3 ms·

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 al

by 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.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Thanks for the clarification, I meant isotopes. My point was not "no analogy is perfect", my point was most analogies I have seen from the pro-nuclear crowd were stupid and insulting. Sorry I can't find better words for it. What haven't we read - from eating bananas to the sun, you name it.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    Bananas and the sun are both radiation sources which pose little health risk to humans on Earth. Just like the radioactive isotopes detected in California. (As opposed to humans in space, who would be in more serious danger of solar radiation.) The reason people are trying to point that out is to help people become familiar with radiation. Familiar and intentional risks are less scary. If you want more info on that, I suggest reading Bruce Schneier's books. That said, there are some people who have good reason to worry. For example, I'm very concerned about how long that plant worker was near the 1 Sv/hr water. I'm glad they're getting robots over there. Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be more widespread than that. They're aware of the risks of contaminated food and are on guard. We've learned quite a bit since Chernobyl. The engineers will learn a lot here, too. When you study engineering, the first thing they do is tell you horror stories about every major engineering disaster they can find. The Tacoma Narrows bridge video alone has probably been seen by almost every engineering student since 1941 or so. My point is that, even if they're fighting to keep adequate containment on this plant following a worst-case scenario, the engineers won't let the same things happen again, provided they're allowed to upgrade the existing plants. EDIT: Accidental italics.
    - Tichy 16y ago
      And yet radioactivity from bananas does not seem to accumulate in the water supply of SF, or does it? Has there been a measurable increase in radioactivity in the SF water supply because of all the discarded banana peels? The real newsworthy aspect of the Fukushima isotopes in SF is that Fukushima can affect the whole world. And who knows, maybe those isotopes can accumulate? Not saying that I worry, just saying that there still seem to be fundamental differences between Fukushima isotopes (spreading and accumulating), bananas (seemingly not spreading so much, not sure about accumulating) and the sun (no isotopes?). As I said, I think those comparisons just seem dishonest to me and make the pro-nuclear people lose credibility. Also, the Tacoma bridge was built by engineers, too, and yet it broke down. Obviously engineers are not the infallible angels that you make them out to be.
      - PotatoEngineer 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jordan0day 16y ago
The "pro-nuclear crowd" has to fall over themselves showing examples of daily safe exposure because there is so much fear-mongering and disingenuous reporting occurring. For example, A day or two ago, I saw a picture of a UK newspaper with a three inch headline blaring something along the lines of "JAPAN NUCLEAR FALLOUT REACHES UK". This headline easily took up half the page. Now, I'm sure this paper was a tabloid or rag and was just doing it to sell copies, but that doesn't make it okay. I mean, the paper is essentially exploiting the fact that lay people don't understand radiation very well. Even if the story contained within was accurate, the damage would already be done.
- Tichy 16y ago
  So you are worried that too many people on HN read tabloid newspapers? That doesn't seem very likely to me. In any case the article here does not seem to fall into that category, yet the silly comparisons had to come out.

by Tichy 16y ago

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.

Tichy 16y ago
Thanks for the clarification, I meant isotopes. My point was not "no analogy is perfect", my point was most analogies I have seen from the pro-nuclear crowd were stupid and insulting. Sorry I can't find better words for it. What haven't we read - from eating bananas to the sun, you name it.
- Natsu 16y ago
  Bananas and the sun are both radiation sources which pose little health risk to humans on Earth. Just like the radioactive isotopes detected in California. (As opposed to humans in space, who would be in more serious danger of solar radiation.) The reason people are trying to point that out is to help people become familiar with radiation. Familiar and intentional risks are less scary. If you want more info on that, I suggest reading Bruce Schneier's books. That said, there are some people who have good reason to worry. For example, I'm very concerned about how long that plant worker was near the 1 Sv/hr water. I'm glad they're getting robots over there. Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be more widespread than that. They're aware of the risks of contaminated food and are on guard. We've learned quite a bit since Chernobyl. The engineers will learn a lot here, too. When you study engineering, the first thing they do is tell you horror stories about every major engineering disaster they can find. The Tacoma Narrows bridge video alone has probably been seen by almost every engineering student since 1941 or so. My point is that, even if they're fighting to keep adequate containment on this plant following a worst-case scenario, the engineers won't let the same things happen again, provided they're allowed to upgrade the existing plants. EDIT: Accidental italics.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    And yet radioactivity from bananas does not seem to accumulate in the water supply of SF, or does it? Has there been a measurable increase in radioactivity in the SF water supply because of all the discarded banana peels? The real newsworthy aspect of the Fukushima isotopes in SF is that Fukushima can affect the whole world. And who knows, maybe those isotopes can accumulate? Not saying that I worry, just saying that there still seem to be fundamental differences between Fukushima isotopes (spreading and accumulating), bananas (seemingly not spreading so much, not sure about accumulating) and the sun (no isotopes?). As I said, I think those comparisons just seem dishonest to me and make the pro-nuclear people lose credibility. Also, the Tacoma bridge was built by engineers, too, and yet it broke down. Obviously engineers are not the infallible angels that you make them out to be.
    - PotatoEngineer 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jordan0day 16y ago

The "pro-nuclear crowd" has to fall over themselves showing examples of daily safe exposure because there is so much fear-mongering and disingenuous reporting occurring. For example, A day or two ago, I saw a picture of a UK newspaper with a three inch headline blaring something along the lines of "JAPAN NUCLEAR FALLOUT REACHES UK". This headline easily took up half the page. Now, I'm sure this paper was a tabloid or rag and was just doing it to sell copies, but that doesn't make it okay. I mean, the paper is essentially exploiting the fact that lay people don't understand radiation very well. Even if the story contained within was accurate, the damage would already be done.

Tichy 16y ago
So you are worried that too many people on HN read tabloid newspapers? That doesn't seem very likely to me. In any case the article here does not seem to fall into that category, yet the silly comparisons had to come out.