8 ms·
These news stories say more about the incredible sensitivity of radiation sensors than they do about nuclear safety (or personal danger). Here, in the UK, radia
by sambeau 16y ago
These news stories say more about the incredible sensitivity of radiation sensors than they do about nuclear safety (or personal danger). Here, in the UK, radiation from Fukushima has been picked up in Glasgow and this 'fact' has been reported widely in the media here.
Reporting this is interesting for scientists but unnecessary and possibly disingenuous (to the point of misleading) for the wider public. It can only lead to a heightened sense of panic.
Obligatory analogy that I've just thought of: Just because a telescope can see an exploding supernova does not mean we are in any danger from its blast.
- patio11 16y agoIn related news: scientists have discovered that an uncontrolled nuclear reaction over one hundred trillion times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb is releasing radiation of all known varieties, including lethal gamma radiation, and will result in the inevitable exposure of all of the earth's surface within the next twenty-four hours. Fallout is expected to reach San Francisco within eight minutes, and no known technology is capable of outrunning it, to say nothing of evacuating the entire city in time. Scientists claim we are safe - but can they be trusted? We go to you live in Japan, historically believed to be the origin of this dangerous phenomenon.
- afterburner 16y agoI accept the absolutely gigantic upside of this object. Good thing, too, since I never had a choice.
- Tichy 16y agoIf we were exposed directly (without magnetic shield), it really might not be so healthy? I think staying in space for too long is not healthy, either? Haven't researched it, though. In any case these useless comparisons only make me not trust the pro-nuclear-power crowd, because their arguments are dishonest (comparing apples with oranges).
- patio11 16y agoI think staying in space for too long is not healthy, either? Space is uniformly lethal to unshielded humans within minutes and you have about a ~2% chance of dying on any attempt to get there, but yeah, in principle, that radiation is some scary shit!
- Tichy 16y agoI don't see the point of such remarks. Once you have solved the pressure and air problem, radiation becomes a problem, no? So what exactly is the meaningful content of your remark? I probably get downvoted just for criticizing patio11, but seriously. If you stick a knife in your heart you die, therefore there are no serious dangers in the world? Because nothing can be as dangerous as sticking a knife in your heart? Jumping from the Empire State Building is not dangerous, because if I were to stick a dagger in my heart halfway down I would be dead before hitting the ground?
- chc 16y agoI don't understand the point of your remarks, Tichy. All this talk of sticking a knife in your heart and jumping off the Empire State Building seem odd and a bit melodramatic. What are you trying to say, and why are you saying it? I mean, obviously, everything is a little bit dangerous. Living inevitably leads to dying. Is that what you're getting at?
- Tichy 16y agoSo I have to spell it out for you? The typical pro-nuclear-power rant goes like this: everything else is more dangerous than radiation, therefore radiation is not dangerous. This is not valid logic, which I hoped to demonstrate by stating an absurd variant of that kind of logic.
- chc 16y agoExcept that, in order to be meaningful, "dangerous" must indeed be relative. Anything that happens to anyone at any time in their life is strongly correlated with death within the next 120 years, so your "absurd variant of that kind of logic" is also an absurd variant of the statement "drinking water is not dangerous." At any rate. patio11 doesn't appear to be claiming that it would be safe if you went right up to the sun and sat there. The point he's making, AFAICT, is that the mere existence of a nuclear reaction or radiation somewhere is not cause for alarm, and can be quite beneficial. If you look at outer space and single out stellar radiation as the thing that will kill people, you must just be grinding an axe.
- mrcharles 16y agoIt's a reaction so powerful you can see it with the naked eye.
- rmc 16y agoHowever it's so dangerous, it can burn your eyes if you look at it too much.
- Tichy 16y agoBtw there is a difference between radiation and radioactive isotopes. This article is about radioactive isotopes.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- gammarator 16y agoExactly. The magic of radioisotopes is that they decay at characteristic energies. With high resolution detectors, it's easy to identify the presence of the element even if the total background is much, much higher.
- freedrull 16y agoHow is it known the radiation is from Fukushima?
- jcl 16y agoThat is a good point. We assume the radiation is from Fukushima because it's the simplest explanation for the recent increase in observed radiation. ...But if someone wanted to conduct secret nuclear testing that leaks a little fallout, this would be an ideal time.
- Rhapso 16y agoHeck, based on the data shown, the increase in isotopes may even be random. It would need to be sustained longer over time before we can even begin to pinpoint a source, welcome to a small part of the scientific process: you need more data before you can even find a coloration! then you need to control something before you can even find causation.
- DennisP 16y agoProbably the specific isotopes detected. Iodine-131 in particular has a half-life of only eight days, so if you detect it you can be pretty sure it recently came out of a nuclear plant somewhere.
- WildUtah 16y agoIt's ironic that our ability to measure radiation with precision instruments is so very sensitive and precise. The fear that radiation inspires comes directly from the way it can make you sick invisibly. Many people in the early atomic age without any instruments to detect radiation were poisoned invisibly and without warning by testing fallout and allowing worker and miner exposure to save money. So we can measure this more closely than other kinds of danger but mistrust and invisibility still drive widespread panic.