, yet it killed thousands of people in a Tsunami. How long does supply of nuclear fuels last anyway? Isn't it a limited resource? Will it be as necessary to civilization as SUVs? From the article it seems clear that inhaling or digesting contaminated stuff is dangerous.