3 ms·

If 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

by Tichy 16y ago

If 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      So 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 ago
        Except 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.
        Tichy 16y ago
        Somebody brought up the example of the sun to "prove" that radiation is not dangerous. I merely pointed out that we are protected by a magnetic field, so not all of the radiation reaches us. I don't see the relevance of pointing out that space kills you anyway, without radiation, hence my reaction. For what it is worth, the article explicitly mentioned that the current levels of radiation is not dangerous. Yet the pro-nuclear crowd has to fall over themselves making up stupid examples of daily safe exposure to radiation. For what it's worth, that kind of argumentation really is like saying "drinking water is safe, therefore we shouldn't worry about Tsunamis". I wanted to believe the pro-nuclear-crowd for a while, but as I said, their useless comparisons make me lose faith. For starters they don't even seem to understand the difference between radiation and radioactive isotopes. Edit: yes, isotopes, not particles, I was too lazy to look it up in the dictionary.
        Natsu 16y ago
        > For starters they don't even seem to understand the difference between radiation and radioactive particles. Do you mean "radioactive isotopes" when you say "radioactive particles"? We usually refer to things like electrons and protons are particles (and beta particles, AKA electrons, are one type of radiation). Unless you were trying to draw some distinction between high energy photons (gamma rays) and alpha/beta particles? I'm guessing not, because that would hurt your argument. After all, the sun emits tons of electrons via solar wind, which get caught up in the Earth's magnetic field. Anyhow, I don't think you'll find many people here who don't know this stuff. If you're just trying to say that no analogy is perfect, well, I have to agree. I've never seen a perfect analogy either, though some are better than others.

by Tichy 16y ago

patio11 16y ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    So 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 ago
      Except 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.
      - Tichy 16y ago
        Somebody brought up the example of the sun to "prove" that radiation is not dangerous. I merely pointed out that we are protected by a magnetic field, so not all of the radiation reaches us. I don't see the relevance of pointing out that space kills you anyway, without radiation, hence my reaction. For what it is worth, the article explicitly mentioned that the current levels of radiation is not dangerous. Yet the pro-nuclear crowd has to fall over themselves making up stupid examples of daily safe exposure to radiation. For what it's worth, that kind of argumentation really is like saying "drinking water is safe, therefore we shouldn't worry about Tsunamis". I wanted to believe the pro-nuclear-crowd for a while, but as I said, their useless comparisons make me lose faith. For starters they don't even seem to understand the difference between radiation and radioactive isotopes. Edit: yes, isotopes, not particles, I was too lazy to look it up in the dictionary.
        Natsu 16y ago
        > For starters they don't even seem to understand the difference between radiation and radioactive particles. Do you mean "radioactive isotopes" when you say "radioactive particles"? We usually refer to things like electrons and protons are particles (and beta particles, AKA electrons, are one type of radiation). Unless you were trying to draw some distinction between high energy photons (gamma rays) and alpha/beta particles? I'm guessing not, because that would hurt your argument. After all, the sun emits tons of electrons via solar wind, which get caught up in the Earth's magnetic field. Anyhow, I don't think you'll find many people here who don't know this stuff. If you're just trying to say that no analogy is perfect, well, I have to agree. I've never seen a perfect analogy either, though some are better than others.